Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Overruled Advisers on Camp David Meeting; Lawmakers Face Tough Fights; Congress Faces Battle over Gun Legislation; Judge Restores Asylum Limits. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired September 09, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Bound for Baltimore.

Natasha, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Updates to come on that.

And thank you all so much for joining me on this Monday. "INSIDE POLITICS" with John King starts right now.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your day with us.

President Trump abruptly canceled a planned peace summit with the Taliban, his idea to invite the al Qaeda allies to Camp David on the week of 9/11 caused a split in the administration and alarms key conservatives in Congress.

Plus, Congress is back from its summer break. Republicans want to know if the president is serious about new gun controls. Democrats trying to balance a family debate about whether to stick issues like guns and health care or move ahead with investigations and possible impeachment.

And remember Valerie Plame? The ex-spy is now running for Congress and putting her CIA driving lessons to use in this new campaign video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VALERIE PLAME: My service was cut short when my own government betrayed me. Now I'm running for Congress because we're going backwards on national security, health care and women's rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We begin the hour with the life and death fallout from the collapse of an eye-popping presidential idea, invite the Taliban to Camp David during 9/11 anniversary week in an effort to end America's longest war. President Trump himself revealed the abandoned plan late Saturday night on Twitter. It included bringing Afghanistan's president to Camp David, too, with the goal of putting a period on America's 18-year entanglement in Afghanistan. Today, the talks are dead and the top U.S. negotiator has been

recalled. A Taliban spokesman warns the abrupt end to these negotiations means more Americans will die.

Until that tweet Saturday night, only a few advisers knew of the president's plan and some, sources tell CNN, objected to this made for TV summitry. Among them, Vice President Mike Pence and the National Security Adviser John Bolton. The pair thought opening Camp David to Taliban terrorists was a bad idea. They also took a very dim view of the negotiations to that point and believing the Taliban had given to little, the U.S. too much. Pence and Bolton, we are told, also paid attention to the calendar and expressed deep reservations about the optics of inviting the group that gave al Qaeda safe haven to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11.

CNN national security reporter Kylie Atwood starts the conversation.

Kylie, a wow from the president revealing this, and now from your reporting and others here at CNN proof the president is getting a lot of conflicting advice here.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: That's right, John.

As you laid out there, there was some intense internal disagreement about this decision in the first place that President Trump made to invite leaders from the Taliban and leaders from the Afghan government Camp David. And as you said, it was National Security Adviser John Bolton and Vice President Pence who both told the president it wasn't a good idea. They said that there would be backlash on doing this during the week that commemorates the anniversary of 9/11.

But, sure enough, President Trump went ahead with the decision to call for this meeting. And then he went ahead with the decision to call it off. And yesterday we saw Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doing a round of interviews on the Sunday shows, defending the president, both his decision to host the meeting, saying that there had been discussions with the Taliban and the president thought that he could push forward those discussions. That's why he thought that it should still happen from Camp David.

But then Pompeo also defended President Trump when it came to calling off these talks and saying that the Taliban really had to recommit to what they had been discussing across from U.S. officials in Doha during these rounds of negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Now the question is, when do they get back to the table and what are the pre-conditions to get back to the table? Secretary Pompeo didn't lay that out specifically, and so, over the next week, we're going to have to see what happens. But one thing is certain, and that's that President Trump does want to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. So they are going to have to come to some sort of commitment to restart talks in the near future.

KING: We'll watch that, Kylie, in the days ahead. A lot of drama and a lot of questions.

Kylie Atwood, appreciate the reporting.

With me here at the table to share their reporting and their insights, CNN's Abby Phillip, Carl Hulse with "The New York Times, CNN diplomatic analyst, the retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, and Jackie Kucinich with "The Daily Beast."

Admiral Kirby, let me start with you.

There's the what, a, can you broker this deal, and, b, then there's the where and the when, Camp David, a treasured U.S. presidential retreat, 9/11 anniversary week.

You worked at the State Department and the Pentagon. The idea that this actually almost came to be is what?

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: A little stunning, to be honest with you. I mean it has all the feeling of something that was very rushed, not much of an interagency process or decision making done, very little diplomacy done on the front end. It almost feels a little like Hanoi, where the president was advised, we're not ready to go sit down with Kim Jong-un right now in Hanoi and he did it anyway. And kind of feel like he was just pushing this.

[12:05:12]

Clearly the conditions were not set and ready for there to be a meaningful negotiation between the Taliban and the Ghani government. And, John, that's the discussion that has to happen. Not between the U.S. and the Taliban, but between the Ghani government and the Taliban. And the Taliban won't even recognize a Ghani government right now.

KING: And so Kylie Atwood made the key point, now what? The U.S. envoy has been pulled back. So there are no negotiations. The Taliban says Americans will die because of that decision to end the negotiations and not sign a deal between the United States and the Taliban. The Taliban wanted a deal between Washington and them that excluded the Afghan government, which, as you note, is unworkable if you look at the situation on the ground.

So the questions is, and there's Secretary of State Pompeo. The president wants to bring those troops home. How many, how fast?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So 14,000 is where it stays for the foreseeable future?

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: I can't answer that question. Ultimately the president's decision.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, because it was in the deal that within 135 days it was going down to 8,600 and the president said that was happening.

POMPEO: We are absolutely intent upon insuring that we reduce the risk that we'll have more folks coming back through Dover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: In some ways, at least in the short term, it appears the way this collapsed increases the risk. Now you have an angry Taliban. Now you have an African government not knowing what's going on, not trusting the Trump administration and, for now, no negotiations.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. And, you know, the president seemed to express surprise that the Taliban would kill innocent people indiscriminately, but that is their mode of operation. And so a lot of people believe that this breakdown in talks could end up emboldening them on the ground, putting America and others in further danger.

But with President Trump, we kind of always find ourselves in this situation, and the question of when and how and if talks resume sometimes it -- in the same way that they were just ended on Twitter, they can be resumed in some ways just as quickly if President Trump decides that the conditions are right.

It seemed in some ways like his reasoning for calling off the talks was a little bit pre-textual. Perhaps that he realized the -- that the symbolism of doing it this week didn't work out, but the idea that suddenly the Taliban killing people is something new about the situation just does not seem right. And so, for that reason, it seems possible that he could decide in the future, you know, the time is right, I want to move forward with this and create an environment, just like with Kim Jong-un, when we were in Korea walking the DMZ line where he just does it, even when it, you know, it's not clear that there is going to be a clear outcome to come out of it.

KING: He just does it, you say.

The secretary of state trying to explain it on television. The vice president, we are told, thinking, bad idea. Both from a conservative, I don't trust the deal, and, b, how could you do this on the week of 9/11 at the presidential retreat, at Camp David?

The national security adviser, known to be a hawk on this issue, didn't want this deal.

To your point and to your point, this is Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, served in previous administrations at the State Department, saying the president, too, trusts himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD HAASS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: It shows the president's unlimited and totally misplaced confidence in summitry and in the own power -- the power of his own personality.

The Taliban are not a negotiating partner. The only thing you can negotiate is not peace is American withdrawal. Well, if that's what you want to do, fine, but let's not confuse it with peace. What we're simply doing is leaving and selling out our partners.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: There's every reason for any president, whatever his or her name is, to try to get out of Afghanistan. It is America's longest war. There are no good choices. So for all the Trump haters out there, talking with the Taliban is something you must do.

However, to Richard's point there, there's no good deal here. So the question is what?

CARL HULSE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, he -- but that's what the president wants, withdrawal. This is a big promise that he made to his base, I'm going to get out of these never-ending wars. So he's looking for a path to there. So it's different maybe from what others are looking for here.

I do think -- you mentioned Congress is back today. A lot more pushback from The Hill, I would expect, on this to come out as they -- as they meet here. We've already seen some. I mean to a lot of Republicans, this is just outrageous. And, surprisingly, some of them have been voicing that already.

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But, you know, you mentioned that other presidents have had to deal with this, too. President Trump, there's always a tweet for that, criticized President Obama for talking with the Taliban when he was president. I think it maybe was in 2014. So he's seeing firsthand how difficult this can be, how these negotiations are fraught, and you -- and he is seeing the bipartisan pushback he got for even attempting to, you know, stagecraft this on how he did.

KING: Right. To that point, Barack Obama, in 2008, ran as the anti-war candidate --

KUCINICH: Yes.

KING: Ran saying, I will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, left officers with troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, because the realities of that.

I want to end the conversation with you, admiral, because of your, you know, involvements in these issues in the past. What now?

[12:10:02]

KIRBY: Right, so what now is I think you've got to -- where are we going with the discussions and the negotiations? Are they really off or is there a way to get them started again? And to that point, including the Ghani government now, you have to do that.

Number two --

KING: The Taliban says they won't talk to the Ghani government.

KIRBY: Exactly.

KING: The Ghani government says the Taliban aren't ready to be a responsible partner.

KIRBY: Exactly. So that -- that --

KING: Right.

KIRBY: That's a huge uncertainty going forward.

Number two, to your issue on withdrawal, is it a complete withdrawal or are you going to leave a counterterrorism force, because if you do, then the war is not over in Afghanistan however much he might want to ballyhoo that.

And then, number three, and this is really important, John, there is an election coming up in Kabul. The -- and Ghani has a good chance of winning re-election. So you're going to be dealing with President Ghani going forward and he is a negotiating partner that you have to take seriously.

And I would like to see this administration put as much energy into figuring out how we're going to support a free and fair election in Afghanistan as they have in these -- these now more abundant (ph) talks.

KING: It's an important point. We'll watch. And, again, the threat of Taliban violence also makes you worried about this as we go forward.

KIRBY: Absolutely.

KING: We'll keep an eye on it.

Up next, Congress back in action, as Carl noted. On the to-do list or the debate list, isn't light, but will lawmakers stay focused on the agenda?

If you have a question for today's political -- any -- about any of today's political stories for anyone here at the table, tweet us using the #insidepolitics. We'll try to answer your questions at top -- the end of the show.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:49]

KING: There's plenty of urgency and uncertainty in both parties and in both chambers as Congress returns today from its long summer break. The to-do or debate doing list is long and consequential. Gun legislation tops the will they or won't they act list after four mass shootings happened during the summer recess.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on a budget deal. Twenty-one days left, only 21 days, until the government would shut down. On trade, many lawmakers, including some House Democrats, getting impatient to ratify the USMCA. And amid all of this, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says Democrats are pushing forward on at least three investigations involving the president.

CNN's Manu Raju joins us now live from Capitol Hill.

Manu, more about those investigations coming into your reporting today and a big vote this week on a possible impeachment inquiry.

Fill us in.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday will vote to essentially formalize its process and hearings and its investigations, saying that what they are doing is essentially an impeachment investigation.

What this resolution does is essentially set the ground rules for how these hearings will be carried out, things like staff attorneys on the committee can question witnesses, something that typically is not done. It's going to be similar to the way that what happened in 1974 when the House Judiciary Committee adopted its rules dealing with the Nixon impeachment proceedings.

Now, I'm told that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has resisted moving forward on formal impeachment proceedings, she actually supports this resolution that the House Judicial Committee will adopt.

And, John, I just spoke to some Democratic aides on the House Judiciary Committee who say that is 100 percent correct to say what the committee is doing right now is an impeachment investigation. This comes as more than half of House Democrats have formally supported moving forward. The House -- with the formal impeachment inquiry. And the Democrats on that same committee, John, plan to make a decision about whether to formally recommend articles of impeachment by the end of the year. That is their goal, but that could be complicated by the court fights that are tied up, including trying to get former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. That issue also being wrapped up.

But, John, one reason why, of course, the speaker has not been fully on board with moving forward with impeachment proceedings, she does not want to overshadow the legislative debate, including what they're going to want to be talking about this afternoon, movement on guns, which is what the speaker's message is going to be today, even as a lot of Democrats are saying it's time to impeach.

John.

KING: Manu Raju live on The Hill. That's just the Democratic pressure. There are obviously questions in the Republican Senate and a lot of questions about what the president wants and can get out of this.

But let me start, Matt Viser with "The Boston Globe" joins our conversation. "Washington Post," I'm sorry Matt. I tried to give you back -- tried to give you back to your former employer there. Sorry about that. The question for Democrats here is, you know, you're going to keep

encouraging -- now you're calling it an impeachment investigation. It's not impeachment. There are no articles of impeachment for the House of Representatives. But if you keep saying, our base wants this, we believe there's legitimate areas of inquiry. At what point do you reach the, we're all in or we pull back as we head into an election year?

MATT VISER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": And these next couple months are sort of crucial for that and crucial for the legislative agenda as well as that question. And it is sort of a tap dance that Nancy Pelosi has done, somewhat effectively so far, but this sort of next phase sort of changes that, where it is difficult, if you're going to go all in, to go toward impeachment, to increase their investigative powers or not.

And President Trump keeps giving them more ammunition. They've also turned toward investigating him and his properties, as we saw the vice president saying in Doonberry (ph). So I think there's other elements that they want to dig into that this question looming sort of makes it hard to keep sort of pouring on.

KING: And underestimate the speaker at your peril, but is there a point where she cannot control this? She wants to say, keep investigating, keep investigating. She doesn't think impeachment is a winner for the Democrats in the area of public opinion heading into the election.

HULSE: (INAUDIBLE).

KING: How can -- but is it going to hit a point where she can't stop it?

HULSE: Well, about that report that I'd say, vote on committee ground rules is a lot different than a vote in the House to begin an impeachment inquiry. So, to me, the Democrats are trying to look and posture like they're having an impeachment inquiry without having a formal impeachment inquiry, which they know and Speaker Pelosi doesn't want to do.

I do think that as they go through the next few months here, they're going to have to figure it out. It just -- the leadership attitude has been, it's going to be really hard to move forward in a presidential election year on impeachment.

[12:20:04]

They look pretty good right now in holding onto the House and things are shaping up for them. I don't think they want to blow that.

However, I will say, you know, if it turned out the errant forecast was a crime about Alabama, so maybe they can add that to the list of things they're investigating. There is some kind of criminal statue on that.

KUCINICH: Well, and this is without knowing the top of the ticket yet, because that will even bring an additional pressure if you have a top of the Democratic ticket going after it, who is running against Donald Trump, who is supporting impeachment. What do you do then when you actual have a functional leader of the party?

We don't know that yet and we don't know who is going to be there, but that's something that you know Nancy Pelosi has to be preparing for.

PHILLIP: Yes. Well, one thing I do think you're starting to see among the Democrats who are running against Trump is that the environment of the last couple of days with the stories about the Air Force stopping the plane near his resort in Scotland, about the vice president staying at his resort in Ireland, about, you know, all of these stories are creating an environment where Democrats are starting to talk more and more about corruption.

I was in New Hampshire this weekend. Several candidates brought up both of those stories. And it was kind of a big hit, particularly among Democrats. So there is this fine line between sort of illuminating some of these stories that, frankly, the Trump camp is worried about, and going full force into an impeachment inquiry. If you -- if you thread that line carefully, it could be beneficial to Democrats. And it's clear, based on the president's tweets this morning, he's a little bit worried about some of these stories. He's been disavowing them all morning.

KING: And the question for Democrats is, do you want to air it out on the campaign trail and let voters be the jury, or do you move ahead with some sort of more formal inquiry? I think you're right. I think they're trying to thread the needle right now and pretend they're doing it or show that they're doing parts of it but not get all the way there.

HULSE: And some of that is in response to their base.

KING: Yes. Right.

HULSE: Their base wants and some of these people are facing primaries now. They have to be for impeachment, but that doesn't mean that the party leadership really wants to go ahead.

KING: And so the -- so then the question is now, you had four more shootings during the Congressional recess. Democrats, including leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, sending a letter to the president, your urgent, personal intervention is needed. You now have an historic opportunity to save lives simply by indicating your support for H.R. 8, the House-passed universal bipartisan background check legislation. We believe -- this is to the president -- you have a unique opportunity to save American lives by giving political cover to your fellow Republicans.

The president is not going to endorse the House passed bill because it goes beyond where Republicans want. But there is talk, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate says if the president is clear, if he is specific and if he is consistent, I will do something like background checks or something like red flag laws. Will we get that as Congress comes back, pressure is on the president to say, what will you do? Or nothing.

VISER: It's interesting that the president looks -- sort of looks at Congress and Congress is looking at the president, you know, for leadership on this.

KING: Right.

VISER: But it is kind of interesting. So much of these issues today are breaking down into partisan lines. Background checks and red flag laws have 80 percent support. I mean those have not really moved in partisan ways that you typically have on divisive issues. And so there does seem to be, you know, at least in the public, sort of an effort and eagerness to address the issue. And, again, as you -- as you have a couple of months before things turn toward 2020 completely, there's a chance to sort of do something and look at suburban voters in particular from both parties.

KING: To that point --

KUCINICH: And you're seeing that with --

KING: Let me just jump in, as you jump in. To that point about suburban voters, "Washington Post"/ABC News poll, who do you trust more to handle gun laws? Look at the numbers among women. Democrats in Congress, 59 percent of women trust the Democrats in Congress more. Men are more split on the issue.

If you're the president and you're trying to rebuild your shattered support among suburban women, here's an opportunity. But, on the flip side, his own advisers tell him, yes, globally, as Matt notes, background checks test off the charts. They're worried it would demoralize his base, back to the question, both parties thick about the base.

KUCINICH: And that is the question for the president. But to your point about the support for background checks and for other measures, look what -- look what you're already seeing in business. Look what Walmart did. And you're seeing -- and you saw it reflected in other businesses saying, you know, if -- we're -- this is an open carry state. Please don't open carry in our stores. You're seeing American business take -- take the ball where you're not seeing Congress do it. And, you know, perhaps that's where we'll see more movement before the end of the year.

KING: That's a great point. And do lawmakers come back -- Mitch McConnell is watching the president. How many of his members come back and say, we've got to try to do something. We will see. Or maybe not. We'll see. That's the question.

Up next, the new plan that Kamala Harris hopes will ease progressive voters' minds about her background as a prosecutor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:29:13] KING: Want to get to an important story developing this hour. A judge putting up a big roadblock to a big part of President Trump's immigration agenda. A federal judge in California restoring a nationwide injunction on the administration's attempt to dramatically limit who can apply for asylum.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is here in Washington.

Jessica, take us inside this decision.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, this is just the latest in what has been a back and forth over the Trump administration's immigration policies all summer long.

So this nationwide injunction is back in place after what was really a short-lived victory period for the Trump administration. And it all involves an asylum policy that was issued just a few months ago.

So this is a policy that would ban immigrants from Central American countries, for example, who have traveled through Mexico. It would ban them from claiming asylum here in the United States, saying that they should have done it in Mexico or another third safe country along the way.

[12:30:04]

So, in July, the Ninth Circuit actually said that it could go partially into effect.