CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Maine Senator Angus King

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right, Barbara, I want you to stay on top of this, as I know you will. We are going to come back to you as soon as you get more information, very disturbing developments indeed.

I want to talk about all of the breaking news right now with Senator Angus King. He's an independent who serves on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Sure, Wolf.

BLITZER: What is your reaction, first of all, to these three letters? They may contain -- two of them at least in the initial investigations, contain this poison ricin, which is deadly.

KING: I think the bad news is, this is terrible. The good news is, it was caught. And I think that's important to realize.

But why someone would do something like this is just beyond me. But it sounds like the Secret Service is on top of it. The question that you asked, I think, was a good one, and that is, are they connected, the White House and the Pentagon?

Why the chief admiral of the Navy was included is sort of strange as well. So, clearly, we're at the very beginning of that story, but I'm just happy that it appears that the checks and the security provisions have worked.

BLITZER: Yes. It is a very disturbing development indeed. We will get some more information. I know you are on the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee. I'm sure you and your staff will be working on this as well.

Let's get to this "New York Times" story that just came out a couple of hours or so ago that basically debunks the entire Donald Trump myth that he created all of this wealth, self -- that he was doing it all by himself, got a million-dollar loan from his dad, repaid it.

But this "New York Times" story, it's a bombshell, saying, basically, he got about $400 million in today's money from his father.

[18:30:19] SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Well, the first thing I'm going to say is I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing. As you know, it's very lengthy. Very --

BLITZER: It's 40,000 words, at least here about 45, 50 pages.

KING: I have read the first few paragraphs. I've read the White House reaction or actually the president's lawyer's reaction.

I think it's important, there's nothing wrong with inheriting money from your family. The question is how did it get there and was it done in such a way as to avoid tax laws in an illegal way? Avoidance of taxes, again, is legal. But the article raises serious questions about the methodology of how the money was transferred.

And you know, I think we're back to, eventually, this story is going to be something like Howard Baker's famous question: "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Clearly, he didn't know when he was three years old that he was getting a $200,000-a-year salary, but at some point was he aware of these various machinations that appear -- and it's important to emphasize appear, because this, as I say, this story just came out today -- that appear to be end runs around the tax laws in order to convey a very large sum of money to the family. Not only to Donald Trump, but to his siblings.

BLITZER: Yes, I want to get to the Kavanaugh nomination, but very quickly if the Democrats are the majority in the Senate and the House, is there a role, some investigatory role for the Democrats to pursue these allegations in "The New York Times"?

KING: Well, I think there may be. I suspect one of the oversight committees will want to look into this, probably in the House first.

But I think, clearly, what "The New York Times" has done is a very substantial piece of reporting, just by the sheer bulk of it, and it really leads to the authorities and perhaps even the IRS to review their records to see if laws were broken and what the consequences may be.

As I think Jeff Toobin pointed out, ,there's unlikely to be criminal consequences, because the statute of limitations has long since run, but there may be some civil consequences. But we're a ways from that now.

I think everybody is just absorbing this story right now. And, of course, one of the problems, Wolf, is the president has created an atmosphere where any attack on him from "The New York Times" or any other news media is immediately sort of a validation of him as the victim of the elites. I suspect those people in Mississippi today are going to cheer him mightily and shrug off this story. The question is, where does it go from here?

BLITZER: I'm sure they'll call it fake news, failing "New York Times" and all of that.

Let's get to the Kavanaugh nomination. The Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, says there will be a final vote this week. The FBI will complete its supplemental investigation. There will be a vote. Are you OK with that?

KING: Well, I think it depends on whether this investigation is a real investigation. And as you heard we're -- individual senators are going to be able to review the report.

There were disturbing reports over the weekend that they were only going to interview four people; they weren't going to follow up. They weren't going to look at documents: the calendar, for example.

My impression is that Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski intervened and said, "No, this has to be a real investigation to satisfy our concerns," and so right now we don't really know. We don't know the extent of the investigation, but that's going to be, I think, a key development.

It's -- this is -- the progress of this, I came out against Judge Kavanaugh before any of the allegations of sexual assault, because I didn't think he was the right guy to be on the court. Also, because they refused to release 90 percent of his records as a White House official. I had other concerns about his views of presidential power and personal liberty, some of those kinds of issues.

So -- but all of that was forgotten when the sexual assault allegation came up, so the subject, in effect, was changed. Her testimony -- Dr. Ford's testimony was very compelling, very strong, and certainly, came across as credible. I sat and watched it.

And then a couple of hours later, the subject was changed again to his deportment and demeanor and temperament, because of the way he presented himself at that hearing, and also questions of whether he was being fully forthcoming in his answer to the question.

So I think this FBI report is going to be very important. And really, Wolf, we're talking about a small group of undecided senators who are going to ultimately decide this. And I think they're going to -- I think they're going to be very focused on the results of the FBI.

BLITZER: Basically, these three Republican senators, because there's 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and they will make this decision. The lawyer representing Professor Ford says the FBI has not contacted

her about an investigation or questions separately. It doesn't look like Judge Kavanaugh is being questioned by the FBI. I guess their argument is they were both questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they know their stories. Is that good enough?

[18:35:15] KING: Well, I think -- I would think there would be follow-up interviews. The implication of that is they said everything that needs saying, and an FBI agent wouldn't have any further questions. I would think there would be some threads that the FBI would want to pull in terms of, "Give me more detail about seeing Mark Judge in the Safeway," and then we need to go and look at employment records to see when he was there and does that narrow the date down? Talk to Judge Kavanaugh about his calendar and what that notation on -- I think it was July 1 -- meant.

So I think there are reasons that they would want to talk to them.

And plus, as I say, when you start an investigation like this, you don't know where it's going to lead. And the important thing for me is that the FBI was given the opportunity to follow the evidence wherever it leads and then can report back to the Senate.

If it -- if this is a bobtail, rushed, non-conclusive investigation -- and I'm not suggesting that there is a yes or no answer. But if it raises more doubts than it settles, then we are right back where we started and it is -- the other issue is, rush -- rush. Is, Wolf, why we are in this rush. The Merrick Garland seat or Gorsuch, however you want to characterize it, that seat was held open by 14 months by the very people who are now saying we've got to do it this weekend.

And I've never understood, even before this process went on, why the break-neck pace of trying to get this done while there are outstanding issues.

If I were Judge Kavanaugh and he's as innocent, I'm as innocent as he says he is, I would want the most thorough FBI investigation in the history of the world in order to exonerate me. And I don't understand the resistance. It took Jeff Flake and Chris Coons' intervention to get this investigation done at all. And I would think that the White House and Judge Kavanaugh would want this investigation to be thorough, even if it takes a couple of extra days.

BLITZER: They said it was going to be a week or less, and by Friday it will be a week. We will see what happens. Senator, thanks so much for coming in.

KING: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Angus King of Maine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source