CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Sen. James Lankford

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Pamela Brown at the White House. Thank you very much.

Joining us now, Republican Senator James Langford of Oklahoma. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. JAMES LANGFORD (R), OKLAHOMA: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. I want to get your thoughts on North Korea in just a moment, but first the breaking news we have at the top of the hour, President Trump's longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, splitting now with his legal team in a critical moment, and that's fueling, as you know, lots of speculation that he may be preparing to cooperate with federal prosecutors.

Do you believe Cohen possesses specific information that may be of value to the special counsel, Robert Mueller?

LANGFORD: Wolf, there's really no way for me to be able to know that or be able to tell. I'm obviously not an attorney. I don't talk with Michael Cohen. But I would say everyone should cooperate with the special counsel so we can get this over and done with. The best thing that we can do is to be able to get the facts out, get the facts on the table, make a good decision on it and be able to move on. It's best for the president and the presidency if we get that resolved.

[17:10:11] BLITZER: It's interesting that both Michael Flynn, the president's former national security advisor, and Rick Gates, they both changed their lawyers just before flipping and cooperating with Robert Mueller. We'll see what happens with Cohen.

Let's turn to North Korea, a subject you know well. The president says the North Korean nuclear threat is now over. His words. But Kim Jong-un still has all those weapons. He has missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, maybe as many as 60 nuclear bombs.

Is the president handing the North Koreans some leverage by making that kind of unfounded claim while negotiations are clearly only just beginning?

LANGFORD: I think the president is being optimistic, and I think it's just his nature that he walks in, has a negotiation and expects everyone is going to live up to their part of the deal. He's been pretty clear in previous negotiations, whether it be trade or other things, he walks in optimistic. He assumes everyone keeps their word. If they change, then he responds pretty rapidly to say, "Hey, you broke the deal," and flips everything back over.

So my assumption is the president is being consistent in this, that he's going to assume Kim Jong-un is going to keep up his part of the deal. If he doesn't, then we certainly will respond to that.

BLITZER: Do you believe the nuclear threat from North Korea is over?

LANGFORD: I don't believe it's over, because we've not seen denuclearization. We've not seen dismantlement of weapons. We've not seen a change in posture yet. We've seen words, and words are a good first step, but that's by far not the last step.

BLITZER: The administration, certainly, as you point out correctly, needs still to design a specific system to ensure that the North Koreans get rid of their nukes, their intercontinental and short- range, medium-range ballistic missiles, their production capabilities. This process is only just beginning, right?

LANGFORD: It is only beginning. Now the technology they have -- and so you can't take that part away from them -- but the production, whether it be uranium, plutonium, that is something that can be limited. We could also provide them the nuclear materials for nuclear reactors. There's no reason for them to be able to have their own centrifuges and do their own production.

Their testing facilities, their underground facility, they have stated that they have imploded that facility, that it's now destroyed. We need to be able to verify that.

So there are key aspects of both their import, what they're actually producing locally, and the production itself of all the nuclear material. Those are things that we can verify and we have to be able to move in and verify on the ground.

BLITZER: Is there a system as far as you know, Senator, already in place to do that?

LANGFORD: We know how to do that, obviously. We worked with Iran on that with the JCPOA. We worked with other countries on that. We know how to be able to do verification. There's not a structure in place to be able to do that with North Korea.

But that's a major part of our negotiation, not only that they do that but then we have the ability to be able to verify that on the ground.

BLITZER: They clearly have a long way to go. As I said, this process only just beginning.

President Trump also says the United States, in his words, could save a fortune by suspending those joint military exercises with South Korea or what he calls war games. Are those joint exercises necessary for maintaining readiness? Or is it possible to maintain an American military presence on the Korean Peninsula without them? In other words, do you support what the president has announced?

LANGFORD: So I would support a delay of the next military exercises where we work with the South Koreans and be able to find cooperation. We do two major exercises a year that we work together. Obviously, we've already had the first one. That's already happened this year. There's another one scheduled for later this year. There are smaller exercises that will also happen fairly consistently

throughout the year, even between the two major exercises.

Saying that we're going to change the time period for when we do that, I think is a reasonable thing to be able to do. But to continue to prepare for it as if it's going to be delayed, I think, is also a reasonable thing to do.

If North Korea doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, then we assume they're walking away from it, and the status quo is still the same. Sanctions in place. Our preparations have to be consistent and in place, and all of the diplomatic pressure has to remain until we know things have changed.

BLITZER: As you know, earlier today your colleague, Republican Senator Corker, described Republicans who won't disagree with the president publicly as being -- and he used this word -- in a cult right now. Cult, C-U-L-T. Is he right?

LANGFORD: I would disagree with that. There are areas that you can agree or disagree with any person. There were areas I agreed with President Obama. There were many areas that I disagreed with him.

There are areas where I agree with President Trump. There are a lot of areas that I disagree, and that's fine. We should be able to have that ongoing dialogue. Where we agree we should be able to work together. But I don't -- I don't see it as a cult-like focus. I definitely wouldn't use that term.

BLITZER: But the whole notion, and Ronald Reagan used to say, "Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican." That doctrine, that statement, that assertion clearly isn't something the president believes in. He attacks Republicans all the time, like Mark Sanford, who was running for re-election in South Carolina, the congressman.

LANGFORD: Sure. Right. And I think the president can take it as well as dish it out. In areas where we disagree, we should be able to verbalize that and be able to work it out. Obviously, as many of those in private as possible. That's the best place to resolve differences. Whether you're in politics or whether you're in a family or you're in a business. You should be able to work that out privately rather than publicly.

[17:15:11] But I think, especially in this role, my first responsibility is to represent the four million people of the state of Oklahoma. That's my first responsibility. I don't work for the president. I work alongside the president. And in areas where we agree, and there are many areas we agree, we should be able to work on those areas and to be able to be clear also in areas where we disagree.

BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, Senator. He's very upset at the news media right now. Let me put up on the screen a tweet that he posted this morning. Look at this.

"So funny to watch the fake news, especially NBC and CNN. They are fighting hard to downplay the deal with North Korea. Five hundred days ago they would have begged for this deal. Looked like war would break out. Our country's biggest enemy is the fake news, so easily promulgated by fools."

Is the news media or what the president calls the "fake news media" the biggest enemy of the United States right now, bigger than North Korea or Russia or China or Iran?

LANGFORD: So I would only change one statement that you made earlier on, when you said the president is upset with the media right now. I would just say the president has been upset with the media for two- plus years through the process. Sometimes rightfully so, as he's not always received fair coverage or it does seem to be a double standard at times for his coverage. But I don't see them as being the biggest enemy.

Quite frankly, the free press is one of the greatest allies that we have in the rest of the world. We need to export our freedom, not try to be able to limit our freedom in any way. Free speech, free press, freedom of religion to be able to live out your faith, those are things that other countries wish they had and other individuals wish they have. We have it, and we have a lot of it, and we need to be able to maintain it.

Where the president disagrees with me, yes, he should be able to articulate that freely, as both the president and a private citizen. But where the media disagrees, they should be able to voice that as well.

BLITZER: Yes. You make an excellent point. All the presidents I've covered, including Bill Clinton or President Bush or President Obama, they've all criticized the press from time to time, but they've never said that the biggest threat -- the biggest enemy of the United States was the news media, and that's a significant difference.

You make an excellent point senator. Senator Langford of Oklahoma, thanks so much for joining us.

LANGFORD: Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source