Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Sessions On Leak Probes; Rally Behind Sessions;Trump Plans to Ban Transgender Military Service Members; Interview with Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler; Transgender Service in Other Countries. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 26, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

The fate of the United States attorney general, the future of transgender members in the U.S. military and the fate of health care here in the United States, we're following new developments on all those major stories.

We're also waiting for the start of today's White House briefing. We're looking at live pictures coming in from the briefing room. The press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will go before the cameras and the microphones at the top of the hour. We'll have live coverage of that. That's about an hour from now.

In the meantime, there's been no letup in President Trump's tirade against the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The president blasting Sessions in yet another tweet today, less than an hour after Sessions actually arrived at the White House for routine meetings with other officials.

The president also tweeting he will reinstate a ban on transgender individuals serving in the United States military. And he cited medical costs and disruption. The decision reverses a policy approved under President Barack Obama.

The Senate, meanwhile, has delayed the next vote on a plan to repeal Obamacare, scheduled for about two and a half hours or so from now. We'll update the health care debate here in the United States in a live report. That's coming up this hour as well.

But let's start with the U.S. attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who was there at the White House when the president launched his latest attack against him. And I'll quote, "Why didn't A.G. Sessions," Attorney General Sessions, "replace acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of the Clinton investigation, but got big dollars, $700,000, for his wife's political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the swamp." She got $700,000 from the Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, not directly from Hillary Clinton. McAuliffe a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Let's go to our Justice Reporter Laura Jarrett. She's over at the Justice Department for us right now. Our Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny is over at the White House.

Laura, the attorney general is actually prepared to announce something the president has been demanding. First of all, tell us what that is and why now.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes. Ironically enough, Wolf, we have been told that the Justice Department is actually expected to make an announcement, the attorney general will, on stepping up its efforts against leaks and leak investigations.

Of course, this is something that the president said. And he called on his attorney general yesterday in the Rose Garden to crack down on leaks coming from the intelligence community. And he plans to do just that.

Now, of course, a source cautions that this plan was in the works prior to the president's comments yesterday. It had been planned for quite some time and we expect to see it rolled out in the coming days. And. of course, it's an open question whether this effort on Attorney General Jeff Sessions' behalf on leaks will be enough to stop the Twitter tirades against his attorney general -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's go to Jeff quickly. Laura, stand by.

Do we know if the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, actually met with the president while he was at the White House today?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we are told by administration officials that the attorney general did not meet with the president. He was having a principals' meeting with other members of the president's cabinet, other secretaries.

And, you know, it's pretty routine for members of the cabinet to be here in the west wing. And he did not, apparently, meet with the president during this time. What is unusual, of course, is this ongoing feud between the White House and the Justice Department, so unusual. But we are told the attorney general did not meet with the president.

But, Wolf, some of the attorney generals or former Republican senators on Capitol Hill have his back on this in an extraordinary way. Some of the senior Republicans speaking to our Manu Raju earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I don't fully understand why the president has, you know, said what he said. But I think Jeff deserves, you know, better treatment.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: He may fire the attorney general. And there's some speculation that he could install him during the recess appointment in August. Would you advise that approach?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R) TEXAS: I think -- I think that would be a mistake. RAJU: You do?

CORNYN: Yes.

RAJU: Why is that?

CORNYN: Well, I think that Jeff Sessions is doing a good job and I think it would be incredibly disruptive and make it more difficult for the president to accomplish his agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, Wolf, just to interpret a little bit of what John Cornyn right there was saying, the number two Republican senator in the Senate. He was saying that he thinks a recess appointment. That means the president making an appointment that effectively happens without confirmation hearings while the Senate is on recess. He said that would be disruptive and, again, sending the sign that even Republicans would not be in support of that.

[13:05:00] So, Wolf, that's what hangs over all of this. If the attorney general were to resign or if the president was to fire him, the replacement from -- for him in this climate here in Washington would be so extraordinarily difficult. That's why many people here at the White House are trying to urge the president to calm down his language and leave the attorney general in place -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, when is the last time -- do we know the last time that Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, and the president actually sat down and had a face-to-face meeting, discussed what clearly is irritating the president about the attorney general?

ZELENY: Wolf, we don't know the exact date on that, but it's not been in the last week. And that's how long this feud has been boiling over in the public eye, for exactly a week since the president went to "The New York Times" in that interview last Wednesday and, you know, fired this extraordinarily public critique of him.

But the officials I've talked to say they don't know exactly when they met before that. But it had been quite some time, because this feud had been essentially percolating since March, when the attorney general first recused himself. It's only gotten worse, of course, because the Russian investigation, Wolf, has deepened.

BLITZER: Yes, it shows no signs of letting up either.

All right, Jeff Zeleny, Laura Jarrett, thanks to both of you.

We'll get much more on this story coming up. But there's another story we're following right now, very important development here in Washington. There's been a lot of criticism leveled today after President Trump announced plans to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals from serving in the military -- in the U.S. military in any capacity.

The president tweeting, quote, "After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

Let's go to our Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr, our CNN Military and Diplomatic Analyst, former Pentagon spokesman, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby is with us as well.

Barbara, what are you hearing at the Pentagon? Was this their recommendation, the top military brass to the president to go ahead and issue this ban?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, prior to the president's very sudden tweet this morning, no, it wasn't. What was in the works is Defense Secretary James Mattis last month issued a memo that there would be a six-month pause in this. The joint chiefs had some concerns about how it would all work.

And Mattis said, look, you know, basically, let's take a deep breath, look at this for the next six months, about the issues of recruiting, about whether or not having transgendered persons really would impact readiness and units, medical costs, all of that.

And the secretary making the very clear point in that memo just a month ago or so that nobody should assume what the outcome of the Pentagon six-month review would be. That there were no preconceived notions going in. The chiefs wanted more time.

And Mattis said, let's take more time to look at the whole thing. We now have the president's very sudden tweet this morning that appears to wholesale reinstate the ban. The big question now, Wolf, is, OK, you're not going to recruit more people into the military who are transgender persons. What happens to those already in the military? Because they've been told it's fine.

They are perhaps open, perhaps, with their friends and colleagues about all of this. There are military commanders. Will they now be forced out of the U.S. military? That is a really big question and there is no answer to it.

Because, by all accounts, while the president informed Jim Mattis of what he was going to do, there is no policy. There is no implementation right now. This is really a bolt from the White House. And now, everybody has to figure out what happens next.

BLITZER: You know, John Kirby, the defense secretary, General Mattis, he's a retired general. He said, give me six months to come up with a strategy. This is only a month into that. Why do you think the president, all of a sudden, decided to do this?

RETIRED REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: I have no idea. I think Barbara's right. I think this struck everybody at the Pentagon as quite a bit of a surprise, a bolt out of the blue as Barbara describes. And that's accurate. I don't think anybody really understands what's behind this.

And, remember, the review, the extra time that Secretary Mattis wanted was for a review of assessions (ph) recruiting transgenders. Not a review of transgenders in the service in general.

So, we went from, give me more time to figure out how we better recruit them, to, they're now all banned. Not just recruiting but they're banned from service.

And Barbara brings up the key question today. It's, what does that mean for those that are transgender and serving in the military right now?

BLITZER: You served in the military for how long?

KIRBY: Thirty years.

BLITZER: Thirty years. So, what do you think? What's your reaction to the president's decision? Will this be disruptive? Will it result in enormous medical costs?

[13:10:00] KIRBY: Yes, I think it's abominable, to be honest with you, Wolf. I fully supported President Obama's decision to lift the ban to let transgender service members serve. I think anyone who is qualified and meets the standards ought to be able to service the United States in uniform. And those kinds of issues or orientation and sexual genders should not factor into that.

It's also important to keep in mind, Rand did a great study, Wolf. That there -- that the estimated medical costs, they estimated somewhere between $2 million to $8 million total, that most transgender service members would not seek that medical care.

And, look, here's the other thing. You're depriving yourself of talent. About -- if you take the upper limit of estimates of 6,000 members that are transgender on active duty alone right now, that's about a brigade combat team. That's about a carrier and its airwing embark. That's a lot of talent and skill that you'd be denying yourself.

BLITZER: Is that similar to the reaction you're hearing, Barbara Starr, over at the Pentagon?

STARR: Well, look, the U.S. military is a reflection of American society. It is full of people who come from all walks of life across this country. So, certainly there are people who would be opposed to it.

But on a policy level which is what the joint chiefs deal with, the secretary of defense and the commander in chief. To make such military policy so instantaneously without the commanders really knowing, even today, hours later, what the president's intent, how he will implement all this, what they are supposed to do about it.

That, at least for right now perhaps, is the disruptive part. To make military policy via Twitter is something that can leave the door open to an awful lot of misinterpretation across military units.

So, that might be the real thing that people are looking at right now. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but their own personal opinion.

But when you are in the U.S. military, the U.S. military functions by policy, rules and regulations. And, right now, there is none. There is total confusion about what is supposed to be happening -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, John Kirby, thanks to you as well.

Republican Senator John McCain, a military veteran, a war hero, a former POW, he blasted the transgender military ban issued by the president in a statement.

Let me read part of it. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country, and is able to meet the standards, should have the opportunity to do so and should be treated as the patriots they are.

Let's talk about this with one Republican Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. She's a member of the Armed Services Committee in the House. Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. VICKY HARTZLER (R), MISSOURI: You bet, glad to be here.

BLITZER: All right. So, you tweeted today and let me read your tweet. Quote, "pleased to hear that at real Donald Trump, the President, shares my readiness and cost concerns and will be changing this costly and damaging policy, hash tag readiness. So, why do you disagree with the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain?

HARTZLER: Well, because I've looked at this issue very, very closely and this policy is going to cost $1.35 billion over the next 10 years alone just for the sex reassignment surgeries of the transgender members of our service.

And that equals 13 F35 airplanes that we could buy with that or 14 F18s. You know, I have been very concerned with the defense cuts that we have had over the last several years. And we need to invest every defense dollar to meet the threat that we're facing right now as a nation.

BLITZER: Where did you get those numbers?

HARTZLER: Well, they came from a very strong analyst of, first of all, how many transgenders the Navy said that we currently believe are currently in serving. And then, we went to the transgender advocacy groups that have said that 33 percent of transgender individuals go through the surgeries.

And looking at the cost of the surgeries, that's where we get those dollars. But others may think it could as high as $3.7 billion. BLITZER: Who put -- specifically, because there's a Rand study which

gives the very opposite. It would just be a few million dollars a year to allow transgender personnel to serve openly in the United States military. So, I'm asking specifically, where is that study?

HARTZLER: Well, we have real concerns with the Rand study. We believe that's very flawed. They based it on the cost of premium increases.

BLITZER: But I'm asking you, Congresswoman, with all due respect, the name of the study you're referring to.

HARTZLER: Well, our own office did that analysis and we feel very confident in it. There's one that's been done by the Family Research Council that says $3.7 billion.

So, the question is, though, should we be spending any tax dollars to do gender reassignment surgeries when we don't have soldiers who don't have body armor or bullets.

We need to be investing every dollar that we have to meet the threats we're facing as a nation.

BLITZER: "The Washington Post" just posted an article, noting that another study which says, and I'll put it up on the screen, that 18 countries allow transgender personnel to serve openly in the military including Australia, Israel, Britain, Sweden and Canada. None of those countries, "The Washington Post" reports, experiencing ill effects from opening up their armed services to the transgender community.

These are very strong militaries. I assume you'd agree. Australia, Israel, Britain, among others, they don't have a problem. Why should the U.S. have a problem?

HARTZLER: Well, we have the best and strongest military in the world. And it's up to us to make the policies that are best for our military moving forward. And certainly we need to spend every defense dollar where we -- where we need to.

And this has been a real concern, not only for our -- for morale and for retention and for a lot of different areas. So I applaud the president for making these very decisive, bold steps and saying we're going to prioritize our spending.

BLITZER: A lot of people who have served in the military -- I take you've never served in the military, right?

HARTZLER: No, that's correct. My dad was in the Army Reserves. I'm very proud of him, as well as all the members in my district that I represent.

BLITZER: Well, we've -- we've spoken to a lot of military reservists, military activists, military personnel, they point out they heard the same arguments about allowing gay individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. As you know, that is now allowed and there are very few problems at all. What do you say to that? HARTZLER: Oh, it's a totally different policy change here. These are

individuals that have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which could be -- require very costly medical treatment.

I had an intern that was denied the ability to go into the military because she had a bunion on her foot and the argument was that this may cost the military and she would have to go through surgery.

Right now we have people who cannot serve in the military with asthma or with flat feet, so why would we allow individuals to come in, although they're very patriotic and we appreciate their desire to serve, but who have these medical issues that could be very, very costly. We shouldn't make an exception in this case.

BLITZER: All right, one final question, congresswoman.

The secretary of defense, General Mattis, retired General Mattis, he said he wanted six months to study it. It's only been one month. All of a sudden, out of the blue, the president tweets about this, issues this new announcement this morning. Don't you think the president should have at least given the Defense Department, the secretary of defense, General Mattis, an opportunity to complete his study before the president acted?

HARTZLER: No, because right now is when individuals serving in the military from last year's policy are starting to go through the hormone treatment process and the surgeries that are going to be very, very costly. Now we're doing --

BLITZER: So you want to kick all of them out of the military? Do you want -- do you want to -- do you want to -- do you want to kick out --

HARTZLER: Now we're doing our defense spending and we have to make that decision now.

BLITZER: Congresswoman, those service members who are transgender service members serving actively in the U.S. military right now, should they be kicked out?

HARTZLER: Well, I think the details will need to be worked out, but we need to certainly focus our military on those who are able to fight tonight. And if you have this surgery, you can't be deployed for almost 300 days and somebody else has to go in your place. So there are a lot of valid reasons to keep the policy from the past, and that is to insure every soldier is deployable, to make sure every dollar goes to meet the threat.

BLITZER: But as you know, there are a lot of service members who aren't deployed to fight. They have desk jobs and they do a very honorable job in that process as well, right?

HARTZLER: Oh, absolutely. But this is the right policy and I applaud the president for being decisive as commander and chief and insuring our military readiness.

BLITZER: All right, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, thanks very much for joining us.

HARTZLER: Thank you.

BLITZER: Up next, we're going to get a different perspective, a very different perspective, from a Democratic congressman who's already moved to block the president's transgender ban. We'll have details of that.

Also, take a look at this, we've got some live pictures coming in from the White House Briefing Room. The press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, she'll be going before reporters on camera fairly soon. She'll be defending presumably the president's decision on this and other actions, including his latest tweets criticizing the attorney general of the United States. We'll have live coverage of that also.

Lots of news coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:23:05] BLITZER: Welcome back.

President Trump announced today he's restoring the ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the United States military. Before the break we spoke to Republican Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. She's in favor of the ban, supports the president's decision.

Let's get a different perspective from Congressman Scott Peters of California. He's on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. SCOTT PETERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Hey, Wolf. It's good to be with you.

BLITZER: I don't know if you heard the interview, but Congresswoman Hartzler says it's expensive, it would be disruptive, the president is absolutely right in reinstating this ban. Your reaction?

PETERS: I can't think of anything more backward than telling young American men and women who want to serve in our all-volunteer army that they can't help defend their country because of their gender identity. I just think it's wrong. I think this week in particular we ought to be focused on the real threats to America and readiness in of acquisition (ph) and in building a defense budget that protects our men and women serving us abroad.

BLITZER: Do you have a good understanding of what this decision by the president, announced today on Twitter, means for maybe the 6,000 or 7,000 or 8,000 transgender military personnel on active duty right now?

PETERS: Well, I think that's up in the air right now. And the departments been very clear on this, back from -- from 2015 and 2016 that people -- the 5,000 or 6,000 or so transgender people serving in the army -- or the military today will get to continue to serve. And the tweet, you know, and by its nature 140 characters, is fairly ambiguous on that. I think we want to clear that up.

But we also want to let the Department of Defense finish its own study of what would happen to allow now enlistees to come in who are transgender. I think they're going to find the same thing that the department found in 2016 through a study by the Rand Corporation, that there's no impact on readiness, no impact on morale or cohesion and virtually no cost.

[13:25:06] BLITZER: The president actually used three tweets to announce this new policy change --

PETERS: Oh, sorry.

BLITZER: At 8:55 a.m., 9:04 a.m., 9:08 a.m. He announced it on Twitter in three tweets. So he had more than 144 characters available for this announcement.

Is there anything you or other members of Congress can do about this?

PETERS: Well, I filed an amendment today that the rules committee will consider when it starts meeting at 3:00 to prevent this kind of action We actually had Ms. Hartzler's amendment on the floor when we approved the NDAA, the defense budget authorization. We were able to defeat that with bipartisan support. Twenty-four Republicans voted against her amendment. It's the same policy. We want to defeat it again with -- with the amendment that I filed this morning.

BLITZER: And you think it has a chance of passing the House and the Senate?

PETERS: I expect those same 24 Republicans will be with us because they know that this is a distraction. You know, we've got real issues. My district has seven military bases, including military -- Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, where they're literally cannibalizing planes, they're taking parts out of some fighter jets to put them into other fighter jets to keep them flying.

We need to provide the right material, the right acquisition, the right readiness for our troops. That's the discussion we should be having this week, not this awful side show that's discriminatory and wrong.

BLITZER: Democratic Congressman Scott Peters of California, thanks for joining us.

PETERS: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: A lot more on this story coming up throughout the day, but take a look at this, we've got some live pictures coming in from the U.S. Senate floor, where in a few hours lawmakers will vote on another piece of health care legislation, this time a plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, but not an offer of replacement, at least not yet. We'll have much more on that, all the day's news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)