CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Police Shootings; Drug Laws; Russian Cyber-Attack; Iran Deal; Abortion; Clinton Foundation

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right. Evan Perez doing good reporting for us as you usually do. Thanks very much.

Let's talk about all of this and more with the newly-announced Republican presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us. And I want to point out, you're in North Charleston, South Carolina, right now. We've planned this interview for -- you're not there because of what happened over the past few days. This is coincidental, right?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Correct. We're on a campaign tour starting off the presidential campaign. We were in Kentucky yesterday and then New Hampshire today, South Carolina today and tomorrow, tonight and tomorrow, and then into Iowa and Nevada.

BLITZER: I just want to explain why you're in North Charleston, where this shooting occurred. You've seen the video by now. This is a unique case, because it is on videotape. But how common do you think these kinds of cases are, where a white police officer shoots and kills an African-American man?

PAUL: First, I'd like to say it's just a terrible tragedy, and I hope justice does occur. But I do think that sometimes the way we report news, we tend to report the news of crime, and so we see a lot of crime, and we think it's representative of the whole.

And I think when you look at police across our country, 98, 99 percent of them are doing their job on a day-to-day basis and aren't doing things like that. And then when a tragedy like this happens, it doesn't exculpate that particular instance. But it shouldn't paint with a broad brush that all police are bad or all police aren't doing their job.

So I think it's important that, when we see terrible tragedy like this, because we report crime so much in our news, we don't often see the policeman who's going next door and helping the little old lady whose heat is turned off or bringing food to someone. And I just want to be careful that we don't paint with a broad brush that somehow all of our police are bad.

In this particular instance, I hope justice does occur, but I hope we don't paint it with such a broad brush that we draw conclusions that may not be accurate.

BLITZER: No, I think that's fair enough. Almost all police officers around the country, they're decent; they're hard-working; they protect us. But there are these kinds of cases that do occur where a white police officer unjustly goes ahead and shoots and kills a black person, correct?

PAUL: Well, I think what we need to do is, you know, I've asked for statistics on this. Congressman Bobby Scott and I did a bill last year to ask for statistics. It's never been really added up on statistics of shooting, the racial characteristics of the shootings. And so we can compile data to know how big a problem it is or to know if it's a very odd circumstance.

But for certain, we should know the numbers, and so I have legislation that would count up these numbers so we can better address it, if it really is a systemic problem.

[17:10:05] BLITZER: In this particular case, we know it's a problem, because it is all caught on videotape, and it is shocking to anyone who sees it.

You and I have discussed your efforts to collaborate with African- American leaders to try to change laws out there that disproportionately impact African-Americans. And when you announced your candidacy yesterday, you said this. Let me play the clip.

( VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Senator, what laws are you talking about?

PAUL: Yes, I probably could have been a little more specific there. I'm really referring to the drug laws, non-violent drug laws, because I think what's happened -- and really, this is the mistake we make. We say it's all racism. There is a disproportionate impact of the drug war on African-Americans, but it's not all or I'm not even sure what percentage of it could be even regard to color. Because often there are black police officers arresting black perpetrators in big cities.

But the reason why I think it's unfair is that, when you look at survey data of white teenagers and black teenagers, the use of illegal drugs is pretty similar, but the people in prison, three out of four are black or brown. And it's because we do our patrolling in big cities in areas of high concentration of population and more crime, and then maybe the white kids who live in the suburbs predominantly aren't having that same degree of patrols, and it adds up over time.

But if you look at our prisons, there is a disproportionate impact on poor people, black or brown more commonly. But poverty is a common denominator. I the war on drugs needs to be reassessed, and we as a society need to decide should we give teenagers a second chance to make a mistake?

We put a guy in prison, a 24-year-old kid in prison for 55 years for selling marijuana, and I think that's an inappropriate punishment. We need to rethink what we're doing in the war on drugs.

BLITZER: Well, that's one case, the war on drugs, but there are a lot of people out there who think a lot of other laws are also biased against African-Americans. Do you agree with that?

PAUL: You know, I think that I was referring mostly to the war on drugs but I would say that sometimes, poor people in our society may not be getting the same representation that rich people get. So I am very concerned that the criminal justice system is not treating people equally.

One of the tragic cases was Kalief Browner up in New York City, 16 years old, accused of a crime, kept in prison for three years without a trial. The Sixth Amendment says you get a speedy trial. And I was horrified to find out in America that this young boy was accused of a crime, never tried, finally released from prison, but he was kept in solitary confinement, tried to commit suicide several times. That really bothered me. And that shouldn't be happening in our country. And I want to be part of trying to fix that and make it better, more fair and more just.

BLITZER: The North Charleston police chief said today that he plans to have body cameras on all of his police officers. You think that every police officer in the United States should wear a body camera?

PAUL: You know, it's difficult to say everybody and that we should direct it from the federal level, but I have supported legislation to allow some of the grants that are already going out to be used for body cameras. I'm not big on telling South Carolina what to do or big on telling Kentucky what to do.

But if I were a member of the police force, I think in some ways the body cameras protect them, because while there are accusations that are justified, there are also some unjust accusations against police, and I think the cameras will protect the good policemen, which I think are the vast majority of or police.

BLITZER: Let's get into some other issues, Senator. Our own justice reporter, Evan Perez, yesterday right here in THE SITUATION ROOM, he broke the news that the Russian government used hackers to break into the State Department and the White House computer system, had access to details about the president's schedule, his meetings, his movements. You're on the foreign relations committee. How vulnerable is the United States that this could happen again?

PAUL: Well, it concerns me a great deal. And I think we have to protect ourselves. That's one of the reasons why I think we require that our high officials use government servers. And this is one of the concerns about Hillary Clinton, and using a private server that she may have opened herself up to espionage. And we'll maybe never know the truth, because she erased the files. But this is of a great deal of concern to me.

BLITZER: If you were president, how you would handle these threats? Let's say from Russia's President Putin?

PAUL: Well, we have to use all the technology at our hand. We have to have the ability to block espionage, cyberespionage. We have to have the ability to have the best and brightest of our minds to help us to write code that can keep people out. And we also, though, have to have certain rules for our high government officials. I don't think the secretary of state should communicate with the president via e-mail through a private server without the protection of the government cyber-controls and cybersecurity controls.

[17:15:11] So I think that is a mistake, and we should make sure that the -- any next secretary of state or secretary of defense or what have you is communicating through a secure channel.

BLITZER: I want you to respond to this new ad that was -- came out yesterday. Apparently a million dollar buy by some Republican group out there that basically charges that your foreign policy is very close to President Obama's foreign policy, and they specifically have a quote from you back in 2007. I'll play a little clip of it.

(DVIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. I want you to respond to that, but specifically, the 2007 quote where you said that Iran was not a real threat to the United States.

PAUL: You know, I think the whole thing's sort of a farce and factually incorrect. In fact, Politifact said it was mostly false. When you look at the actual facts on the ground, I've been one of the leading proponents saying that any agreement that we come to with Iran has to come back and be voted on by Congress. I've been saying repeatedly that I'm skeptical for the main reason that Iran's foreign minister is now tweeting out in English that the agreement doesn't mean what President Obama says the agreement means.

And so really, I think that people are desperate somehow to latch onto the status quo. And so they put out falsehood but there's really nothing about the ad that's correct. Even the statement from 2007, even in 2007 I did believe that Iran was potentially a threat and developing a nuclear weapon was bad. And now eight years later, which is a long time, I think the threat has become heightened.

So I think it's unfair to take statements out of context from eight years ago and then to basically lie about my position on Iran now.

BLITZER: Because in 2007, you did say -- we heard you say it, it's ridiculous to think that they're a threat to our national security. But what I hear you saying is your views have changed.

PAUL: That's not to say -- but that's not -- look. That's not to say that in 2007, them developing a nuclear weapon wouldn't be a threat.

Really, the threat to the United States that we've always been concerned with is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and developing a nuclear weapon. So that statement taken out of context, even in 2007 isn't to say that I didn't believe developing a nuclear weapon was a good thing or that that might not be a threat.

But I think after eight years, one thing we do all know is that events change, and as you've seen, their capacity and their ability to quickly build a nuclear weapon has become more -- more significant and more immediate over time.

PAUL: But I think the main thing about this is these are people -- this is sort of this neocon community, and the neoconservatives have really never met a war they didn't like. And so what you'll see is these attacks saying, oh, you're close to Obama's position?

In reality, the neocons who have been with President Obama on the war in Libya. They've been with President Obama on wanting to bomb Assad. And they were really also for taking out Hussein. Everything they have been for over the last decade has really been to make America less safe and to make the region more chaotic.

I think we could have a good intellectual debate about this, but attack ads like this that are mostly untrue if not entirely false probably don't serve the public very well.

BLITZER: You want to name names when you're criticizing or blasting these so-called neocons?

PAUL: Well, you know, if these people would release their jokers (ph), then we'd know who they are. But these are people who want to be in the shadows and have something secret and then put up a bunch of lies.

But I think there are people you will see in the Senate who basically favored giving arms to Gadhafi, and then the next year they were favoring giving arms to the so-called freedom fighters. But now it turns out that the war they had in Libya, which was supported by the neocons and President Obama, the war's a disaster. Radical jihad has run amok in Libya. It's chaotic. And I think we're more likely to be attacked by people organizing in Libya than we were before the war. So people need to think through when war's in our interest and when war is not in our interest.

BLITZER: I want to give you also a chance to clarify your position on foreign aid, specifically foreign aid to Israel. Israel, as you know, gets about $3 billion a year in economic and military assistance from the United States.

Back in 2011, you and I had a pretty famous exchange. I'll play that clip.

(VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. But you don't believe that anymore, do you?

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is yes, I still believe it; and people keep reporting that I've changed my opinion. But here are the facts.

I said in my speech today, I said in my announcement speech we can't borrow money from China to give it to Pakistan. But I have acknowledged over the last four years that I'm in the minority.

And so what I've been trying to do is say, look, to begin with, why don't we eliminate foreign aid for those who hate us and burn our flag? And that would be enemies of ours and enemies of Israel.

But my position on foreign aid really is no different than Netanyahu's position. In 1996, he came here to a joint session of Congress, and he said that, ultimately, he believes that Israel will be stronger by being independent of foreign aid.

But people try to misreport this, and I know you know how emotional this issue is with Israel. People try to misreport this as that I am somehow targeting Israel to remove aid to Israel, that I'm not a friend or an ally of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've supported the Iron Dome. I've supported our alliance with Israel. I'm one of the people probably most prominent in Congress to say that it's wrong of American officials to be criticizing Israeli policy on where they build or what they decide on their internal politics.

So I think that, as long as it's reported accurately, my position really hasn't changed. Ultimately, I believe as Netanyahu does, that Israel will be stronger when they're entirely free of foreign aid.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on to another sensitive issue. Something you raised today. You were questioned about your stance on abortion rights for women. And you said something along the lines, ask Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, she's the congresswoman. She's the chair of the DNC, the Democratic National Committee. You said, "Ask Debbie Wassermann-Schultz if it's OK to kill a seven pound baby in the uterus."

She did respond to what you said. She put out a statement saying, "Here's an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved, period, end of story. And I would appreciate it if you could respond without shushing me." That was Debbie Wassermann-Schultz. Go ahead and respond to her.

PAUL: Well, it sounds like her answer is yes, that she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby.

But the interesting thing is I understand our country's polarized on the issue and not everybody agrees on the issue. But even most of my friends who are pro-choice will tell me they're not OK with seven- and eight- and nine-pound abortions. They're not OK with really end stage when the baby's fully developed.

You know, there's a bit of doubt and discussion earlier in pregnancy, but Debbie's position, which I guess is the Democrat Party position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think really most pro-choice people would be a little uncomfortable with that. So I don't know. I really think that she's got some explaining to do, and if that's the position of the party, a lot of pro-choice people are going to be uncomfortable with that position.

BLITZER: I want you to explain your position, because traditionally, libertarians believe the government shouldn't be involved in making these kinds of personal decisions for individuals. So when should a woman have a right to have an abortion?

PAUL: The thing is, is that there is a role for government in our lives, and the role is basically to prevent violence. And so when a baby is born -- I'm a physician and so I examine babies in the neonatal nursery often. Sometimes these babies are one and two pounds. They can fit in the palm of my hand. And everybody agrees that that baby that I examine has rights, that no one can injure that baby, and the government has a role to come even into the household if a mother or dad or a relative is somehow injuring a baby, that the baby has rights.

So somehow we have to decide when does a baby get rights? So a one- pound baby has rights, but a seven-pound baby in the uterus still, getting ready to be born or a nine-pound baby would have no rights. It seems like an abrupt sort of diminution of rights that all of a sudden you have rights and then a couple minutes before you didn't have rights. These are very, very difficult, I think, discussions. And then that's a question of when does life begin? And I don't think we all agree on that.

I personally believe that life is special, that human life is special and that there is a sanctity, and that we're more than just, you know, clay and dirt.

BLITZER: What about -- what about rape -- what about rape and incest?

PAUL: You and I have had this discussion before, that there will be extenuating circumstances. And I've supported legislation, both with exceptions and without exceptions.

[17:25:05] Basically, my point of view has been that anything that puts forward and develops and says, "You know what? There is something special about life, and there's a role for government," I've supported. That's been a variety of things, both with exceptions and without.

BLITZER: I want to just get a final question in, because I know you've got to run. There's a lot of commentary today following your interview this morning with Savannah Guthrie on "The Today Show." Other interviews you've had with female reporters suggesting that you're abrupt with them. "The Washington Post" has a headline saying, "Rand Paul's problem with female interviewers just cropped up again."

I want you to respond to this suggestion that you interrupt your female interviewers, that you're not polite to them. Go ahead and tell us what you think.

PAUL: You know, I think I've been universally short-tempered and testy with both male and female reporters. I'll own up to that. And it's hard sometimes. As you know, like during our interview right now, I'm looking at only a camera. I can't see you. And it's hard to have a true interaction sometimes, particularly if it's a hostile interviewer.

And so I do think that interviews should be questions and not necessarily editorializing. So if you get sort of two minutes of editorializing by the interviewer that draws conclusions, you feel somewhat at a loss on the other end. You can't see the person who you think is mischaracterizing a position and not really asking a question.

And I think I should have more patience, but I think I'm pretty equal opportunity. If I get annoyed, I was annoyed with a male reporter this morning. So I will have to get better at holding my tongue and holding my temper, but I think it's pretty equal opportunity, not directed towards one -- you know, male or female.

BLITZER: Basically, I want to just wrap it up with a question about you have been suggesting over the past few days that new information is going to come out about Hillary Clinton that will be very, very embarrassing to her and the Clinton Foundation. What exactly are you talking about?

PAUL: You know, there are certain businesses that the State Department oversees that are sensitive for security reasons. I believe and have been told that there's going to be information about donations to the Clinton Foundation that may or may not have had or could possibly have had influence over who gets to do business in various countries around the world. Some of these countries, very sensitive to our national security.

And that's all I'm at liberty to say right now. It's not something we're publishing, but we're aware of a book that will be coming out in the next couple weeks that will make these accusations. And then the public and journalists like you will have to figure out and sort through to see what is true. But I do know there will be made accusations that certain companies that were approved in countries that are sometimes our enemies or adversaries, these companies were approved and some of the shareholders of these companies gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. You're talking about the new book that's coming out entitled "Clinton Cash." You've heard about the book, but you and your staff have not actually gone through and verified all the accusations in there, have you?

PAUL: No. But they're troubling. And I think they fit sort of other troubling revelations about foreign countries giving to the Clintons.

And you know, we've had rules in our country for a long time about foreigners, non-U.S. citizens, but foreign countries in particular aren't allowed to engage in our elections. And the question here is are they skirting election law? Are they taking money and potentially getting influence bought by foreign countries through a foundation?

It is unseemly. And I think even the Clintons realized this at one point when they said they were going to stop doing it. At least for a while, they would stop while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. But then it turns out that's not true, either.

So these were very troubling accusations. And I can't prove the veracity of them, but I do know that what's coming forward, there should be a lot of questions asked about whether or not this was appropriate behavior while she was secretary of state.

BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul, I hope the next time we talk, you'll be here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We can do it face-to-face, sitting around a table. I agree with you. Those are always better interviews. A remote interview via satellite is good, as well. Appreciate the time you gave us today.

PAUL: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source