BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BURNETT: All right. Pamela, thank you very much. And I want to go OUTFRONT now to Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. And Senator, I appreciate your time.
That's just the top leadership of the Pentagon today defending, again, the killing of Soleimani saying that there was an imminent strike. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says, "I will stand by the intelligence. I saw that it was compelling that it was imminent and it was very, very clear in scale and scope." Do you believe him?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Erin, I believe that we can only believe it when we see it. I think we learned the very hard way during the Iraq War how administrations, political folks, and administrations and others manipulate and corrupt intelligence to get the policy result they wanted. In this case, an excuse to go after Soleimani.
And so it's very appropriate that we'd be asking for this evidence, after all the administration's story on this keeps shifting. Their rationale keeps shifting and they have provided no evidence to Congress that there was an imminent threat. There was a staff briefing at the top secret level just a few days ago, before the Senate reconvened and they didn't provide any.
The administration didn't provide any information and evidence supporting that. So it's important that we get that. It's also important that we recognize that the overall goal the administration had is really just blown up. I mean, you talked about this back and forth today in response to the Iraqi parliament's vote to get rid of U.S. forces.
BURNETT: Yes.
VAN HOLLEN: Look, whether or not in the end of the day all our forces pull out or not, the reality is that Soleimani's goal all along was to undermine our strategy and our interests and influence in Iraq and he seems to have accomplished in death what he could not do in life because of this administration decision.
BURNETT: So General Milley says this letter that you're now referring to was released by mistake and poorly worded. He said that's not what's happening in terms of removing troops. He knows we can all read. The letter says, "We're required to take certain measures to ensure the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner. We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure."
So it's not poorly worded. It says what it says. OK.
VAN HOLLEN: No.
BURNETT: What do you think is happening here?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, I read the letter too and it's clear on its face what it meant. I think this administration really the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. And what we're seeing as the result of that chaos, on the one hand, they're going to send that letter to the Iraqis or they did. On the other hand, they say, no, we didn't really mean that.
So this is a pretty dangerous situation. It has been from the start. It's been made more dangerous by this administration's escalation. We are now closer to war with Iran than we have been before. And so we should really be deescalating this. Instead, you have this overly outrageous rhetoric from the President threatening war crimes and his administration, Secretary Esper, has to bring that back too.
BURNETT: I just want to ask you - let me just jump in on that point if I may, Senator, because you're raising that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is contradicting the President today saying the U.S. will abide by international law, which would not be to bomb Iranian cultural sites.
I just want to make sure it's an important moment, OK, because I want to make sure how you hear it, do you hear the Secretary of Defense of this country saying that he would defy an order from the President of the United States to do so?
VAN HOLLEN: I think Secretary Esper made the right statement, whether or not he had any consultation with the President before contradicting the President. I don't know.
[19:10:00]
I'm glad he made that statement. It was important that somebody do it. But we appear to have a president who's increasingly unhinged. He is tweeting out all of these things, including threatening war crimes. Then he, yesterday, threatened the Iraqi government with sanctions if they told us we had to remove our troops then today we have a letter from the commanding officer in Iraq say, "We are going to remove our troops."
You have the President, by tweet, telling the Congress that he has the right essentially to go to war in Iran when the Constitution gives the Congress the power to authorize war. We are in a very dangerous moment with a president who does seem increasingly unhinged and I think the Congress really needs to come together now as one and assert our constitutional responsibility.
BURNETT: And obviously you're referring specific to this situation. This is in the context though of a pending, a looming impeachment trial, whatever form it may take. On that, Senator, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, as you know, says today he'll testify at the Senate trial if subpoenaed. We understand that he has a lot to say and that he knows what happened. Will we see John Bolton testify in front of the Senate?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, Republican senators are out of all excuses for not calling these witnesses, especially now John Bolton, the House was worried when they asked him he said no. And they were worried about a long drawn out legal proceeding to bring him to testify. But now he's made clear, he will comply with a senate subpoena, so we should bring him down.
I would also refer everybody back to December 3rd, President Trump said he wanted Mick Mulvaney, his acting chief of staff to testify at a Senate trial. That was what President Trump said. Why are we having any dispute over whether Mick Mulvaney should come down when President Trump said he want him to testify? So I think every American understands in order to have a fair trial,
you need relevant witnesses and relevant documents, and that's all we're asking for.
BURNETT: All right. I appreciate your time, Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT