Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Pompeo Speaks After Briefing Senators on Saudi Arabia, Yemen; Pelosi Faces Critical Vote in House Speaker Bid; Rep. Jeffries: Pelosi "Will Not Lame Duck Herself" If Elected; Ivanka Trump On Her E-mail Problem. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired November 28, 2018 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:32:59] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Live at Capitol Hill now, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: All the senators who wanted to hear from, we talked about U.S. policy in Yemen and U.S. policy with respect to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We also obviously spoke about the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi and we made clear that they're considering debating a resolution on the Senate floor which we think is just poorly timed.

We are on the cusp allowing the U.S. envoy Martin Griffiths to -- in December gather the parties together and hopefully get a ceasefire in Yemen. It's something that we have diplomatically been striving for, for months. And we think we're right on the cusp of that. And so does the view of the administration and Secretary Mattis and myself that passing a resolution at this point undermines that.

It would encourage the Houthis, it would encourage the Iranians, it would undermine the gradual agreement for everyone to go to Sweden and have this discussion. So we hope that they'll consider that, be thoughtful in how they proceed and we're happy to give them further information if they should so choose.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) former CIA director, why wasn't the current CIA director. You're briefing senators as well.

POMPEO: I was asked to be here and here I am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But senators were very pressured. Normally in your (INAUDIBLE) as CIA director, you would be here briefing the senators (INAUDIBLE). Why isn't the CIA (INAUDIBLE)?

POMPEO: I was asked to be here and I'm here.

(INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've seen all the intelligence (INAUDIBLE). Do you believe that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia ordered Jamal Khashoggi's death? POMPEO: (INAUDIBLE) I've read every piece of intelligence (INAUDIBLE) in the last few hours. I think I read it all. There is no direct reporting that actually the crown prince ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

That's all I can say (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

(INAUDIBLE)

POMPEO: I don't have anything to add on the sequence of events in North Korea.

[12:35:03] But I'm very hopeful we will have senior level meetings before (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

(INAUDIBLE)

POMPEO: (INAUDIBLE) opportunity for them to get together.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of Trump's public statements indicate that Iran is very far from coming to negotiations. How do you recommend that?

POMPEO: Well, the parties that will be there will be those who are engaged in the civil war in Yemen. So they'll be representatives from the Yemeni government, from the Houthis, all of those interested parties. We hope the Iranians won't upset the (INAUDIBLE). They have been funding, arming, providing assistance and support to the Houthis which have allowed Houthis to continue to fight well beyond what would have made any sense at all. And we do hope the Iranians won't upset this opportunity to both resolve the civil war and give everyone the opportunity to resolve a massive humanitarian crisis that's in Yemen today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you everybody.

(INAUDIBLE)

KING: You've been listening to secretary of state, Mike Pompeo up on Capitol Hill emerging from a briefing with senators. Contentious at times we are told on two big issues that are related. Number one, the ongoing war in Yemen and the effort by some in the United States Senate to get the United States to pull back from supporting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in their civil wars essentially against Houthi rebels inside of Yemen.

Number two, because of the timing, any question about Saudi Arabia now brings in, is there evidence connecting the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman to the brutal murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Secretary Pompeo emerging, answering questions there. A couple things, he's said at one point that he has seen no direct evidence or no direct report. I'm trying to get the exact words. There was a lot of cross talk up there directly linking the crown prince. That is the secretary's answer.

We know there's been various reporting here at CNN, many other fine media organizations that the CIA has concluded that there is evidence that the crown prince was -- he orchestrated the killing. Number two -- and he was asked repeatedly about one thing the senators were very frustrated about. Why wasn't the CIA director there to answer those specific questions and he smirked a couple of times. He says I was asked to be here, I am here. I was asked to be here, I am here.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And those questions were great because they said you are the former CIA director, why isn't the current CIA director who has listened to the audio of this killing, traveled to Turkey, traveled to Riyadh, why is she not here briefing us? And you -- he didn't answer the question. He said twice, I'm here because I was asked to be here. And we know sources told us the White House did not want to send Gina Haspel there even though the senators clearly wanted her to be there.

But, I think that we come out of this, and we're seeing these complaints from the senators, this is going to end up backfiring on the administration because they're going to feel that they're not getting a sufficient response to this murder. They're going to take action (INAUDIBLE).

KING: And to clear that up, we had our folks go back and listen to the tape more (INAUDIBLE). Secretary Pompeo said there's no direct reporting that ties MBS to the murder. Now we know the CIA has an analysis that again, a number of sources including congressional sources and media accounts have said does say that they believe he is responsible for ordering this.

So there's two questions here. One is the substance, why does the administration want to keep away the person who knows the most. The CIA director has the most information, it has been her job. The administration does not want to allow the United States Senate, still currently controlled by the president's own party by the way. So this is not just a poke to Democrats, this is a poke to Congress. They won't put the most informed person in the room to answer these questions and that's the substance of this.

And then there's the tone which we talked about a little bit earlier. Forgive me but Mike Pompeo, a former member of the House was being smug there.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes.

KING: Smiling, smirking, rolling his eyes. You know, I'm here, don't ask me about somebody --

HENDERSON: Yes. And he'd continue sort of the tone I think of his Wall Street Journal op-ed where he talked about sort of the cattle rolling on Capitol Hill and dismissing those folks. It's clear why the White House and this administration want to keep the CIA director away from the Senate because she is directorially contradicting what the president belief that this idea that MBS didn't have any involvement.

They have with a high degree of certainty concluded that he directed this murder. So they don't want to have senators hear from her because that is what her and her team assessed. And yes, this seems to have made it worse. I mean, in terms of going up to the Senate being kind of smirky and jerky in that press conference and this op- ed, and really dismissing the role that these senators have.

KING: And Phil Mattingly has been up there on Capitol Hill. Phil, Secretary Pompeo's big message coming out was he hoped that his coming up, Secretary Mattis coming up would convince the Senate to hit the pause button and at least see if this planned ceasefire talks in Sweden can get any legs underneath them. Was he successful or the senators now even more willing to go forward?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I can tell you, John at least the senators that came out and spoke to us and frankly a lot of the Senate aides we've been talking to over the course of the last hour or so, it had the opposite effect. Assuaging their concerns of maybe pulling them back from this resolution. They'll vote on it as soon as this afternoon.

And I think that comes in multiple reasons at least when talking to senators. One you guys have been talking about the fact that CIA Director Haspel did not come up here.

[12:40:03] That was a request of both Republicans and Democrats. But also I think the posture that Secretary Pompeo took in the opinion piece this morning that you guys were discussing. That blew back in a major way.

Going into this briefing, I talked to a number of senators, background who were saying that they're very frustrated by that. They felt like they were being pegged as opposition, being tied to the Iran deal, things to that nature. That they took offense to. A lot of staff felt the same way.

And then I think just the general kind of way that the administration has gone about their response here. Saying that's essentially zero sum that you're either with us on this and you're with us on our Saudi relationship or you want to cut ties all together. And the senators say that there's a middle ground here.

I think the interesting element of what's about to happen when this vote occurs, why Secretaries Matties and Pompeo were actually up here today to try and stop that is that this will be a tremendous rebuke of the administration. Usually, John, you know this as well as anybody, when these briefings occur they are usually very effective. They usually do a very good job of knocking back particularly when the president's party is in power.

It seems coming out of this, several senators have already said they voted against this resolution the first time around. They are changing their votes. Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he is willing to vote to get onto the resolution maybe not at the end but at least get on it and have the debate. Barring some administration shift in tone over the course of the next couple of hours if they were trying to stop this in its tracks and it's been very fluid. The vote counts very fluid I'm told. They certainly didn't succeed.

We'll see what the end game is of that but there's lot more frustration coming out of their briefing than there was people who are happier at least assuage with their concerns.

KING: Important reporting on the scene. Phil Mattingly, very busy day on Capitol Hill. We appreciate you're coming here with that.

I want to bring Admiral John Kirby back into the conversation. Admiral, you've worked at the Defense Department, you've worked at the State Department. Both of the secretaries up there on Capitol Hill today. We know for months there's been a lot of frustration with the policy. That frustration has just exploded because of the Khashoggi murder, because it involves the same central players if you will.

But to Phil's point, it is striking to me you have a Republican Senate and Republican president and two cabinet officers in the Republican administration saying give us a few weeks. At least give us a few weeks. Let's see if we can pull off these conversations in Sweden. Let's see maybe it's a steep hill but give us a chance.

And Phil's reporting seems to be the Senate is inclined at least at this moment to say sorry, no. What does that tell you?

RET. REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: It tells me a couple of things. One, that the very real genuine concern over the Khashoggi murder is driving a lot of this. And that they're not willing to just give the crown prince a free pass on it. I think it really has motivated them in ways that we haven't seen anything out of the crown prince's behavior do in the past.

The other thing is -- and I think that it was a valid point by Pompeo to work on the negotiation time line as a reason for delay. What surprised me by Phil's reporting is that maybe that didn't work. And it seems to me that that was the strongest leg they had to stand on and it was one that was not as brought forward in an op-ed piece as it probably could have been.

They have a legitimate case to make here that we got a few weeks, we got these guys coming to the table. Just -- let us get through that before you make any decision. And it really strikes me that they have so turned off even their own colleagues in the Senate that that argument didn't seem to hold sway.

KING: That's a fascinating moment, Admiral. Appreciate your perspective.

We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, more evidence that folks, if you haven't noticed yes, post-election, a lot of the action shifting up to Capitol Hill. We talked about the effort to protect Robert Mueller right here. The discord over Saudi Arabia. When we come back decision time for House Democrats. Will they back Nancy Pelosi's bid to become speaker or will her opponents call for new leadership somehow prove persuasive?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:48:12] KING: Nancy Pelosi's campaign to retake the speaker's gavel facing its first real test today, actually this hour. House Democrats voting as we speak on who they want to lead their caucus as they prepare to take over power in the House in just over a month. Pelosi all but certain to win today. That's the nomination in the caucus but she faces a stiffer test when the full House votes in January where she must win a majority of the entire House of Representatives to become speaker.

Her critics have said it's time for generational change. Some of them want a different ideologically approach. A man just elected to a more junior position in the House though, New York's Hakeem Jeffries in this message to the younger members (INAUDIBLE) says vote for Nancy Pelosi and trust her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIRMAN-ELECT: I think she has correctly said if she is the next speaker that she is not going to lame duck herself particularly because we're dealing with the Trump administration, we're dealing with Mitch McConnell and the boys in the Senate, and we're dealing with some of Trump's friendly co- conspirators in the House of Representatives lying in the world what she or anyone lame duck themselves as we're approaching some tough negotiations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: An interesting message, an important message. But also as you see, Hakeem Jeffries, a rising star, number one, defending and trying to protect and help Nancy Pelosi, also trying to help himself --

JONATHAN MANN, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's a self-interest message too. That's a future speaker Hakeem Jeffries there at the microphone. Of course he is happy to see the trio of Democratic House leaders retaining their positions because they're all -- (INAUDIBLE) Hoyer is actually 80 now I think and he has now become the fourth ranking Democratic member of the leadership. And he is looking down the pike at the speakership.

And so it's in his interest to have them come back and then in 2021 or '23, he can step forward when they all or some of them at least retires.

[12:50:04] So, yes, he doesn't want to rock the boat too much. He doesn't want to offend Pelosi's allies and the caucus whose vote he's going to need here in couple of years for his bid. So there's definitely some kind of backstage imagination here.

KING: It's this one of these moments though where his ambition and other ambition, ambition mean --

CARL HULSE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Lying.

KING: Ambition means pragmatism.

MANN: Yes.

KING: In the sense that if you're Hakeem Jeffries or Marcia Fudge for that matter, Ohio congresswoman who briefly thought about challenging Pelosi. You start thinking about, I'm going to be at the -- do I have the experience and the gravitas to be at the table with Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump? Do I want to get chewed up and spit out in that environment or I want to give them a chance and do this in a more traditional, you know, transition approach?

HULSE: Great moment for him because he is now the first new face, you know, we've seen of the Democrats after the election. You know who the other three so he gets a moment to be out there by himself. He's really highly regarded and he's actually learned to do some legislating. He was part of the bipartisan deal on the prison reform bill there.

So, I think (INAUDIBLE) is right here, this is a guy who's moving up in the ranks. They needed to show somebody new, African-American from New York, I mean, making some moves.

KING: Even if you're out there viewing and you're not a fan of Nancy Pelosi and you think there needs to be change. You don't like her for whatever reason whether it's ideologically generation. She has proven how good of an organizer she is. She just walked out of this meeting with Steven Lynch, a congressman (INAUDIBLE), he's from South Boston, I'm from Georgia.

He is among those who said we need change. They just walked out side by side.

HENDERSON: Yes.

KING: They just walked out side by side. She's good at optics, she gets it. Steven Lynch saying, quote, I'm persuadable. He said the party has become too (INAUDIBLE) and he's looking for ways to make it appeal more to blue collar workers. I'm persuadable tells me you could translate that into I can do arithmetic and she's winning.

HENDERSON: Yes, she's winning and they didn't -- there's no alternative. And you saw over the last days people flipping, people who signed that letter esentially cutting a deal with Nancy Pelosi and saying they were going to back her. And you also saw people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, people like Ayanna Pressley, people of color, women who were really a part of why the Democrats were able to take over also come out and back her strongly and say she is a progressive. Why would we go with the Problem Solvers caucus or these 16 members who were actually don't represent the diversity of the caucus and also seem to be to the right on Nancy Pelosi?

KING: And to your point --

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And to your point (INAUDIBLE) and the great Capitol Hill reporters of Washington Post tweeting just moments ago, "Pelosi closed the deal with the Problem Solvers". That's that group that wants to make it easier to pass legislation and gives the leadership as much power over how a legislation moves through.

So Pelosi again, methodical in organizing identifying where the problems are and then working them. Sorry.

MANN: No, no. I was going to say I think that it's the old (INAUDIBLE) that you can't beat somebody with nobody. And I think if those freshmen had no alternative to Pelosi that wasn't progressive she may have been in more trouble but obviously nobody stepped forward.

I think that the drama is quickly draining out of this contest for House leadership. But one last thing for our New York viewers, this is going to be fascinating to watch. These two up and coming New Yorkers, Hakeem Jeffries and Ocasio-Cortez of Bronx and Queens. One sort of institutional inside player and the other play more of the outside game. Watch these two in the years ahead inside the House together. It's going to be fascinating to watch.

KING: (INAUDIBLE) new dynamics up on the Hill.

And next for us, Ivanka Trump put on the spot over her questionable use of a private e-mail accounts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:57:34] KING: Welcome back.

Ivanka Trump defending her use of a personal e-mail account for official government business. Ivanka Trump telling ABC News it is not in her view at all similar to Hillary Clinton's use of a private e- mail server. She also weighed in on immigration, her relationship with her father, the president, the Mueller probe which she says needs to wrap up soon.

Here's her take on the e-mails.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IVANKA TRUMP, ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: All of my e-mails are on the White House server. There is no intent to circum that. And there are (INAUDIBLE) after a subpoena was issued. My e-mails have not been deleted nor was there anything of substance, nothing confidential that was within them. So there's no connection between the two things.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So the idea of lock her up doesn't apply to you?

TRUMP: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: She says no connection between the two. There are important distinctions between the two. Number one, she's not secretary of state. Number two, she's right, she didn't have a private server in her home.

But Hillary Clinton's e-mails just like Ivanka Trump's e-mails sent from the private account to government officials are then captured in the government servers and that was part of the big Clinton defense. We have nothing to hide here. We have nothing to -- any government work went into a government computer, isn't that exactly what she's saying?

MANN: Well, also -- please go ahead.

HENDERSON: No, no, no. Yes, I think that's right. That's exactly what she's saying. The other question is didn't she know better, right? I mean, did you watch the 2016 campaign, it was all about Hillary Clinton e-mails and see what trouble that got. And you just decided to do the same thing, it just (INAUDIBLE).

COLLINS: And that was this fear when Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner came into the White House from the president not only his critics but even some of his allies who didn't want them there. Was that they would believe the rules didn't apply to them. And that seems to be the sense in the West Wing still by some people who don't like that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are there. But some people who do not have problems with them, they still feel this is -- just an unnecessary disaster.

The president railed against this during the campaign. It was something that could have easily been avoided. And they really brought this calls about hypocrisy on themselves. And you've heard that from people who used to work in the White House who said it publicly, the president allies who have said it publicly as well including Anthony Scaramucci. They just believed this was an unnecessary misstep by the White House.

HULSE: You could parse it all you want. Most of the public is not going to know the difference and they're going to think that she did basically the same thing.

KING: They're going to think that people in government think that as much as they talk about rules that rules don't apply to them. That's the optics, the spirit of it more than anything as (INAUDIBLE) right there.

Thanks for coming in today (INAUDIBLE) breaking news. Thank you for watching us today on the INSIDE POLITICS. Come back this time tomorrow.

Don't go anywhere. Brianna Keilar starts right now.

Have a great day.