Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Gives Update On Puerto Rico; Trump Meets With Spain's Prime Minister In Oval Office; Trump Renews Twitter Spat With NFL; CNN: Trump "Satisfied" With NFL Anthem Clash; Former Trump Adviser Roger Stone Speaks On Capitol Hill. Aired 12:30- 1p ET

Aired September 26, 2017 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:02] ELAINE DUKE, ACTING HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I just left a meeting. The President, the Vice President and all the key members were there, his staff, were having a cabinet meeting this afternoon.

We spoke with the governor today again. Everyone, leadership is on this. We are not sending the President down immediately because those flights, the limited ability to get into Puerto Rico at this time has to be focused on bringing in the people, the supplies, and the equipment to restore Puerto Rico. And the President is on that, but will be there very, very soon. But the meeting we just had with the President and Vice President absolutely recommitted his full resources to help the governor rebuild Puerto Rico.

KING: We always learn lessons from this thing. And I think one of the remarkable things we have seen after Harvey and after Irma or the lessons of Katrina and Rita and all the disasters where, a, technology advancements, b, the coordination between power companies from states far, far away to rush resources to help.

What are we learning about Puerto Rico, about maybe some things we can do better? In a context, I want to read you a tweet. Senator Marco Rubio was in Puerto Rico just yesterday. He tweeted this, "Returning from Puerto Rico now. Tremendous damage, potential for serious crisis in areas outside of San Juan. Must get power crews in ASAP."

Now you obviously can't have crews from, you know, Virginia and Maryland and Wyoming and the west drive there trucks down because it is an island. What does the government need to do to be better prepared to get in quicker?

DUKE: We are there. One of the things the President did today was approved 100 percent payment for the electrical infrastructure work for the first 180 days. That allows the mutual assistance, mutual aid, electro companies to go there. We have DOD, Department of Defense and coast guard vessels ready as well as air support. So, getting the people there is not a problem.

We have to remember that we're recovering from the first hurricane that went through two weeks ago. So the amount of supplies and the amount of capability on the island right now are severely diminished. So we are reconstituting after we just did that from two weeks ago from Irma.

KING: All right. This from another senator who's been following this, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, "The crisis for these Americans needs more attention and more urgency from the executive branch. They portable water problems are substantial." I assume you would refute the senator's assertion. It's not getting enough attention, but help me understand the water situation.

DUKE: There are some areas where we still have to boil water. We are working on getting generators. More generators in. We have limited flight capacity because of the power outages. But we are working at restoring all the necessary services. But there are some water production on the island now, and we are in a boil water state for a little over half the island which is expected with the size of this hurricane.

KING: There's been a conversation about whether the military should send one of its hospital ships to Puerto Rico. And in some accounts, officials on the island saying, no, we want to get our on island hospital infrastructure up and running as opposed to having a ship come in. Can you help what's all that for me?

DUKE: Right. The governor has asked that. He wants us to focus on getting the hospitals, make sure they have the generators and the fuel they need. It's a significant logistical problem if we were trying to move those people from the many hospitals across Puerto Rico to a hospital ship. We do have many DOD vessels in the area, 16 or more. So we have what we need in terms of the defense support for ships in the area.

KING: And Secretary Duke, let me ask you this question. Do you have the money? FEMA has about $5 billion that has until the end of the month on October 1st because of the emergency response of Congress. I think he get about another $6.77 billion.

When you're looking at Texas, you're looking at Florida, now you're looking at Puerto Rico. You have the Virgin Islands. You have some other issues not quite as great in some other state. Do you have enough money?

DUKE: We are absolutely prepared financially. We are working hand in hand with Congress and the White House to ensure that we have the funds to perform these essential missions for all three of the hurricanes, yes.

KING: The Acting Secretary Homeland Security Elaine Duke. Madam Secretary, I appreciate your time. I know it's a busy day and an urgent time, and I'm sure the people of Puerto Rico will be grateful to hear your words of concern. Appreciate your time today.

DUKE: Thank you.

KING: Thank you. Take care and good luck. I want to show now straight to the White House. This video just came in. President Trump meeting with Spain's Prime Minister in the Oval Office. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: President Rajoy of Spain. He is somebody highly respected, highly respected in this country. We have a very, very close relationship with Spain. And Mr. President, it's an honor to have you in the Oval Office. It's an honor to have you at The White House. And we're going to be discussing trade and other things and we look forward to doing it. And Mr. President, thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Speaking Foreign Language)

MARIANO RAJOY, PRESIDENT OF SPAIN: (Speaking Foreign Language)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:35:33] KING: You see the President there just welcoming remarks with the Prime Minister of Spain, also known as the President of Spain in the Oval Office there at the White House. So, we'll keep an eye on that and see if any news comes from this latest. I mean, the President has an invited guest at the White House.

Up next, they'll behind closed doors. The President told conservative allies he is winning his war with the National Football League.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: The Dallas Cowboys kneeling and then standing arm in arm for the National Anthem. Last night, a clear message for President Trump and also a respect for saluted the flag. It's a big debate now because the President labeling players who kneel SOBs who should be fired. And its debate, the President apparently thinks he's winning.

Three tweets before the sun rose here in Washington this morning. Here's one. "Ratings for NFL football are way down except before the game starts." The President tweeted, "When people tune in to see whether or not our country will be disrespected." Another, "The booing at NFL football game last night when the entire Dallas team dropped to its knees was the loudest I have ever heard. Great anger."

Minutes later, "But while Dallas dropped to its knees as a team, they all stood for our National Anthem. Big progress being made. We love our country." Add one more, "Shortly after the most Americans started their work day, the NFL has all sorts of rules and regulations. The only way out for them is to set a rule that you can't kneel during our National Anthem."

In public and in private, the President sounds convinced he struck a nerve. It's really caught on. Trump told the group of Conservative leaders at the White House last night, according to our CNN reporting, I said what millions of Americans were thinking. The President does think he is winning. I want to add one as we begin the conversation to what I think to me is the most powerful voice to come so far from somebody who has a stake in this that none of us can appreciate. This is the wife of Pat Tillman who was an Arizona Cardinal, they were playing last night. He was killed in Afghanistan. He was an NFL star.

[12:40:04] More importantly he's an American hero. "As a football player and soldier, Pat inspired he inspired countless Americans to unify. It is my hope that his memory should always remind people that we must come together. Pat service, along with that of every man and woman's service, should never be politicized in a way that divides us. We are too great of a country for that."

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: You know -- I mean, she is responding to the fact that people are politicizing Pat Tillman tweeting his photo when things stand (ph) for the hashtags and for the anthem.

You know, in terms of Donald Trump's sort of winning this argument, you know, I think he was going to say he was winning even if he was losing it. I don't know what to him winning actually looks like here. I think he picked this fight, he wants this fight. I think he has struck a nerve for some folks. Some people I think that he may have gone too far in terms of what he called these players.

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a kind of litmus test in some of these primaries for instance if, you know, it will become, you know, a kind of question in do you think that the NFL should regulate the behavior of players during, you know, during the National Anthem. But, again, I think we're going to see this more and more from this President kind of delving into white identity politics. The culture more see very much sees himself as a culture of warrior. It's where he is comfortable and it certainly works I think to bind him to his base.

KING: To bind him to his base which is --

HENDERSON: Yes.

KING: -- 30 something percent of the American people at best. I don't get the end game. I get if you're about to be embarrassed again in Obamacare. If we're about to hit nine months and you have zero big legislative victories, I get that you want to keep your base happy. But as you keep your base happy, is this something that will pass or is this something that in keeping base, part of the base happy today could come back to bite down the road here too?

JULIE PACE, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPODENT, ASSOCIATED PRESS: You know, this is a complicated issue because there -- it's multiple issues rolled into one. There is this question of the flag, respect for the National Anthem. There is a real debate about police brutality which is what actually started this and has got lost and all of these.

And Trump has this ability to pick on issues where he knows he's going to get sort of a liberal freak out where he knows that the elite media is going to -- just be all over this. And that when you actually look at the issue from the perspective of Americans, it's a little more complicated. He was smart on the one piece of Charlottesville that he was pretty smart on. He's trying to turn it into an issue about confederate statues, not about what actually happened on the campus there.

But I think the bigger question for Trump is, even if you win this debate, who cares?

HENDERSON: Right.

PACE: Why is this, the debate that the President of the United States should be deciding he is going to fight right now? That, to me, whether it rallies his base or not, it's still pretty confounding.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And what's famous interesting particularly in the wake of, you know, do a deal with Democrats, everybody is supportive of that. Great approval ratings, gets the bounce, telling Chuck Schumer how great it is that everybody is saying this is a good idea. And then you deliberately dive back into an issue that is the sole purpose is to divide.

And they are similarly dismissing nuances kind of what the President specializes in to some degree here. But his willingness to just completely obfuscate what the issues are. What people are actually trying to do. And instead turn it into a shiny object pulls people so much further away on an issue that a lot people haven't quite gotten their heads around yet, and now they're just sprinting to their ideological corners.

And to your point, I don't think anybody knows the end game. The interesting part of the acting (ph) senators or congressman about this, you don't want any part of this right now because they don't want to get in the middle of it because they understands your point. The kneeling and the protests are not about the flag. They are not about the troops. They are not about any of those issues. It's something much more detailed than that.

And instead the debate has been taking in a completely opposite direction. And I don't think a lot of people feel good about where it's going right now. So maybe the people who have clinked on to this as a shine object.

MARY KATHARINE HAM, SENIOR WRITER, THE FEDERALIST: I don't anyone is winning this per se. It doesn't feel great for anyone. But the fact that when it comes to being ticked off about people kneeling for the fight and the anthem, he does speak for millions of people. They are 60 percent to 80 percent of Americans who feel that that is disrespectful, who feel that maybe there's different way to have this conversation.

Now, he stoked that in such a way that by saying and I think chilling free speech and saying you should fire these guys, and that's all players had to do something to signal like you don't get to say what we say, right? I think the standing with locked arms and perhaps the kneeling before the anthem and standing up is like a way to thread that needle, to feel or try at the same way.

KING: Yes.

HAM: But here is the thing. When you guys talk about end game, here's the end game. When Americans watch NFL players kneel on foreign soil in Britain and stand for God Save the Queen, you don't want to be on that side of the debate. He's put himself on the pro- flag, pro-anthem debate even though it's more complicated than that. But that moment is not great for the NFL and it's not great for people who rally around them when it comes to regular Americans.

And it's not great when you get into a situation where a three-time combat vet, Alejandro Villanueva, who stood up and there was confusion about what the Steelers were going to do in walking this line in this very fraught situation, ends up having to explain himself for why he stood for the anthem? That is not a place that normal Americans --

[12:45:15] KING: You make a great point in the sense that if you could get Alejandro Villanueva at a table with the President of the United States, and maybe with some of the President's crew, and maybe they can work this out. I think the computer and our homework, we didn't show you the video at the top of the block, but we have the video of what the Cowboys did last night. Because the President's tweet, and that they took a knee --

HAM: Yes.

KING: -- before the anthem and then they stood for the anthem. The President's tweet saluting that, I took that as a way -- there is the off-ramp. Can the players do that instead? Can they exercise their right, make their protest but then please stand for the anthem. The problem is the President started this by calling them SOBs.

HAM: Right.

KING: So it's very hard to get the quote/unquote SOBs that you labeled them, an outcome to the table and say, can we find a compromise about how we do this where you get to make your point. I get your point, I respect your point whether agree or disagree. I respect your right to make that point, but then can we stand up. That would be a conversation maybe worth having, and often they have it now.

HAM: Anything he endorses is sort of poisoned by the original.

KING: Right.

PACE: And you don't get the idea that the President is actually trying to start a conversation.

KING: No.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I was not trying to say, he was trying to do that. HENDERSON: Yes. I mean, he wants sort of to be the programming director of NFL television, right? I mean, if you do this, your ratings will go up.

MATTINGLY: There will a time --

HENDERSON: Yes. This whole idea that the ratings are down because of the protests, that's not really true. The ratings he talked about NASCAR. NASCAR ratings are pretty far down as well. And they are supposed to be at least in the President's eyes, the most patriotic league in the universe.

So, you know, I mean, this is the fight that the President wants. We'll see how long it takes. He will probably be diverted to something else at some point. But for now, this is where he is.

HAM: We are definitely solving problems.

HENDERSON: Yes, we're doing.

KING: To that point there. All right, I guess we'll take a quick break.

Next, when we come back, it's Election Day. A big election day for the president in Alabama.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:51:26] KING: Straight to Capitol Hill where the former Trump Adviser Roger Stone is getting just what he came to Washington for, attention. Roger Stone spoke for the Intelligence Committee earlier today and now he is speaking to reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER STONE, FORMER TRUMP ADVISER: I had an opportunity to correct a number of the things that members of the committee had said about me, which they seem to take in. And I think this was productive. I expressed my view that I am aware of no evidence whatsoever of collusion by the Russian state or anyone in the Trump campaign or anyone associated with Donald Trump. And I reiterated my view that in my opinion, Donald Trump has a potential to be both a truly great and transformative president. I'd be happy to take your questions.

(OFF-MIC)

STONE: I believe his attorneys informed my attorneys of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you aware of any other type of potential legal action in that realm for Mr. Manafort?

STONE: I am not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you been contacted in a way or -- that you might have (INAUDIBLE)? STONE: I have not. I never heard from Mr. Mueller's office, from the FBI and I only had an initial contact from the Senate Intelligence Committee asking us to preserve records.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just on the Manafort, I think there's (INAUDIBLE) that he expects (INAUDIBLE) an indication of random?

STONE: No. They didn't seem to know -- they seem to know neither when or what the charge may be.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In just what happened in there, how of much question focused on your discussions through an intermediary with Mr. Assange (ph) as well as this discussion of the Twitter with Guccifer --

STONE: A fair amount. A substantial amount.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what the most the Democrats who are asking those questions, Republicans --

STONE: Democrats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democrats. And did you have any other communication with Guccifer to beyond that?

STONE: None whatsoever. And I had made that public yesterday. We released the entire exchange which takes place I believe between August 15th and September 9th, many weeks after the publication by WikiLeaks of the DNC material. Meaning collusion with Guccifer and the hacking and release of that material would be impossible unless I owned a time machine, which I do not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In your view that Russians had nothing to do with the hacks or the DNC or Mr. Podesta?

STONE: That is my belief. I subscribe to the view published in The Nation magazine several weeks ago that the computer science seems to indicate an inside job. So, I don't know whether the DNC was hacked. I don't know at all. I don't know whether at all, I don't know that it was hacked by Russians.

And now on the basis of this report, I tend to believe that it was an inside job. Meaning the data was downloaded to say a thumb drive and spirited out of the building. I would point out that Craig Murray who was a British diplomat has said for the record that he received information from the DNC on a thumb drive and passed it to WikiLeaks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President still communicate, have you said anything to him about what you plan to say here today and spoke with him at all about this testimony?

STONE: I have not. I'm not even sure that he was aware that I was testifying today although he may have read it in today's Washington Post.

(OFF-MIC) [12:55:04] STONE: We have no information on that. There is no current schedule to do so. I would certainly be willing to do so on a voluntary basis. I would require no immunity. I would welcome the opportunity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you heard from the White House?

STONE: Pardon me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you heard from the White House?

STONE: I have not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When was the last time you spoke with the president?

STONE: Recently. I'm going to decline to characterize it. It was not about this investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are there any tense moments today or anything that you walk away feeling like just tense or anything that made you uncomfortable?

STONE: No, I wouldn't say so. There were certainly some partisan clashes and maybe some disagreements -- I would say some differences of opinion. But nothing that made me uncomfortable.

(OFF-MIC)

STONE: I, you know, I prefer not to. I don't think that members of the committee buy some of my claims, but they have no evidence to the contrary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you hear (ph) Adam Schiff directly to apologize to?

STONE: I did not because the length of my testimony which included that stuff went over and I was only afforded 5 minutes.

(OFF-MIC)

STONE: Yes. I'm not holding my breath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you decline to say to your intermediaries?

STONE: Yes, I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you decline to answer any other questions?

STONE: No. That's the only question I declined to answer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You deliver or bring hard assessments on the Adam Schiff and the Democrats and Committee, do your opinion of them still hold the change at all by interacting with them?

STONE: Well, Mr. Castro seems like a very nice guy. But beyond that, my opinion has largely not changed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you give me flash black for the -- from the committee when you decline the idea or any of the intermediaries?

STONE: Yes, they would like me to do so. I told them that I would consider it. Now, the reason I am not submitting that name is because the intermediary -- he's a journalist and our conversation was off the record. I'm an opinion journalist, he's a journalist. I'm not going to burn somebody who I spoke to off the record. If he releases me, if he allows me to release it, I would be happy to give it to the committee. I'm actually going to try to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Stone, you and Michael Caputo both come here and in your statements either before or after where it said, ask for apologies, you've said the members of the committee have sort of sneered your character. By and large, do you look at this as a serious exercise?

STONE: No, I think it's an entirely political exercise. Look, they make the charges against you in a public forum for maximum coverage to benefit their U.S. Senate campaign or their reelection. But then they only allow you to respond behind closed doors and they won't even allow the release of a transcript. It really puts you in an extraordinarily unfair advantage.

In the case of Michael Caputo, he attended the session, answer all questions truthfully and then Congresswoman Smeier -- I mean, Speier came back and (INAUDIBLE) said that he had perjured himself. I don't believe that that's true.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Stone, do you think that a President should fire Bob Mueller?

STONE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is that?

STONE: Because he auditioned or I should say interviewed for the job of FBI director the day after Mr. Comey was resigned or was fired, pardon me, and was passed over for that job. That to me constitutes a conflict.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you made that recommendation after the President --

STONE: I have not. But I have written it. I have said it on infowars.com. I've written n it in The Daily Caller. The President may be aware of my view.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the disposition of the Republicans Committee, were they arguing on your behalf or they --

STONE: No, I think they were trying to do their job and write a fair report. There were some clashes between the Republicans and Democrats about the appropriateness of some questions. But overall it was collegial. (OFF-MIC)

STONE: Mr. Gowdy asked me directly if I had any knowledge of Russian collusion. Collusion with any member of the Trump campaign, the Trump family, Donald Trump, Trump associates and Trump friends and Trump supporters and I said, no. Mr. Schiff said, well, we could ask the same question of Vladimir Putin. And Mr. Gowdy took exception to that.

(OFF-MIC)

STONE: I believe I was fairly treated if that's your question. I'd obviously reserve judgment until I see the final report. But the entire exchange was completely professional and everybody was courteous. I have no complaints about anyone's conduct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you spoken with Mr. Manafort about the FBI (INAUDIBLE)?

STONE: Yes. He believes as I do that it is outrageous.