Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Sen. Collins Working to Allow Trial Witnesses; Iranian Regime Responds to Protests with Crackdown; New Doubts Over Intel that Prompted Iran Strike; Trump Tweets and Re-tweets Iran Falsehoods, Disturbing Images; Bloomberg Calls for Private Voting Calendar Change. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired January 13, 2020 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: -- she says she wants witnesses and she wants an agreement for witnesses in the initial Senate resolution which is counter to her leader.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I am working with a group of Republican senators and our leaders to see if we can come to an agreement on some language that would be in the initial resolution setting out the parameters of the trial in the Senate that would include an opportunity for the House to call witnesses and the president's counsel to also call witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Leader McConnell, who runs a pretty tight ship, has said, let's have a trial and we'll have questions from senators, and then, and only then, like they did in the Clinton impeachment trial, will they decide whether to have witnesses. Susan Collins saying she wants the agreement in the initial resolution. Can she get four or five Republican colleagues to force it or is that just talk to try to convince the voters back home? I tried.

OLIVIER KNOX, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, SIRIUSXM: I think it's a toss-up. I think Collins is more likely to prevail in this early phase because of the Clinton precedent. You know, 24 hours of argument for the House managers spread over three days, 24 hours of defense from the Clinton White House, spread over three days, a period of questions. The really fun part for the senators who were running for president is that they can actually ask the questions. They have to write them down.

And then, in 1999, it was Congressman Ed Bryant who said it was time for witnesses and he was abetted by Sensenbrenner and then they took that up. So -- and then they argued about the rules for that. So, I think that's probably -- McConnell is more likely to prevail just because we have a precedent.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And what Susan Collins left said in that brief interview is the words I will not vote for this unless I get what I want. And she had already agreed earlier in the week once McConnell announced that he had the votes that she was fine with the strategy. So I'm not quite sure how much leverage she has here, we're going to be definitely asking her later today what she's up to.

KING: And she's also criticized Chuck Schumer saying he's politicizing the process. So she's giving her leeway to say, all right, can't get what I want out of the box. We'll come back to this later. We'll watch as several important decisions to be made in the days ahead.

Up next, big protest in Iran.

And a big Trump administration disconnect over intelligence.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:36:37]

KING: To the Iran crisis now beginning with another day of mass protests. Protests were again overwhelming the streets, Monday, some chanting clerics get lost. A major focus of their anger is the regime's acknowledgment after an initial denial that the Iranian military did shoot down that Ukrainian passenger jet.

CNN Senior International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson is live for us in Abu Dhabi. Nic, the regime is greeting these protests with at least in some places a violent crackdown, right?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It is. The protests are spreading across the country to the north, to the west of the country, perhaps, more than a dozen cities right now. Gunshots have been fired, people in the crowd have been hit by live rounds of ammunition. Bandages have been called for. People have been seen bleeding on the streets.

The regime is saying, hold on, we're not firing live rounds, we're only firing tear gas. The images and the shouts and screams of the people involved in this protest, I think, tell an entirely different story. People are angry that the leadership didn't ground civilian jets and save the potential loss of life as happened. And people are also very skeptical about what they're hearing for the leadership.

The leadership is saying that they're sorry, it was an accident. One military commander said that in fact, that was the worst day of his life and he wished he'd been on the plane. But all of this sort of contrition from the leadership isn't what's playing out on the streets. Iran's regime is putting down these protests like they put down protests in the past, and they seem to be getting bloodier. We know this evening there are a large number of riot police out on the streets in Tehran, John.

KING: Nic Robertson in Abu Dhabi, appreciate your help as we keep an eye on this and track this.

This protest carrying huge global significance so does the administration's evolving answer about why it struck to take out that Iranian general. Thursday morning, the president said Qassem Soleimani was planning an imminent attack on the U.S. embassy, an American embassy. Thursday night, embassy, singular, became embassies, plural. Friday, the president's put the number of embassies under imminent threat at four.

All that, the president says based on intelligence presented to him. The president tweeting this morning, my team was in agreement on the Intel. But Sunday, listen here, the president's defense secretary saying the intelligence showed no such thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, DEFENSE SECRETARY: He didn't cite a specific piece of evidence, what he said is he probably, he believed --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying there wasn't one?

ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So it's a major moment of global significance. You would think the administration would get its story together. The defense secretary saying, I believe there would have been embassy attacks, but he never saw it. Never saw it specifically in the intelligence. Why?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well -- and it was really stunning to see Esper repeatedly frame, essentially saying, well, the president wasn't citing intelligence when he made that claim. That was their best defense of the president saying that there were these four embassies targeted. And that was not the message you saw O'Brien, the national security adviser, saying. He actually was alluding to those four embassies. So you're getting two mixed messages on the same day from two of the president's top national security aides.

Now, whether it was imminent is not just a word, it actually plays into the factor of who they were supposed to notified beforehand, the authority that they had to do this without Congress. And Pompeo was the first person to say this was an imminent attack. He said it the day after the strike, the president echoed it later in that day. And now the president is saying, yes, it was imminent but it didn't matter even if was it because he was a bad guy.

[12:40:04]

So you can give credits to people not just critics of this administration, other people, allies of the president at times who are raising questions saying why has this been all over the place? Why are we getting these shifting explanations over the last 10 or 11 days?

KING: And they pushed back and they get prickly when you ask them to clear all these up. They say, no, we don't have to clear all these up. There's a responsibility of any democratic government to try to clear up as much as you can. I understand some of this is sensitive, classified sources and methods. Listen here to your point about the national security adviser using -- early in this now by one of the president's favorite words to say, we did this because we had proof.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT O'BRIEN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We had exquisite intelligence, and the intelligence showed that they were looking at U.S. facilities throughout the region and that they wanted to inflict casualties on American soldiers, sailors and marines as well as diplomats. The threat was imminent, I saw the intelligence. I'd love to have the intelligence out there.

Now, unfortunately, if we declassify, we could end up losing that stream of intelligence that will allow us to protect Americans going forward and so we can't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: They can't but they can in the sense that no one is asking them to give up sources and methods. There is a way to distill intelligence to be specific about potential targets or likely targets and to make that distinction. I think we -- you know, we have information on a meeting in which they mentioned the possibility. They could -- you know, we don't know the answers but they could be more specific without burning sources and methods.

KNOX: Yes, they could. I mean, there is a universe in which if you say well, they're planning to attack this embassy with this kind of weapon, I think you're giving the other side of information. Because as you know, a tight -- a small universe of people who would know about a certain scheme.

It's also it's pretty clear -- I mean, Soleimani was clearly a bad actor who was targeting Americans. That's not in question. They've been more or less consistent on the idea that there was a range of targets throughout the region, but the timing has gone all over the place. We had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying we don't know exactly who, what, where or when.

It's been a rollercoaster ride to figure out exactly why they took this action unless you just fall back on the fact that he was in their sights and they decided to take him out.

KING: And you see the president wants other world -- other nations to back away from the Iran nuclear deal, and you see France and Russia putting out -- I'm going to read a call between Macron and Putin today saying, no, their view is they'd like to stay right there. So one of the issues when you have a credibility crisis or credibility problems, it is hard to get other people to do what you want them to do. That is a legitimate connection there.

Before we go to break, some sad news. The Pentagon identifying today two paratroopers killed in a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Ian Paul McLaughlin and Private First Class Miguel Villalon were killed Saturday in Kandahar province when their convoy hit an IED. The Taliban claiming

responsibility for that attack.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:47:24]

KING: We all know from much experience the president's Twitter feed doubles as a window into his daily mindset. This morning, for starters, the president is lying to you, claiming that Speaker Pelosi and Democratic lawmakers are mourning or defending as he says today trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy. No Democrats are trying to do that.

He's also relying on brutal and propaganda imagery to make his point. We're not going to show you the images tweeted or re-tweeted by the president today, but among the president's re-tweets, a photoshopped image of Speaker Pelosi wearing a hijab and Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, wearing a turban. Separately, he re-tweeted an image of a mutilated corpse implying Speaker Pelosi somehow supported the violence depicted that picture.

I've asked this question many times and so I'm the idiot. Why?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who wants to tackle that one?

KING: There are many ways to make your point than to argue policy with those you oppose. He believes -- this is a re-election year, there's plenty of history and facts and data and focus groups and polling that shows this type of behavior is what hurt his party in the 2018 midterms, especially the suburban -- I call it revolt, it's actually a revolution, a repudiation of Trump in suburban America. He thinks with him on top of the ballot, it's all going to be different and this OK?

COLLINS: But, when it comes to Iran the way the president views things is through the lens of media coverage. So when he sees, after the strike on Soleimani which his officials have promised him is going to get him praise, it's going to be a universally well-liked thing, the president instead sees this and his reaction to it is not -- when they're questioning the timing and who he -- who approved this and who he informed beforehand, he doesn't see those as separate. He thinks that they are criticizing him for killing Soleimani which is obviously not what is being done. Democrats and lawmakers are raising questions about why weren't -- why wasn't Congress informed ahead of him, why didn't you come to Congress for approval on this. Those are the questions but the president in his mind cannot separate the two.

He says privately, publicly, clearly that he's being criticized for going after this terrorist which he is not by anyone, I don't think. I don't think anyone is saying that Soleimani shouldn't have been killed, that he wasn't a bad actor, as you're reporting out early.

KING: But there are some Democrats who have said or questioned, either said they believed it makes America less safe by escalating the confrontation in the Middle East. Some who have raised the question that could it make Americans less unsafe. That's a debate the president can engage in if he wants to engage in. But you do not have to re-tweet mutilated corpses or a photoshopped picture of the speaker and the Democratic leader of the United States Senate in a way that's offensive to them and I would assume offensive to Muslims or Iranians or anyone around the world.

[12:50:07]

KNOX: You also don't have to get into a very public back and forth, angry back and forth with a gold star family. You don't have to go on a campaign rally stage and mock a New York Times reporter's disability. You don't have to attack journalists both individually and as a class.

This is -- there's more continuity here than there is a break. I mean, sometimes when I see these tweets (INAUDIBLE) joke, whose House did the FBI raid today? But, the point of fact, it's actually -- if you look across his presidency, if you look across his campaign, this is how he talks, this is how he communicates. And one of the things that people don't like about it is the way it injects a lot of uncertainty, a lot of chaos, and a lot of like, well, this is supposed to be an island of control, an expression of our collective will, and instead it's sowing uncertainty, doubts, and anger.

The other continuity is, we've seen this from not just him but other Republicans in the aftermath of the Soleimani strike. So, he's reflecting very much the mood.

KING: And the Democratic leader -- I'm sorry, just to jump in, the response we have from Senator Chuck Schumer who, again, we told you the president re-tweeted a posting in which Senator Schumer was in a turban, he said -- he quotes two questions. "President Trump, how low can you go?" "Republicans, how long can you cover up for and defend the president's actions?"

KIM: And the other thing that you've seen from his tweets over and over is that whatever falsehood he's spreading he does not ever let up on them. And I think another one that we saw this morning or whenever it was, was his insistence that he will be the person who protects pre-existing conditions when he was responding to Mayor Bloomberg, his attack on him over healthcare. We've seen that over and over that the president has said -- vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He obviously felt to do so in 2017. And when he has vowed to be the party of protecting pre-existing conditions, that just has not been true.

KING: All right, sometimes we think we shouldn't talk about it but other times we realized we need to talk about it. He's the president of the United States, it's important.

Up next, our 2020 lightning round as we go to break. Happy birthday to the Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Gets right to the point on Twitter. No gifts, just cash.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:56:41]

KING: All right let's end, a little quick 2020 lightning round including a little about-face quickly from New York -- former New York Mayor Bloomberg who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. This is what he says on cnn.com in an op-ed today criticizing the role of the early states.

"The two first voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire are among the most homogeneous in the nation." I didn't say that right. "While it's great that the candidates reach out to voters in these states" -- homogenous, I can't say it, I just didn't read it right. "In these states at every pancake breakfast and town hall, what about African- American, Latino, and Asian-American, Pacific islanders, and other voters in places like Detroit, Montgomery, Phoenix, and Houston?"

Making the case, you know, Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white, why don't we have it more of a mixed. That was today. Last week, I love them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

The system has gotten used to it, and I guess the Democratic Party probably shouldn't take it away. You know, I campaigned in all four of those states before I decided not to. And I can only tell you I thought a cross-section of society, they were smart, they asked the right questions, they're politically astute, and I thought to myself, you know, this is a pretty good system for those four states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TARINI PARTI, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: So, I was with Michael Bloomberg in Ohio when he said that, and it was jarring even then because his campaign manager just a few hours ago had talked to reporters and said the exact opposite. So now they're pushing out this op-ed that reflects what the campaign has been saying, that they don't think the first four states reflect the diversity of the country. But the thing they're consistent on is the fact they think it's up to the Democratic Party to change the rules and obviously not up to them. So, they have been consistent they say on that front.

KING: OK.

PARTI: The parties should change the rules.

KNOX: Oh he can't embrace the wealth tax, right so he's got to signal his sort of progressive bonafide ones in some other way and he's doing it via the suggestion of conversation about the order of the primaries.

KING: He is one of the candidates who was banking on, you know, a Biden collapse or (INAUDIBLE) of the first four states. I don't think what it is. He's spending very heavily on TV ads in the later states hoping that after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, there's some kind of an opening. We'll see. We'll see. I rule nothing out in today's world.

Another late entry into the race is Deval Patrick who now finds himself as the only African-American in the Democratic race. He has a new ad in New Hampshire, he just raised a little bit of money. Here's the ad first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEVAL PATRICK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I led the civil rights division in the U.S. Department of Justice, worked to make businesses more fair and socially responsible, and delivered first in the nation results as the only Democratic elected governor of Massachusetts in 30 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That will run Tuesday night in New Hampshire, obviously, the night of the Iowa debate. Again, in the school of rule nothing out, is there going to be some opening for Deval Patrick or did he get in too late? I can't figure this one out.

KIM: It is a question why he didn't get in much earlier because he does have a stellar resume. He has something to run on. And it's also -- I mean, we've seen with candidates like, again, Booker, if you can't make it to the debate stage, you've left so much out of the national conversation that I don't know running with one, you know, ad would do to grab voters' attention. Maybe he does make some traction in New Hampshire, he does come from a neighboring state, but, again, all of the focus is going to be on those, you know, half dozen candidates who get that national exposure tomorrow night and in subsequent nights.

KING: The last few years have been so up and down. I just -- I'm going to enter a spelling bee. I hope I get homogeneous.

Thanks for joining us in the INSIDE POLITICS. See you back here this time tomorrow. Brianna Keilar starts right now. Have a great day.

[13:00:00]