CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Sen. Warner

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to launch even more investigations into the presidency.

The latest, the House Oversight Committee is demand information from the White House on the security clearances of top officials, including and especially the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

"The New York Times" reporting the president overruled concerns from career intelligence officials to grant Kushner a top security clearance.

Joining me now to talk about this and much more, Democrat from Virginia and the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner.

Senator, good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: Good to see you, Jake.

TAPPER: So, let's start with Jared Kushner's security clearance. Is this a threat to national security?

WARNER: Well, the president does have a right to give anyone a security clearance.

But what I think is inappropriate is, these security clearances should be given after the review of the national security officials. The fact that he, in effect, chooses to give a family member, overriding the recommendations of the community, bothers me a great deal.

As we saw earlier, there was also efforts by the president to try to take away security clearances -- I believe it was John Brennan -- when someone -- when he expressed some of his views.

Security clearances have not normally been used as political footballs. But, again, this, as in so many other areas, the president is not adhering to traditional procedures.

TAPPER: The former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, according to "The Times," wrote a contemporaneous memo outlining how the president demanded that he approve the security clearances, against the advice of both the White House Counsel's Office and national security officials. Should Kelly be called to Congress to testify?

WARNER: I think there needs to be further explanation.

Again, you have Mr. Kushner, who has at least tangentially been touched by a number of the investigations. He's clearly got a very strong relationship with the leadership in Saudi Arabia. And the whole idea that the president arbitrarily picks which family members to get security clearances, overriding the advice of the intelligence community -- but we shouldn't be surprised at that.

This president has consistently been willing to override the advice of the intelligence community. And, as you have seen from some of the earlier guests, instead, this president seems to choose the word of dictators over the words of our intelligence community, whether it was in the death of Otto Warmbier, whether it was in the question of believing Vladimir Putin about Russia's non-intervention, intervention in our elections, whether it was believing the leadership of Saudi Arabia about the death of Khashoggi.

TAPPER: Right.

WARNER: There's a pattern here that seems to be constantly repeated that I think all of us, regardless of party, should be very concerned about.

TAPPER: Let's turn to Michael Cohen.

Take a listen to this one key line from his public testimony on Wednesday.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: That potentially seems like a big blow to those who are investigating and even hoping to find evidence of conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russian government.

WARNER: Well, Jake, there's lots of evidence.

The question is what kind of conclusion we're going to reach. I mean, the three pieces of evidence that came out of Cohen's testimony -- and let me be first to acknowledge Mr. Cohen doesn't have a great record of veracity. Matter of fact, he is going to jail partially because of lies he made to the Senate Intelligence Committee, although I would argue the president doesn't have a very good record on telling the truth as well.

But the three facts that I thought were new to the investigation, one, the fact that -- and I believe there's extra evidence on this -- that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen misled the American public for months...

[09:20:03]

TAPPER: About the Trump Tower Moscow.

WARNER: ... about the whole notion of trying to continue to get a Trump Tower project going in Moscow.

And, again, I would point out the fact, Donald Trump had been trying to build a project in Moscow for over a decade. Suddenly, he becomes a candidate for president, and he's got a very lucrative deal on the table. I want to find out why.

The second is the evidence that Mr. Cohen put out that he received -- was in the presence of Donald Trump when Roger Stone called, indicating that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange from WikiLeaks, indicating that WikiLeaks was about to drop a bunch of very damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

TAPPER: Is there any evidence of that, other than Michael Cohen's testimony?

WARNER: Well, the timing seems to be correct.

But, again, that's why we have got to dig in deeper.

TAPPER: But there would be phone records.

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: Well, there are phone records.

And, clearly, Mr. Cohen is in the process of turning over to our committee and others a whole series of additional information.

TAPPER: There are phone records? You know of phone records between Assange and the president?

WARNER: Again, I'm not sure. What I do know...

TAPPER: I mean, Assange and Stone and the president?

WARNER: What I do know is that Mr. Cohen is supposed to be turning over additional records that we have been looking for, for some time.

And I will -- that's a fair question to ask, once we get a chance to look at those -- look at those records.

TAPPER: Yes.

WARNER: And then, finally, we have this whole question where, again, Mr. Cohen put out the fact that he believes that Mr. Cohen -- or Mr. Trump knew about the meeting in Trump Tower that included Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the campaign manager, Paul Manafort, clearly a meeting that was not about Russian adoptions, but what about the idea of turning over dirt on Hillary Clinton. You add that on top of Paul Manafort giving campaign materials.

TAPPER: Yes.

WARNER: So, anyone that says there's no evidence of collaboration,, there's plenty of evidence. The question is, what kind of full conclusion do we reach? And I'm going to reserve my judgment on that conclusion until we finish our investigation.

TAPPER: Well, when you say anyone who says there's no evidence, the chairman of the committee that you're vice chairman of, Senator Richard Burr of -- Republican of North Carolina, he says there's no direct evidence.

And it sounds like he wants to put together and put out a bipartisan report, Democrats and Republicans signing on to it, detailing what evidence there is. But, also, his opinion is, there's no direct evidence.

You seem to be suggesting there's circumstantial evidence.

WARNER: I think there is.

TAPPER: He's saying there's no direct evidence. Could you sign off on that report, a bipartisan report?

WARNER: I'm going to withdraw my -- withhold my judgment.

We still not have seen many of the major figures, candidly, because they have all been involved with the Mueller investigation, and it's important that the criminal process proceeds first.

But we, as the Senate bipartisan counterintelligence investigation, need to see these people. I will reach my final conclusion once we see these people. But the notion that there's...

TAPPER: Who are you talking about? Which people?

WARNER: The notion that there's no evidence is just factually wrong.

Just in the public domain, there are literally reams and reams of evidence of Russian outreach to Trump officials and clear interest from Trump officials, including the president's own son, welcoming the opportunity to get dirt on Hillary.

TAPPER: Sure, circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is what -- you and Burr go back and forth on that.

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: I think one of the things -- and I don't claim to be a legal expert, by any means.

But folks who I have talked to who have been in the prosecutorial business have said, when you're looking at conspiracies, it's almost always based upon a pattern of circumstantial evidence. TAPPER: So you tweeted this week that not only the full Mueller

report, but all of the investigation's records should be handed over to Congress.

The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, cautioned about having such complete transparency from the government more broadly this week. He said -- quote -- "If we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."

You disagree with him?

WARNER: Well, what I say is, there has precedents been set within the last few years, when Republican members of the House demanded all the underlying documents about the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton.

Now, the Justice Department and the FBI turned over all those documents. That precedent has now been set. Depending on what Mueller finds, I believe the Congress deserves to look at all the underlying materials as well.

And one of the things that I'm hoping, and that I'm going to be calling upon, is, when Mr. Mueller finishes his report and when he turns it over to Mr. Barr, I think it's incumbent upon the attorney general to brief congressional leaders, at least the Gang of Eight -- and that's appropriate for our role -- in terms of what his plan is on how he's going to distribute this information.

Matter of fact, I was actually pleased when Devin Nunes, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, put out just yesterday or the day before that he thought all of this underlying information ought to be made public.

I think the American public deserves to know, not only because we need to know what Trump and his organization knew or didn't know in terms of collaboration and collusion, but, also, we need to make sure we have as much evidence out there as possible on how we prevent Russia or others from doing this again in the future.

[09:25:13]

TAPPER: Senator, very quickly, before you go, your home state, the governor, Ralph Northam, who had the blackface incident, the lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, accused by two women of sexual assault, they are both still in office, even though you have called for both of them to step down.

How embarrassing is that for you, as a Virginia Democrat?

WARNER: Listen, as somebody who spent 20 years trying to build a brand about Virginia Democrats and, candidly, Virginia, where we most recently won the award of the Amazon headquarters, it's been very challenging.

But if the governor and lieutenant governor are going to continue, I think the lieutenant governor needs -- there needs to be a due process, where the accusers get a chance to make their case, where the lieutenant governor gets to make his defense.

And one of the things, if the governor is going to continue to stay, what he needs to do is get out and start to try to re-earn the trust of Virginians. When I called for his resignation, along with my friend Tim Kaine, we said the governor had lost the faith of the people of Virginia.

He has a right to try to regain that faith. But I believe that will involve him getting out and making that case directly to Virginians.

TAPPER: But just yes or no, you still think they should both step down?

WARNER: Listen, I think we have made our -- we made our call weeks ago.

Both of these gentlemen, if they're going to stay, there needs to be a process in place, so that they can go about trying to re-earn the faith of Virginians.

TAPPER: Senator Mark Warner, thank you so much.

WARNER: Thank you, Jake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source