Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Trump on North Korea; Tax Cuts for Wealthy; Tax Reform Push; La David Johnson's Widow Speaks; War Authorization Powers. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 23, 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. Thanks very much for joining us.

Breaking her silence. The widow at the center of the ugly feud involving the White House speaking out about her confidential call with the president and why she's also upset with the U.S. military. And now, the president is responding, it's wrong.

Senator John McCain going after a draft policy that kept Donald Trump from serving in the -- during the Vietnam War. His blistering words. That's coming up.

And one of President Trump's predecessors says, I'll go to North Korea. What Jimmy Carter thinks he could do face to face with Kim Jong-un.

Lots of news going on this hour, but let's start with the president of the United States, now openly challenging the word of a widow whose husband died in service of the country. Sergeant La David Johnson was killed in Niger more than two weeks ago. He was laid to rest over the weekend. Today, in her first interview, his widow, Myeshia Johnson, says she still has several questions about her husband's death, including this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MYESHIA JOHNSON: Every time I asked to see my husband, they wouldn't let me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did they tell you?

JOHNSON: They were telling me that he's in a severe -- a severe wrap, like I wouldn't be able to see him. I need to see him so I will know that that is my husband. I don't know nothing.

They won't show me a finger, a hand. I know my husband's body from head to toe, and they won't let me see anything. I don't know what's in that box. It could be empty, for all I know. But I need -- and I'll -- I need to see my husband.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: She also gave her account of the condolence call from President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: What he said was --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president?

JOHNSON: Yes, the president. He said that he knew what he signed up for but it hurts anyways. And I was -- it made me cry because I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said it.

He couldn't remember my husband's name. I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband's name. And that's what hurt me the most. Because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risks his life for our country, why can't you remember his name?

And that's what made me upset and cry even more, because my husband was an awesome soldier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Myeshia Johnson also responded to questions about her family friend, the long-time family friend, the Democratic Congresswoman Fredricka Wilson, who President Trump said lied about that same condolence call.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: Whatever Ms. Wilson said was not fabricated. What she said was 100 percent correct. It was Master Sergeant (INAUDIBLE), me, my aunt, my uncle and the driver and Ms. Wilson in the car. The phone was on speakerphone. Why would we fabricate something like that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Our White House Correspondent Sara Murray is joining us now from the north lawn of the White House. Sara, the president attacked Congresswoman Wilson, calling her, quote, "wacky."

So, what is -- what is he now saying about Sergeant Johnson's widow and her account of that same phone call?

SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the president weighed in on Twitter this morning, and he's still insisting that his tone was respectful. He said, I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sergeant La David Johnson and spoke his name from the beginning without hesitation.

So, obviously, he's taking issue with Myeshia Johnson's claim that the president didn't seem to know Sergeant La David Johnson's name.

Now, despite the fact that the president was tweeting about this this morning, we just saw him briefly in the Oval Office as well as the cabinet room. He's meeting with Prime Minister Lee right now.

And he wouldn't take any questions about whether he regretted the fact that he upset Myeshia Johnson with his comments or whether he had anything more that he wanted to say to her. He ignored those questions from reporters today -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And he's going to be having another little photo op with the visiting Prime Minister of Singapore. Will -- is the White House saying that the president will answer questions? That's expected to come up later this hour.

MURRAY: As of right now, we're not expecting them to take questions. As you know, with President Trump, he always tends to change the plans on the stroke of a dime, if that's what he feels like doing. But as of right now, we're not anticipating questions.

BLITZER: All right, Sara, thanks very much. We'll see what happens. We'll have live coverage of the two leaders, the prime minister of Singapore and the president of the United States in the rose garden.

That's coming up later this hour. They'll make statements. We'll see if they answer questions from reporters. I'm sure reporters will shout a few.

Let's not forget, four U.S. troops died in that ambush in Niger, Staff Sergeant Dustin Wright, Staff Sergeant Jeremiah Johnson, Staff Sergeant Brian Black and Sergeant La David Johnson.

[13:05:05] Here with us now, our CNN Military Analyst, retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. Let me get your reaction, first of all, that when the coffin, the body was returned to Florida before the burial, she said she wasn't even allowed to open it to see the -- to see her husband's body. What is the military policy on that?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Normally, Wolf, they do allow a widow to see the husband's body, in a case like this.

What it tells me is there was, god forbid, some damage to the body that made it look very bad, or that there was some other decomposition that was -- that was going on that made it very difficult to look at. There may be a medical reason for it. There may also be, potentially, a forensic reason.

But given all of that, I still find it very unusual that she wasn't allowed to see the body and just say her final goodbye.

BLITZER: So, you -- the military, like the -- those who were there, the escort officers, they may have decided they wanted to protect her from seeing the remain -- the body of her husband, that it would have been too awful for her to see that. As a result, they recommended to her, you better not take a look?

LEIGHTON: That is possible. That is possible. We don't know right now. That part has not been released to the public.

But what normally would happen is the escort officers would -- the casualty officers would actually take control of the situation and make a decision based on what -- you know, what the situation is.

BLITZER: But in the end, according to military protocol, it's her decision. If she really wants to see it, they have to let her see it.

LEIGHTON: Yes, that's normally the case.

BLITZER: That's normally the case and we'll see what happens, in this particular case. She says her other big question is, why did it take 48 hours to find him?

LEIGHTON: Well, that becomes an operational issue as well as, quite frankly, the circumstances. I think what -- we know there was a mission. The SEALs were reportedly on a mission that was to basically do a recovery or a search of the area where La David Johnson was.

BLITZER: The Green Berets.

LEIGHTON: The Green -- and the Green Berets were also --

BLITZER: Yes.

LEIGHTON: -- involved in that. So, there were reports that indicated that they wanted to mount this mission. They were also going to use Nigerian and French forces to do this.

The fact that they found him so late indicates to me that he was separated from the main body of his group, of the special forces A team. That very fact is very troubling because the team should always -- they're taught doctrinally to stick together.

So, there must have been something that happened that made him be separated from the group.

BLITZER: Sergeant Johnson's body was eventually found 48 hours later, about a mile away from where the incident occurred by local nationals. What does that say to you?

LEIGHTON: Well, it says to me that only they were able to find the body either because it was hidden or because it had been brought back to a location. It is possible that he had been kidnapped by the terrorists. There are other things that could have happened.

Of course, the real final result of that would have to await an investigation, Wolf. But the basic issue here is separation.

Something terrible might have happened, you know, with him. He may have been in custody alive, even, during a certain portion of this ordeal. Those are things we just don't know right now.

BLITZER: Here is something that's really disturbing to me and I'm sure to you as well and to others. That the leaders of the House and the Senate apparently did not know that the U.S. has deployed a thousand U.S. troops to Niger.

Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, he says he didn't know. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, he's in the Gang of Eight. He's supposed to be briefed on the most sensitive information. He says he didn't know. I've spoken with others who say they didn't know that, all of a sudden, a thousand U.S. troops, about 800 were deployed in the Obama administration has grown to about a thousand right now.

It's a pretty sad commentary that the United States deploys a thousand troops in Africa to this one country and the leaders of the House and Senate don't even know about that.

LEIGHTON: Absolutely. Well, I was a former congressional liaison officer for the Air Force intelligence effort. And we always made it a point to tell Congress what we could. And we dealt with some very, very sensitive materials.

In this particular case, you know, there are, of course, maps that are publicly available that show the deployment of U.S. troops. But it is absolutely imperative that when there is a ramp-up in any country around the world, that the congressional leaders are told that. It's part of the Constitution.

BLITZER: Senator Leighton, thanks very much for joining us.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Wolf.

BLITZER: We're going to get more on this.

The attack in Niger certainly has prompted new questions about President Trump's war authorization problems. Next week, it will come under review when the defense secretary, James Mattis, and the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Let's discuss this and a lot more with my next guest, Bill Richardson. He was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the energy secretary during the Clinton administration, then served as the Democratic governor of New Mexico.

[13:10:02] Governor, thanks very much for joining us.

BILL RICHARDSON (D), FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Thank you very much, Wolf.

BLITZER: The 16-year-old authorization for the use of military force is used to justify military operations in numerous countries, including Niger. Is it time now to review that authorization and get the House and the Senate, if they want to, to pass new authorization allowing the U.S., the administration, to deploy these kinds of troops in very, very dangerous areas?

RICHARDSON: Yes, I think this situation in Niger where there are thousands of American troops, the group of eight, the highest Congressional leaders, maybe even the Intelligence Committee didn't know.

I think what is needed is clear guidelines, new authorizations. I don't think it would be an infringement on the president's power. These are usually granted. I was on the House Intelligence Committee for many years.

But, look, we have a situation in Niger where so many people don't know, was this a military mission? Was there any covert action involved? I suspect there might have been. This is why there wasn't full disclosure to the Armed Services Committee at least.

But at least the gang of eight, the highest Congressional leaders, should have known. And this is war in Africa. This is a national security case where so many few people know. And the tragedy of what happened to officer Johnson and the widow, nobody knows the decomposition of the body.

I -- by the way, Wolf, I think the military has very strong, good protocols. I was involved in the remains of American forces from North Korea. We got seven remains back. The Pentagon is very careful about the condition of the remains. It's a very somber situation. You have to show respect.

I suspect there was a good reason for that decision by the Pentagon. But this widow, what a tragedy, what's happened to her. She should get a full explanation of what happened. And the president should call her and say, I meant no disrespect.

I mean, here, we have cases where General Kelly, a good, decent man. You could see the pain in his face, having lost a son. We shouldn't get into these political debates on these issues in a partisan basis. It's the way the president has fostered. He should just stop this.

BLITZER: Yes. And a lot of people totally, totally agree with you. Get on the phone. Call her up. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to say but my heart goes out to you. And whatever I can do to help down the road, I will be there for you. A gold star widow. Certainly, she deserves that kind of respect.

Let's switch topics while I have you, Governor. I want you to listen to President Trump's latest comments about North Korea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are so prepared, like you wouldn't believe. You would be shocked to see how totally prepared we are, if we need to be. Would it be nice not to do that? The answer is yes. Will that happen? Who knows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, what do you think the president means? And you've been to North Korea on several occasions. When he's talking about preparedness, is this more hype? Is this a serious threat? What is your analysis?

RICHARDSON: Well, it's -- again, he makes foreign policy on the fly by tweets. I suspect he's talking about some kind of a military response. But I think something decent and good is going on. There may be some diplomacy going on. The North Koreans, for two weeks, have not shot a missile. They have not had a nuclear test. They've been relatively quiet. There are reports of Secretary Tillerson talking about diplomacy. The president is going to Asia in early November.

You know, maybe there's something good going on, potential discussions that would lead to a freeze on both sides for a short period of time until we're able at least to have a dialogue with North Korea.

I don't have any advance information. But I do know that there's something going on there mainly because of North Korea's silence and relative passivity compared to their loquaciousness and their threats.

And -- but, you know, the president making these statements, it just -- it's just going to find ways to irritate the North Koreans who are very easily irritated. And their paranoid. And so, it doesn't help.

I just wish he would let his team -- he's got a good national security team at the White House, Secretary Tillerson. Let him explore a little diplomacy, that's all.

BLITZER: Well, I think what they're trying to do, and it may be paying off if your analysis is correct, Governor, that China is squeezing the North Koreans significantly more now, as a result of urgings from the U.S.

[13:15:07] And maybe the North Koreans are responding to the pressure from China, its major trading partner. Are you open to that?

RICHARDSON: Yes. I do think that that's a good part of President Trump's foreign policy with North Korea. Although I'm very upset at these public statements that he makes, is getting China to recognize that this is not in China's interest for them to be such attention in the Korean peninsula, by increasing their role with sanctions, by enforcing sanctions on coal, on gas, on energy, on North Korean workers. Maybe that is starting to work with North Korea. But you don't know. The North Korean, as you know, you've been there with me, that they -- they have their own mindset. They don't think like we do. But it could be something is happening.

This silence by the North Koreans, in other words no -- no bombs, no provocations, no threats, no missile tests, no nuclear weapons test is a good sign, even if it's just two or three weeks.

BLITZER: Let's hope for the best. That's a subject you know well. We'll continue this conversation, ambassador, down the road.

Bill Richardson, the former New Mexico governor, former ambassador to the U.N.

Thanks very much for joining us.

RICHARDSON: Thank you. Thank you.

BLITZER: Senator John McCain going after the draft deferment policy that kept Donald Trump from fighting during the Vietnam War. Plus, as President Trump pushes his tax plan. He's now making a big announcement about the fate of 401ks. Will Republicans look at making changes?

And moments from now the president will make a statement live from the White House. We're looking at pictures -- live pictures coming in from the Rose Garden. He's there with the -- he will be there with the prime minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong. We'll have live coverage. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:25] BLITZER: It's a big week for President Trump's tax reform plan after last week's budget vote set the framework. He may have the wind at his back as he makes a major push for the Congress to get it done. The president is calling the plan the biggest tax cuts ever in U.S. history.

The cuts are based around some major changes to tax brackets, going to three brackets from the current seven for individual tax returns. .The biggest drop in taxes will be for the top earners. The president wants to also drop corporate tax rates down to 20 percent from the current 35 percent.

Congressman Mark Meadows joining us from Capitol Hill right now. He's a Republican from North Carolina He's also the chairman of the very important House Freedom Caucus.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

A lot of analysts are pointing out that the biggest winners in all these tax cuts -- yes, there will be some benefits for the middle class, but the biggest winners by far will be the very wealthy. Is there a danger that going into midterm elections next year, these cuts will simply be laded -- be labeled as tax cuts for the rich?

REP. MARK MEADOWS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, there's always a danger, Wolf, any time that you talk about tax cuts that you put a label on that it just benefits the rich or this particular segment of the population. But I can tell you that the president and members of Congress are laser focused on making sure that it's those middle income wage earners that actually benefit.

You talk about all the analysis that's been done. You know, I find it very fascinating that they're doing all this unbelievable analysis, Wolf, when -- where you and I -- if we were pressed real hard to talk exactly where those tax brackets are, we couldn't do it because the details haven't even been laid out. And so we're hopeful that we will see that the beginning of next week. We'll be able to have a real debate.

But I can tell you, just in recent days, the president has weighed in on one particular thing when they were talking about a pay-for that might affect 401(k) plans. He says, no, this is something that will help middle income wage earners the most. We need to make sure that we keep that intact. And so all hands on deck for those that -- the moms and dads on main street, your viewers, the people that get us elected, we need to make sure we deliver for them.

BLITZER: Well, how concerned are you, congressman, that all these tax cuts will simply raise the deficit and the national debt will go up, some are saying $1 trillion, $2 trillion, $3 trillion?

MEADOWS: Well, it is a concern. And really when you look at that, and you know the budget that we passed out of the House actually had some mandatory spending cuts along with being able to do aggressive tax reform. But any time you look at increasing the deficit, you're looking at somebody paying the bill other than you and me. You know, we're looking at our kids, our grandkids to have to pay that. So we need to make sure that we're fiscally responsible.

But in this particular approach, we're looking at a Senate budget that would allow us to be a lot more aggressive on reducing those tax cuts. The president has been talking about more tax cuts than tax reform. But we've got to be really aggressive in doing that to get the economy going or we don't even have a hope of not only funding our military, but it's funding the other things, education and child tax credits, many of the things that receive great bipartisan support. So am I concerned? Yes. Are we looking really more at being aggressive on reducing the tax rates? We are perhaps at some short-term exposure on the deficit side of things.

[13:25:00] BLITZER: You know, the biggest expenditures of the federal government are the so-called entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

MEADOWS: Right.

BLITZER: The White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney, was on the Sunday talk shows saying that he personally is pushing the president for cuts in these entitlements, but the president says, no, they are off limits. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICK MULVANEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: I had a meeting with the president just the other day. We walked over some of the numbers. And I actually said, look, here's where it is, here's where it isn't, and, Mr. President, I'm going to come back to you again and want to talk to you about entitlement spending. He said, look, I'm still not going to do it, but I'm happy to have the conversation. Same thing we -- discussion we had in the spring. I promised people I wouldn't change Social Security. I'm not going to do it. I said, that's fine, but my job is to show you what that means. I think that's the right way to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, so where do you stand? Will you support all of these tax cuts if the president gets his way and there are absolutely no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

MEADOWS: You know, the president is going to get his way. And so at this particular point, it's a binary choice for us. It's either working within the framework that we have and trying to be aggressive on the tax cuts. I've raised this issue of looking at modifying, whether it be Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, any of those items. And the president has been very emphatic. You know, personally, on three different occasions, he says, Mark, we're just not going to do that. It was a promise he made to the American people. And so we're looking at other areas.

There is one that we do believe that we can team up with the president and this administration on, and that's welfare reform. I think that in the coming days that you'll see that we'll start to re-implement a work requirement that actually was originally passed under Bill Clinton but that was done away with. And so you'll see some of those entitlement issues addressed on welfare reform. But on those three core issues that Director Mulvaney just mentioned, he's right, the president has been very emphatic. And we can keep coming back, but it is not going to be in this tax bill.

BLITZER: Just one final question, congressman, before I let you go. If it's shown the Congressional Budget Office and other experts that all of these other tax cuts will wind up increasing the national debt, increasing the deficit, will you vote for it?

MEADOWS: Well, we already believe that it's going to show that it's going to increase the deficit in the short term. And so, for me, I've been looking at trying to make them aggressive as possible, even if they have to expire in 10 to 15 years. So the answer to that is, based on the parameters that have been laid out, a 20 percent corporate, 25 percent for small businesses, doubling the standard deduction for moms and dads, I will -- will be voting on that and voting for that, and hoping that we can make some adjustments on some of those spending things to address the deficit in the coming years.

BLITZER: And you will support eliminating the estate tax, which really is a benefit to millionaires and billionaires, like the president. They'll save -- the president, presumably, could save, for his family, billions of dollars if he's worth, let's say, $10 billion, which he claims "Forbes" magazine says he's worth maybe $3 billion or $4 billion. But still as part of the estate tax, he would save at least one or two or three billion dollars. Are you OK with that?

MEADOWS: Well, I haven't looked at it with regards to this president's tax policy in mind, because, candidly, people with that kind of assets normally have already done the planning to avoid the inheritance tax anyways. Really what is for estate taxes for me are my farmers back home in North Carolina. What happens is you've got these family farms that if we don't do that, what we're doing is essentially taking it from those family farms and saying, you got to get rid of it in order to continue --

BLITZER: But, congressman, those family farms have to be worth at least $11 million. The first $11 million for a couple --

MEADOWS: They do. Well, we're talking -- yes, you're right. You're right.

BLITZER: The first $11 million is tax free as far as estate planning is concerned.

MEADOWS: But -- but --

BLITZER: If the -- if the farm is worth more than $11 million, then you start paying estate tax.

MEADOWS: But -- but, Wolf, let's look at it. When we're talking about family farms, we're talking about a husband and wife that may be in their family, but they may have five or six children or heirs that go on. And so when you're really looking at that, it's about passing it on to those heirs and those family farms. So if we can adjust it to address that, certainly giving the president benefit is not anything that is even on the radar for me or any of my colleagues in looking at that. And so, you know, perhaps we'll see that.

But, really, when we get down to it, should death be a taxable event, Wolf? And I don't think it should be. They've already paid in taxes. And so that will be a debate that we'll have in the coming days as we start to modify this tax reform and roll it out.

BLITZER: Always good to have you join us here on CNN. Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, thanks very much.

MEADOWS: Thanks. Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Senator John McCain appearing to take a shot at President Trump over his draft deferment during the Vietnam War. You're going to hear his words.

[13:29:56] Also, moments from now, the president will make a statement live from the White House Rose Garden. You're looking at live pictures coming in. He's there with the visiting Prime Minister of Singapore.

Our coverage continues right after this.