CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.

After critics said President Trump appeared to be submissive to Vladimir Putin while standing right next to him at the Helsinki summit, many top Republicans are pulling back.

Trump's own intelligence, Dan Coats, at a loss for words when first told that Trump wanted to bring Putin to Washington, had to apologize for what he called his awkward response. Coats said he -- quote -- "in no way meant to be disrespectful or criticize the actions of the president."

Here with me to talk about this week in Russia-U.S. relations, President Trump's former campaign rival Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, member of both the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for being here.

RUBIO: Thank you.

TAPPER: There's a lot to get to.

But I do want to ask about this FISA application against Carter Page that was released last night. The president tweeted this morning that the FISA documents -- quote -- "confirm with little doubt that the Department of Justice and FBI misled the courts. Witch-hunt. Rigged. A scam."

He also claims that he was -- quote -- "illegally being spied upon for the political gain of crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC."

Is that what the FISA documents...

RUBIO: I have a different view on it.

Number one, Carter Page, I'm not claiming that he's James Bond. He's not 007. But he's a guy that, even before the campaign -- so this is not Trump-related -- even before the campaign, is a guy that went around the world bragging about his connections in Russia.

So they knew who he was before the campaign. Then you see the guy kind of gravitating around a leading campaign, and then other things came up on their screen. And they say, we got to look at this guy. And that's what the FISA application sort of lays out.

By the Trump's campaign's own admission Carter Page was not a big player in their campaign. I don't believe that them looking into Carter Page means they were spying on the campaign. I also don't believe it proves anything about collusion or anything like that.

I think Carter Page is one of these guys that kind of -- we never would have heard of him before all this, but he was a guy that was on their screen even before the campaign. And when he comes into kind of the near orbit of the campaign, they get interested when they put that together with what's happening with Russian interference.

And that's why they looked at him. I don't think it's brought him any -- part of any broader plot. The only plot here is the plot to interfere and our elections by the Russians.

TAPPER: So, as far as you know -- and you're a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- the surveillance was justified?

RUBIO: Yes, I don't think they did anything wrong. I think they went to the court. They got the judges to approve it. They put -- laid out all the information. And there was a lot of reasons unrelated to the dossier for why they wanted to look at Carter Page.

And Carter Page was not a key member of the Trump campaign. And the Trump campaign has said that.

TAPPER: Let's turn to the major news this week with Russia.

The White House now says plans are in the works to bring Vladimir Putin to the White House for a meeting in the fall.

What's your reaction? And do you think, if Putin comes to town, he should also come to Capitol Hill?

[09:20:04]

RUBIO: Well, first of all, let me say, I -- my understanding is the president always wanted to meet with Putin in America first. He didn't want to go to Moscow first. He didn't want a third country first. He didn't want their first meeting to be on the sidelines of some other engagement.

And so he agreed to Helsinki. But now he's back to his original plan, which is the first meeting with Putin in his home turf in the United States, in Trump's home turf. And I think that's what this is about.

I don't -- I don't have any -- no one's been tougher on Putin and on interference than I have been, I believe. That said, I don't have a problem with the president of the United States interacting with the president of the Russian Federation.

They have got a lot of nuclear weapons. And so we do need to interact with them. That is separate from the question of whether or not, in those interactions, we should be clear-eyed about who Putin is. He is not interested in better relations with the United States. I think he walked away from that a long time ago.

He's interested in gaining advantage at our expense and to his benefit. And as long as we go in with a very clear understanding, we can engage him all we want, but not under any illusion.

TAPPER: You have suggested in the past that you think Putin might be responsible for war crimes, not just in Syria.

RUBIO: No, no, he has been. I have -- I know he has.

TAPPER: OK.

Do you have a problem with him coming to the White House?

RUBIO: Well...

TAPPER: I mean, meeting with the president is one thing, but coming to the White House is another.

RUBIO: Well, I don't -- I mean, the symbolism of it, I think you -- people could make the argument you have just pointed out.

There is no doubt in my mind that Putin has authorized war crimes. He also possesses, between us, 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. The president pointed it out this week. So it's kind of one of those tough situations, where he's -- you know, if he was a dictator of a Third World country, we would treat him one way.

Unfortunately, geopolitical reality means we have to engage with a guy like this, but knowing exactly who he is. This is the guy that shot down that Malaysian airliner. This is the guy that invaded Ukraine. This is the guy that took Crimea. This is the guy that murders his political opponents.

This is who we're dealing with. And we -- this is the guy that bombs aid convoys in Syria and helps the Syrian regime gas people by covering for them at the United Nations. This is who we are dealing with.

TAPPER: But...

RUBIO: As long as we know that, you know?

TAPPER: Does President Trump know that? He calls him very strong.

And, I mean, I can't imagine you were happy with the way President Trump reacted with Vladimir Putin on that stage.

RUBIO: You know, I don't think it was one of the best moments in the administration. I feel Donald Trump is not -- he hasn't spent his whole life here in D.C. doing all these things.

In his mind, as someone who's not a politician, if I can just interact with this guy on a one-on-one basis, over time, we might be able to get some things done together.

And because he's not a political creature, he doesn't realize that some of these things he does, how it would be portrayed by our allies or by others.

Let me say this. Our allies in Europe wanted him to meet with Putin. I'm not sure they wanted him potentially to say some of the things he said, but they wanted him to meet with him.

But I don't have any doubt that President Trump is aware of the things Vladimir Putin has done. I'm not sure its rhetoric reflects that, but his policies.

TAPPER: Don't you think you're being remarkably forgiving of President Trump's behavior towards Putin?

If a Democratic president had done all those same things, I can't imagine that you wouldn't be really outraged and expressive.

RUBIO: Yes, I think the difference is, I have interacted with Donald Trump for a year-and-a-half, three-and-a-half years now, including on the campaign.

So it gives me some insight into how he gets to these positions. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with the things he says. It doesn't mean I don't continue to work, like on the DETER Act, to get things done. I'm trying to explain kind of how we get to this point.

Ultimately, I look at the policies. And that's what I'm trying to influence. That's what really, at the end of the day -- the rhetoric matters. The policies matter even more. And that's why we need the DETER Act. That's why I agree with arming the Ukrainians.

Just this very week, we sent additional military aid to Ukraine.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Yes, Mattis did that, yes.

RUBIO: And so, if we keep doing those things, hopefully, the rhetoric gets better on it and some of the explanations therein.

Look, I am concerned about any time you undermine or say at a press conference that you agree with Putin over our intelligence community. And that's why I'm glad he came back the next day and sort of walked that back...

TAPPER: Sort of.

RUBIO: ... because it was important.

TAPPER: Sort of.

RUBIO: Well, it's certainly better than the impression that had been left after Helsinki.

TAPPER: Well, you said that words matter, but actions matter more.

During his press conference, President Trump said it was a -- quote -- "incredible offer" for Russia to cooperate with U.S. investigators on election interference, in exchange for Russia being able to interrogate American officials, including former Ambassador Michael McFaul.

Now, the White House later rejected the idea.

But in her statement rejecting it, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called it -- quote -- "a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin."

Does it bother you that this was ever even taken seriously, and then, even when it was rejected, that they thought that Putin was being sincere?

RUBIO: Well, let me say, I don't think it was ever taken seriously. I don't believe they ever were going to do that, obviously, when the president...

TAPPER: He called it an incredible offer.

RUBIO: That's what the president said at the press conference.

In terms of within the White House, I don't think that at any point anybody there was ultimately going to say, let's do this, once it was analyzed and looked at. It was the choice of words that he made that I think ultimately were never going to happen.

I remember very clearly saying, I believe Wednesday or Thursday morning, we should -- they should just categorically rule this out. And they did. And that's good, because that should never happen. I mean, it's a -- it's a sick joke.

TAPPER: I want to play the moment where President Trump appeared to side with Putin over the U.S. intelligence community in Helsinki. Take a listen.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Now, 27 hours later, after two television interviews where he didn't say anything, plus five tweets where he didn't say anything, then President Trump, after being told by Pompeo and Pence he needed to clean this up, claimed that he meant to say, "I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia."

Do you believe that?

RUBIO: I don't know what to believe about it. I know he said it after -- I know what he said. And I don't think it was a good moment for this administration. And I disagree with it.

I know he came back the next day and said something to clean that up. And I'm glad that he did it. I'm glad that he cleaned that up, because it left -- if you watch that video, it leaves the impression that, my intelligence community says one thing, Putin says another, I'm siding with Putin. And that was a bad impression to leave behind.

TAPPER: But, even when he cleaned it up, he said it was the Russians, although it could have been a lot of people also, a lot of people out there, which is still undermining the idea.

RUBIO: Yes.

Look, I don't like the way this was handled throughout the week. I wish it would have gone differently. My job in the U.S. Senate is to push for policies that ensure that, no matter what is being said, what actually happens is good for America.

And it's not good for America to have any country interfering in our elections, any, but especially Vladimir Putin, who believes that weakening us is what's going to make him stronger, allowing him -- no matter you're a Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter. We are America. We should be a little bit territorial about our elections and about our politics.

And the idea that another country gets to come in here and pit us against each other, especially Vladimir Putin, is something we should all be against, especially moving forward.

TAPPER: Nothing -- there's nothing that Putin would like more than for the NATO alliance to be weakened...

RUBIO: That's correct.

TAPPER: ... because it's a deterrent to his expanding into Europe.

Take a listen to what President Trump said to FOX this week about the U.S. agreement to defend NATO members, including its newest member, Montenegro.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Do you have confidence that President Trump would honor the NATO Article 5 agreement...

RUBIO: I do.

TAPPER: ... that an attack on one is an attack on all?

RUBIO: I do.

I have confidence that he would. Obviously, when you see those statements, it kind of raises concern.

And here's what I would say and will say to the president and have said to his administration. And most people in the administration clearly understand this. Number one, we don't have to worry about Montenegro being aggressive, because the NATO alliance is a defensive agreement.

It's not -- it doesn't mean Montenegro can start a war, and now we're obligated to join them. It means, if they are attacked, we have an alliance in which we defend ourselves.

The second point is, I agree with something he said. And that is, we don't want a war over Montenegro. And the best way to avoid a war over Montenegro or Poland or any country in the region covered under the NATO alliance is to have a strong NATO alliance.

And a strong NATO alliance means two things, a strong commitment to live up to the words of the alliance, which is what some people are concerned about when it comes to the president, but also strong capacity, meaning all of our partners are strong and can contribute to that alliance and our mutual self-defense, which is what the president is concerned about, and administrations before him have been concerned about.

And so that -- but, ultimately, what we need to understand is the reason why we didn't have World War III, one of the main reasons why we didn't, is because of a strong NATO alliance. Strong alliances prevent wars, not cause them.

TAPPER: I want to ask you one more question about Russia. And then I know there are a couple other issues you want to discuss.

And that is, you have in your career been a voice of moral authority when it comes to foreign policy, whether you're talking about Russia, or you're talking about China, or you're talking about Cuba.

Do you think that you risk undermining that moral authority by pulling your punches when it comes to criticizing President Trump?

RUBIO: No, because we have.

When we -- look, when the president does something right, we -- we support it. When he does something wrong, we try to change his mind and -- or influence the decisions. And if that doesn't work, then we will line up against it.

So, as an example, months ago, despite what the president has said or his feelings about -- in the president's view -- my take on it is that he views any sort of admission of Russian interference as admission of collusion.

And I'm just telling everybody, it is very possible Russia was going to interfere in our elections, whether they were going to collude or not. The collusion issue, I have never seen any evidence of it. There are other people working on that. What I think is indisputable is that they did interfere and will do so again in the future, hence the DETER Act, which says, if you do it again, here are the penalties that are going to be imposed are you automatically.

TAPPER: They are doing it again.

RUBIO: Well, and if -- 30 days after the election, if our bill passes, and the -- the -- the director of national intelligence says they interfered in 2018, these very tough sanctions are going to hit him.

So Putin knows going in what the price of doing so is. And that's what we need to focus on. And so when I disagree with the president, I'm going to say it. I will be fair. There are times of people out there that think that, because I disagree with the president on Russia, now I got to vote against his Supreme Court nominee.

I mean, that's absurd. We have to be in a place where we can agree with people when we agree and disagree when we disagree.

TAPPER: I want to talk about what's happening in Nicaragua, because that's an issue you obviously feel very passionately about.

Human rights groups say hundreds of people have been killed during clashes between the government and anti-government protesters. You tweeted yesterday: "After Ortega-Murillo reign of terror, there is no future for them in power. Strong U.S. reaction is coming. They will pay a big price for their crimes against their own people. I strongly advise Nicaraguan military not to participate in oppressing the people."

[09:30:09]

RUBIO: Right.

TAPPER: But what are you talking about when you say strong U.S. reaction is coming?

RUBIO: Well, I think you're going to see and there's already work being done to set a series of sanctions against individuals and entities in Nicaragua that have empowered this.

All this could have been avoided weeks ago. The message to the Nicaraguan regime under Ortega was very clear. And that is, you call early elections, you allow legitimate elections, and this thing can move forward and everyone's going to be fine.

But if you soak your hands in blood, all that's off the table. They decided to soak their hands in blood. Right now, the military has not been a part of it. He's had to rely on these irregular paramilitary forces that he has stood up and the police departments to kill people. He's basically tried to burn down the university and has now waged war, attacked churches and kidnapping people and the like.

So, I think that opportunity is now gone for Ortega. And this is an old man. This is a dying man, in Ortega. His wife is crazy. She's a lunatic. She's also the vice president of the country. There's no future for them in power.

And my biggest fear about Nicaragua is, unlike Venezuela, the possibility of arms -- of a civil war in Nicaragua is real. It would trigger a migratory crisis. It would undermine our anti-drug efforts in the region.

There is a direct national security interest for the United States in seeing democracy and stability in Nicaragua.

TAPPER: One last question, sir.

The president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen is under criminal investigation. It was revealed on Friday that the FBI has obtained tapes, including Cohen's private conversations with President Trump.

There's speculation that the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York is looking at the tapes to see whether or not President Trump himself did anything illegal or anything worth investigating.

Are you concerned at all about what might be on these tapes?

RUBIO: I haven't heard them. I don't know what's on the tapes.

So, I can't make an opinion on tapes I have never heard. We will find out, right?

TAPPER: Senator Marco Rubio, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

RUBIO: Thanks.

TAPPER: Don't be a stranger. It's been too long that you have been at this table.

RUBIO: Yes. We will be back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source