CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: The trial has been delayed briefly to July 31. We will watch it unfold then.

Evan, thank you.

Joining us now, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. He serves on both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's get to some important issues. We've got a lot to discuss.

First of all, as you know, the president is now looking to revoke the security clearances of key intelligence and law enforcement officials. Are you concerned about the precedent this might set?

RUBIO: Well, first, I think you meant to say former intelligence and security officials, not active ones.

BLITZER: Yes, former.

RUBIO: OK.

BLITZER: From -- who served for many, many years in Republican and Democratic administrations.

RUBIO: Yes, and I have worked with them, obviously, being on the Intelligence Committee. They appeared before us quite often.

[18:10:00]

Intelligence -- look, security clearances are designed to further the national security of the United States. And so if someone has a reason to have a security clearance for purposes of our national security, then they should have one. And if they don't, then perhaps they shouldn't.

And this is a novel question. I heard it for the first time today at 2:00. And so I want to learn more about some of the rationale behind it. But, ultimately, security clearances exist for purposes of the national security of the United States. And the only people entitled to them are those who need them in order to do their current jobs.

BLITZER: The argument in favor, and it's always been the case -- and I have covered the intelligence community for a long time. Let's say Dan Coats is the director of national intelligence and he's going to meet with a foreign intelligence chief, and wants to get some perspective.

He may call up General Clapper, his predecessor, and say, you used to meet with this guy, what's he like, give me some background. They can't have a really good conversation unless, unless Clapper still has security clearances, right?

RUBIO: Yes. I think that was the case back in the good old days. We're living now in some unprecedented times. People leave the service of our country and immediately become sort of partisan participants in our daily debates, which they're entitled to do.

But we're just in a different time. And that's why, as I said, I have heard about this for the first time today at 2:00. I would like to think a little bit more about the pros and cons of it.

But the most important thing to understand is, the national security of the United States creates these -- the need for these clearances for people that are actively serving. This is the reason why they have been held in the past. We're in a different time. And these sorts of things are always open to reexamination.

BLITZER: I know you want to continue to study it, but from what I hear you saying, Senator, you're open to what the president is thinking of doing.

RUBIO: Yes. Again, I would like to hear their viewpoints as to why it's necessary, because ultimately, these clearances exist to further the national security of the United States. And that's the only people that are entitled and need to have it.

Now, the fact that we have done it this way in the past for people doesn't necessarily mean that's the way we need to do it in the future. But, again, I want to learn more about it. I have heard about it for the first time today just a couple of hours ago.

BLITZER: So if there is a Democratic president, should former Republican chiefs of the CIA or the director of national intelligence or the NSA, National Security Council, should they lose their security clearances, do you think?

RUBIO: Well, I wouldn't be able to argue that they would be entitled to it. They're certainly not entitled to it by law. Whether they should lose it or not is something, as I said, I have heard about it for the first time today, so I want to think through some of the pros and cons of why we would want to change that today and why it existed in the past. But they would certainly not be entitled to it.

BLITZER: What about Bush administration officials who still have their security clearances?

RUBIO: Same thing. As I said, anybody who used to have it because they were in a position and now they -- we allow then to keep it for years to come because of what you outlined. And that is that, in the past, people relied on their predecessors for advice and so forth.

That was the rationale for allowing them to keep it at the highest levels, not everybody. But maybe times have changed and maybe things have changed now because people are leaving the intelligence community and immediately going on television and becoming partisan participants in these debates we're having, which, by the way, I'm telling you they're entitled to do 100 percent. I'm not telling you that that alone justifies it.

But it's a new concept. And, as I said, I have heard about it just two or three hours ago. But I just want to be very clear. No one is entitled to this stuff. They're not actively every single day contributing to our national security. And they provided a service to our country in the past.

BLITZER: It seems like your Republican colleague Senator Rand Paul is behind this latest effort. The president is picking up it just a week or so ago. He was here in THE SITUATION ROOM with me. He attacked John Brennan, the former CIA director, said he should lose his security clearances. He's defended the president's performance in Helsinki.

He says that those who are going against the president have what he branded as Trump derangement syndrome. What do you make of that?

RUBIO: Well, again, I do think there are people out there that have deep hatred for the president and are basically against anything he is for. I think there are people out there that support everything he does.

And then there are people out there that basically, when they agree with him, they support him, and, when they don't, they say so. And that, in my view, is the way life works. I don't agree with anyone 100 percent. I think there are few people that agree with me 100 percent.

So, I represent the people of Florida. I largely agree with the things the president is doing, because he's governing as a conservative Republican president. From time to time, he will say or do something I don't agree with. I will say that.

But that doesn't mean I don't work with him or support him on the things that I do agree with him on. And that's the way I have approached it. Obviously, others will have to find their own way.

BLITZER: The president is back to contradicting the intelligence community's assessment, calling the Russian cyber-warfare campaign in 2016 as recently as today a big hoax.

Is there anything that could convince the president to believe his intelligence chiefs over Putin?

RUBIO: Well, I saw a piece of the -- I think it was today when Sarah was speaking about it, and she said the White House acknowledges that the Russians were interfering in our election, but that what the president considers to be a hoax is the charges of collusion.

[18:15:07]

And there was a great statement made yesterday. We're not done with our work in the Intel Committee, so I will refrain until we're done with our work. But there was a great statement yesterday by Trey Gowdy where he said, if there has been collusion, it would have leaked out by now. And suffice it to say, that's what Mueller is looking at and others

are looking at. But I do agree with him on this. If there were things out there that indicated collusion clearly, I guarantee you that those things would have been leaked. I believe they would be.

But our probe isn't finished and neither is Mueller's and others that are looking at it. So we will wait for all of that to come in. But I know unequivocally, and one thing I can tell you most certainly happened -- and I'm glad to hear Sarah say it again today -- is that the Russians did try -- under the direction of Vladimir Putin, did try to interfere in our elections in 2016, and I believe will do so again, which is why it's so important that we put in place sanctions that they know will happen the minute they take these actions in the future.

BLITZER: Yes, but, you know, it's one thing for Sarah Sanders to say what she said from the White House press room, Senator, as you know.

It's another thing for what the president says. And as recently as yesterday, he was tweeting once again that this whole Mueller probe is fake news. It's all a big hoax. You know, he is going very, very far along these lines.

Sarah Sanders clearly is trying to clean it up. But the president, as you know, he's been very firm in suggesting this whole Russia probe, which you're Senate Intelligence Committee, is serious and important. He says it's a hoax.

RUBIO: Well, the Mueller probe is about collusion or crimes that were committed. It isn't about the interference part.

The interference part is what the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on and what the House is working on. Did they interfere, how did they interfere, and what can we do in the future to prevent it from happening, and how did our intelligence agencies perform while this was happening? That's our probe.

Mueller's probe is to find out whether there was criminality. And there are people that have already been charged. The president from day one has very strongly said he did not collude with the Russians. That's not a new position. He's always said that from the very beginning.

If I were running a campaign and I had not colluded, I would be behaving -- I would be very sort of emotional about that as well. He feels very strongly about that. And that's why I have told the president and I have said repeatedly that Mueller's work should be allowed to continue, let the truth come out. It will be good for the president. It will be good for our country.

BLITZER: Are you...

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: The one thing I know for sure is that the Russians interfered.

BLITZER: Yes.

RUBIO: The collusion question is a separate topic and I believe that's what the president feels very strongly about.

BLITZER: That's what Sarah Sanders tried to clarify today.

Are you proud, bottom line, Senator, of what President Trump has done to the U.S. intelligence community over the past let's say year-and-a- half, two years?

RUBIO: Well, I don't -- I said it yesterday and in a couple of occasions. I don't think that that was a good moment for the administration in Helsinki, which I think it was important for the president to come back and make clear what he says he intended to say, because it left the impression he was siding with Putin against the intelligence community.

The bottom line is, I can tell you this. Our intelligence community does an excellent job every day of informing American policy-makers. They're not always right. They're human beings, but they provide valuable information. They're the best intelligence community in the world.

And they're a valuable tool for the president. I can also point you to specific public policies that this White House has taken which I believe is informed by the intelligence, whether it's hitting Assad when he gassed his own people, whether it's the type of sanctions they have imposed on Iran and imposed on North Korea, whether it's the approach they have taken on Ukraine and on NATO.

And so a lot -- or I should say in Europe. And those are the kinds of things that I point to, because, ultimately, I'm not saying rhetoric and words don't matter. They matter a lot. But public policy matters even more.

BLITZER: I -- you make some fair points, there's no doubt about that.

But let me repeat the question. Are you proud of the way the president has treated the intelligence community over the past year- and-a-half, two years?

RUBIO: I don't know how to -- I don't know what the question means about proud.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, he said some awful things about the U.S. intelligence community, including day one of his administration, when he was over at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, standing in front of those stars of slain CIA officers, and he -- and made a reference -- I don't even want to repeat what he said.

But it was then that started that trend that we have seen to this day.

RUBIO: I think it's pretty obvious the president feels that there are people in the intelligence community, including the FBI, who he believes have treated him very unfairly.

There are people in the intelligence community, because they're human beings, that make mistakes or do horrible things. I think if you look at what we know now about a couple of FBI officials, they said and did things that have been deeply damaging to the FBI.

But, writ large, the broader community, whether it's the incredible people at the CIA or the NSA or the FBI, by and large, the overwhelming majority of the employees in our intelligence community are patriotic, hard-working Americans, and there are some people that do things they shouldn't do.

That's true of any organization anywhere in the government, anywhere in the country or, quite frankly, anywhere in the world. That's what I continue to say. And I think the president has said that on occasion. Do we -- some of us wish he would say that more sometimes? Yes.

[18:20:03]

But I also think the president has said, as he did the other day, that he has great people working for him there. It goes back to the whole rhetoric standpoint.

I look at the actions. And I know this president has made public policy positions based on the work of the intelligence community. And I think it shows that this administration values them, at least when it comes to making public policy.

BLITZER: There's another national security threat that the president may be underestimating. And I want to get your thoughts on this. We're talking about the reach of China, the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE, specifically.

RUBIO: Yes.

BLITZER: Do you believe that the National Defense Authorization Act will leave Americans vulnerable to this threat?

RUBIO: I don't understand.

If we know for a fact that no country in the world spies on us more than China does, no country in the world steals intellectual property from us more than China does, and they use their telecommunications companies to do it, installing back doors into routers, all sorts of things, why would we allow them to remain in business in the United States?

That applies to ZTE. That applies even more to Huawei. And so that's why, knowing that and knowing what my colleagues know about ZTE, I don't understand why they would give in so easily, so quickly and cave on something that would have put them out of business by denying them access to U.S. semiconductors.

I'm still puzzled by it. It makes no sense to me. But we got played again. And this cannot continue to happen. BLITZER: Well, as you know, in his 2016 campaign, the president

promised he was going to be very tough on China. Is he putting that on hold right now, for example, what you just discussed with ZTE...

RUBIO: Well, I disagree.

BLITZER: ... to make progress on North Korea?

RUBIO: No, look, I disagree on the determination that he made and that Commerce made on ZTE.

But, on a broader scale, I don't know of any administration that's confronted China's cheating more than this administration has, to be fair. I disagree on the decision they made about ZTE.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Why do you think he made that decision on ZTE?

RUBIO: Well, I don't know. You will have to ask the White House what it was based on, because I think it was based on sanctions and sanction violations. And I would agree.

If the only issue I had with ZTE was that they allowed North Korea and Iran to evade sanctions, then the penalties they're facing are more than enough, more than anything Obama ever did. On the other hand, I don't view ZTE as simply a sanctions violator. I view them as a company that the Chinese government can use to spy on Americans and steal American intellectual property.

I disagree with them on ZTE. But on the broader China issue, no administration, Republican or Democrat, frankly, has been stronger or tougher on the Chinese than this administration. And that's been long overdue. We have allowed them to get away with it for far too long.

BLITZER: That's a good point. The U.S. has been weak in dealing with the Chinese copyright infringement and all of that.

Have you raised the issue specifically of ZTE with the president?

RUBIO: I did. We spoke about a few -- maybe two months ago. We just have a difference of opinion, with is normal and life and in American politics.

He viewed it as, you know, one way, and kind of focused on it from a sanctions perspective. And he pointed to the fact that, you know, the previous administration did nothing about ZTE sanctions violations and he did. And he's right about that.

And I tried to explain it as it's more than just sanctions. We have a different view on it. And that happens. But that's different from the broader approach to China, which I generally agree with.

My only difference there is, I wish we would have focused on China first, and partnered with Europe to do it, as opposed to being in a fight with Europe and China at the same time. But, again, you know, people can disagree on approaches.

We all want the same thing, I hope, which is a better and fairer trading system for the United States and for American workers.

BLITZER: That's what we all want, absolutely. Senator Rubio, thanks so much for your time.

RUBIO: Thanks. Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source