Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Vigil For Victims; ISIS Claims Responsibility Trump Asked Intel Heads to Deny Collusion; Brennan Testifies on Capitol Hill; Coats Testifies about Russia Conversation with Trump; Flynn Takes Fifth. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 23, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. Thanks very much for joining us.

We're watching two developing stories this hour. In Manchester, England, right now, people are gathering at Albert Square right in the heart of the city to honor the victims of the terror attack. Children are among the 22 people who died in an explosion just outside the crowded area, an Ariana Grande concert last night. Dozens others are injured, many of them in very serious condition.

And now, police have just released the name of the man they believe carried out the attack, 22-year-old Salman Abedi. We heard reaction today from the British prime minister, Theresa May, as well as President Donald Trump who spoke about the attack twice while he was in Israel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THERESA MAY, PRIME MINISTER, UNITED KINGDOM: We struggle to comprehend the warped and twisted mind that sees a room packed with young children not as a scene to cherish but as an opportunity for carnage. But we can continue to resolve to thwart such attacks in the future. To take on and defeat the ideology that often fuels this violence. And if there turn out to be others responsible for this attack, to seek them out and bring them to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Dozens of innocent people, beautiful young children, savagely murdered in this heinous attack upon Humanity. I repeat again that we must drive out the terrorists and the extremists from our midst.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Also today, we're watching the former CIA Director John Brennan who has been testifying up on Capitol Hill as part of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 president election and possible, possible, collusion with the Trump campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CIA: I encountered and am aware of information in intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign. That I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn the such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's get some more now on the terror attack in the United Kingdom. I want to bring in our International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson. He's joining us from number 10 Downing Street in London. Also, our National Security Analyst Peter Bergen is standing by.

Nic, only moments ago, police revealed the name of the man they believe carried out this terror attack. What can you tell us about Salman Abedi?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: 22 years old, Wolf according to the police chief. The coroner hasn't formally identified him yet, but that's their belief.

We know, according to the prime minister this morning, after she'd had her high-level security cabinet Cobra meeting, that involved police chief's counterterrorism intelligence chiefs as well -- as well as other important ministers, the home secretary as well. She said that he was known to the British security services. Precise details on that she hasn't yet released. But this is someone who was known.

We also now know -- we also now know from counterterrorism officials that are connected with the investigation that, so far, they haven't been able to uncover a direct link between Salman Abedi and any terrorist organization, although ISIS has claimed, as they have done with other attackers in the past, that he is one of their foot soldiers. They provided no evidence, pictorial or a name. They didn't provide a name in advance to back that up.

So, these are the details we have. At the moment, the prime minister is in Manchester. She's been to visit with some of the victims. She's been to the police to get an update there. She was, of course, a former home secretary here which means she has a lot of experience in dealing with this kind of investigation.

And she will be returning here to 10 Downing Street later in the day to get another briefing from her security intelligence chief of police, defense chiefs and to gather all the information as they decide what to do.

One of the things that has been decided has been to increase security, not just here in London but obviously in Manchester. Part, to reassure. Part, because the police don't know what may come next. However, that said, the terror threat level remains at severe. That's where it's been for the past year or so which means a threat is highly likely. It hasn't been raised to critical which would mean another threat was imminent -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What do we know about whether this Salman Abedi, this 22- year-old suicide bomber, acted alone? Did he actually build that bomb? Did someone else build the bomb, give it to him? Was he inspired by a terror organization or was he directly working with a terror organization? Do we have any answers to those critically important questions yet?

[13:05:01] ROBERTSON: Wolf, you're absolute right. These are the most pressing questions.

If you had to answer statistically, statistically in Europe, 75 percent approximately of all attackers and plotters have had some connection, either electronic through -- for inspiration, motivation or direction from terrorist organizations like ISIS.

That has not been uncovered at this stage. The fact that he had a bomb, that it wasn't a simple attack that would have been more easily prepared like the Westminster attack where it was somebody driving a vehicle at high speed, mowing people down, then stabbing a policeman.

This is a more complex type of attack that clearly took planning. That appeared to wait for the doors of this concert to open at the end of the concert to allow people to come out.

The attacker appears to have entered the doors at the venue. He was just inside the venue to, sort of, meet the oncoming hordes of young people leaving the concert as it -- as the concert hall was just beginning to empty.

The tactics involved, the explosives involved, we've heard reports of nuts, nails, et cetera, being used in this device, support what we have seen in previous attacks. So, there's some sophistication gone into building the device.

But is it possible that this person could have done it -- done this alone? Yes, it is because some of the information to build such devices is publicly available.

But what we know, again, if you look at this statistically, statistically the evidence would seem to suggest that there was some connection motivational and because this was a potentially sophisticated device, that there may have been help.

But, as you say, these are the most pressing questions and that yet -- as yet, the details for the answers have not been made public -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Peter Bergen, ISIS, as you know, we reported, has officially claimed responsibility but has offered nothing more than that statement. How do you treat that claim by ISIS?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think ISIS has, generally speaking, Wolf, tended to make claims that turnout to have some merit. We don't know, in this case. But they don't willy-nilly claim a lot of things that they haven't done.

And so, I would certainly -- we have to treat this with some, kind of, potential authority.

But picking up on what Nic said. You know, it's very hard in a western country, like United Kingdom, to buy military-style explosives or dynamite. And, therefore, you're really left with the way to build this bomb is with hydrogen peroxide explosives. We saw that in a 7-7, July 7, 2005, attack in London. We've seen that in attempts in the United States and also with the ISIS attacks in Paris and Brussels.

Now, building a hydrogen peroxide bomb, which Nic also knows this well, is not something you can just pick up on the Internet. You might be able to do it, but you'd probably blow yourself up. Because hydrogen peroxide bombs are highly unstable. They have very -- they're very toxic.

And so, it's highly likely, in my view, that this is a hydrogen peroxide bomb. That would also lead to, where was it made? Because the toxicity of these chemicals suggest that you'd have a bomb factor somewhere.

In the London attacks of July 7, 2005, the attackers actually bought an apartment to build the bomb and also bought a commercial refrigerator because the elements of the bomb are so unstable. So, authorities are surely looking for, where was this bomb put together? What was it made of? And that would also lead you to who -- how did this -- how did this bomber learn how to make this?

In general, it's, I think, highly unlikely that he just learned about it on the Internet.

BLITZER: Well, we know that Al Qaeda, the Arabian Peninsula, they've had articles in their online magazine how to build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom. But you're suggesting a sophisticate -- a much more sophisticated bomb, as in this case that killed so many people, a lot of young people, not necessarily could just be built as easily as that.

Usually, when it's an official ISIS or Al Qaeda attack, very often, correct me if I'm wrong, Peter, you're an expert in this area, there's a video, what they call a martyr video that's released of the individual who commits suicide and kills all these people. As of now, no video has been released. Do you anticipate that we will see some sort of so-called martyrdom video?

BERGEN: You know, I don't know. But we -- I mean, you know, they -- when they use this phrase, soldier of the caliphate, it doesn't necessarily mean that the attacker has actually gone to Syria or Iraq. They used that phrase, Wolf, in the Orlando attack back last year in the United States in which Omar Mateen he killed 49 people.

Now, he had no direct links to ISIS, but he was inspired by them. And so, they did credit -- take credit for it. And, in a way, they were accurate.

So, you know, we may see a video, but we may not see a video. And, in fact, if it was simply inspirational, you know, as far as ISIS is concerned, it's, sort of, a distinction without a difference. I mean, they want to inspire these kinds of attacks.

[13:10:01] If it's an inspirational attack, that's fine. If it was directed or enabled or a train fall by ISIS, that's also fine, too.

BLITZER: I'm sure all of British police in Manchester and elsewhere, they're going through his social media exchanges right now. They're trying to learn as much as possible about this individual. You know there have been some comparisons, Peter, to the attack at the Bataclan Theatre in Paris back in 2015. Do you see any connection?

BERGEN: I do. Because, I mean, in both cases, if you remember the rock band that was playing at the Bataclan was an American rock group. And here, we have an American pop star. You know, it might be coincidental but maybe not.

And, of course, you know, in terms of the, sort of, modus operandi, in general, a crowded space where you can kill a lot of people very quickly, I mean, they're very, very similar in that sense.

And, of course, for people who are either trained by ISIS or inspired by ISIS or groups like that, the very idea of having a music concert with lots of women who are unveiled, I mean, that would be an attack that plays into their sensibilities.

BLITZER: All right, thanks very much for that, Peter Bergen. We're going to have much more on this story coming up.

But there's another major story we're -- that's developing right now. The former director of the CIA says Russia brazenly, his word, brazenly. interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

John Brennan testified before the House Intelligence Committee about Russian meddling in the election. He's stopped short of saying there was collusion with the Trump campaign, but he says there was cause for concern.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENNAN: I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons.

And so, therefore, by the time I left office on January 20th, I had unresolved questions, in my mind, as to whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting U.S. persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf. Again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion. And so, therefore, I felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly and our CNN Crime and Justice Producer Shimon Prokupecz.

Phil, there's some lawmakers on the committee, they pressed Brennan on whether there was collusion and what Russia's goal was for meddling in the U.S. presidential election. How did the former CIA director respond?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, he didn't weigh in one way or the other, saying explicitly that he simply didn't whether collusion actually occurred.

But, as you just heard, he made very clear that he was aware of and cognizant of, based on intelligence and information that he had seen, that contacts between Russian officials and U.S. citizens had occurred. And, for him, as director of the CIA, not the head of a law enforcement agency, that was enough for the FBI to begin and to start and to exercise a law enforcement investigation.

He made clear it's not his role to start that investigation or even partake in one. But the intelligence made clear that an investigation should exist.

One other key point, Wolf. He made clear that he was aware of this last summer and actually called the head of the Russian FSB, their lead intelligence agency, and warned him against the meddling that he saw occurring.

So, clearly, he saw something. He made that very clear today. But on the key issue of whether or not he was certain that collusion occurred at all, he didn't weigh in -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's very interesting. I want to bring in Shimon, too. Shimon, there is another -- there are several other developments in the Russia investigation. I know you and our team, you're working your sources.

Sources are telling us that President Trump actually asked two past intelligence chiefs to publicly deny evidence of the coop -- of cooperation between his campaign and Russia. One of those officials, the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. Tell our viewers what he said.

SHIMONE PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE PRODUCER: Well, that's right, Wolf. You know, this all started yesterday after "The Washington Post" broke the story that Trump had asked two of his intelligence officials, Dan Coats and Admiral Rodgers who runs the NSA to basically knock down reports that there was any kind of meddling.

This was all an attempt to try and, sort of, raise some doubt in the FBI investigation. You know, without surprise, in some ways, today on the Hill, Dan Coats was asked about this. And, basically, said that he would not talk about it. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I have always believed that, given the nature of my position and the information that which we share, it's not appropriate for me to comment publicly on any of that and so on this topic as well as other topics, I don't feel it's appropriate to characterize discussions and conversations with the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PROKUPECZ: Much like we've seen with other officials, like the current FBI director, the acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. When he was asked about conversations that Comey may have had with President Trump, he did not want to discuss it.

[13:15:05] I think what's interesting here, Wolf, is going to -- is going to be whether or not the now special prosecutor, the former FBI director, Bob Mueller, is going to want to talk to some of these intelligence officials.

BLITZER: I'm sure -- I'm sure that he will.

You know, Phil, we're expecting more hearings later today up on Capitol Hill, including from, what, the current director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, who also, we've been reporting, was approached by the president and asked by the president to deny any of these suggestions of collusion.

MATTINGLY: Yes, that's exactly right. And he's expected to face similar questions to what you heard from Director of National Intelligence Coats. Will he actually weigh in on that publicly? My assumption and what I've heard and the expectation at least of lawmakers, Wolf, is that he will not.

But these questions are around and I think these hearings provide a forum for lawmakers to try and get answers. Again, they're more likely to get answers in classified sessions behind closed doors. That's what the director of National Intelligence said today. That is very likely what you will also hear from Admiral Rogers later. But it's just another indication that as these intelligence officials, it becomes more clear their involvement. It becomes more clear, as we've reported, as "The Washington Post" reported, that the White House has actually directed -- directly contacted them about these issues, that all this does is raise more issues for lawmakers. Lawmakers in both parties, Wolf, it makes these questions, the types of questions they are go to repeatedly face any time they come in front of lawmakers and perhaps, more importantly, any time they come behind closed doors in classified sessions with these lawmakers as these investigations continue to go on.

As Shimon noted, there obviously is a special counsel, Bob Mueller. But the investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, the investigation in the House Intelligence Committee on Russian meddling, those continue. And each time new reports about these types of issues arise, you can bet those committees are following up on them and trying to get answers, Wolf.

BLITZER: Certainly are.

All right, Phil Mattingly, Shimon Prokupecz, guys, thanks very much. Coming up, Michael Flynn refusing to release documents related to

Russia. How the Senate Intelligence Committee is trying to force the former national security advisers' hand.

Plus, President Trump unveiled his budget today. The cuts and the increases just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:09] BLITZER: We're watching important developments from two key figures at the center of the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. The new director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the former CIA director, John Brennen, both testifies at separate hearings up on Capitol Hill today.

A lot to unpack right now. Let's bring in our panel. Our CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan is here, our chief political correspondent Dana Bash, and our CNN politics reporter and editor at large, Chris Cillizza.

Dana, the former CIA director, Brennan, he said that Russia, quote, brazenly interfered in the U.S. presidential elections and that the Trump campaign had contacts with Russia, but he stopped short of calling it collusion. Your reaction?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He stopped short of calling it collusion, but he made extremely clear that that was the hope and goal of the Russians and that that is what he saw while he was still in his position as CIA director in and around the -- the presidential campaign. This is just added to the growing and lengthy list of things that the Trump administration doesn't want to hear and that the president himself clearly doesn't want to hear. The fact that we have somebody of this stature who had the kind of role that he did, the CIA director, during the 2016 election, saying -- basically going further than any official has to date who was in -- in a position to know at the time, is really bad news for the Trump campaign -- excuse me, for the former Trump campaign, for the Trump White House and is a perfect example of why the Justice Department and Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, decided that it was appropriate to have a special counsel and will give more fuel to Democrats and some Republicans, very few but mostly Democrats in Congress who say -- to complement that federal investigation, they would like to have an independent commission, a 9/11 style commission. It's only going to add some meat to the bone of that argument.

BLITZER: You know, Paul, a lot of Democrats are saying now that these new revelations are moving this case closer and closer towards obstruction of justice. Are they right?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Maybe in a very, very small way. But, remember, this is a complicated process. You have to link collusion with the Russians to the Trump campaign and then you have to link it to the president. And you also have to have collusion with respect to criminality. Remember, it's not a crime to influence an election. Everybody hires consultants to try to influence an election. You have to engage in criminal activity. In other words, you'd have to show that people on the Trump campaign were actually assisting the Russians in getting into the computer system to get the e-mails or doing other criminal acts that the president was aware of. That's a very steep hill to climb and I don't see it being climbed effectively in what I've heard so far today.

BLITZER: Key word, so far.

CALLAN: Yes.

BLITZER: At least as of today.

Chris, the director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, he's a former U.S. congressman from Indiana, he was asked about the Trump administration's sharing Israel's intelligence with the Russians. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: We worked through a process. I can't specifically describe that process here today. I'm new to the job. Weeks in. But there are procedures and processes in place I'd be happy to get those back to you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the Trump administration undergo that interagency clearance process prior to the president's May 10th meeting with the Russian government?

COATS: I have no awareness of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, Chris, what's your reaction?

[13:24:58] CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Well, again, a lot of times with these testimonies, listen to what's not said as much as what is said. If Dan Coats could have said, yes, they did, in regards to that question, did they follow the procedures related to declassifying information, he would have. There are two reasons why he might not. One, because he knows they didn't, or, two, because he simply doesn't know. It is possible certainly he may not know. As he noted, he's relatively new to the job.

But two times, that time, Wolf, and when Dan Coats was talking about -- was asked directly, did Donald Trump ask you to knock down the collusion argument in this federal investigation, both times he didn't answer. Now, he said he didn't feel comfortable discussing his conversations with the president of the United States in an open hearing, which is fine. And, again, two options, either Trump did ask him to do it or he didn't and he just doesn't want to talk about it in public. But there are -- there are clearer answers he could have given that he didn't give. So, you know, neither of those are the exact great answer if you're Donald Trump trying to beat back what is a growing controversy here, certainly politically if not also legally.

BLITZER: Dana, you spoke with Senator John McCain and Senator Mark Warner about President Trump asking the director of National Intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to deny any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Listen to their responses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), CHAIRMAN OF SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I don't think that it's logical to assume that the president of United States would ask the director of National Intelligence not to investigate the Russia issue. I just -- if you'd have said that's going to happen, I'd say, yes, it's a lousy movie.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTEL COMMITTEE: We have not been briefed on that. We are still pursuing vigorously and we'll have more to announce later today our next steps.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Well, what else did they tell you, Dana? Did Senator Warner, who's the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tell you what he's planning to do as far as Michael Flynn, the fired national security adviser, for example?

BASH: Well, two things. One is, you heard him say we -- I have not been briefed on that. That was a question that I asked about something in "The Washington Post" report yesterday that was kind of varied, lower down under the big glaring headline about allegations that the president called the DNI and the head of the NSA to say, please, say publicly there was no collusion. Down below was also a line or two about the idea that senior White House officials also called the FBI and others to say, please, don't, you know, to try to basically get answers and get information, which is inappropriate. So that's the question I asked and he said he wasn't briefed on that.

But probably more importantly is what we may or may not learn today about the actions that the Senate Intelligence chair, Richard Burr and Mark Warner, the top Democrat you just saw there, will take to respond to the fact that Michael Flynn invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not testify before the Intelligence Committee, but also is refusing to give over documents. The question I asked is, will you find him in contempt of Congress, and that is probably what we're going to hear today.

Now, he strongly hinted but was very careful to say, hold on, we'll talk about next steps later. Strongly hinted at the notion that withholding documents is a bridge too far. Going -- saying that I don't want to testify, that's everybody's right. But withholding documents when others have given over documents might be something that they are going to try to punish him on. We'll see what they say later today.

BLITZER: Well, Paul, what kind of punishment are we talking about? Contempt if -- if he continues to refuse to provide Congress with those documents?

CALLAN: Contempt can be punished by up to one year in prison if you're found guilty of it. And you can be -- you can be convicted by the House of Representatives by a full vote or it can be referred to a U.S. attorney's office for an actual prosecution in court. But there is a one-year penalty for the crime.

BLITZER: And there doesn't seem to be any desire to offer Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, immunity in exchange for his testimony.

CALLAN: No. And I think, in the end, that's going to make the case against him very difficult. Any American citizen has the right to assert the Fifth Amendment. However, he's asserting it with respect to document production. That's a harder road to prevent production of documents. But there is a -- there's an obscure legal principle that's in some limited cases allow you to assert the fifth with respect to documents as well.

BLITZER: And, Chris Cillizza, you wrote an important piece, just posted it at cnnpolitics.com, getting back to what the former CIA director testified today about the entire issue involving how concerned he was about Russia's interference. And you had one quote from John Brennan you thought was very significant.

[13:29:59] CILLIZZA: Yes, and it's -- Dana was mentioning this earlier. Essentially John Brennan, I'll paraphrase him here, but John Brennan essentially said, look, you know, from what I knew at the time when I was CIA director, it gave me pause.