Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Hillary Clinton To address E-mail Controversy This Afternoon; Backlash Over Iran Letter Grows; Final Push To Recapture Iraqi City; Biden Says He Was Offended; GOP Ignites Debate Over Possible Nuclear Deal; Letter Could Impact Nuclear Deal Between Iran And U.S.;

Aired March 10, 2015 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 5:00 p.m. in London, 7:00 p.m. in Jerusalem, 8:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We begin this hour with breaking news here in the United States. The former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is speaking at the U.N. this hour on issues facing girls and women around the world.

But the real fireworks will come afterwards at a hastily arranged news conference. For the first time, she'll talk with reporters about the smoldering controversy over her e-mails during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her private, non-governmental account apparently was at odds with administration State Department guidelines at the time.

Secretary Clinton's expected to formally launch a presidential campaign as early as next month. But now, the e-mail controversy threatens to get in the way.

Our senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar is joining us on the phone. She's at the United Nations getting ready to hear what the secretary has to say. Brianna, correct me -- correct me if I'm wrong, this is going to be her first formal news conference, what, in about five months.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Yes, this is really the first time that we have seen her take questions from the media which we assume that she will do. The extent of those questions, we don't know at this point.

But I also want to tell you, Wolf, that we heard the press conference would be at 3:30, that was according to an aide and that was approximate. But a notice just went out from the United Nations that says there will be a live press event at approximately 2:20 p.m. now with Hillary Clinton. So, that's the word from the U.N., coming up sooner than we thought it would be at 2:20 p.m.

But, no, we have not heard much from her. In just the last week, since this controversy over her e-mail use, using a personal e-mail address, solely, as she conducted government business at the State Department and also that she had a personal server to house those e- mails in that account, we haven't heard from her with the exception of a tweet. She's had a few public events where there have been speaking engagements but where she hasn't had a give and take, like a Q and A, and certainly not with reporters -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Brianna, are they saying that it's a little awkward, maybe a little unusual, to have a news conference on this e-mail controversy that's erupted at the United Nations? The setting seems a little awkward.

KEILAR: Well, I will tell you, it's certainly not logistically easy for the press to get into the U.N. for something like this. But the other issue that I think you've had is she -- normally, when she's addressed something, if there's something going on that she wants to get on the record on it, she'll take an opportunity at a speaking engagement that she already has on the calendar.

So, since this controversy broke in the news last Tuesday, she had an event on Saturday in Miami, but I think that her team was waiting to see if this may have died down over the weekend. It certainly didn't. We saw that on Sunday that it was going strong.

Yesterday, she had another event which was a joint event between the Clinton and the Gates' foundation. And it seems like organizers of that joint event decided they didn't want to distract from the message. So, this is really the event on the calendar. And we understand that her team certainly wanted to address this as it just kept going in the news.

BLITZER: Brianna, stand by.

I want to bring in our National Political Reporter Peter Hamby. And our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger is going to be with us covering -- obviously, we're standing by for this Hillary Clinton news conference. What do we expect, Gloria, that she's going to open with a statement and then answer --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Correct.

BLITZER: -- reporters' questions?

BORGER: Yes.

BLITZER: Because there are a lot of questions out there.

BORGER: And there are a lot of reporters as Bri was just reporting there. And so, she will start with this and the question is, how many questions does she take? Does she take just a couple or does she go on for an hour or so? I presume the former, that she will not go on and on.

And I think she's got to answer the why of all this. Why did she do this? What did she use these e-mails for? Was she ever advised not to? And, by the way, what is she going to do now? Are they bringing in a third neutral party, for example, the National Archives or whoever, to handle this going forward? I think those are, sort of, four main areas.

BLITZER: Because one of the key questions is she's handed over 50,000 pages -- literally, in boxes printed out 50,000 pages of her e-mails to the State Department. But we don't know how many other pages she decided not to hand over.

PETER HAMBY, CNN NATIONAL POLICIAL REPORTER: Right, or did she ever delete any e-mails, personal or work-related? I mean, there are so many questions to be answered. I think when you get to this conundrum of doing a short press or a long press conference, --

BORGER: Or a tweet.

HAMBY: -- well, you can't do the tweet, I think they discovered -- is they hope -- I think they realize that there's going to be questions that are going to go on and on and on for weeks, for months, as the State Department sorts through those e-mails, and the Benghazi Committee starts to confront a lot of what's in here. So, look, I think that they could do a Chris Christie tour de force and go two hours.

BORGER: I don't think so.

HAMBY: But the questions aren't going away. They understand the nature of today's media. They understand that the Republicans have every incentive to pick this apart. And so, like, it could be short. It could be long.

BORGER: And that's why it may make some sense to hand the responsibility for this now over to some kind of a neutral third party so Hillary Clinton can say, OK, we're doing everything that we can possibly do to make sure that all your questions are answered because the people in the campaign know very well that all of our questions are not going to be answered in this press conference.

HAMBY: Well, I think what has become a problem here is that there just -- there actually isn't a campaign and there isn't a staff.

BORGER: Right.

HAMBY: I mean, they're in the process of hiring people. You know, reports are that she's going to announce in April. Obviously, there are people around her. But there needs to be somebody full-time devoted to this. I mean, I was talking to former members of the Obama campaign, not the Obama White House, the campaign, who are sort of watching this, kind of amazed, that there isn't a more capable, rapid response operation, that they aren't out ahead of this, that it took this so long to get to this moment. Again, it's only a week but in today's --

BLITZER: Because, Gloria, --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- the only thing we've heard from Hillary Clinton, on this subject so far, is that March 4th tweet when she said, I want the public to see my e-mail. I asked state to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible. That's been the extent of her commentary.

BORGER: Right. And then -- and then, that raised more questions, because the questions that were asked, well, who curated the 55,000 e- mails or pages that went over to the State Department? Who made those decisions? Who's making the decisions over at the State Department? What do you have on paper that wasn't deleted in e-mail? I mean, it go -- you know, the questions are endless and go on and on, Wolf.

HAMBY: We live -- we live in a moment where politicians and campaigns can tweet something and get away with it. Like, that's the final say on X issue. And Hillary Clinton has done that over the last year on a variety of issues. She will tweet something. The press will write about it. End of story. And I think they might have learned the wrong lesson from that, frankly, by thinking that the story would end with a tweet around midnight.

BLITZER: And maybe a little bit more than an hour from now, we'll be hearing what she has to say on this issue. She's going to be speaking at the United Nations in about a half an hour, maybe less, on women's issue, girls' issue, stuff like that. We're going to be monitoring that. We'll take some of that as well. But, obviously, we'll get ready for the Q and A.

She's under a lot of pressure to give answers, not only from Republicans, the Republicans certainly are pouncing, but even her friend, Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California, told her, go out and explain what's going on. Dick Durbin, the leader of the Democratic -- one of the Democratic leaders in the Senate, he says go out there.

And listen to this editorial in "The Washington Post." Dispatching friendly politicians and former aides to television news shows to dismiss the issue as just politics does not help her cause. If she is elected president, can Americans expect a similar response when she faces difficult questions? One 26-word tweet and a cloud of obfuscation from her friends, question mark?

BORGER: Right. And that is what she's got to do today. She's got to answer questions directly about why she did this. Was it protective? Was it evasive? Was it just easy, innocent, as somebody said to me? Somebody in her camp said to me yesterday, you will discover that it was completely innocent. Well, if it's completely innocent, then why not get it out there?

To your point, there is no campaign around her. There's no way to get out this kind of rapid response. And I also think, internally, there is a sense of, why should we do that? It'll -- it might have gone away with just a tweet.

BLITZER: All right. Brianna, you're still over there at the United Nations getting ready for her speech on women's issues, girls' issues. Give us a little flavor, Brianna, of the mood at the U.N. This is highly extraordinary. KEILAR: It is highly extraordinary. So, what you have going on is a

giant women's conference. So, there are people from all over, women from all over going to a number of different events. And they were just here, they thought, in part to see a speech from Hillary Clinton. But now, you have this deluge of press that wouldn't normally be here to cover this event to wait. We -- many of us, including myself, are still waiting to go inside the room, Wolf, so I can't tell you exactly what that's like, at this point. But, certainly, it's a bit of a crush of people really wanting to see what Hillary Clinton has to say here.

BLITZER: You're going to be with us, Brianna. And Peter and Gloria, you're going to be with us. We're standing by. We'll be hearing directly from the former secretary of state. That's coming up this hour. The Q and A, the formal news conference on these e-mails, that'll be in the next hour, assuming it goes according to schedule.

From e-mails to one controversial letter addressed to Iran, the Republican senators who sent it are being called, at least by one newspaper in New York City, traitors. Could they be brought up for legal charges? Is that serious at all?

And later, Iraqi forces begin a final push to retake a key city. They're calling it a decisive operation to liberate Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein. We're going live to Iraq.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The outrage over a Republican letter to Iran's leadership is escalating. The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warns Tehran that any nuclear deal it reaches with President Obama may not last once he leaves office. The vice president, Joe Biden, said he was offended by the letter. Iran's foreign minister is calling it a propaganda ploy. "The New York Daily News" went so far as calling the GOP senators traitors. There is the front page.

Let's bring in our White House Correspondent Michelle Kosinski and Fred Pleitgen our International Correspondent who's in Tehran right now. Michelle, the vice president, Joe Biden, he issued a scathing, lengthy statement last night saying he was outraged. Tell us about it.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, he said that this was -- it was beneath the dignity of an institution that he revered and in which he served for 36 years, saying that it's a clearly -- clearly, an attempt to undercut the authority of the president of the United States. And it's interesting because in the letter that these Republican senators wrote to Iran, it was almost as if they were schooling Iran on the role that they play and could play in the future.

Well, in this letter that Vice President Biden wrote, he is schooling Republicans on the many, many other instances in which a president over the last 200 years has made agreements with foreign countries without the approval of Congress because it's not necessary in all cases. And this has opened up a pretty nasty war of words. I think Biden's was restrained but lengthy and in no uncertain terms spelled out how he felt.

But the war of words is something that the White House has not been staying out of. I mean, today they called this letter reckless, irresponsible, misguided, a blatant, flagrant attempt to interfere. Really not holding back there. And I think it was most powerful to hear the White House say that this amounted to a kind of back-channel communication with Iran. That can be disputed pretty easily that its back-channeling. I mean, this was an open letter that's out there.

But both sides are weighing in. and today what's interesting is we're hearing from some members of Congress, Republicans who didn't sign this letter, like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, saying that well she thinks that what should be happing is giving advice to the president, not sending a letter to Iran, which they're unlikely to pay attention to anyway, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, seven Republican senators did not sign - did not sign that letter to the Iranian leadership, including Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

KOSINSKI: Right.

BLITZER: We're going to have more on that part of the story coming up.

I want to go to Iran right now. Fred Pleitgen is in Tehran.

How are officials there reacting to this extraordinary letter, Fred?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, they certainly are paying attention to it. And I think that the response that we're getting is somewhat of a surprise, but also a lot of Iranian officials are saying that they find the letter quite condescending, actually. That's interesting because there was a response from Iran's foreign minister, as you said. And one of the things that he said in that response is that he really didn't feel that the GOP senators needed to lecture the Iranians on the workings of Congress.

Of course, you remember one of the lines in that letter was the senators who signed the letter saying that maybe the Iranian government is not aware of how the U.S. Congress works. Certainly Javad Zarif saying he's very well aware of how Congress works and he feels that any deal that's signed by the president of the United States would also be binding for subsequent administrations.

Now, you mentioned it earlier, Wolf. The Iranians also said that they consider this northing more than a PR stunt. And I just want to read a little bit from the statement because it is quite remarkable to get a lengthy statement like this from an Iranian official this fast.

And that kind of shows how important they take all this. They said, "we believe this letter has no legal value and is indeed just a propaganda ploy. While the negotiations have not yet borne fruit and there is no agreement yet, pressure groups in the U.S. are so worried that they're using extraordinary measures to prove that they, like Netanyahu, oppose any kind of agreement." That, of course, is also in reaction to the speech by the Israeli prime minister there in Congress last week.

One of the things, of course, Wolf, that we do have to keep in mind, as I said, there are big divisions here in Iran as well. On the one hand, you have the government that, of course, wants a deal. On the other hand, however, Wolf, you do have a lot of hardliners who feel that Iran should have walked away from the negotiating table a long time ago and that are willing to continue to live with sanctions as well, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, we're going to continue to monitor the reaction in Iran, as well as the White House, to this extraordinary GOP letter. Michelle, thanks very much. Fred Pleitgen in Tehran, thank you.

And to our viewers, don't go away. We're continuing our discussion of that Republican letter to the Iranian leadership. Some are calling for legal action, actual legal action, to be taken against the senators who signed that. Is that realistic at all? What's going on? We'll going to explore the reaction. Much more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: As we mentioned just before the break, a lot of people are outraged by the direct Republican letter to the Iranian leadership. It comes as Iran, the U.S., five countries are negotiating an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program. The entire United Nations Security Council, the permanent members, the five permanent members plus Germany.

For more context on what's going on, let's bring in our global affairs analyst, managing editor of Quarts, Bobby Ghosh, and Jane Harman, she's the president and CEO of the Wilson Center here in Washington, a former Democratic congresswoman as well.

Jane, when you read this letter, 47 members signing it, all Republicans, seven Republicans refusing to sign it, what was your reaction?

JANE HARMAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, WILSON CENTER: That it's a pointless exercise. I thought that Susan Collins, the very responsible Republican member Susan Collins, had the best counterargument when she said she doesn't think it will be particularly persuasive to the ayatollah. And let's just think about this in reverse. If members of parliament, of any of the P5 countries or of the Iranian legislature wrote to us, how would we respond that that, especially just from one party? I think Congress has a very important lever, and that is the ability to add or subtract sanctions and that is the lever that Congress should use on a bipartisan basis if it's not satisfied with the deal.

BLITZER: And as you know, Bobby, the country's negotiating this deal and there's no deal yet. We'll probably know in a week or two if there is going to be a deal. There's no deal yet. It's not just the United States, it's the other permanent members of the Security Council, France, Britain, both allies, but also Russia and China, not exactly allies. Germany, not a member of the U.N. Security Council but a close ally of the United States. How are they likely reacting to this extraordinary decision by the GOP in the Senate to go ahead and write to the Iranians?

BOBBY GHOSH: I think they're going to react in quite the same way as they did when Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, addressed Congress on this issue. And they're mainly going to ignore it as a manifestation of American domestic politics. I don't think, if I can inject heaven forbid a degree of cynicism into this, but I don't think anybody realistically thinks this letter was addressed to the ayatollah. This is obviously a bit of political grandstanding. It is addressed to a domestic audience. It is addressed to Israel, to some degree. It is addressed perhaps to donors. I don't think anybody outside the U.S. is sort of seriously thinking this is a letter from American Congress for the leader, the supreme leader of Iran to take seriously.

BLITZER: You think, Jane, it's going to have any impact on these final two weeks, let's say, of these negotiations? They're supposed to have a framework deadline March 24th. I don't know if they'll reach it, they won't reach it, maybe they'll extend it. But do you think a letter like this has any impact on the actual negotiations on some of these very, very sensitive issues?

HARMAN: Not really. I mean it does point out that the political stakes in this country, not that anybody has missed it, are very high. But I ran into John Kerry last night at something in Washington, actually a memorial service for an extraordinary person, Arno Deborgrav (ph), and he said they're at work, they're hoping to close on the 24th.

BLITZER: They're hoping to get a deal by the 24th, is that what you're saying?

HARMAN: Yes. Yes.

BLITZER: You think Bob - you think, Bobby -

HARMAN: And -

BLITZER: They will, Bobby? What do you think? What are you hearing?

HARMAN: Well, it's a - it's a really hard thing to predict. The one thing we know that this -- what this letter shows is that hardliners, if we can use the term, in this country are basically upping the ante as that date approaches. We're not seeing a similar reaction from hardliners in Iran. So it would appear that the Iranian political establishment, to some degree, is in lockstep. Yes, hardliners don't like the deal. They're not making a huge noise about that deal right now as we come into the home stretch. Is that because the supreme leader has told them to back off until the deal is signed or is that because they just think President Rouhani has more cards than they do? That's interesting, though, that we're not seeing a similar rush by the hardliners in Iran to try and condemn this deal and try to head it off at the pass.

HARMAN: It is. And let's wait and see what's in the deal. I mean we all agree that a bad deal is worse than no deal. But maybe there will be an adequate, good enough deal. And it was interesting that Bebe Netanyahu did not say that he was against any deal. He did not say that there had to be zero enrichment. He left the door open there. And I thought he made a very constructive suggestion, which is to link the deal or during the deal link it to Iran stopping its actions by proxy groups to commit terror acts and to call for the annihilation of Israel. So I think there is some room here to get a lot of things done in a constructive direction. And, again, we have to keep focused on if there is no deal, is there an arms race, is there a war, are there things that could easily get out of control?

BLITZER: Well, let me ask Bobby very quickly, is there any chance at all, the Iranian leadership, the ayatollah would issue a statement accepting Israel's right to exist instead of calling for its annihilation?

GHOSH: You would knock me off with a feather if that happens, Wolf. I find that highly unlikely. My -- if I had to bet, I would say there would be a postponement at this point for a few weeks, maybe a few months. That would - that would allow both sides to withdraw and take a deep breath and come back for more discussions. I can't see a formal announcement by the Iranian supreme leader recognizing Israel or acknowledging its right to exist. Perhaps a tacit understanding that he will no longer call for its destruction. But that's about as far as I can see him go.

BLITZER: All right.

HARMAN: And I don't see that in the near term, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes.

HARMAN: And I don't think that's what Bebe was hinting either. He said over the duration of the deal before all the sanctions come off, if it's 10 years or more years. And a lot of people think it should be longer. By the conclusion of that, things have to change and maybe they could change in a different atmosphere.

BLITZER: Well, let's see what happens. They've got, what, two weeks before that deadline, that initial deadline, but they can always extend these deadlines. They've done it before. They might be doing it again. All right, guys, thanks very, very much.

Just ahead, the war against ISIS. Is this the final push by Iraqi forces to try to retake a key city? We're going live to Iraq for the latest on the operation to try to liberty Saddam Hussein's birthplace, Tikrit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)