CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) Is Interviewed About The Nomination of Rep. John Ratcliffe for Intel Director

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Let's get some more on all of this. A key Democrat is joining us from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger.

Congresswoman thanks so much for joining us. We have a lot to discuss. But first, what does this ruling on Don McGahn say about the power of the House of Representatives at least for now?

(INAUDIBLE)

We're going to try to fix your audio. For some reason, Congresswoman, I am not hearing you. I don't think our viewers are hearing you either. Let's try to fix the audio for the Congresswoman.

Can you hear me now, Congresswoman?

REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): I can hear you.

BLITZER: All right. Now we hear you.

So let me repeat the question, because you heard the breaking news that this court, a federal court has now just ruled that Don McGahn does not have to appear before the House of Representatives at least for now, a very significant win for him and for the president. What do you think?

(INAUDIBLE)

All right, unfortunately we are having major technical problems. We're going to come back to you. Let's take a quick break. Much more of our coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:53]

BLITZER: We had some major technical problems with Representative Abigail Spanberger. We're still working on those problems. We'll try to fix them and get to her shortly, but we will continue to follow all the breaking news right now with the World Health Organization today sounding major alarms about the coronavirus being a global level risk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Let's see what happens. I want to get some reaction from Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, Virginia Democrat. Congresswoman, we fixed your audio. Fortunately, you're a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You're a former CIA Case Officer, what do you think of this nomination?

REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): Well, the nomination just came out via tweet I guess while we were experiencing the audio problems. Perhaps that delay was worth that I got to weigh in on this topic. You know, as a former CIA Case Officer serving in the Intelligence Community, I find it quite astounding that the President would nominate someone without an intelligence background.

[17:35:08]

When we look at what the focus of the Intelligence Community should be, what the role of the DNI is, it's supposed to be someone who is bringing together intelligence communities across the United States, across our I.C. to pull the information together, to coordinate what's happening and to be a solid, intelligence-driven member of the President's inner circle. And the notion that we would have someone without an intelligence background, without that respect for what it is to be driven by facts and evidence and not kind of partisan politics, I think this is overall very detrimental, because I question what type of advice and what type of input the President will be getting from someone who's driven far more by partisan politics than the pursuit of the truth.

BLITZER: Well, you served -- as you correctly pointed out -- as a CIA Case Officer, what's the impact on the average men and women who work in the Intelligence Community very often risking their own lives when the President does something like this?

SPANBERGER: Well, the notion that the President would appoint someone when they're -- I mean, there are many, many qualified people who have experienced, direct experience in the Intelligence Community who could be tapped. Backgrounds in intelligence, backgrounds in the military, who could bring to bear the real life and lived experience that so many of our officers on the ground have. And so I think from the perspective of an employee, knowing that you're taking risks, you're out in the field, you're pulling together valuable information, sometimes spending years tracking down leads, trying to determine, you know, what are the answers to some of the greatest questions that should be informing U.S. policy. I think the question of whether or not that intelligence is actually making it to the President's desk whether or not the DNI is going to present it in a way where he feels comfortable challenging a president or a vice president and having that push and pull of ideas and facts and answering some of the hardest questions. As a former CIA Case Officer, I find it deeply troubling that perhaps that absence of a real focus on an -- intelligence as we consider it to be nonpartisan, not driven by any ideology or any goal other than delivering the most honest assessment in the instance where that slacking, I am very concerned.

BLITZER: Because it comes on the heels of the President putting in place an acting Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Rick Grenell, who doesn't have any real intelligence experience either. He's still on the job as DNI and will be until this new nomination, John Ratcliffe, is actually confirmed by the Senate assuming he will be confirmed by the Senate. I just want to get your sense because Grenell replace the other acting DNI Joseph Maguire who had extensive intelligence experience.

SPANBERGER: Well, the challenge here as we see where -- when the Senate -- with our separation of powers, it is the role of the Senate to confirm these appointees who are individuals serving in lead roles within the administration. And it is supposed to be that checks and balances that are helpful to the nation. I think as we're seeing still the aftermath of the strikes in Iran, and certainly now with the threat of the coronavirus in this outbreak, we need to know that the best and the most valuable intelligence is making its way to the President's desk.

And there are experts at the CDC, there are experts at the agency, NSA, who are providing incredibly valuable information and we as American people, and certainly as a Member of Congress should have faith that those who are bringing reports back to the President are doing it without a partisan lens.

BLITZER: And just to remind our viewers, DNI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that whole operation was created after 911 to make sure that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies from the CIA, the DIA, NSA, all the various agencies that they were working together and the left hand of the U.S. government knew what the right hand of the U.S. government was doing --

SPANBERGER: That's right.

BLITZER: -- because that didn't happen before 911.

SPANBERGER: Yes, after 911 when the assessment was made, that perhaps there were places where the communication wasn't as strong as it could have been. The decision to put a DNI in place was in order to ensure that all of these different agencies that are collecting information, human intelligence, signals intelligence, you know, reading what's out in the open source and newspapers around the world, that they could come together, ensure that we could answer every possible conceivable question that may relate to our national security priorities and national security threats. And so this role is far beyond a high level position that interfaces with the President.

This is a high level position that interfaces with agency after agency whose employees are taking risks day in day out domestically, overseas to ensure that we are keeping the American people safe and that we are protecting American holdings abroad and around the world.

[17:40:13]

BLITZER: And that comes at a time, Congresswoman, when the President has had his issues with the U.S. Intelligence Community. I was in Helsinki when the President met with Putin in Helsinki and sided with Putin and specifically mentioned that the then Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, he disagreed with him when he suggested that Russia was directly involved in the U.S. election interference. And the President in a rather amazing moment said at that news conference in Helsinki that, you know, he basically believes Putin rather than believes the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats and the entire U.S. Intelligence Community had come to that conclusion that was an amazing moment.

SPANBERGER: A deeply disturbing moment. The President of the United States, whoever is holding that office at whatever point in time should always have the full faith in the DNI. And the notion that the President of the United States would ever take the word of a leader of an adversary nation over the leader of our Intelligence Community is something I will never begin to understand.

BLITZER: Yes. It was moment indeed. You know, hold out for a moment Congresswoman, I want to get Gloria and Elliot to weigh in as well. It's a very, very sensitive issue right now, Gloria, that the President is nominating John Ratcliffe representative, a Congressman to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

BORGER: Well, particularly -- and since the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, when this was raised last time, was completely unenthusiastic about it. Because this is someone whom a lot of people up on the Hill believe -- exaggerated and embellished his national security credentials. And that's a problem when you are asking somebody to head up the intelligence apparatus in this country. What's important to the intelligence apparatus? The truth.

And if you have somebody who is exaggerated his resume, how can you expect that person to tell the truth to Members of Congress who oversee intelligence or even to the President United States, by the way.

WILLIAMS: And to some extent, it's the death of experience of the administration. The President, as we know, this is an anecdotal at this point that the President prizes loyalty. And we've seen, you know, across the State Department, frankly, the Department of Justice, where the President seems to consolidate people who are loyal to him rather than folks with significant experience. And this is -- and it's very clear that that's the case.

BLITZER: And Ron Brownstein, clearly, the President has been emboldened since his acquittal in the U.S. Senate. BROWNSTEIN: Yes. It's very revealing in that sense, in that the President is coming back to someone that Senate Republicans basically said we wanted no part of. It shows how much he feels the power balance has shifted toward him in that relationship. It was never that even to begin with, but is now even more lopsided.

But I think to Elliot's point, this is also very revealing. And that, you know, as I've said before, the President views the entire federal government as an extension of his will. And more and more it is apparent that the principal qualification that he looks for in these jobs is not only loyalty, as we have defined it, it is someone who will essentially execute his will rather than kind of underlying qualifications for the job itself. And you see in the coronavirus, not only the kind of the substance of risks that that might create, but also the political risks it creates for the President because one of the, you know, he -- his hold on his audience, his voters is much more about assertion and identity and affirming the shared values.

One of the biggest Achilles heels that he has are questions about whether he is simply focused enough on the job itself. And so while he may prize loyalty, and who is appointing, I think ultimately the American public prizes competence in responding to real threats. And that is the challenge that he will face with a government that is essentially picked solely on the basis of its willingness to do what he says.

BLITZER: Let me get Representative Spanberger to weigh in on the coronavirus controversy. The uproar that's developed right now, the deep concern not only here in the United States, but certainly around the world. What are your biggest concerns about the way the President and the administration is handling this crisis?

SPANBERGER: Well, I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as you mentioned, and we've had now two hearings in our subcommittee focused on the coronavirus. We've heard from epidemiologists, we've heard from Ron Klain, who headed up the U.S.'s reaction and handling of the Ebola virus. Just yesterday, we had another hearing with the Director of CDC, Dr. Redfield and leadership within the State Department. So we've had a broad group of witnesses come before our committee to talk about what we are seeing, how we should be reacting and it is a priority that we have a singular point person who is driving U.S. engagement on this issue.

[17:45:03]

This is a global public health crisis. Other countries are engaged. It's an issue of diplomacy. It's an issue of --

BLITZER: Yes.

SPANBERGER: -- public health. And we need someone who is leading the charge on this. I do find it difficult that we, in the President's decision to put the Vice President in charge of this, the Vice President is engaged as a Vice President. This is a 24/7 job. And I would have preferred that there be someone appointed to this position to focus on coordinating our engagement and our outreach and our response. And, frankly, communication to the American people.

What we've heard in -- in my office, I represent Central Virginia, is we're hearing from constituents who just don't know what to do, and they're scared and we, representatives and the administration, need to be able to communicate clearly and succinctly that we are united in our efforts to deal with this virus that the United States will do everything necessary to contain this disease and to make -- ensure that our people can be safe, but that starts with being realistic about the threat. And when we hear on the news, one person saying that this is what the threat is --

BLITZER: All right.

SPANBERGER: -- and then we hear contradictory evidence that makes it very, very difficult. I'd like to see better communication and a unified message.

BLITZER: Strong views. We got to go unfortunately. But thank you so much for joining us, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. Much more --

SPANBERGER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source