Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Sessions Testifies About Russia Investigation; Trump Criticized Over Call To Fallen Soldier's Widow. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired October 18, 2017 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00] SEN. BEN SASSE (R), NEBRASKA: -- it sounds like there's a Russian behind everything that's happening in America and it's laughable. But you listen to other news outlets. And it's seemingly the case of Vladimir Putin is somebody that we should trust. And he has America's best interests at heart which is more absurd.

So, I think we know, again, people who are reading intelligence know that Russia is going to be back in 2018. They're going to be back in 2020. And they have goals to undermine American Democratic, Republicans, small R, small D, institutions and to undermine our confidence in these institutions and to exacerbate American on American hatred.

We live at a time where info ops and propaganda and misinformation are a far more cost effective way for people to try to weaken United States of America than by thinking they can outspend us at a military level though we're under investing in a lot military hardware and long-term planning.

So, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and as a supervisor of multiple components of our intelligence community, I'm curious about your views on this issue. And I want to ask you a series of questions. The first is, do you think we're doing enough to prepare for future interference by Russia and other foreign adversaries in the information space?

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Probably not. We're not. And the matter is so complex that for most of us, we're not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there. We have commercial penetration by some of our toughest trading partners. We've got disruption and interference it appears by Russian officials, people. And it requires real review.

SASSE: And so under your leadership, what concrete steps has the department taken or should the department take to learn the lessons of 2016 for the purposes of fighting against future foreign election interference?

SESSIONS: Well, we are looking at a number of things. We specifically intensely reviewing the commercial interference and theft of trade secrets and important data information that some private companies have spent decades developing and hundreds of millions of dollars and have it stolen in a moment. And we've got indictments that deal with some of those issues. The department -- the National Security Division of the Department of Justice has got some really talented people. The FBI has as good a group of experts on sophisticated computer technology as probably exists in the world. But whether we're at the level we need to be yet, I don't think so.

SASSE: So let's distinguish between two things that you answer. The first is, I think you were asked earlier if you have confidence in the January 6th, 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. I had stepped out for a minute. Do you --

SESSIONS: I never did. I acknowledge that at my confirmation. Yes.

SASSE: You have no reason?

SESSIONS: I have no reason top deny that or doubt that.

SASSE: So, you have confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the men and women in the intelligence community?

SESSIONS: Yes.

SASSE: There may be an issue though about whether or not our pipeline is robust enough. Do we have enough people coming in to the National Security Division, if you were arriving at DOJ today as the attorney general and you were going to focus on NSD for the first 100 days you're there, talk us through a little bit about how you would prioritize in that space because my view is, that we're investing way too little in the pipeline to be ready for offensive and defensive aspects of cyber writ large but especially info ops and misinformation campaign.

SESSIONS: Well, the misinformation campaign is something that I'm not sure we're at the bottom of yet. And it needs to continue to be examined. When I was on Armed Services Committee, I got legislation passed to review our entire Defense Department situation to see how vulnerable we are there. And we have many vulnerabilities in our Defense Department, in our missile systems perhaps.

And then we've got the commercial penetration that we have some cases that are ongoing now that validate that concern quite clearly.

SASSE: So that's looking chiefly at current hardware and software exposures and retrospectively. But do you think the Department of Justice has a proactive role in looking at hardening our democratic process --

SESSIONS: I think --

SASSE: -- or interference?

SESSIONS: -- you make a valuable point. If you have any legislation or thoughts on that, I would be glad to hear it. And I'm not sure we have a specific review under way at this point in time. Of course, most of this has to be coordinated with the intelligence community, NSA, CIA, the director of national intelligence.

[12:35:14] SASSE: Well, I appreciate your responsiveness to me on a number of other issues. So, I will follow up with you in a less public forum about that. I'm nearly at time. And I won't ask for president of the 13 minutes and 20 seconds. Mr. Chairman if the questioning that preceded me. But if I could run over by 30 second, I would like to just draw to your attention, general, the fact that we have a number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in Nebraska. Some of these are some of the most heart rending crimes you can imagine. But I want to point out this isn't just a case of cherry picking it particular isolated bad apples.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: The Attorney General Jeff Sessions being questioned right there by Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska on Capitol Hill. The attorney general has been on Capitol Hill all morning facing questions on issues ranging from his administration of the department to sanctuary cities. But many of the questions about the Russia election meddling investigation.

The attorney general has recused himself. But there's been a controversy about his answers, about his dealings with Russian officials going all the way back to his confirmation hearing. And just there from Senator Sasse, was an interesting conversation about, is the country prepared, is the country's cyber war and other legal protections prepared for 2018, 2020 and beyond, the attorney general of the United States saying "probably not." On an issue in which the president of the United States doesn't like to talk about it at all and sort of washes it away and waves it away as if it's not significant whenever it's raised.

RYAN LIZZA, NEW YORKER: Yes. For the second issue where he broke from at least one version of what Trump said on the big issue, on DACA he seems to have a disagreement with where the White House was on that. And on the Russia investigation that Trump frequently calls a hoax and something, you know, made up by the media. Sessions answered very forthrightly that he trusts and believes the intelligence community's report that was published and that indeed Russia has a very active interference campaign in 2016 and going forward.

KING: That's more of a policy issue there that was so bringing. He said he believed our vulnerabilities included the Defense Department and our missile system --

LIZZA: Yes.

KING: -- potential. That's a pretty sober. Everyone is going to focus on Russia investigation. But that's pretty sober comment from the attorney general there. That was on the policy question posed by Senator Sasse. Is the government including the Justice Department doing enough to try to prevent this from happening in the future? Just before that, you had a more personal back and forth with Al Franken. This goes all the way back to Senator Sessions -- Attorney General Session's confirmation hearing where he was asked a question did he have any meetings with Russians and what the Democrats say is that he lied.

The democrats say, he said no. Jeff Sessions says no, in the context of your question, my answer is truthful even though he later had to amend it. But the Democrats Al Franken lately that the latest, Pat Leahy before him essentially trying to say the chief law enforcement of the United States officer is a liar.

RACHAEL BADE, POLITICO: Yes. He was ready for that question. So he had Sessions pulled out a piece of paper and he basically read Al Franken's question from before. And this is how I answered you. And this is why he answered you. He was saying, trying to make some sort of justification that the reason I said I had no contact was it, it was sort of a broad statement you were accusing me of, you know, colluding with the Russians. This is what you were saying. And so it was a broad statement, my response.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'm going to stop you just one sec., Rachael, I'm sorry interrupt, but Senator Chris Coons of Delaware asking the attorney general about his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: -- from what the chairman said early that there are many letters that have not been answered yet by the department. So, if your department hasn't yet answered, could you please, Mr. Attorney General, just answer directly, how are employees participating in Special Council Mueller's investigation instructed about your recusal?

SESSIONS: The day I took office, after I had told this committee that I would meet with the ethics officials at the department to determine whether recusal was appropriate, the day after that, we had my first meeting. And we had a series of meetings. And since I realized that there's a possibility I would need to recuse myself at the first meeting, I took -- I received no information whatsoever from that investigation, never met with investigators, you know, didn't even know who the lawyers were officially working the case and reviewed no documents relating to it.

I had a little brief from the ethics official, the nature of the case because you need to know something about the case before you can make an official recusal decision. When I recused myself, we sent an e- mail out to all the key people in the Department of Justice including the FBI Director Comey that I would be not -- I would not be involved in the investigation, that neither I nor my staff, the attorney general's staff were to be involved in this investigation or receive information about it.

[12:40:14] Director Comey once said that he didn't get this, but we've got the document that he mailed to him directly by name. I'm sure he gets a lot and he may have missed it. But we definitely did that. And I've complied with that rigorously.

COONS: If I could just make sure.

SESSIONS: For the purpose of the Russian investigation, the attorney general of the United States is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He makes all the decisions and manages the processes and guarantees its integrity.

COONS: Have you spoken with President Trump about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation at any point?

SESSIONS: I've never discussed anything with him of -- well, I'm not going to comment on the conversations we've had because I think that violates the privilege, executive privilege.

COONS: Do you think the deputy attorney general made the right decision to appoint a special counsel? You spoke previously in response to another senator's questions about knowing Mr. Mueller, having respect for his professionalism, his experience. Do you think that was the right choice?

SESSIONS: The decision to appoint a special counsel depends on the facts and circumstances of the case of which he was fully apprised. And I'm not. So I'm not able to be opined about his judgment. But you know, he's a talented and experienced prosecutor.

COONS: You made a statement at the outset that some of the core mission of the Department of Justice, fighting violent crime, keeping our nation safe, respecting rule of law and promoting rule of law, I think it is important as you have stated that this investigation reach its natural and full conclusion without any interference. In your view, if the president asked for your advice about whether or not to remove or fire the special counsel, would that be an appropriate conversation for him to have with you?

SESSIONS: I have not thought that through. But it's -- if it deals with the special counsel, I think the communication would need to be directed to the person who supervises the special counsel and that would be the deputy attorney general.

COONS: If the special counsel were removed, would you protest or consider resigning in order to clarify the importance of that position in that investigation being followed to its end?

SESSIONS: You know, I won't attempt to deal with a hypothetical. I think it would be best just to leave my answer as I gave it.

COONS: Let me move to another recusal. You in your confirmation hearing you said and I think it is in response to a question from the chairman. That you had offered it be the proper thing for me to do to recuse myself from any questions involving investigations that involve Secretary Clinton. And that were raised during the campaign.

Chairman said, when you say you'll recuse, you mean you'll actually recusing the decision will therefore fall to the deputy attorney general and you say after some intervening sentences. There is a procedure for that which I will follow. And you've just shared with me you followed that promptly. Yet, on May 9th, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein delivered to you a memo entitled restoring public confidence in the FBI that is about Director Comey's conduct during the Clinton e-mail investigation and concludes that the director handled the conclusion of that e-mail investigation incorrectly. Is that correct?

SESSIONS: Yes. You're talking about the recommendation.

COONS: Yes. And then on the same day, you penned a memo to the president relying exclusively on the deputy attorney general's memo where you recommend that Director Comey be removed, correct?

SESSIONS: That's correct.

COONS: So if you were recusing yourself from any investigations or issues that relate to the Secretary Clinton and the e-mail investigation, why did you write a memo to the president exclusively relying on that matter? The administration's stated reason for removing Director Comey was his conduct relating to the Clinton e-mail investigation. Why would you participate directly in that matter if you were recused from considering it?

SESSIONS: Well, first, attorney general does not recuse himself from supervision of the FBI, a $7 billion agency that he's responsible for because he may have recused himself about one or more matters that the FBI was working on, number one.

Number two, the Clinton case had been closed. It was not an ongoing matter at that time.

[12:44:55] Number three, the discussion about whether or not Mr. Comey conducted himself properly did not deal with whether or not there was sufficient evidence to go forward or not with regard to a charge against Secretary Clinton. It dealt with whether or not he acted properly when he just closed the case without instead of the attorney general's office, so the prosecutors and the attorney generals office.

So, I think it's quite different, Senator Coons. I'm glad to give -- have the opportunity to discuss that. But I'm confident that I did not -- I was not required to recuse myself on the decision of whether or not to keep secretary -- Director Comey.

COONS: Mr. Attorney General, if I might just conclude it, in your letter on May 9th, you say I'm committed to the rule of law at the Department of Justice. And I'm concerned that we have a different understanding of the scope of your recusal and the relevancy of the e- mail investigation when that was the cited reason for the firing of the FBI director.

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'll just respond and say, I'm very comfortable that I did not violate what I told this committee or proper rules in not recusing myself on the decision of Mr. Comey because it was not based on the merits of the investigation. It was based on his performance publicly and in regard to announcing a decision that was a decision he was not entitled to announce.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Tillis.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: -- the Attorney General Jeff Sessions in that exchange right there with Senator Chris Coons Democrat of Delaware, fascinating exchange, when we come back to the studio here. This part of the Democratic questioning a broad Democratic effort to undermine the attorney general's credibility, his conduct in office, some of the decisions he has made with Senator Coons there, it was his decision to be involved in the firing of James Comey even though as the attorney general he had said he was recused from anything involved with the Russia investigation.

And he recused himself because of his role in the Trump campaign with any decisions about the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation because he thought that was proper. Yet, he participated in the firing, recommended the firing of the FBI director who was in charge of the Clinton investigation and in charge of the Russia investigation, the attorney general making the case it wasn't about the merits of either case, it was about his performance. Democrats think that is a distinction without a difference.

LIZZA: John, I think what we're showing is there's no recourse that Congress or the Democrats have to penalize Sessions in any way. He says it was outside the scope of his recusal. It appears that he has -- he gets to define that and I don't really see what they -- what they can do here. I mean, I think to most people looking at it, at least to me, the facts that he accused himself from the investigation but then -- and then had ongoing conversations with the White House about the investigator himself and recommend that he be fired boy, that sure sounds like if you're going to recuse yourself, you don't want to be part of that. but Session -- I don't see what they can do here. There seems to be no recourse what they have.

KING: It is a constant complaint every time he's up there that you cannot square that circle. You said you had nothing to do, you have nothing to do with these investigations yet you actively participated in firing the man leading the investigations.

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, NEW YORK TIMES: Right. And Senator Coons was taking the attorney general at his word that he -- that, you know, given.

LIZZA: The reason was --

DAVIS: The reason was the Clinton e-mail investigation and not the Russia investigation. But even then he's pointing out he was supposed to be recused from that. And the attorney general tried to make this distinction between the process that have investigation and the substance. But what kept coming back to me as he talking was how angry we know President Trump was at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself.

And this is precisely why because he has to distance himself. He has to now explain away anytime he gets close to either of those issues. And that is exactly what Donald Trump did not want to see happen and thought was a betrayal.

KING: That exchange a question about his conduct, his performance as attorney general. But earlier, a much more heated exchanging with Democratic Al Franken, this goes all the way back to Sessions confirmation hearing and a question about his dealings with Russian officials during the campaign, whether there was any collusion, whether he had any conversations with the Russians during the campaign.

Senator Sessions in his confirmation hearing said, no, we have learned since then of course, he had several meetings with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Senator Franken says the attorney general's answers keep evolving but to him, listen, still unsatisfactory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SESSIONS: And that's been the suggestion that you've raised and others that somehow we had conversations that were improper.

SEN. AL FRANKEN, DFL MINNESOTA: May I suggest that --

SESSIONS: No, no, no, you had a long time, Senator Franken. I'd like to respond.

FRANKEN: OK.

SESSIONS: I think I have a --

FRANKEN: We'll note that Senator Cruz went two minutes over. So I don't want -- they're going to cut me off. And so I want to ask you some questions.

SESSIONS: I -- no, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to sit in here and listen on to his --

[12:50:02] FRANKEN: You're the one who testified.

SESSIONS: -- charges without having a chance to respond. Give me a break.\

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The attorney general is a former member of the Senate before the hearing, if you weren't watching live at the very beginning here. He actually patted Senator Franken on the shoulder and they had a relatively friendly exchange behind the dice as the attorney general walked in and said hello to people. But most of this has been conducted in a professional tone. There's bad blood between those two.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes. You could see there. And there is in some ways bad blood I think between the other Democrats too. And this goes back to the other hearing where they feel like he isn't necessarily being forthcoming. We were trying to figure out, this seems like the first time that Franken has been able to go back to that January hearing and sort of figure out what he was saying and sort of pin him down. And Sessions clearly not really wanting to sit there and take it from Franken in that way. And you saw his temper flair a little bit in that exchange.

BADE: Even with the -- even with him explaining, you know, that's not really what I meant, I was saying I hadn't talked to Russians about the campaign and about collusion. I was just talking vaguely trying to sort of defend himself against, you know, Al Franken pointing out that he had said something that was later contradicted.

There's like the saying in politics, right, if you're explaining, you're losing and so him trying to say, just wait, this is not really what I meant. If -- there were like subtitles to what I meant, that doesn't really look great either. So, even though he had an explanation here, I think to the public, this is going to be unsavory.

LIZZA: He really has moved the goal on this. He did say he didn't talk to the Russians. It was a sort of blanket statement. I understand today he was trying to say it was in a larger context. But it seems like a blanket statement at the time. Now, he's saying there were no improper conversations. That that's the bottom line is. Now, Democrats have charged to that original statement is perjury. Is a perjury --

(CROSSTALK)

HENDERSON: He should resign, you know, as a result of those initial exchanges.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: At a minimum, his answer as more information came into the public life, the attorney general's answer and explanation has evolved. Democrats think he was lying from the get go. He says he took a different piece of the question of it. It's a context argument. We'll continue to follow the hearing on Capitol Hill. It's quick break here. Up next, though, something sacred that we shouldn't be talking about but an ugly headline after president's call to a fallen soldier's wife, did he tell her that this is what her husband signed up for, more on the claim and the controversy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:56:34] KING: Across the country right now, four American families mourning the loss of a soldier killed during a Special Forces mission in Africa two weeks ago. Their deaths should be above politics. But sadly that has not been the case since Monday.

When President Trump finally spoke about their sacrifice and falsely said his predecessors never called Gold Star families. The story took another unfortunate turn last night when Sergeant La David Johnson's body arrived back in his home state of Florida. The Democratic congresswoman who is with Johnson's grieving widow just as the casket arrived since the president called to offer condolences. But she says he chose horrible words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. FREDRICKA WILSON (D), FLORIDA: He never said the word hero. He said to the wife, well, I guess he knew what he was getting into. How insensitive can you be?

I did hear him say I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for. And but it still hurts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: After defending himself on Twitter this morning, the president said this at the White House a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't say what that congresswoman said. I didn't say it at all. She knows it. And she now is not saying it. I did not say what she said. And I'd like her to make the statement again because I did not say what she said. I had a very nice conversation with the woman with the wife who sounded like a lovely woman. I did not say what the congresswoman said and most people aren't too surprised to hear that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We've been trying to reach the congresswoman. She did tweeted this after the president spoke. She said, I still stand by my account of the call between real Donald Trump and Myeshia Johnson, that is her name Mr. Trump not the woman or the wife. I'm sad we have to have this conversation but we do.

HENDERSON: Yes. We do. And then you have had the president sometimes politicize the deaths of soldiers for instance he brought in John Kelley's, of the death of his son, sort of his own defense about what President Obama did or didn't do in terms of his reaching out to the families of soldiers.

We'll see what happens with this. And the president suggesting that there's proof that he didn't say those words, perhaps there's a transcript. Perhaps the congresswoman now has that transcript. We don't really know. I imagine we're all reaching out to our sources to figure out what's going on.

KING: The official White House response is this is a private conversation. They won't give us any transcript if there is one. The president clearly can tweet without staff approval shall we say.

DAVIS: Right. What was so striking there, about -- I mean obviously the president feels like he has to defend himself now against this charge of the very unflattering account of the conversation. But he didn't take the opportunity in front of all those reporters and he is on T.V. He has to know that he has a broad audience when he's in the White House meeting with senators and being asked these questions. He didn't take the opportunity to say, I do think he was a hero. I do, you know, my heart goes out to this family, none of that. And so, you have to wonder --

KING: Which we have seen repeatedly because he's in a confrontation with somebody, it becomes about sparring in him not about four American heroes.

DAVIS: Right. And this is where he went on Monday when he was asked about whether he had reached out to these families yet he obviously hadn't. He said had he written letters but they hand the gone out yet. He was going to call. But then he went immediately to -- although I've done better on this than my predecessors. And so, this is -- he has made this into a him versus them.

BADE: I have sources on the Hill who are totally, you know, hitting their heads against the wall right because of the way he responded to this, they're asking why is he even talking about this? This is not something -- this is a distraction from what we should be talking about. They have to deal with the subsidies and Obamacare. They have to deal with DACA. They have government shutdown. This is not where they want to focus.

KING: This should be -- if there is just one place in American politics that is sacred, this should be it.

[13:00:08] I'll leave at that. Thanks for joining us on INSIDE POLITICS. Wolf Blitzer up after a quick break, up next, I'm sorry.