Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Pentagon Gives Update On Investigation Into August Bombing That Killed 13 U.S. Servicemembers Outside Kabul Airport; Dem's 2022 Challenges; COVID Fatigue, Inflation, Crime; Jan. 6 Committee Had "Significant Discussion" On Whether To Subpoena GOP Lawmakers Refusing To Cooperative With Probe. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired February 04, 2022 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:31:08]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Important live event just moments ahead. You see right there live pictures from the Pentagon. The Pentagon is about to reveal the findings of a month long investigation into what went wrong at Kabul airport's Abbey Gate. Remember back in August, the suicide bomber killed 13 American servicemembers and scores of Afghan civilians. We're going to bring you that briefing as soon as they get to the substance of it in just a moment.

Let's listen right here, General Frank McKenzie, Central Commander.

GEN. KENNETH MCKENZIE JR., COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: -- everybody. We're with you today to brief the results of the investigation that I directed into the ISIS-K bombing at Abbey Gate in Hamid Karzai International Airport that occurred on 26th August 2021. The cause of the deaths of 11 Marines, one soldier and one sailor.

We have completed our solemn duty of informing surviving family members about the results of the investigation. And we're now providing it to the public in order to better inform you of the facts surrounding this tragic loss of life. All the majority of this detail brief will be conducted in person by the investigating team who searched for the facts and interviewed more than 100 people. I wanted to take a moment at the beginning to provide my thoughts on the investigation and what the team determined.

This brief will provide great context on the situation in Abbey Gate leading up to and during the attack as well as the aftermath. I found the results of the team's work comprehensive, credible and definitive. I found the brief you're about to receive to be powerful and moving.

The volume of evidence collected, the testimony of more than 100 people, the analysis of experts, the findings of fact and the conclusions of the team based upon that evidence, gives a compelling and truthful examination of the event. The investigation found that a single explosive device killed at least 170 Afghan civilians and 13 U.S. servicemembers by explosively directing ball bearings through a packed crowd and into our men and women at Abbey Gate. The disturbing lethality of this device was confirmed by the 58 U.S. service members who were killed and wounded despite the universal wear of body armor and helmets that did stop ball bearings that impacted them, but could not prevent catastrophic injuries to areas not covered. The investigation found no definitive proof that anyone was ever hit or killed by gunfire, either U.S. or Afghan.

This conclusion was based upon the careful consideration of sworn testimony of more than 100 witnesses, and especially those witnesses in observation towers, both American and British, who were in locations unaffected by the blast, and that had commanding views of the scene before, during and after the explosive attack.

This conclusion was also confirmed by the findings and analysis of medical examiner's and explosive experts, a review of all available physical evidence and a review of all available video evidence including an MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle, which began observing the scene about three minutes after the attack.

At this point, I want to acknowledge that the investigation differs from what we initially believed on the day of the attack. At the time, the best information we had in the immediate aftermath of the attack indicated that it was a complex attack by both a suicide bomber and ISIS-K gunman. We now know that the explosively fired ball bearings cause wounds that looked like gunshots and when combined with a small number of warning shots, that led many to assume that a complex attack had occurred.

The fact that this investigation has contradicted our first impression demonstrates to me that the team would enter this investigation with an open mind and search for the truth. It also confirms the age old fact that the battlefield is accused -- is a confusing and contradictory place and it gets more confusing the closer you are to the actual action. That is why I order the investigation to find the truth.

[12:35:03]

Our commitment to transparency has now led us to provide you our best information, information derived from a thorough and comprehensive investigation. The investigation found that military leadership on the ground was appropriately engaged on force protection measures throughout the operation of Abbey Gate. And that the medical services that were available, and that were ready saved every life they possibly could through heroic efforts.

This was a terrible attack that resulted in tragic outcomes and a horrific loss of life, both Afghan and American. My hope is that by the time this brief is over, you will have a clearer picture of the situation and of the attack. While nothing can bring back the 11 marines, the soldier and the sailor that we tragically lost in this attack, it's important that we fully understand what happened. Their sacrifice demands nothing less.

With that, I'll now turn it over to the investigative team to provide you an extensive brief and following that brief, they will be prepared to take your questions. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Lieutenant General Ron Clark, the Army Forces Central Command Component Commander. Thank you very much.

KING: You've been listening to General Frank McKenzie, he is the commander of Central Command in Tampa, Florida, giving his report, the headlines of the report analyzing what happened in Afghanistan at Abbey Gate, Kabul Airport. You remember back in August.

Let's get some perspective now. Retired General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander is with us. General Clark, obviously, important for the military go back and look at a horrendous day like this. As you listen to General McKenzie, one of the major takeaways for me was he said, look, we're reversing what we thought initially on that day. We thought there was ISIS gunfire as well.

He says the analysis now looks at this as just an extraordinarily powerful and deadly explosive vest with ball bearings. What else did you hear that you find of significance?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well, I think it's, first of all, it's very significant that General McKenzie himself did the briefing for us, and laid this out. I think it's a real testament to the quality of the men and women in uniform and our ethics and the way we handle ourselves in the military, that we've done this full investigation of this. Obviously, it was important to the members of the family. They've already been informed of this.

And tragically, as he said, despite the fact that people were in hell much they had the body armor that was appropriate. They believe -- they didn't -- it couldn't cover every part of the body and prevent these people from our soldiers from dying in this. So, no, there'll be lessons taken from this, obviously.

And what it shows is that the command was fully engaged. The right rules and procedures were followed. The right measures for protection of the forces were in place. People were alert and observing the scene in addition from other places. So there was no lapse here on the military.

This is one of those terrible things that happen. But we know now how powerful and explosive device like that can be. We got a real look how we provide protection for our soldiers.

KING: That's a critical point about it. You learn these new devices developed by forces of terror. 13 marines, 170 Afghan civilians killed by an explosive vest in the ball bearings it protected. General Clark, grateful for your perspective on this important issue.

We'll continue to follow the briefing at the Pentagon as well. If there's any additional information, important information, we will bring it to you.

Take a quick break. We'll be right back with more on the midterm election climate and the President's biggest challenge.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:43:09]

KING: This is a good day for the President. The government today releasing a surprisingly strong report on the strength of jobs creation in the American economy. It would be a better day though for the President in this tough midterm election climate if more of you would agree with his take that the American economy now is in the middle of a historic comeback.

Now Election Day is 277 days down the road. So we will be careful. You should too. Do not overplay one day or do not overplay one great jobs report. But it is still a good day for a president in the White House who have had their share of not so good days.

Amy Walter is here with us. She's the publisher, editor in chief of the Cook Political Report. Amy, I'm going to get to the details of your call in this week in a minute, which is full of fabulous football metaphors. So let's stick with that. The President gets a jobs report. Great month in January, strong revisions for November and December, at least in terms of job creation.

Now the economy does seem to have a wind at his back. But, but here's my football, first football metaphor. The President needs this to be a long, sustained drive. Because in a midterm election year, his approval rating is the North Star and he's underwater right now. The President underwater, 55 percent disapprove, 42 percent of proof.

And if you look at the economy, yes, the unemployment rate is low. He had gangbusters job creation the last couple months. But he's still -- and he talked about this candidly today, inflation and food prices, inflation and the price of gas. He needs this to be not just a day, but a week in a month and more, right?

AMY WALTER, PUBLISHER & EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: That's absolutely right. And when I listen to voters, this is what I hear more than anything else is, you know what? It's great that I maybe got a raise or a new job, but it's not covering my day-to-day costs. So I'm noticing things are going up at the grocery store, in the gas tank.

And whatever gains that I've gotten, whether it's through the stimulus check or whether it's through, you know, whatever my employer has done to raise my pay, it's not keeping up.

[12:45:02]

And then there's the bigger frustration, John, and that's just with the way that they believe the President has been handling just a series of crises, everything from COVID, to the economy, to Afghanistan. So they've lost a lot of faith in his ability to get these things done. And finally, what they've been seeing in Washington for the last few months is Democrats fighting amongst themselves on a number of things, including the voting rights legislation. To them, they see that as not as big of a priority as the economy and getting cost down. KING: Right. And that's -- you're right. So smartly about is the disconnect often between the daily lives, the American people, and what they see in here in Washington. Not their voting rights is not important. Not that the Democrats, you know, don't want to push their agenda forward. But it does not connect to people out in the country, especially when they are living through this, which is a COVID pandemic, which again, the trend line for the President now starting to come down 357,000 new cases yesterday.

The question is, can you sustain it, right? Is there another variant out there or does it keep coming. But the other key point you make, the key point you make in your column this week is number one, in a midterm election year, the President is the North Star, his approval rating is the North Star. It's a referendum in that first midterm on the President.

But, but there's the other side, and you smartly write in your column. First, I just want to show a Senate map. These are the 34 Senate seats up this year, and you focus on these races. 14 currently held by Democrats, Republicans hold 20 of them. Again, should be a good year for Republicans, but you talk about the possibility.

Let me read your words, "Like any team holding the ball in the red zone, the biggest threat to the GOP right now is a fumble or a turnover." And you go on to say, "One of the easiest ways to turn over the ball is by overreaching or to torture this football analogy a bit more by trying some fancy trick play instead of just running the ball two yards into the end zone."

And you smartly lay out number one, the potential of fighting too hard or fighting with the wrong words when the President needs a black woman to the Supreme Court. You talk about these primary battles where you have candidates trying to out Trump themselves back to those focus groups she watched so closely. Republicans run a risk of getting outside of what people want to talk about too, right?

WALTER: That's right. And so, look, they are sitting right there, as I said, tortured football metaphor so close to the end zone. But a fumble is realistic, especially if you do get overconfident, right, and you try to say push the envelope too far. Spent too much time talking to your base and having a really hard time pivoting back to where voters are.

Yes, they are frustrated. Yes, they believed that they were maybe going to get a return to normal with the new administration. It hasn't come in the way or as quickly as they had expected. But that doesn't mean they want to go back to what we had for the previous four years, which for them was a lot of chaos, was a lot of instability. They're desperate for some sense of, you know, tamping down, calming down normalcy.

KING: Right. And especially, I want to come back to the Senate map here, especially if you're the Republicans, you're thinking you have the wind at your back.

WALTER: Right. KING: You have historical trends at your back. And then if you do see improving economic numbers, you do see the President perhaps having a good week announcing a successful strike against the terrorist leader. If you're the Republicans, you want normal, right? You want to stay -- you want to keep this normal.

When you look at this Senate map, there's this tension right now. Some of the Republicans who might want to be Trumpy or be thinking about running for president, they are going to make a stink no matter who the president nominates to the Supreme Court. Where you see the leadership saying, you know, maybe if the President sends up somebody who's qualified, we should just let this go, let this run its course, do not let it get in our way.

WALTER: Right. Right. There's no better way to help motivate the other side than to pick a fight and to, you know, make it look as if you are just needlessly or attacking somebody who looks qualified. Look, we saw this, obviously, Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

Yes, Democrats certainly motivated their base with those hearings. But their base didn't need to be motivated. They're already primed up and ready to go, turn out and vote in 2018. It was Republicans who were most motivated by those hearings. They thought that Democrats were overstretching, were overreaching, were attacking Brett Kavanaugh personally.

We saw the hearings for Clarence Thomas, with Anita Hill. So, there are plenty of examples where that kind of approach has gone to backfire. And look, those members who sit on Judiciary Committee, they are positioning themselves, many of them for 2024 run. They need to keep their own donors and their own base motivated.

But for the folks who are running for the Senate, and remember, John, I know you talk about this all the time, but this Senate map, not only is it better for Democrats this year, but it's one of the best maps that any party has had going into the midterm year because Democrats aren't defending any red states. They don't have to defend any state that Donald Trump won.

[12:50:02]

So this then, you know, you don't want to give if you're the Republicans any opportunity for Democrats to get their base fired up and motivated, get their donors fired up and motivated especially as you get closer and closer to the election.

KING: Which is why we will continue this conversation, continues to use this map and I will never get tired. You're not torturing football metaphors. Football metaphors are fine and damming (ph).

Amy Walter, grateful for your time today.

Up next for us, the January 6 committee making big progress but now faces a giant crossroads. Will it subpoena Republican House colleagues who are refusing to cooperate?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:55:17]

KING: The committee investigating the January 6 insurrection now deliberating what to do with lawmakers who refuse to cooperate with their investigation. The Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson telling CNN, the panel had a significant discussion. Those are his words, quote, significant discussion about what's next for three House Republicans the committee very much wants to talk to.

But all these GOP members are digging in their heels. Hundreds of other witnesses are cooperating including two Mike Pence's top aides are reporters, very patient standing by still with us.

And so Ryan Nobles, let's start up on Capitol Hill. Kevin McCarthy is the Republican leader. He wants to be Speaker of the House. Jim Jordan noted Trump ally, leading conservative, agitator, provocateur, if you will. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania tried to help the President with the big lie of fraud in that big battleground state. It is not tradition for Congress to challenge its own, to force its own. But will they in this case?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There seems to be a real kind of divide within the select committee as to how they should proceed forward as it relates to getting these members to cooperate. What I'm kind of reading is that there is a disconnect between whether or not it's worth it to take the risk of issuing subpoenas against these fellow members, because they may not be able to enforce them.

And it could get caught up in a lengthy legal battle, that at the end of the day, won't bear the fruit that they're looking for, which is getting to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and what if any role these particular members played.

And keep in mind, John, we know of these three, but we know the committee is interested in a whole host of other Republican members that objected to the certification results that were in regular communication with the Trump campaign and Trump allies and may also be able to provide information. These are just the first three out of the gate.

So at this point, they've attempted to go the route of voluntary cooperation. Keep in mind that both McCarthy and Jordan said they had nothing to hide, and that they'd be willing to talk about what they knew, and now have backed off of that. But I do think the committee finds themselves in a very complicated situation here. There is really no easy path forward.

And more than anything else, there's no precedent for this. No one's ever tried to do it like this in this fashion. And so that makes it a very difficult, you know, opportunity for them that they just don't have an answer to at this point.

KING: And so, Ayesha Rascoe, it comes down to the idea how much do we need the information, right? How important is that information. How are we going to be willing to fight for Jeffrey Clark, is another example. He was at the Justice Department. He was the number three, I think.

He told Donald Trump, hey, make me acting Attorney General. I'll help you through all this. Well, he took the Fifth Amendment 100 times, more than 100 times. You know, one hour and 40 minute interview with the committee. Zoe Lofgren, one of the members says maybe we should give him immunity and force him to testify. So there are some options. The question is, how aggressive do you want to be?

AYESHA RASCOE, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NPR: Yes, and that's the question. And part of this is that it's so difficult because of the fact that in many ways, like the call is coming from inside the House. They are investigating actions that happen that members of Congress were involved in. They were involved in some of the things happening with January 6, and they were involved with talking with the President.

And so how do you do that? It is unprecedented. And I think that if you're going to go the route of trying to get a subpoena, that is going to be a huge issue, and it's going to be a huge fight. So that's a lot for them to weigh.

KING: And so again, I keep coming back. I think, a, number one, the committee, Nia-Malika Henderson, has surprised us by being so thorough, so meticulous --

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right.

KING: -- getting so many witnesses. Number two, Mike Pence, his former Chief of Staff, Mike Pence is former General Counsel, he was vice president at time, of course. They have both testified. But they have not -- they have refused to talk about specific conversations with the then president saying that those conversations can be privileged. And those conversations can be privileged wherever you think of Donald Trump.

History says a conversation directly with the president can be framed (ph), but member of the committee, Luria says they're getting tons of information otherwise. So they can still get information, right? Who was in the room? What else was discussed? You know, what did the other people say without getting straight at Trump?

HENDERSON: Yes, I think that's right. And they have been pretty good at doing that. A lot of folks have come in and been pretty forthcoming. This is a committee that I think, as you said, exceeded expectations so far. They are very much up against the clock, because those midterms could mean that they lose the power of this committee, lose the investigative power to bring these folks in and bring the truth to the American people.

But what happened on January 6th, they're obviously competing with a very loud a bullhorn in Donald Trump really imploring folks not to talk, not to talk about what kind of conversations that they had with him. So you see some of that impacting their work. But all in all, I think it's going much better than most folks I expected it to.

KING: Right. Congressman Luria saying today it takes a month or two away from the public hearings and a public reports. Some of the transcripts of those interviews. So the fascinating day still ahead even as they deal with these big questions about big witnesses.

Appreciate everybody coming in on a Friday. Appreciate your time on this Friday as well. Thanks for joining INSIDE POLITICS. Have a fantastic weekend. See you back here on Monday.

Ana Cabrera picks up right now.