Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Trump and GOP Reject FBI Probe; Thomas/Hill Comparison; Trump Downplays Manafort Deal. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 19, 2018 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[13:00:00] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Tom, appreciate the insights there. (INAUDIBLE) controversy gets kicked around. Thanks for joining us (INAUDIBLE) the breaking news coverage Jim Acosta is in for Wolf. He starts right now. Have a great day.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Jim Acosta in for Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Thanks for joining us.

The GOP's big gamble. Senate Republicans essentially tell the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, show up and testify or we vote. This as she demands an investigation first.

And now the president giving no signs that he'll order the FBI to reopen the check on Kavanaugh and says it will be unfortunate if Christine Blasey Ford doesn't show up. So as the clock ticks toward the midterms, what's next in the standoff?

Plus, a new attack on Jeff Sessions. The president bluntly says he doesn't have an attorney general. And it comes as the Justice Department may redact documents that the president ordered declassified.

Up first, there is no reason for further delay. That is what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman (INAUDIBLE) Supreme Court nomination (INAUDIBLE). But the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault says, hold on. Christine Blasey Ford wants the FBI (INAUDIBLE) before senators hold a hearing on (INAUDIBLE) necessary. In a statement he says, quote, Dr. Ford's testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events, nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.

Our senior congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, joins us live from Capitol Hill.

Manu, are Republicans essentially giving Ford an ultimatum. I know some Republicans on The Hill are pushing back on that notion. How risky is all of this?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's certainly a roll of the dice, but Republicans will privately say that they believe the chances of Brett Kavanaugh getting confirmed probably increase if she does not testify and they do not have that hearing. And it probably gets a little bit harder if she becomes a compelling witness and delivers some testimony that will make it hard for some on the fence Republicans to vote for the nomination. So all this incredibly significant standoff right (INAUDIBLE) future of the Supreme Court.

Now, Chuck Grassley's staff is still in the middle of what they're doing, their own investigation, talking to people who were allegedly involved in this incident from the 1980s. But they also want to talk to Ford herself. They've reached out to her today, her attorneys, to see if there's any way to meet with him -- meet with her, including proposing the idea of sending staffers out to California to interview her. No word yet if Ford has responded.

Now, earlier I had a chance to ask Senator Grassley himself, would he agree to the demand by Ford to allow for an FBI investigation to occur before any hearing, he said the Judiciary Committee is the one that should be investigating.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Where I'm focused right now is doing everything that we can to make Dr. Ford comfortable with coming before our committee, either in an open session, or a closed session, or a public or a private interviews. That's four different ways she can choose to come. And so I'm not worried about anything other than just focusing for the next few days on encouraging her to come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, Jim, I also asked him directly, will you have a vote in committee next week? He would not answer that question. But Republicans on the committee do want to push for that vote next week no matter what happens with that hearing on Monday.

Jim.

ACOSTA: All right, Manu Raju, thank you very much.

Fast moving developments on Capitol Hill.

President Trump says he wants to hear from Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. The president says the FBI has already investigated Kavanaugh and he downplayed the need for any further investigation.

Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, the FBI's been very involved with respect to Justice Kavanaugh. They know Justice Kavanaugh very well. They've investigated him, I guess, six times and they've investigated him for this hearing.

Look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we'll have to make a decision. But I can only say this, he is such an outstanding man, very hard for me to imagine that anything happened. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: CNN's senior White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny joins us live.

Jeff, it seems unlikely, but the president, theoretically, could direct the FBI to investigate this sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh. How would that work?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He could indeed, Jim. I mean that certainly is in the president, and indeed the White House's purview to do it because it's his nominee, of course. And this is the first time he has nominated Brett Kavanaugh. Yes, Judge Kavanaugh has been nominated for other things, to the federal bench, but this is the first time this White House, this president has nominated him. So he certainly could ask the FBI to look back into some of his background. It wouldn't be a criminal investigation, it would be a background check based on this new information.

[13:05:04] And there is precedent for this back in the -- 1991, in the first Bush administration, the Clarence Thomas nominee, once the allegations came forward from Ms. Anita Hill, at that time the White House asked the FBI to look into all of that. They wrote a report and the White House stood by it. And then, of course, we know what happened after that in history. So the president is able to do that.

But, Jim, there's no indication at all that he's going to do that. We've seen him sort of day by day here inch closer along to siding with his nominee. Not surprising at all, of course, but he is still holding out. You know, he said he would like to hear from the accuser.

But the sense here at the White House is that Judge Kavanaugh is more in the clear than they thought he was earlier this week, but it all still hangs on, will she testify, will there be a public hearing, a private hearing? So he, as we speak, is still preparing for that hearing, Judge Kavanaugh is. So we'll see how it develops from here, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right, Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much for that.

It's hard to escape the parallels between what we are seeing with Brett Kavanaugh and what we saw 27 years ago with Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill's allegation delayed the confirmation then, which didn't sit well with some of his most ardent supporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH (R), MISSOURI: Once the blood's in the water, the sharks are going to swim toward that blood. And then if it's delayed two more days or a week or whatever, people, more sharks, are going to be swimming. And I think that my own view is that the time has come to end this. It is torture for a human being to go through this. I mean this has gone on now today is the 100th day. And from beginning to end, this has been a brutal process.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ACOSTA: That was then Missouri Senator John Danforth, Republican, who helped shepherd the Clarence Thomas confirmation. Former Senator Danforth joins me now.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us and welcome back to Washington, so to speak.

JOHN DANFORTH, FORMER MISSOURI SENATOR: Thank you.

ACOSTA: You were against a delay then. Do you think a delay now is out of order? Is it unacceptable in your view?

DANFORTH: You know, I'm just not into the nitty gritty of what happens when a -- I mean what I said back then, and it definitely was true, was the whole thing was torture and -- for a human being. I mean I -- Clarence, obviously controversial, but he was a friend of mine and he was -- everything that he had lived for was under attack, you know? It was really awful. And he was just humiliated by the whole darned experience.

And so this is like reliving that. And I think that -- I'm sure the same is true. I don't know Judge Kavanaugh. But, for him, I mean here's a man who's had just a sterling reputation and clearly his reputation means a great deal to him. And he's got a family and he's got two little daughters and then this thing comes up and, you know, his reputation was lauded during the hearing with his, you know, serving in food kitchens for the poor, and coaching kids and so on and so forth.

So people generally recognize that whatever you thought of his jurisprudence, here was an excellent human being. And now all of that's in the trash.

So I think -- I mean what I thought back in the days of Clarence Thomas and what I really think now is that there's got to be some reasonable end to the torment. And the longer it goes on, the more hurtful it is to a human being.

ACOSTA: What about the torment that a person like Christine Blasey Ford may be going through, years of torment that she says in dealing with all of this, dealing with the memories of what she says happened to her 35, 36 years ago when she was in high school. Doesn't her story deserve to be told if she wants to tell it, if she wants to talk about what happened?

DANFORTH: Yes, of course. And I think everybody has made that clear. But I'm just saying that from the standpoint of somebody who's been nominated to the Supreme Court, obviously you wouldn't be in a position of being nominated unless you had a wonderful reputation. All the checks made, background checks and so on, that have gone on over a long period of time to vet this person and people are proud of their reputations. It's what they live for. And being respected by their colleagues, being respected by other people, by -- certainly being respected by their little daughters, which is the case with Judge Kavanaugh, and then all of that is put in jeopardy because one person makes a charge about something that happened 30 some odd years ago. So that's the situation we're in.

[13:10:15] And she's -- you know, she's written her letter. It's out there. And the FBI has had that letter for one week. I don't understand -- I mean they're in charge of background investigations, so they've had it, so, you know, have at it if they think it's worth investigating.

But my own thought about this is exclusively about the harm that this causes an individual, the hurt that it causes.

ACOSTA: Absolutely.

But, senator, let me ask you this, because there's been some talk coming from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee about how these are delay tactics. As you know, the FBI investigation into Anita Hill's allegation took just three days. Christine Blasey Ford is asking for the same consideration.

DANFORTH: Yes.

ACOSTA: We pulled up an old statement from 1991 from a deputy White House press secretary who said, you know, President George H.W. Bush ordered the FBI to look into this. It took three days. That investigation found, according to the White House at the time, that Anita Hill's claims were unfounded. Why can't this same process play out this time around?

DANFORTH: Oh, I think it can. And I would suspect that it is and has. I mean, you're right, it's not complicated. It doesn't take much time. Very few people for the FBI to talk to. They've had the letter for the last week. The FBI's job is to conduct background checks and do -- go through all the information that they receive. So they've receive this information. So I don't understand what more has to be done. This is their duty to conduct these investigations. So have at it.

ACOSTA: And so if you were asked by the White House for your advice on all this, your advice would be to allow the FBI to look into this and let this play out?

DANFORTH: Well, I think that -- I don't see why -- to allow it. I mean this is what the FBI does, it conducts background checks. So it's there. I don't think that it --

ACOSTA: I mean the president was saying earlier today that -- right, I was just going to say, I don't mean to cut you off, but the president was saying earlier today, well, the FBI has conducted all of these background checks. Why do they have to do another, you know, investigation into this claim? It sounds as though they are -- the president and his team are closing the door on doing what was done with Anita Hill's accusation. And I'm just curious if your advice to them would be to go ahead and let that play out?

DANFORTH: Well, I don't see why it isn't playing out. I mean I don't think that the FBI, which has the responsibility of background checks, has to be reauthorized to do what it's already authorized to do. I mean they've been given the letter. They certainly have the power to do whatever they want by way of background checks. It's not that an old background check is closed, at least this is my understanding, and then they have to reopen an entirely new one. So I don't -- I don't get that particular thing.

But I do think this, this is more than just, you know, the Supreme Court. I mean that's obviously very important who's on the Supreme Court. But it's also a human being. And a human being who's suffering greatly. And to just keep it going for the sake of keeping it going really isn't fair.

Something awful has happened to these confirmations. I mean Bork, Thomas, now Kavanaugh, and it's just totally out of control and it's causing great harm to people. And I don't think it's serving the country.

ACOSTA: Well, let me ask you this. You talked about this being a political and not a legal process. Do you believe the senators on both sides in this case care more about how this affects their next election, and how this is going to affect the midterms, than how it affects the people involved, Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford?

DANFORTH: Yes.

ACOSTA: You do?

DANFORTH: Yes, I -- I think that it -- yes, I think that it's very important that Judge Kavanaugh be represented by counsel and that an experienced lawyer be able to conduct the questioning, not the senators, because lawyers have an ethical responsibility to zealously represent the interests of their client, whereas members of the Senate are looking over their shoulder, how's this going to affect the next election.

I know that after the Thomas confirmation, Allan Dixon (ph), who was a Democrat from Illinois, who voted for Thomas, lost his next primary election on this issue, at least that was his view that it was on this issue.

[13:14:59] So there's a tremendous pressure on politicians to do what advances them or helps them out politically. And in the Me Too era, a politician is going to be very, very reluctant to either ask probing questions or vote against or vote for Judge Kavanaugh. It's a terrible position for him to be in. So I think the more it could be made like a court proceeding where there are presumptions of innocence, where there are burden of proof and where there are lawyers who are able to ask questions to witnesses, not just politicians in ten minute bursts of time, I think that that's very, very important.

The lesson that we learned from Clarence Thomas was, it was a free for all. There was no real -- not only no due process, there was no real process whatever. And the more that this can be made a process, the fairer it's going to be to everybody.

ACOSTA: All right. Well, former Senator John Danforth, we'll see if that happens. Thank you very much for your time. Good to see you again, sir. We appreciate it.

DANFORTH: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Just ahead, I'll speak live with a friend and former classmate of Christine Blasey Ford, who has signed a letter defending her.

Plus, President Trump launching a new attack on Jeff Sessions, saying he, quote, doesn't have an attorney general. Why he describes Sessions as, quote, mixed up and confused.

And the president making his first public remarks about his former campaign chairman since Paul Manafort cut a deal to cooperate with Robert Mueller. Hear what he said about telling the truth.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:59] ACOSTA: President Trump is in the Carolinas today touring flood damaged areas and meeting with local officials. But before heading out, the president stopped to take questions on a host of topics, including whether he's worried about what former campaign chairman Paul Manafort might tell investigators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If he's honest, and he is, I think he's going to tells -- as long as he tells the truth, it's 100 percent. He was with Ronald Reagan. He was with Bob Dole. He was with McCain. He was with many, many people. That's what he did. Paul Manafort was with me for a short period of time. He did a good job. I was, you know, very happy with the job he did. And I will tell you this, I believe that he will tell the truth. And if he tells the truth, no problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Here with me now is Kim Wehle, former federal prosecutor and associate independent counsel in the Watergate investigation, and April Ryan, CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, and an author.

APRIL RYAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

ACOSTA: Kim, the president -- they're basically saying he has nothing to worry about. He keeps diminishing the time that Paul Manafort spent with the campaign. I mean he was there during a critical time. He managed the convention process, which was huge during that battle, as people recall. Ted Cruz and so on were -- they were presenting a little bit of a challenge during the convention process. Manafort was there.

But getting to the - to what the president said, is he right, because, I mean, a lot of -- there are a lot of names you can -- or words you can throw around with Paul Manafort with all of these charges that he was convicted of and so on. I'm not sure the word honest is one of those words that everybody would agree on when it comes to Paul Manafort. KIM WEHLE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Sure. I mean he was convicted on

eight counts, federal felonies, as well as actually pleading guilty to additional crimes. And I think what people really need to understand, why does this matter? The White House is saying that there's no connection. And that's just false in a very basic common sense matter. Not only did he work for Donald Trump, but this is someone who pled guilty to basically sneaking around the United States on behalf of Ukrainian interests that were pro-Putin, pretending to represent someone who was legitimate and actually trying to advocate and lobby on behalf of pro-Putin interests and he was also at the famous June 2016 meeting in which --

ACOSTA: That's right.

WEHLE: It was offered information about -- dirt on his opponent in connection with a presidential campaign that all national security intelligence agencies have agreed did actually take active steps to interfere with our electoral process.

So, you know, the blinking of reality coming out of this White House, people need to understand, the problem with it is it's actually corroding our constitutional structure. The implications are absolutely massive and we just have to call it out. It's just silliness.

ACOSTA: And, April, let's move to the president's comments on Attorney General Jeff Sessions --

RYAN: Wow.

ACOSTA: Because you and I have asked about this many times over at the White House. In an interview with "The Hill," the president said, I don't have an attorney general, it's very sad. Then when asked about possibly firing Sessions, he said, we'll see what happens. A lot of people have asked me to do that and I guess I study history and I say I just want to leave things alone. But it was very unfair what he did, talking about Sessions recusing himself in the Russia investigation.

RYAN: Yes.

ACOSTA: He keeps talking as if he wants to get rid of Jeff Sessions, but I wonder what he would do without him?

RYAN: Well, let's say this, the president has been talking about getting rid of Jeff Sessions since virtually the beginning of this administration. We've been going back, will he or won't he, will he or won't he fire him. But one thing if the president does fire Jeff Sessions, no matter how much formation he gets from people or people pushing him to do it, it ultimately falls upon him if he does it. And that could be obstruction of justice in this -- another piece of obstruction of justice in this Russia investigation.

He is unhappy and he's made it clear that he's unhappy with Jeff Sessions because he recused himself when it comes to Russia. What is the Justice Department overseeing? Russia. The president is not happy about the Russia investigation. He doesn't even like Mueller. So this does not bode well for the president.

What is holding the president back? That is the issue.

[13:25:03] You know, what would he do without Jeff Sessions? He would be in trouble without Jeff Sessions. He could go down, again, obstruction of justice. I don't know what he -- he would be happier, but he would be in another --

ACOSTA: Who would he have to kick around, though, that's the question.

RYAN: Oh, he has a lot of people to kick around. You know, he's got -- we know that.

ACOSTA: We know that.

RYAN: H will find someone to kick around if he doesn't have one already.

ACOSTA: And, Kim, let me ask you about this. The president ordering the release of these documents and texts related to the Russia investigation, including texts from Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, the FISA warrant for Carter Page and so on. Let me ask you, I mean, as somebody who has worked in the federal law enforcement realm, does that send a chilling effect to federal prosecutors, to federal investigators, if they're gathering this kind of information as part of an investigation. And the president can just say, out of nowhere, I want this stuff released to the public.

WEHLE: Well, there's a couple of things. One is, these decisions should be made based on national security and what's important for law enforcement. And he's obviously not doing it. He's doing it based on his own self-interests.

The other thing has to do with this broad issue that I think April raised, this attack, this all-out attack on the integrity of the Justice Department and career public servants. I also teach law. I teach constitutional law full time. And my first year law students yesterday were asking me, why is it that we have so many unaccountable people in the Justice Department. And it turns out, actually, they're not. They all answer directory to the president of the United States. And if he has issues with how these things are going, he should privately be doing this in a methodical, careful manner. This is reckless and it's damaging. It's damaging to the institution. And if the baton gets passed on to a Democratic president in the future, people who currently support Trump are going to feel the effects of this damage.

ACOSTA: And speaking of accountability, I want to get to this story, April, that you and I have followed very closely, the situation down at the border with migrant children coming across. There's a new report that has come out that the federal government has lost track of -- and it's hard to get your head around something like this because we're just overwhelmed with news in the Russia investigation and Kavanaugh and so on. But the federal government has lost track of nearly 1,500 immigrant children that were in their custody. I mean how is that possible? And what does it say to the country? Why -- it just seems as if, you know, this is one issue that we haven't paid enough attention to.

RYAN: And you and I are both parents. Let's put that on the table. Our hearts and the nation and the world has sympathized with this. But when there is dysfunction in an administration, those are the things that are going to happen. And we, as reporters, kept asking those questions. And we kept bringing it up that there was a fear -- we talked to congressional leaders -- there was a fear that all of these children would either not be accounted for or they would not be back with their parents. And now this is in our face. So, what next? What will the administration do? When will Sarah Huckabee Sanders have a briefing so we can ask this, so she can tell the world what is in place?

ACOSTA: Right, remember her, she used to have these briefings at the White House where reporters could ask questions.

RYAN: What were they? I don't remember. That was so long ago. What? OK.

ACOSTA: Yes. I just hope I can find my way back to the Briefing Room.

RYAN: Oh, you will.

ACOSTA: Room when I get back to the White House tomorrow.

RYAN: And I'll be behind you. Two rows behind you. You don't have to worry about it.

ACOSTA: All right thanks, April and Kim, appreciate it.

Coming up, it's hard to laugh about this because it's a very serious issue. Consoler in chief coming up next. The president on the ground in storm-ravaged North Carolina and South Carolina, handing out meals and offering words of support as the floodwaters rise.

Plus, the Kavanaugh nomination chaos. We look at the different scenario that could play out from a confirmation vote to a new nominee or even a vacant seat until 2021.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)