Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

White House Accuses Russia of Syria Chemical Weapons Coverup; Royce: Trump Must Ask Congress Before Further Action in Syria; White House Press Briefing. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 11, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:04] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: There's breaking news. The White House now accusing Russia of trying to confuse the world in the wake of a deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Let's go straight to our senior White House correspondent, Jeff Zeleny. He was there.

White House officials making those comments in a background briefing. Update our viewers.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Wolf, and I suspect that we'll hear more from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer when he begins his daily briefing in just a short moment here.

I was just at a different briefing with senior administration officials, really going farther than they have before in saying that Russia was complicit, in their view, in working with the Syrian regime to coverup a chemical attack here. Now, this U.S. official speaking on background, did stop short of saying that Russia had, quote, "foreknowledge" or knew in advance of that chemical attack a week ago today that set off the series of events that led to the military strikes last Thursday. They do believe Russia has been engaging in a coverup of chemical weapons overall here, over the last couple of years, Wolf.

Let me read directly from the senior administration officials who said, "I think it's clear that the Russians are trying to coverup what happened there. We do think it's a question worth asking the Russians, how is it possible that their forces were located with Syrian forces that planned, prepared and carried out this chemical weapons attack at the same time and did not have foreknowledge."

They're not saying they have proof of this, but they are asking the question here.

So, Wolf, this is an attempt at pushing back on what Vladimir Putin said earlier today, simply trying to wash his hands of any involvement in this chemical attack here.

But we are going to hear more from the Pentagon as the day goes on here, Wolf, what those bomb damage assessments were.

But again, the U.S. government stating more clearly than it has before that the Russian government was engaged in a coverup, in their words, with the Syrian regime, leading to these chemical attacks -- Wolf?

[13:35:11] BLITZER: Serious charge against the Russians. The Russians, meanwhile, are leveling serious charges against the U.S.

ZELENY: Right.

BLITZER: Jeff Zeleny, we'll get back you to.

We're waiting for the White House press briefing. Sean Spicer will go to the lectern there. We'll have live coverage as soon as it begins.

In the meantime, let's bring in our panel. Joining us, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the former assistant secretary of state for military affairs; our senior political analyst, Ron Brownstein, senior editor for "The Atlantic"; and our CNN political analyst, Jackie Kucinich, the Washington bureau chief for "The Daily Beast."

Strong words coming back and forth. But I want to quickly get your reaction to news we just heard from the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Ed Royce, saying, if military action were to continue for more than 60 days by the U.S., the president would have to seek formal authorization, legislation, from Congress, an AUMF bill, Authorizing the Use of Military Force, in order to make it legal and constitutional. That's a strong statement coming from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely. Particularly coming from Chairman Royce. You're absolutely right. This would open up a new debate in Congress. And having more of his Republican colleagues around him will definitely help him, but that doesn't necessarily clear the way. This is Congress signaling they're going to take back some of the authority. They received a lot of criticism in the past for ceding that authority to the executive branch.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It's a significant development. He's the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and he's a Republican.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANLAYST: The last time we had this debate, not only in the U.S. but also the U.K.. It was extremely politically difficult. President Obama had to back down, in part, from his red line because he could not marshal the support in Congress. And David Cameron lost the vote on authorizing action in Syria, which I believe was the first time they had lost a vote on war and peace since the American Revolution in the British parliament.

If you look at the polling today, it is very precarious. Yes, there is 50 percent support in two different polls, Gallop and an ABC/"Washington Post" for the strike, but just at 50 percent. Much less support than we've seen for other military interventions. And a majority saying they did not support further action in the ABC/"Washington Post." If, in fact, this does continue and they need to go to Congress, there's no guarantee that even a Republican Congress will be there, I think, based on the precedent and the patterns of public opinion we've seen so far.

BLITZER: They would have to show, General Kimmitt, a lot of hard evidence of Syrian complicity - the Syrian decision to use these kinds of awful weapons in order to convince Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate to go along and pass this kind of legislation.

BRIG GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED & FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MILITARY AFFAIRS: I think that's right. We've got to remember that 60 days is a long time from now.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It's not that long. It's two months.

KIMMITT: If Assad ramps down his activities with regards to barrel bombs and chemicals, that would make it more politically difficult to get it passed. On the other hand, if he demonstrates a repeated assault on civilians, using both barrel bombs and chemicals up to the day of that AUMF decision, I think there will be much more support for the administration trying to get that through Congress.

BLITZER: I know they can supply classified information, intelligence information to members of Congress. But to the American public, how far can they go in providing the evidence they say they have that it was Syria that did it, the U.S. knows for sure, and that the Russians maybe were trying to help cover it up?

KIMMITT: Let's be clear, this has been going on for quite some time, ever since President Obama backed away from the red line. We know Syria has chemical weapons. We know the Russians were supposed to verify the removal of those chemical weapons. We've seen them repeatedly use them, as recently as a couple of days ago. Let's be frank, this is all in the public domain right now. So I don't think that there's going to be much more coming out of intelligence that would be need to convince the American people and the U.S. Congress if this continues.

BLITZER: The key question, if this continues.

You know what's happening now. As we speak, the U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Jackie, is in Moscow. He's meeting with the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. He may have a meeting with President Putin. Both sides, the U.S. and Russia, have hardened their positions, and some are suggesting the U.S./Russian relationship may be at its worst level since the Cold War.

KUCINICH: Particularly coming from Tillerson, who was close to Vladimir Putin coming into this position and took a lot of flak for that. What happened in Syria, and the administration strike, has given him more leverage going into this meeting.

But I just wanted to add one more thing about how different this is from the Candidate Trump, who didn't -- who didn't want to get into another conflict in the Middle East. Who campaigned that Iraq was a terrible decision? And who criticized the spending that went into this. And now, we're how many days in, and we're talking about perhaps another AUMF.

[13:40:01] BROWNSTEIN: Not only that, but the comparison to Candidate Trump. When Candidate Trump talked about the value of trying to have rapprochement with Russia and Putin, the principle asset he saw coming out of that was cooperation against ISIS in Syria. You go back and look at the language in the first presidential debate. He said, wouldn't it be great if we could work together with Russia against ISIS. And here we have the situation in Syria, you know, really exploding the difficulty, making very clear, the difficulty of any kind of cooperation, because while there is a shared interest in dislodging ISIS in Syria, it's clear that Russia's principle interest, again, reaffirmed today, is stabilizing Assad in Syria. And you can see how big a space there is between what they want and what we want despite some overlap in terms of ISIS.

BLITZER: General, we're just getting word that the secretary of defense, General Mattis, retired, and the commander of the U.S. Military Central Command, General Votel, they're going to be holding an on-camera press briefing at the Pentagon in -- at 3:30 p.m. eastern, going through specific details, what happened, what the U.S. is doing. This is a significant development that the secretary of defense and the head of the U.S. Military Central Command, which is in charge of the whole Middle East region, have decided this is a moment to speak not only to the American public but to the world.

KIMMITT: Well, I think that's right. And you can see how much chatter there has been since the chemical attack. The motivations, should we have done this, did they really have that capability, where were the Russians involved? When you have probably two of the most credible voices, Secretary Mattis and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of -- commander of Central Command, I think those questions about why we did it, what we achieved, I think that's what they're out there trying to explain.

BROWNSTEIN: We do have one voice that's still pretty absent in all of this, and that's the president.

BLITZER: He spoke the night of the Tomahawk cruise missiles.

But now we're going to hear the voice. That would be the voice of the White House press secretary.

[13:41:56]

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's almost nice enough to have class outside today.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: All right. Rose Garden press briefings.

I want to start off this afternoon by a quick comment on the tragic and heartbreaking events that unfolded at San Bernardino school yesterday. Events occurred after the briefing, so I just want to make sure I acknowledge that our thoughts and prayers go out to all the families of the three victims and we hope for a speedy and full recovery of those who were wounded in the events that occurred.

SPICER: Moving on to today, the president this morning led a discussion with some of the world's top job creators on how private sector thinking can help the government modernize and provide better, more efficient services to the American people.

Together, the companies that were represented in the room this morning employ nearly 4 million people worldwide and at least 1.78 million Americans here in our nation. Starting in small interactive groups, the Cabinet members shared their strategic visions for their departments and listened as business leaders offered their unique perspectives on how they might achieve those goals.

The groups then came together and shared their discussions and outcomes with the president. The meeting was hosted by the American -- the Office of American Innovation and was another opportunity for the administration to engage with the private sector and harness its knowledge to develop innovative solutions to some of our country's biggest problems like the crumbling infrastructure and broken system at the Veterans Administration.

Also this morning, the president completed several procedural steps to ratify the protocol for Montenegro's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, following the Senate's overwhelming and bipartisan vote of advice and consent in support of this ratification. The United States looks forward to formally recognizing Montenegro as the 29th member of the NATO alliance.

And later today, the president will have a series of meetings with his national and economic security team. Later, the attorney general is also at the southwest border to announce specific new actions the Trump administration is taking to secure our borders and keep the country safe.

The administration is committed to ending the practice of smuggling gangs and cartels across the border that flood our country with drugs and violence. These actions which include a strengthening of the laws applying to those who are caught attempting to illegally return to the United States after prior removal, and those who profit off smuggling people across the border, will once again make it clear to the brave men and women of law enforcement that the Trump administration has their back.

And Secretary Tillerson finished the G-7 foreign ministers' meeting today and is now in Moscow for meetings with his Russian counterpart. The visit is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure that the United States's views on the situation in Syria, counterterrorism efforts, North Korea and other matters are clearly conveyed.

We are open to strategic cooperation with Russia when we can achieve a shared goal such as defeating ISIS, but we will stand up for our interests and values when we do not see eye to eye.

SPICER: Russia must fully honor the commitments it made on Syria, Ukraine, and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and other topics of international concern. And Secretary Tillerson is going to make that clear during his visit.

I also want to make it known that Secretary Mattis and General Votel, who's the COCOM -- commander of Central Command, will be giving a full briefing on the strike in Syria that occurred, today at the Department of Defense at 3:30.

Then at 4 o'clock, I'll be back up here for an off-camera briefing with Director Mulvaney of the Office of Management and Budget, and OMB Senior Advisor Linda Springer for -- regarding the president's executive order on reorganizing the executive branch.

So, that gives us three briefings, plus this today. Not to get you real excited, but we'll have another one tomorrow morning in advance of the NATO meeting with the secretary general.

This afternoon's briefing we'll be discussing the plan on reforming the federal government and reducing the size of the federal civilian workforce that OMB was directed to produce by -- by executive order. So, we'll be spending a lot of quality time together over the next 48, 24 hours.

And with that, I'd be glad to take a few questions.

Ken?

QUESTION: Sean, Russia to start. Does the administration believe that Russia had any advance knowledge of the (ph) chemical attack in Syria? And does the administration believe that Russia may have been complicit in the (ph) attack?

SPICER: I believe the -- there was a background briefing earlier today where that was discussed.

At this time, there's no consensus in the intelligence community that that's -- that's the case.

QUESTION: Is there any -- is there any thought within the intelligence community or some strands of the intelligence community...

SPICER: Again, at this point, the only thing I'm going to say is that there's no consensus within the intelligence community that there was involvement.

Annie?

QUESTION: Today, in the background briefing, Trump officials accused Russia of helping Syria cover up Assad's use of chemical weapons. In the past, Trump has praised Putin, calling him very smart and expressing general admiration.

Does this -- does he still think Putin is very smart? And does this change the relationship between the two leaders?

SPICER: Well, I -- I think a -- a couple things.

Number one, I think the president's made it clear from the beginning that -- that he entered office thinking that if he can get a deal with Russian in -- in our national interest -- which we -- I discussed during the opening remarks is part of Secretary Tillerson's conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov -- then we're going to do it. But if we can't get a deal, and if we can't find an area of national interest, then we won't.

And in this particular case, it's no question that Russia is isolated.

They have aligned themself with North Korea, Syria, Iran. That's not exactly a group of countries that you're looking to hang out with. With the exception of Russia, they are all failed states.

There is clearly an -- Russia is not an island when it comes to its support of Syria or its lack of, frankly, acknowledgement of what happened.

The facts are on our side. The actions of Syria are reprehensible. And I think that Russia has been party to several international agreements that Syria is not holding up to. In fact that -- that Russia needs to hold themselves up to.

So, I think the president has been very clear with his stance on Russia. And in this particular case, we're going to be very forceful, and I think as will Secretary Tillerson during his visit, to make sure that we -- make sure that we let Russia know that they need to live up to the obligations it has made.

Kaitlyn (ph)?

QUESTION: The administration has said sanctions against Syria are forthcoming. What will those look like and when can we expect those?

SPICER: Great question.

I -- I think you know well enough at this point that we're not going to announce any of that kind of action until it's -- it's ready to go.

I think the president's made it clear that additional action on -- with respect to Syria, in terms of its failure to stop engaging in actions that harm its people, will result in action.

And -- and so, I'm not going to get ahead of what he -- he is planning to announce or when. But as he has made clear on a variety of circumstances, he's not one to telegraph his actions until he's ready to -- to make those announcements.

QUESTION: OK.

Secondly, has the administration identified an opposition party that could come to power in Syria if there is a regime change? SPICER: I -- I think, first and foremost -- and I stated this yesterday and will state it again -- that our number one goal is to defeat ISIS. That is unequivocally the number one thing.

I think, secondly, that political conditions that are -- exist in Syria right now, are such that what we need Russia and others to do is to help create a political environment in which the Syrian people can choose a leader that -- that is more is suited to them.

I -- I think getting into who that should be -- I think what we're trying to do right now is shape the environment to allow the Syrian people to determine their -- their -- their outcome.

SPICER: Blake?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean.

Can I change this topic? (inaudible) Mark Meadows said earlier this morning that he thinks, quote, "We're very close," as it relates to health care and that two options were given to the House speaker.

Does the White House believe that you're very close on health care? And are -- have you signed off on those two options?

SPICER: Well, two things. One, I think we're getting closer and closer every day. This has been a process that, as you know, the chief of staff, the vice president, and others have been extremely engaged in behind the scenes. We clearly are getting closer. More votes are moving in our direction. And these ideas I think are very helpful and the conversations are getting closer.

I don't want to pre-judge the outcome at this point, but I would say that we feel very buoyed by the direction that this is going and some of the outcomes. I know that with respect to a couple of the proposals that Congressman Meadows is suggesting, part of those has to be, again, figuring out whether or not those attract additional votes and gain additional support, and don't detract. And I know it sounds very simple, but that's what this entire process has been about.

And so he is reviewing a couple of the provisions that he wants to make an amendment -- or to the ongoing amendment.

QUESTION: Have you signed off to those?

SPICER: It's not a question of us signing off. I think we're good with the direction that this -- that this is going as long as it continues to grow the vote.

A lot of these provisions that are being discussed give states the flexibility to enact certain provisions, which is consistent with our general philosophy of giving more competition, more choice to the people and the states.

So...

QUESTION: And secondly, the video that's being played across television, United Airlines -- do you think the government should investigate them, the industry as a whole, as it relates to passenger treatment? SPICER: I would just say that I think there have been clearly -- law enforcement is reviewing that situation. I think there's plenty of law enforcement to review a situation like that. And I know United Airlines has stated that they are currently reviewing their own policies. Let's not get ahead of where that review goes. It was -- it was an unfortunate incident. Clearly, when you watch the video, it is troubling to see how that was handled.

But I'm not going to -- they have clearly stated their desire to review the situation. Law enforcement's reviewing it. And I think for us to start to get in front of what should be a very -- you know, a local matter, not necessarily needing a -- a federal response.

Hallie?

QUESTION: Sean, two questions, to follow up on (inaudible), just very briefly.

Has the president seen that video?

SPICER: I'm sure he has.

QUESTION: What was his reaction to it?

SPICER: I don't think anyone looks at that video and isn't a little disturbed that another human being is treated that way. But again, I don't -- I think one of the things that people have to understand is that when there is a potential law enforcement matter, for the president to weigh in pro or con would prejudice a potential outcome.

So I don't want to get in -- but I think clearly watching another human being dragged down an aisle, watching, you know, blood come from their face after hitting an armrest or whatever, I don't think there's a circumstance that you can sit back and say this probably could have been handled a little bit better, when you're talking about another human being.

But again, I don't think that it is my place to get in the middle of judging how a company dealt with this. I think there is clearly going to be enough review both on a corporate side and then on a law enforcement side on how this was handled.

But I think from a human-to-human standpoint, to watch a human being get dragged out an aisle with their head banging off armrests and not think that it could have been handled better -- I would assume that we could probably all agree on that.

John (ph)?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) two questions that I have actually, just for clarification.

First on -- both foreign policy, one on Syria. This administration is continuing to fight for its travel ban that would in part limit refugees coming in from Syria.

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: The president spoke very starkly about how affected he was by some of the images that (inaudible) youngest victims.

SPICER: Yes.

QUESTION: There have also been images of refugees, like, for example, Alan Kurdi, that have also been heartwrenching for people. Is the president giving any thought to reconsidering that aspect of this travel ban?

SPICER: In terms of letting them in?

QUESTION: Correct.

SPICER: I think you've heard -- you've heard a lot of these refugees in particular talk about the fact they're not looking to flee. They want...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: But I think the -- right -- and I think the number one goal of this president is to make sure that we protect our people, our country, and to keep those people from having to flee. They have family there. And so that's our number one goal is creating a safer environment, deescalating the conflict there.

It is not to figure out how many people we can fly out. I think the U.S. has been extremely supportive when it comes to the financial piece to this and looking for ways to work with -- in a diplomatic fashion. But the goal isn't to figure out many people we can just import to this country. I think there is clearly a security concern that we have to be...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) also?

SPICER: They have touched him. And I think that's what he made very clear.

SPICER: That's why, you know, with the consent and guidance of his national security team, it was very extreme -- it was moving. I don't think -- I mean, going back, I don't mean to make two examples of this, but I don't think you can watch those things. Not that you should have any human being, but when you see in particular young children and babies being gassed, it -- it should move any human being that has a heart.

So I think -- but that -- that partially dealt with why he acted so decisively, is to see an individual, in Assad, in that regime, act in a way that -- that reacted to, you know, we can't condemn every act, but I think to literally see someone use gas -- and it was pointed out, you know, you think about that. It is a -- it is in the same category as nuclear weapons for a reason.

It is that lethal, it is that deadly, it is that horrific, that when you recognize that use of chemical weapons is put in the same category of weapons of mass destruction and so many other things because of what it does to an individual, and the nature of an attack like that, that even first responders, if you saw some of the tape we're getting of -- you know, grossly affected by this.

It -- it moved him tremendously and that's part of the reason he acted the way he did.

QUESTION: On North Korea, Sean, I also know that you've seen the latest provocations from Pyongyang. The president tweeted this morning that, "If China won't help, the U.S. will solve the problem."

SPICER: That's right.

QUESTION: What does he mean by that, "solve the problem"?

SPICER: I -- right. I think he has been very clear that he will not tolerate some of those actions by North Korea.

But he's -- but to -- to answer your question, I think -- I've said this before on a variety of topics -- the president is not one who's going to go out there and telegraph his response. I think he keeps all options on the table, he keeps his cards close to the vest. And as he showed last week with respect to Syria, when the president's willing to act, it's going to be decisive and proportional to make it very clear what the position of the United States is.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: That's not what I said.

I just said that, as you know, when the president's ready to act, he makes it very clear. And I think there's no question that when the president is ready to make a statement, he will do that.

But I think he has made it clear with respect to North Korea, that their behavior and their actions with respect to the missile launches, that it's not tolerable.

The last thing we want to see is a nuclear North Korea that threatens the coast of the United States or, for that matter, you know, any other country and any other set of human beings.

So we need stability in that region and I think he has put them clearly on notice.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Thanks a lot, Sean.

The alliance between Russia and Syria (inaudible) past decade. President Putin has supplied personnel, has supplied military equipment to the Assad government. What makes you think that at this point he's going to pull back in his support for President Assad and for the Syrian government right now?

SPICER: I think a couple things.

You -- you look, we didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had a -- you know, someone as despicable as Hitler, who didn't even think to the -- to the -- to using chemical weapons.

So you have to, if you're Russia, ask yourself, is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with?

You have previously signed onto international agreements rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country. To not stand up, to not only (inaudible) but your own word should be troubling.

This is Russia putting their name on the line. So it's not a question of how long that alliance has lasted, but at what point do they recognize that they are now getting on the wrong side of history in a really bad way, really quickly.

And again, look at the countries that are standing with them: Iran, Syria, North Korea. This is not -- this is not a team you want to be on. And I think that Russia has to recognize that, while they may have had an alliance with them, that the lines that have been crossed are ones that no country should ever want to see another country cross.

Yes?

QUESTION: Thanks.

Two (inaudible) questions. First on -- coming up on tax day, when does the White House plan on releasing President Trump's 2016 returns? Are there any concerns about possible conflicts of interest reflecting on the tax debate that will be cleared up with (inaudible)?

Second, how many people are you expecting for the Easter Egg Roll? And will you (inaudible)?

SPICER: Two tough ones.

(LAUGHTER)

So, on the first one, I think we've -- we've asked and answered that several times. And the president's been under audit. I think when you look at -- we -- we filed our financial disclosure forms the other day in a -- in a way that allows everyone to understand.

And for those listening at home, you know, a tax return clearly lists how much money you made, how much tax you paid. When you look at a financial disclosure form, you list every asset, every debt you owe, where you've getting your money from, where your income's derived from. It is a much more comprehensive understanding. I think the president -- this -- this question has been asked and answered over and over again. I think the American people are -- frankly, the middle class in particular and companies that are trying to grow here in the United States, are much more concerned about tax reform and allowing our economy to grow and their bottom line to grow.

With respect to the Easter Egg Roll, it's a huge topic. I appreciate that.

(LAUGHTER)

[14:00:00]

SPICER: I think we're going to have an egg-cellent time.