Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Americans Released from North Korea; Haspel Confirmation Hearing; Haspel on Destroying Tapes; Trump Summit with Kim Jong-un; Trump on Iran Nuclear Deal. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired May 09, 2018 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's interesting because we know -- I mean the European partners have said as much. They made a very strong statement yesterday, moments after the president made his announcement. So you could have a scenario where Iran stays in, where France, Germany, and the U.K. and Russia and China crucially stay in this deal. And then, you know, the question becomes, what does the U.S. do? It re-imposes sanctions on Iran. Does it then impose sanctions on European partner if they're staying in the deal? It's a big question going forward.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: And then we'll come back to the Iran bit I think a bit later. But then the president obviously celebrating, and for good reason, for good reason. Even if you're a Trump critic, set it aside for a minute. We have no idea if the release of these three Americans will get the United States anywhere when the president sits down with Kim Jong-un on the big questions. We have no idea whether this is a gateway to North Korea giving up its nukes. And be very, very, very and then an extra very skeptical about that.

But on this day, three Americans, who were in prison in North Korea yesterday, are on the way home. And there is no -- nothing else to say except a good deal for America and a great deal for these families and, good for you, Mr. President, right?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No question. I mean they are flying, as we speak, with the secretary of state. There's going to be an arrival ceremony sometime after the early morning hours. And the president has said he's going to be there. He wants to celebrate this as an accomplishment. And it certainly is an accomplishment.

And it does set the way for the summit. The president also ruled out the DMZ. He had been talking about the DMZ as a possible site. He said it's not going to be there. Singapore is the most likely site, but that is going to be announced in the coming days.

But no question this is going to lead to, you know, a historic session between these two leaders, which, you know, I was skeptical was ever going to happen, actually. When the president walked into that briefing room a couple months ago and agreed to that -- that -- I'm not sure that's going to happen. But it looks like it is. The outcome, though, is impossible to predict. The stakes, incredibly high here, leaving one deal behind that had so many verifications in place, entering a new deal with almost zero verifications in place in a much more complicated scenario makes this high risk for the president.

KING: And the president in the middle of just about every major global conversation right now.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER: Right.

KING: There's a lot of outrage in Europe, but praise from Israel and Saudi Arabia for walking away from the Iran nuclear deal.

Now the world watching, is Donald Trump fire and fury, locked and loaded? Is he really going to sit down and potentially have a productive summit with Kim Jong-un?

RACHAEL BADE, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, "POLITICO": Yes, it absolutely looks like he's going to.

But just going back to the hostages, bringing the Americans home, it's a little bit of a bittersweet moment here, right, because it's great for these North Korean -- or these Americans coming back from North Korea. But then when it comes to the Iran deal, you know, with diplomats, diplomatic relations breaking down there, there are at least five Americans that are being held captive in Iran. And those families obviously want their loved ones back, too. And with the end of this -- with the U.S. pulling out, there's a question of, will they ever come home, right?

SCIUTTO: Jason Rezaian, who we were speaking with yesterday as the president withdrew from the deal, of course someone who spent 18 months in an Iranian prison, that was exactly his point. Sadly, you know, what is the path forward for those Americans held in Iran?

KING: Right. And so let's turn to issue number three, and it's the biggest issue here right now in the United States. The bigger issue here in the United States right now I should say. But also it's a -- the world is watching this one as well because of the post 9/11 history of the Central Intelligence Agency, because of questions around the world about whether the United States broke its principles, bent its principles, perhaps crossed the line in its treatment. And many believe, yes, torture of suspected terrorists brought into CIA custody.

Gina Haspel was an agency official in those days, back post 9/11. She's on Capitol Hill today as the president's nominee to be the first woman director of Central Intelligence. The administration says she worked her way up from the bottom, she's worked in all these senior positions. When she was involved in these controversial things, she was following the orders of her boss.

Listen to Gina Haspel today. The question first put to her by Susan Collins. If the president of the United States -- if you are confirmed and President Trump calls you and says torture a terrorist, go back to those old tactics, would you do it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GINA HASPEL, CIA DIRECTOR NOMINEE: Senator, I would advise -- I do not believe the president would ask me to do that. I would be -- advise anyone who asked me about it that CIA is not the right place to conduct interrogations. We don't have interrogators. I would not restart, under any circumstances, an interrogation program at CIA, under any circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: If you're watching there, just -- if you watched the hearing, you saw this play out. Senator Susan Collins asked the initial question. She didn't answer in a declarative way. It was when she moved to Democrat Martin Heinrich, he asked her again, you didn't answer the question. You saw she was answering someone else when she finally said, I would not restart under any circumstances an interrogation program at the CIA.

Is this the question? Is that commitment enough for enough Democrats to excuse her past, if you will?

HENDERSON: You know, I think it depends on the Democrat. And we saw that in this hearing, right? Somebody like Kamala Harris, who had a very tough exchange with her, essentially saying, do you think that those enhanced interrogation techniques that some people called torture, was it immoral? And it was a question she didn't answer. And she asked -- she kept asking it and she just essentially was saying that the United States is on a different sort of moral ground now in terms of this. And she agrees that with this particular place America's approach to torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.

[12:05:28] You saw Joe Manchin, for instance, essentially just ask, you know, kind of open-ended questions. How did you feel after 9/11? What were you concerns after 9/11? So I think -- I think we're going to see that split, right? The progressives are probably not going to vote for her out of committee, not vote for her on the Senate floor. And then somebody like Joe Manchin, who is up for re-election in 2018, who has supported most of the president's nominees, he probably is someone who would back her.

SCIUTTO: You know what the -- the director of the CIA has to be able to answer that question, was it an immoral program? In the last decade and a half since 9/11, this was -- you could say the sorriest moment in the CIA's history here. Beyond getting the intel wrong on Iraq, this question was an enormous question there. I was in the Middle East as this program was revealed around the time of Abu Ghraib. This was a time that caused enormous divisions with our closest allies who were fighting alongside us in a war at the time, our allies in the region. It caused an enormous loss of U.S. soft power in the region, to see America, who is presenting itself as a better model for the Mideast, to have examples of torture, and pictures in Abu Ghraib, and the CIA carrying this out.

You had military commanders who were very much opposed to it, for two reasons. One, it put U.S. troops at risk. Two, they would tell frequently it gives you bad information.

KING: Right. SCIUTTO: So the CIA director, asked repeatedly, refused to answer that question to say, do you believe it's immoral? That's a real -- that's a real omission on their part.

KING: Right. Hang on just one second. Since we left the hearing to take you over to the White House, Gina Haspel has just said on Capitol Hill, she's ending a public hearing, now she's going into a classified hearing. She did just say torture does not work. So that has been one of the big questions, what do you get? Is the information you get when you waterboard terrorists and do other enhanced interrogation tactics, as they call it, torture, is it -- you see her right there hugging some friends and colleagues as she goes. Now she'll go into a closed, classified sessions where she's going to have to answer in more detail about this, saying torture does not work.

That is one of the questions for her, what was her role? What did she know? What did she say about the enhanced interrogation tactics, torture, to many, or to most, I should say.

The other question is, was she involved in what some believe was a cover-up? There were tapes of these interrogations. She was the chief of staff to the CIA official who ordered these tapes destroyed. Now, she testified today she did this because there was a great concern -- and this is an understandable concern, whatever your opinion on this -- that there were leaks coming out of the CIA and they were worried that the faces of the agents involved in those interrogations, the waterboarding, et cetera, would be released and therefore make them targets. But Democrats were also a little suspicious about this saying the tapes were destroyed within days of a prominent Democratic senator saying he wanted to have a 9/11 type commission to look into this program. So was it curious enough.

Listen to her here. Dianne Feinstein asking the question here about destroying the tapes and her role in that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASPEL: He and he alone made the decision to destroy the tapes. I would also make it clear that I did not appear on the tapes. Our lawyers were very consistent saying to us that there was no legal requirement to retain the tapes. No legal impediment to disposing of the tapes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let's listen a little bit more there. You heard that answer there. Dianne Feinstein follows up on this. It's a key -- to the key point about, OK, you think you were within the law, but did you support, did you want to destroy the tapes?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASPEL: Senator, I did not run the interrogation department. In fact, I was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year. I never served --

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Were you an advocate for destroying the tapes?

HASPEL: Senator, I absolutely was an advocate, if we could, within and conforming to U.S. law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, again, her position was, this was done to protect people. And those of us who don't understand this -- Jim, you understand it better than anyone else at the table -- give them some grace in the sense that these people risk their lives every day for you and for me and for us around the world. So give them some grace in this right now.

Dianne Feinstein speaking on Capitol Hill live. She's a key member of the committee. Let's go up to The Hill.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Hard for me that if she were asked for the agency, by the president, to do something which was considered wrong and illegal, would she just refuse to do it? And she didn't answer that question directly. Well, there were terrible things that were done, and I understand the time and I understand the emotion and I understand the functioning of the agency. But you --

[12:10:15] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel better given her answers?

FEINSTEIN: No, I feel she did not directly say, I would refuse to carry out the order.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What about what she said, that the order to destroy the tapes was an order that she -- not made by her. Is that a sufficient answer about her destroying the tapes or the order to destroy tapes that she did not make?

FEINSTEIN: Well, to -- she parsed the question. Parsed the question. She did participate. He made the decision. She essentially carried it out by sending the e-mail or however it was communicated. I've got to go.

KING: I think a quick aside. I think an elevator and the restroom are the only place I haven't seen Manu Raju corner somebody live on -- live on Capitol Hill. And good for that.

Dianne Feinstein's a critical player here. She's in the middle of a Democratic primary back home in California. We cannot escape the fact that this nomination is even more controversial, even more up in the air, even more a big question, can she get the votes, because we're in an election year and if Donald Trump said apple pie is good, most of the Democrats would say apple pie is bad. That's just a fact. It happened in the Obama administration. If Obama said apple pie was good, the Republicans would say apple pie was bad. Welcome to America.

But the key question there -- and we were playing the sound bite before -- she said, yes, she was in favor of destroying the tapes. Dianne Feinstein saying that she didn't say explicitly if the president ordered you. Well, she essentially did.

BADE: Yes.

KING: She said she would not restart. But that, you see, the Democrats, you know, they can't -- they almost won't give her any grace. They almost would say, you know, she said she would not do that again. I'm grateful for that because of the politics.

ZELENY: And the question I think is to bring it to the present day moment, who she would be working for. It's sort of tempting to think back all this in history, but I think Senator Feinstein there was bringing it in the moment, and that's what Democrats are worried about, would the president sort of force her to do this.

He's been on all sides of the torture issue. During the campaign, he said he indeed supported it. After he was elected, sort of urged by Secretary Mattis and others, OK, it may not work. But he's the wild card here. That's why these questions matter.

So she did say, I thought more directly than I was expecting, that she would not do it. Would she resign over it if confirmed? Who knows? But I think that overall this morning I would say the White House, at least the people I'm speaking with, feel pretty good about her performance on The Hill. Of course Democrats aren't going to vote for her, or most of them, but, you know, I think she answered the questions probably better than some expected.

KING: Well, let me sneak in one more quick one for you, Jim, before you go. At the end of the hearing she was asked to explain to the American people if they don't know, and most do, who is Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. There's a "New York Times" story today that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is trying to get permission -- we don't know how this worked out -- but they're going into this closed hearing now -- to offer his thoughts on this nomination.

We know he was waterboarded. We know he later said that he gave information to stop the waterboarding that was bogus. That he was just trying to get out of -- get his head out of the tank essentially. So she's going to go into a closed hearing and be asked about the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. And the Trump administration is saying -- essentially framing the politics, who are you going to side with, a woman who was tough on terror or the guy who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks?

SCIUTTO: So the chairman, Richard Burr, brings up Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, I think in part to remind people that the folks who were getting waterboarded were not Boy Scouts, right? I mean here's a guy who was a mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. But that doesn't get to two essential questions, one being, OK, is -- does this align with American values, something that took a long time for her to really get there. She didn't give a straight answer to that question, which is a fair question because, to be fair, there were Democrats and Republicans who do not agree with the torture program and it's not -- and there are Democrats and Republicans who support her nomination. It's not really a partisan issue, it's a moral question. So there's that.

But then there's the other question, which you brought up earlier, did you get good intelligence from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad? And Haspel herself has left open -- she said, I don't know if another method could have gotten the same information. And that's an essential one, as well.

KING: Part of the lessons learned is what she's saying. We're focusing on one nomination, but with it ripples of the last 15, 18 years of our lives and the CIA practices.

Appreciate Jim Sciutto being here.

Up next for us, the secretary of state is on his way home from North Korea. He has plans for a summit that would make history. He also has three Americans freed from prison.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:18:30] KING: Welcome back now.

More on a very important diplomatic victory for the Trump administration today and history in the making. The secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, on his way home from North Korea. He has the planning in place for a Trump-Kim summit. The president of the United States saying the details will be announced very soon.

Secretary Pompeo also has with him three Americans who have been detained in North Korean prisons. They were released today as a sign of good will. Just a short time ago, after a cabinet meeting at the White House, the president of the United States celebrating and giving us little details about what's to come.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People never thought a thing like this could happen, and it can. People never thought you were going to have a situation where we're having serious and positive communication with North Korea. And we are. What happens, who knows? We have a chance that something really great for the world and great for North Korea, and great for everyone.

So I want to thank you all for being here. And we will see you at 2:00 in the morning. OK, very exciting.

(CROSS TALK)

TRUMP: We're going to announce that in three days. Within three days.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Within three days.

TRUMP: We're just working arrangements. But --

(CROSS TALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will it be the DMZ?

TRUMP: It will not be there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Hard to hear the question from ABC's Jonathan Karl, but he asked the president if the summit planning was done. The president said he would announce it within three days. And then Jon asked him, would it be at the demilitarized zone, where you did see the historic South Korea-North Korean meeting just a week or so ago. The president saying it will not be there.

But -- but this meeting is on. There's been a lot of questions -- it could still collapse, but there were a lot of questions about, would North Korea show enough to convince the White House it was would giving Kim Jong-un what is a giant propaganda gift, a meeting with the president of the United States of America. Wherever it is in the world, that is what Kim Jong-un wants, credibility on the global stage.

[12:20:19] The Trump administration would argue, now we have three Americans that are coming home. It's been a long time since they tested a missile. The U.S. and South Korean forces conducted military exercises and not a peep from the North. So the president said, good will, let's test it.

Again, you have to give props to the administration for the freedom of these Americans. That does not mean Kim Jong-un is going to come to the table and say, now I'm willing to give up my nukes.

MICHAEL WARREN, SENIOR WRITER, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": That's right. And the question is whether or not the administration is being clear- eyed enough about what exactly that propaganda victory would mean to Kim and whether or not they're going to get any actual real concessions. And whether Kim really is different than his father on these questions. There's a lot that indicate that he is, or he feels now he must act differently, and that he does need to engage.

There's also a lot been going on behind the scenes with regard to China that we don't quite know about. But I think this is -- this is the culmination at this point of the administration's policy on North Korea, that they've been more consistent than pretty much any foreign policy or any domestic policy for that matter on. They've been thinking about this really from the very beginning. And I think there -- this wait and see strategy is really the only thing that they can do.

KING: And a long list of critics about how we got here, critics of the president when he was doing locked and loaded and fire and fury and severe consequences and don't you dare, a lot of people were worried that he was leading us to the war. Instead, again, we don't know the end result, but till now the president's approach has worked. The question is, to Michael's point, does he go into the summit meeting with a clear set of goals and a clear test, how do you get -- what is the test for Kim Jong-un about, thank you for the three Americans, are you ready to give up your nukes?

ZELENY: That's a central question here. And the president is so hungry for a deal here, there are some in the administration and others who are supportive of this generally if, you know, he's going to, you know, be so anxious for this it's going to derail it in some respect.

But the question here is, what is the U.S. willing to concede or give up here? And how will they ever verify any type of dismantling of the program? So many questions now, as we have that summit, which, again, most of us didn't think would happen. Now it looks like it will happen, probably in just three weeks or so. But, boy, this is the very beginning of this, certainly not the end.

HENDERSON: Yes. And, I mean, talk about the beginning. I mean the process would take months and months and months, if not years, I mean, going in there, verifying what's there, if he agrees to giving this stuff up, how do you dismantle it? What do you do with it? How do you dispose of it? So it is -- I mean the president clearly wants sort of the pictures of this, right, sort of the programming part of it. And it will be amazing if this thing happens, to see him standing there with the North Korean leader. A propaganda victory for the North Korean leader, but also a victory for this president, who is so much about the big win, the big victory, the big television sort of presentation of it. And no one thought this would happen, really. In many ways, even after he said it would happen, there was a lot of skepticism about it. And so the fact that this is happening now is pretty extraordinary and a credit to what they've done.

KING: And to that point, and this is something to celebrate. Again, whatever your politics, three Americans who were imprisoned in North Korea 24 hours ago are on their way home to the United States. And the president saying 2:00 a.m., he's planning to go out to Joint Base Andrews.

I think apparently they're going to stop on the way home and these Americans have the right, if they want, once they're on U.S. soil, to go their own way. But by all indications -- but by all indications the White House expects them to come here to the United States.

The remarkable moment is that you have this amazing potential diplomacy, and -- I shouldn't say potential diplomacy, there is diplomacy. North Korea, because of the relationship, Secretary Pompeo has developed with the North Koreans, and they have freed these Americans. They're willing to sit down to a summit. They have not taken provocative steps in weeks and weeks and weeks. Diplomacy, working. The president walking away from the Iran nuclear agreement just 24 hours ago, and you see in the -- from the European leaders and the European headlines sort of this outrage that, oh, my goodness, what is the United States doing here? The president, again, at that same meeting at the cabinet room, explaining why he thinks the right idea, rip up the Iran deal and walk away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That was a one-sided deal that -- which was not good and it was not appropriate. And we'll see how we do with Iran. Probably we won't do very well with them, but that's OK, too. They've got to understand life, because I don't think they do understand life.

A terrible, terrible deal that should have never, ever been made. And we will be putting on among the strongest sanctions that we've ever put on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:25:02] KING: Now, the president promised this in the campaign. Whatever your opinion, you know, you should not be surprised here. The surprise to many was that he waited 15 months. That he delayed and delayed and delayed.

Now we're here. And what the critics of the president are saying, Hillary Clinton among those tweet this, what's plan b? And that's a fair -- it is -- whoever asks that question, it's a fair question, what do you do now? Part of that depends on what Iran does now, right?

BADE: Yes. And I would say that it's just interesting to see, you're seeing two different President Trumps here when it comes to global policy, right? He doesn't know whether he wants to put on the peacemaker hat with North Korea or does he want to go America first, cater to the base as it comes to Iran?

And it's interesting Iran has actually been at the table and been, you know, with the Iran nuclear deal. They've been showing this willingness to move forward in terms of trying to make peace and de- nuclearize, et cetera. North Korea has been way more aggressive in recent years when it comes to nuclear weapons, and yet the president is clearly making an diplomatic effort there and then blowing up the Iran deal.

The other part of this that I find is interesting is that what -- how does North Koreans know that even if there is an agreement that we're going stay in it because, you know, the United States has made commitments, the Paris Climate Accords, also the Iran nuclear deal and we're changing our policy already. And so what makes them think we're going to stay in this (ph).

ZELENY: The one word that you didn't hear say in there is President Obama. And I think the bottom line of all this is, he says it's a one- sided deal. It was Obama's deal that he inherited. He wants to make his own deal with North Korea. That explains it.

HENDERSON: Yes.

KING: All right. We'll see that. We'll continue to watch that. Again, the president, like him or not, like the decisions or not, driving the world conversation.

Up next for us here, the special counsel investigation now taking a closer look at the president's personal lawyer and his bank accounts and some incoming from Russia.