CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Maine Senator Angus King

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is at war, abroad and at home.

President Trump this morning waging rhetorical battle against former FBI Director James Comey -- tweeting -- quote -- "Unbelievably, James Comey states that polls where crooked Hillary Clinton was leading were a factor in the handling stupidly of the Clinton e-mail probe. In other words, he was making decisions based on the fact that he thought she was going to win and he wanted a job. Slime ball" -- unquote.

This is an apparent reference to a passage in the Comey book where the former FBI director wrote -- quote -- "It is entirely possible that because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about her making an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don't know" -- unquote.

Just another distraction for the president, who is also fuming over an FBI raid of his personal attorney Michael Cohen's office and, in the same week, authorized more military strikes in Syria.

Coalition missiles lighting up the skies late Friday night. New video showing the destruction. Military leaders in the United States say precision strikes hit the heart of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons program.

After the attacks, President Trump declared on Twitter "mission accomplished." It's a term many in President George W. Bush's White House, including Ari Fleischer and Nicolle Wallace, cringed when they saw, recalling the banner that hung prematurely in 2003 on the USS Abraham Lincoln more than a decade before that war ended.

This morning, President Trump defended the use of "mission accomplished," tweeting": "The Syrian raid was so perfectly carried out, with such precision, that the only way the fake news media could demean was by my use of the term mission accomplished. I knew they would seize on this, but felt it is such a great military term, it should be brought back. Use often" -- unquote.

Joining me now is independent Senator Angus King of Maine. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

So, the president says it's mission accomplished in Syria. Do you agree? Is it mission accomplished in Syria? And what is the mission?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Well, that was the -- the second question sort of answered the first question.

I think it is very difficult to say mission accomplished if the mission is to deter the use of chemical weapons. We hope that will be the case. But we did a strike a year ago for that same purpose, and it was deemed a success, but the chemical weapons have continued to be used.

So, I think it is impossible to say at this point that the mission has been accomplished. They had -- it was a more significant strike than a year ago. They hit three sites, instead of one, more -- more missiles. It was accomplished apparently with -- with the precision that our military is capable of.

But saying the it has been a success, we won't know until we see whether the regime continues to use chemical weapons.

TAPPER: These strikes were launched because American authorities and others say they have information proving that Assad launched a chemical weapon attack against his own people.

You are on the Intelligence Committee. Did the Trump administration present any evidence to you to support this claim?

KING: They did notify the leadership of the Congress on Friday before the strike, but I'm unaware that they presented definitive evidence of what the use of the chemical weapons was.

We got updated briefings over the weekend from the Defense Department about the strike. And they indicated they had confidence that their -- the chemical weapons had been used, but they didn't supply the evidence.

Now, there are going to be some classified briefings this week. I'm sure we will have more information. But, certainly, they believe that they had the evidence that these chemical weapons had been used.

And I think it is important, Jake, to distinguish between a chemical weapons attack and a general incursion into Syria. The former, chemical weapons have been essentially illegal worldwide for over 100 years, since World War I.

[09:05:08]

They have been used occasionally. But that really is a red line for most of the world. So, going in to take out chemical weapons capacity, which is what this strike was all about, is arguably within our national interest and justified.

What this strike was not -- and I think it's fortunate that that's the case -- was a strike against the Assad regime itself, an attempt to sort of intervene in the civil war.

So, it was a narrow strike, but, as you say, to go back to your initial question, whether the mission was accomplished, we won't know for months.

TAPPER: Now, you have said, in terms of the back and forth about whether or not Congress should be -- should vote before the United States launches military action, you have said you're OK with these limited strikes, as you just delineated, though, in general, you say you're not comfortable with Congress not playing its role when it comes to the use of force.

Presidents for decades have used military force without congressional approval. You might remember, in 2013, the Senate had to pull back a vote on Syrian strikes after President Obama asked for it, approval.

Isn't really the unspoken fact here that Congress doesn't really want to vote yes or no on war, that they want to cede this authority to the president, so they don't have to go on the record?

KING: It's not unspoken by me, Jake.

I think that's absolutely correct. It isn't a case of presidents over the years taking this power unto themselves. Congress has abdicated the power. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942. There have been several of these authorizations.

But I think you're absolutely right. And I understood late last week that the Foreign Relations Committee was finally going to take up an authorization in the case of Syria. We will see whether that actually happens.

But I think you're right that, generally, Congress' -- what they're really good at, what I guess I have to say now we're really good at, is standing on the sidelines, avoiding making the decisions, and then criticizing the decisions the president makes.

TAPPER: Well, kudos to you for the acknowledgement of that.

President Trump said this on Friday night. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons.

Assad's recent attack and today's response are the direct result of Russia's failure to keep that promise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The president is exactly right on that.

How do you account for the fact that the Obama administration seemingly trusted Russia to supervise the Syrians getting rid of their chemical weapons? Were they naive?

KING: Well, I think perhaps somewhat naive, but also, going back to that period -- and I remember living through it -- the Russians did in fact -- there was a great deal of physical on-the-ground activity of getting rid of chemical weapons.

I mean, it was -- they were shipping to a destruction site. I mean, it was being monitored. So, it wasn't like it was pure promises. There was in fact activity involved in destroying and cutting back on the capacity.

Now, whether Assad rebuilt that capacity on his own, it's hard to believe he would do anything without the Russians knowing about it. So, I think, in essence, the president was right that the Russians essentially guaranteed that this wasn't going to happen again. And the evidence is, at this point, we don't see -- I haven't seen it definitively, but the evidence, the weight of the evidence now seems to be that they are using chemical weapons.

By the way, Jake, they're killing their people daily. This morning, they're bombing again without chemical weapons and still killing people, their own citizens.

So, yes, getting involved in terms of chemical weapons is an important national interest, but let's not kid ourselves that somehow, if we stop chemical weapons from being used, the horror of what's going on over there is going to somehow stop as well.

TAPPER: Very briefly, I just want to ask you a quick question.

"The New York Times" is reporting that allies of President Trump believe that the criminal investigation into the president's lawyer Michael Cohen out of the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, that that is more threatening to the president than special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Russian collusion.

You know a lot more about the evidence, or lack thereof, any -- of any possible Russian collusion than I do. What do you think? Does the Cohen probe bear more of a threat?

KING: Well, I think it's really important to realize that what's going on in the -- in the district of New York is not under the -- counsel Mueller.

This a separate investigation by a United States attorney's office in the Southern District of New York. So it's a separate deal. Whatever happens to Mueller -- and I hope nothing happens -- it won't affect that prosecution.

I think it's a serious matter, there's no question, because Mr. Cohen's name keeps coming up in connection with all of these things, whether it's the Stormy Daniels or the Russians.

[09:10:01]

He seems to have some involvement in all of those things.

TAPPER: All right, Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, it's good to see you, sir. Thanks for joining us.

KING: Thank you, Jake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source