Return to Transcripts main page


Trump: Could Invite Kim to U.S. 'If Things Go Well'; Trump: No Need to 'Prepare Very Much' for Kim Summit; Justice Dept. to Share More Classified Info Related to Spy Allegations to Congress. Aired 5- 6p ET

Aired June 7, 2018 - 17:00   ET


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You can follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Tweet the show, @TheLeadCNN.

I now turn you over to one Mr. Wolf Blitzer. He's right next door in a place I like to call THE SITUATION ROOM.

[17:00:13] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking new. No prep needed. President Trump says he doesn't have to prepare much for the summit with Kim Jong-un, saying it's all about attitude. But he's already suggesting he could invite the North Korean dictator to the White House and normalize relations. Is it really that easy?

Alienating allies. Before a summit with a dangerous foe, President Trump will meet with very close U.S. friends. But he's reportedly not very happy about going to the G-7 meeting in Canada after alienating U.S. allies with his America First policies and a move toward a trade war.

Brutal police assault. Four Arizona police officers are now on leave as public outrage grows over a video showing them beating an unarmed man. We have the shocking images.

And mobile spy -- phone spying. A new homeland security report says cell-phone surveillance devices have been identified operating near the White House and other locations. Could President Trump's conversations be picked up by foreign agents? Could yours?

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: Breaking news, President Trump says his summit with Kim Jong-un is ready to go, stressing that if there's a deal, he'd expect normalization of relations with North Korea. He also says that, if things go well, he could invite the dictator to the United States. And if things don't go well, the president says he's totally prepared to walk away.

I'll speak with Congressman Mike Quigley of the Intelligence Committee and White House legislative director Marc Short. And our correspondents and specialists, they're all standing by with full coverage. Let's begin with the breaking news. Our senior White House

correspondent, Pamela Brown, is joining us. Pamela, President Trump seems to be looking forward, very much so, to a summit with a U.S. enemy even more than the annual get together with U.S. friends.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right, Wolf. President Trump has an optimistic tone today when speaking about this upcoming summit with North Korea, saying he believes it will be a great success, even saying he doesn't believe he needs to prepare very much.

And as you pointed out, he even left the option on the table for Kim Jong-un to visit the White House if all goes well.


MURRAY (voice-over): President Trump meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the White House.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It will be a pretty crowded number of days but very exciting and I think a lot of good results can come about.

BROWN: It's just five days from Trump's highly-anticipated summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

TRUMP: I think I'm very well-prepared. I don't think I have to prepare very much. It's about attitude. It's about willingness to get things done. But I think I'm been preparing for the summit for a long time, as has the other side.

BROWN: The president today knocking the notion the Singapore summit is just a photo-op.

TRUMP: It's going to be much more than a photo-op. I think it's a process. They have to denuke. If they don't denuclearize, that will not be acceptable. We cannot take sanctions off. The sanctions are extraordinarily powerful. We cannot -- and I could add a lot more, but I don't -- I've chosen not to do that at this time. But that may happen.

BROWN: Trump later telling reporters that he someday hopes for a normal relationship with North Korea.

TRUMP: Normalizing relations is something that I expect to do, I would hope to do when everything is complete. We would certainly hope to do that.

BROWN: And even said Kim Jong-un may be invited to visit the White House if all goes well.

TRUMP: Certainly, if it goes well, and I think it would be well- received. I think he would look at it very favorably. So I think that could happen.

BROWN: And while President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, may have ruffled feathers with the North Korea comments yesterday --

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Kim Jong-un got back on his hands and knees and begged for it, which is exactly the position you want to put him in.

BROWN: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shrugged off the comments today.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I know Rudy. Rudy doesn't speak for the administration when it comes to this negotiation and this set of issues.

BROWN: But first, Trump travels to Quebec for the annual G-7 summit, coming face to face with key allies at an awkward time, many at odds with the president over his recent trade decisions.

EMMANUEL MARCO, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): For me, it's a question of principles. We can't wager trade war between friends.

BROWN: This as the president is seemingly more willing to engage with potential adversaries, today striking a controversial deal to ease sanctions that brought ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications company, to the brink of collapse.

Trump's top economic adviser dismissed tensions with G-7 leaders on Wednesday.

LARRY KUDLOW, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISOR: We're talking everything through. There may be disagreements. I regard this as much like a family quarrel. I'm always the optimist. I believe it can be worked out.


BROWN: And the president's globe-trotting not without some internal debate. The president has been questioning with aides whether it's really necessary for him to go to Canada, questioning whether the meetings in remote Quebec will produce anything worthwhile. The aides warning him it is important for him to go.

Wolf, after Canada, the president will be -- will be going to Singapore on Saturday. It's pretty clear that that is what he is looking forward to the most, the summit with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Truly historic moment. A summit between the leader of the United States, the leader of North Korea.

Pamela Brown, thank you very much.

Let's dig deeper right now with our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto.

Jim, what shape is President Trump in right now going into this summit? JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's

interesting listening to the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, just in the last hour, who's been very involved in this. He's met face to face, as he reminded people today, twice now with Kim Jong-un in the last month.

And he brought some clarity, at least, to the White House's understanding of what North Korea is bringing to the table, how it is approaching these talks, because you'll remember last week, mixed signals from the president, from the secretary of state as to whether North Korea had made any commitments or shown any concrete interest in denuclearizing.

Mike Pompeo said the following, in effect, that he's been told they are at least considering it. Listen to his language here.


POMPEO: He has indicated to me personally that he is prepared to denuclearize. That he understands that the current model doesn't work. That he's prepared to denuclearize and that, two, he understands that we can't do it the way we've done it before. That this has to be big and bold, and we have to agree to making major changes.


SCIUTTO: Of course, prepared to denuclearize is a long way from denuclearizing. The question is, is that a grand Grand Canyon or is that a bridgeable -- is that a bridgeable gap?

And part of the function of this sit-down is going to be in answering that question.

But at the same time, as you have Mike Pompeo saying at least the North Koreans have expressed intention and intention, or an openness to denuclearizing, the question is, what are they expecting in return? Is it a price that the U.S. is willing to pay? Is it a price that U.S. allies are willing to repay? And crucially, how will it be verified? Particularly for a president, Wolf, who just tore up the Iran nuclear agreement that had its own verification measures.

Will the president be able to get to a place where he gets equal or better guarantees than were received with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal?

BLITZER: Is the president, Jim, threading the needle on how closely to embrace Kim Jong-un beforehand? The president said he's prepared to walk away and sanctions can remain. Maybe even be intensified. But thanked Kim Jong-un at the same time for his warm letter that was delivered the other day. He said North Korea will get economic help, mostly from South Korea and China. Maybe Japan. Not necessarily from the United States.

So, what's the latest on that? SCIUTTO: Well, it's interesting today to watch the president's

comments alongside the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe. You heard from President Trump, often in the same sentence, both good cop and bad cop. As you said, reminding that maximum pressure, as he has called it in the past, those economic sanctions, hurt North Korea, brought them to the table.

Reminding them, as well, that he could ratchet them up even more, saying that they had additional measures which he has not yet imposed in light of the spirit of the talks that are ongoing but, of course, sending the signal that he could impose them if he's not happy with where things go from here. While at the same time laying out the sort of offer of a bright future to North Korea that the president has repeated many times, saying that, "Listen, if you make this deal, if you denuclearize to our standard, our definition of denuclearizing, that there will be a prosperous future for North Koreans. There will be business. There will be work projects, et cetera."

That's essentially the trade that he is -- he is offering there, and we saw in that press conference the president offering both visions for the future. More economic pain. Or, in the president's word, economic benefits. Even economic wealth for North Korea if they choose this other path.

BLITZER: Let's see what they choose. Jim Sciutto, thank you very much.

Joining us now, the White House director of legislative affairs, the assistant to the president, Marc Short.

Marc, thanks very much for coming in.


BLITZER: We've got lots to discuss. Let's talk about North Korea. Republican senators -- and you deal with them all the time up on the Hill -- they're telling CNN that administration officials have assured them that any nuclear deal with North Korea would get a vote on Congress before it's implemented. Can you make that guarantee that Congress will have a say in any deal the president might work out?

SHORT: I think that's getting a little bit further ahead. I know that the sentiment from the Senate has said they would like that. But we don't know where this is going to go yet.

You heard the president's comments in the Rose Garden today. We believe we've gotten to this point because of the president's leadership, not just including maximum pressure but bringing allies aligned with us, particularly China has been most helpful here. So there's a long way to go before we address that hypothetical.

[17:10:12] BLITZER: Well, hypothetically, would you -- would you think Congress should have an opportunity to vote on a treaty --

SHORT: Absolutely. BLITZER: -- which requires a two-thirds majority, as opposed to a

resolution of disapproval, which --

SHORT: If --

BLITZER: -- would require a majority.

SHORT: If there's a true treaty then, yes, Wolf. And in fact, it was one of the complaints the administration had about the Iran nuclear deal. We felt that such a treaty should have actually gotten Senate approval before, but the Obama administration avoided doing it.

BLITZER: Do you think the president would send anything to Congress short of full denuclearization, that North Korea would have to give up all their nuclear capabilities forever?

SHORT: The president and the secretary of state have made it perfectly clear that they want full denuclearization that is verifiable.

BLITZER: So what does that mean?

SHORT: Yes. Full denuclearization.

BLITZER: The answer is yes, it has to be full denuclearization?

SHORT: Absolutely.

BLITZER: That has to be totally open to international inspectors and all of that?


BLITZER: Do you think that's doable?

SHORT: Wolf, I think that people have underestimated this president multiple times. I think that he's anxious to have these conversations. We think that North Korea has been brought to the table because of the pressure they're under. They can't continue to go in the direction they have, as you heard Secretary Pompeo say, so I think we'll find out in the near future.

BLITZER: The president's personal attorney, the former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, he gave some interviews. He's in Israel right now. And he said Kim Jong-un got back on his hands and knees and begged for this summit after the president initially said it wasn't going to happen. And since been rescheduled.

Why is the president's personal attorney making these kinds of statements about the North Korean leader getting on his hands and knees and begging for a summit when this is a sensitive diplomatic moment right now? Why is Rudy Giuliani speaking out like this?

SHORT: As you heard the secretary of state say, a little while ago, we interpreted those remarks as intended for jest, whether rightly or wrongly, intended for jet, and that Rudy Giuliani does not speak for the administration when it comes to North Korea.

BLITZER: So you agree with Mike Pompeo? He's speaking for himself. Shouldn't he be --

SHORT: I agree.

BLITZER: If he's the president's personal attorney, shouldn't he shut up on these kinds of issues? These are the most sensitive issues at a really potentially historic moment.

SHORT: It is a potentially historic moment. I agree with the secretary of state, is who speaks for us on North Korea.

BLITZER: The president is facing some serious criticism from some key U.S. allies. He's going to Canada for the G-7 summit. American partners like Canada and France and the leaders, they're really upset that the president -- that the president has imposed these tariffs on aluminum, steel imports.

Let me read to you what President Macron of France just -- just said. "The American president may not mind being isolated, but neither do we mind signing a six-country agreement, if need be. Because these six countries represent values. They represent an economic market which has the weight of history behind it and which is now a true international force."

So what he's saying, Macron, is that the G-7, six of the countries without the United States, could sign a deal. The U.S. would be kicked aside.

SHORT: Wolf, I think that this president recognizes the trade deals this country has been making for decades have created an unlevel playing field. And the president's trying to make it a fair and free trade that allows us more access to international markets.

What's lost in those statements that you just gave is that the tariffs on American imports of automobiles is four times higher in Europe than it is in the United States.

Tariffs on automobiles going to Germany are 35 percent. China, 25 percent. On foreign automobiles coming to the United States, it's 2.5 percent. In Canada, tariffs on butter, 250 percent. On cheese, 300 percent. It's not a level playing field.

BLITZER: I understand all that.

SHORT: And we've been denied an opportunity to trade American goods in their countries.

The president is looking to set a level playing field, to reset it. And one of the tools he's using are tariffs to help get them back to the negotiating table.

BLITZER: Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada, arguably the closest ally, the No. 1 trading partner of the United States. What really has angered the Canadians is that you, the administration, are citing national security concerns for imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from Canada, our closest ally, into the United States. And they say no one has been closer on national security for decades, if not centuries, than Canada.

SHORT: It's not about Canada in that case, Wolf. It's about America losing --

BLITZER: You did cite national security as the reason for tariffs to Canada.

SHORT: Because of the reality of losing a manufacturing base in the United States that is essential to national security. That's what it's about. It's not targeted at Canada. It's across the board. If we lose the stability to produce and manufacture steel, it is a national security concern.

BLITZER: You heard our reporting that in the very nasty, apparently very tense phone conversation that President Trump had with Prime Minister Trudeau, the president may have been joking, may not have been joking, but he said something along the lines, "You remember when the Canadians burnt down the White House during the War of 1812?" It was the British, not the Canadians. But that's caused a little bit more of this controversy, a little bit more of this tension between the U.S. and Canada.

[17:15:05] SHORT: I read the reports. I was obviously not there for that conversation. I think that the president is obviously headed to Canada tomorrow. We'll see what those conversations bear.

BLITZER: Let me just wrap: So what's the national security concern that the president has in mind in imposing tariffs on Canadian imports into the United States?

SHORT: It's a national security concern of losing an industrial base that can produce steel and aluminum that is necessary for building weapons and basically having an industrial base that helps America in future foreign wars. It's not about Canada. It's about losing that manufacturing base in the United States.

BLITZER: Quickly on immigration, as you know, there are a whole bunch of members, not just Democrats, a whole bunch of Republicans right now who want the legislation that you wanted. You and I spoke. It was in September of last year. And you said to me, "We are not going to talk hypothetical about what happens. We will get a deal in the next six months."

It's been more than six months now. How close are you to getting a deal that will allow the DREAMers to remain here in the United States, have an access, a road to citizenship down the road in exchange for greater border security?

SHORT: We're working with House Republicans on those same four pillars we laid out to you before, on providing certainty for the DACA population, getting border security, ending chain migration and addressing the diversity lottery program. We think those are essential. What's changed in the last six months, Wolf, unfortunately, is the

courts have ruled in what Democrats view as in their favor, in saying the DACA population is protected for now. So Democrats are no longer coming to the table. We've actually tried many times to provide a deal here. As you know, we need 60 votes in the United States Senate. Without Democrat cooperation, it's difficult for us to get there.

BLITZER: The Democrats say they want -- they're willing to give you --

SHORT: I understand what they --

BLITZER: What you want on border security.

SHORT: I understand.

BLITZER: They just want to make sure that the DREAMers are protected.

SHORT: I understand what they're telling you, and I'm telling you that during the omnibus debate we put pretty much on the table a deal that they had offered and wanted before. But they're now walking away from that deal, Wolf, because they feel that the courts are protecting them.

Eventually, when these decisions get to the Supreme Court, I think the Democrats are in a different position.

BLITZER: If you get what you want, will the president support a pathway to citizenship for the DREAMers?

SHORT: That was on the table before.

BLITZER: I know, but he's getting a lot of heat from some Republicans up on the Hill.

SHORT: He's not backed away from that. If Democrats will allow us to actually secure the border he's willing to make that transaction.

BLITZER: All right. Let's see what happens. These are critical days.

Marc Short, as usual, thanks very much for coming on.

SHORT: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: Up next, top Republican lawmakers are breaking with the president over his groundless claim that the FBI planted a spy in his campaign. Will more documents from the Justice Department change their minds? I'll speak with a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee. There you see him, Mike Quigley. He's standing by live.


[17:22:07] BLITZER: All right. More top Republican lawmakers break with President Trump over his unfounded claim of an FBI campaign spy. The Justice Department is preparing to show congressional leaders more classified information on that topic.

Joining us now, a key member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.


BLITZER: What's the new information that they're now prepared to show the so-called Gang of Eight, the top official, top leaders of the House and Senate?

QUIGLEY: I have no idea what they intend to show them. I know it's extremely inappropriate for them to show them anything. It's -- for an entity being investigated to get information from the Justice Department sets a horrible precedent. It's been done, I think, once before. It was a mistake then. It's a worse mistake now. Simply because I think the intent is to turn this information over to the Trump legal team to help justify whatever their minds --

BLITZER: Are you saying you don't trust some members of the Gang of Eight to be confidential? This is the most sensitive kind of highly- classified information. You're smiling?

QUIGLEY: Chairman Nunes, one of the Gang of Eight --

BLITZER: He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

QUIGLEY: That's right. I think was working hand in glove with the White House during the entire Russia investigation. The Nunes memo.

BLITZER: What are you alleging? What is he going to do?

QUIGLEY: I think what he's done all along. It's he went along with the White House gag order. He released the memo, which as the Justice Department and the intel community said, released sources and methods.

BLITZER: But isn't that illegal to release that kind of highly- classified information? Let's say he gets this briefing and he goes to the White House and briefs officials, some of whom may or may not have the highest security clearances. That would be illegal.

QUIGLEY: I think the best indication of future behavior is past behavior. The chairman began with his midnight run, getting information from the White House and allegedly briefing the White House about the same sort of thing.

They went along with the White House gag order during the investigation. They refused to subpoena witnesses. They acknowledged that they worked with the White House on the Nunes memo.

So do I suspect he'll do the same sort of thing with this information? Or help the legal or political team use this to help justify firing or pardoning people? I have no doubt they'll do that.

BLITZER: This is sensitive information. You can't do that unless -- he could wind up in serious legal jeopardy if he were to release that kind of information, let's say, to one of the president's personal lawyers, who may not have any security clearances whatsoever.

QUIGLEY: Just remember Rudy says they have a right to this information.

BLITZER: Rudy Giuliani is the president's personal lawyer. He's not a government official. He represents the president on a personal matter.

QUIGLEY: And I think that they have conflated this, as we have seen with the discussions about North Korea. I think Mr. Giuliani thinks he's the president's adviser on all things. He's acting like it.

BLITZER: With the exception of Devin Nunes, the other Republicans and certainly all the Democrats who had access to that highly-classified briefing from the Justice Department, all of them have emerged and said, "You know what? We've seen no evidence that the FBI did anything wrong, didn't infiltrate a spy into the Trump campaign."

[17:25:07] QUIGLEY: And they are right, but Chairman Nunes obviously is not convinced. He goes off on unilateral rogue investigations. Without consulting us. Shooting out subpoenas without consulting the Democrats. Breaking House rules.

BLITZER: Let's see what happens. Congressman Quigley, thanks so much for joining us.

QUIGLEY: Thank you.

BLITZER: Coming up, before his summit with a dangerous foe, President Trump meeting with close U.S. friends. But there may be a frosty atmosphere at the G-7 meeting in Canada after the president alienated U.S. allies with his "America first" policies and moves toward a trade war. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

[17:30:22] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Tonight President Trump is facing harsh new criticism from two of the United States' closest allies. In a joint news conference ahead of the G7 economic summit, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Canada both said they intend to warn President Trump, his new tariffs will backfire costing U.S. jobs and hurting the U.S. economy. The President heads to what could be a very angry summit in Canada tomorrow. Let's bring in our experts. And Gloria, this looks like it could be a rather tough meeting for the President in Canada as opposed to Singapore next Tuesday when he meets with Kim Jong-un.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. He's walking into the lion's den in Canada, and you referred to the Macron tweet before who said, look, we're not going to be afraid of doing a six-plus one, so this is a President who's going to be isolated by his friends, by our allies. And, you know, sometimes we treat our family for granted, and I think in a way, that's what Donald Trump is doing because he wants to do something no other President has done before, and that is be tough on our allies with whom he thinks we've been very soft and also win with our adversaries like China and particularly in North Korea, do something as he continually points out no other President was ever able to do.

BLITZER: And it's a sensitive moment in this build-up to the North Korea Summit in Singapore on Tuesday, but the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, his attorney, former Mayor of New York, he got involved, he said Kim Jong-un after the President initially said the meeting was off, got back on his hands and knees and begged for the summit to be rescheduled. The Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this earlier this afternoon.


MIKE POMPEO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: I think he was -- it was a bit in jest and --


POMPEO: We're moving forward. We're focused on the important things. I know Rudy, Rudy doesn't speak for the administration when it comes to this negotiation, this set of issues.


BLITZER: Nice little slap at the --


BLITZER: -- at the President's personal attorney.

CILLIZZA: Yes. Let's remember, too, this isn't the first time. Remember when Rudy Giuliani announced that the three American prisoners in North Korea were being released as he spoke and they were but it was days later. He's that public face of the Trump legal team, he's not the only lawyer but he's the face and I think that's how Donald Trump likes it. His willingness to go so far afield, whether it was a joke or not, I don't know how well that translates, literally or figuratively to Kim Jong-un in North Korea, that they were begging on their hands and knees. If it's a strategy cooked up between Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, I'm not going to rule that out, I don't know how smart a strategy it is, particularly because everything we know about this President as it regards Kim Jong-un and the summit, is he wants it to happen. Remember, even in that letter where he canceled it, it made very clear that there was still an opening that it could happen. So, I don't know what they're playing at.

BLITZER: The opening did occur, Bianna, the -- some U.S. officials as you know we've reported this before believed that the President's new national security adviser, John Bolton, he actually tried to (INAUDIBLE) the whole summit by mentioning the so-called "Libya model" Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction, his nuclear program, and we all know a few years later, what happened to Muammar Gaddafi. Do you think Giuliani was trying to do the same thing as some are suspecting?

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: In front of an audience in Israel which would make no sense whatsoever. You know, as soon as I heard his statements, I was reminded of the fact that he really wanted the Secretary of State position after President Trump had won the nomination, the election. So, one has to wonder if he is just trying to be in multiple lanes here, being the President's attorney and also being sort of his advisory secretary of state. I'm sure that was a nuisance to Mike Pompeo, the current Secretary of State.

And you do have to wonder how Kim Jong-un would react, so much of this is about propaganda and how he's perceived at home, and as I was talking to advisers, they were shaking their heads and stunned that Rudy Giuliani would say that because one of the issues and concerns they have is not only what happens during the meeting, but the readout after the meeting. And we've had numerous occasions where President Trump has met with foreign leaders, Vladimir Putin, for example, and you see different readouts. So, they had already been concerned about what the readouts might be from North Korea and the U.S. before this statement from Giuliani. So, anything that Giuliani or anybody else says that could demean or insult Kim Jong-un would elevate the risk that this meeting doesn't go well if it happens at all.

[17:35:16] BLITZER: It's a very sensitive moment indeed. Joey Jackson, despite the President's full plate, he had time to tweet this earlier today. "Isn't it ironic, getting ready to go to the G7 in Canada to fight for our country on trade, we have the worst trade deals ever made. Then, off to Singapore to meet with North Korea and the nuclear problem, but back home, we still have the 13 angry Democrats pushing the witch hunt." He called Robert Mueller's team biased and conflicted. What's your reaction when you hear that?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, my reaction is two-fold, Wolf. One is a fixation and the other is a strategic move meant to undermine the investigation. So, let's start with the fixation. If you look at all the tweets and you had, you know, some sort of mash together of the tweets, they would be plentiful with regard to the investigation and these angry Democrats, and it's no good, and it's no collusion, et cetera, et cetera. That's persistent. And so, you could say, yes, there's a fixation there. But that's part of a larger strategy. Remember, we're dealing with a master brander, right? And this to be -- to be clear, is a campaign.

What do I mean by that? It's just a lawyer being on trial. There are themes that you get into the jury's mind and you hammer away at those themes: angry Democrats, it resonates; witch hunt, it resonates. How many times have we heard that? And he's co-opting the debate and allowing people to believe that that's exactly what this is about, there's no investigation here that has any type of merit whatsoever, ever. This is a witch hunt designed to undermine me. And remember, Wolf, at the end of the day, it's about impeachment because you can't indict a sitting President, and it's about whether or not the Congress will have the courage or the will to do and if the American people say no because it's a witch hunt, because of the fact that this is no good, no collusion, then the Congress will say, no, they won't have the votes in the House, they won't certainly have the two-thirds in the Senate and this all goes away. Branding, that's his message.

BORGER: It's -- look at all the great stuff I'm doing for you, the American people. And meanwhile, these terrible people keep pursuing me for no particular reason. I'm a victim here. Don't you feel bad for me because I'm really trying to do the people's work?

JACKSON: Absolutely.

GOLODRYGA: And he knows that --

CILLIZZA: And just one thing to add very quickly -- sorry, Bianna -- really quickly, one thing, yes, his campaign work -- his campaign, P.R. campaign works with his base but the numbers I've seen on the FBI and Bob Mueller less extent, less well known, FBI remains pretty well- regarded, which makes it harder for him to disqualify them outside of his base.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: I'll just say he also knows that nobody from the Justice Department starting from his Attorney General who he bashes on a daily basis, Jeff Sessions, especially, to Bob Mueller, is going to respond, right? They're not fighting back. So, this is sort of a one-way strategy for him where he's not really concerned about them standing up and defending themselves because it's something they typically and usually never do.

BLITZER: There's more news we're covering right now. New outrage over police conduct after a security camera catches officers beating an unarmed man. And later, illegal devices that spy on mobile phones showing up here in Washington including right near the White House. Who's behind it? And what are they hearing?


BLITZER: Tonight, four police officers from a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona, are on leave amid outrage over a video showing them beating an unarmed man. CNN's Nick Watt is following with the story for us. Nick, what are police officials saying about this incident?

NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the officers involved in their report, they say that this guy's body language suggested that he was getting ready for an altercation. But the chief is not circling the wagons, he calls this video troubling and he's launched an investigation.


POLICE OFFICER: I'm going to pat you down real quick, if you don't mind.

WATT: Robert Johnson has been patted down, he's unarmed, officers know he's unarmed but they say he's refusing an order to sit down.

POLICE OFFICER: Guess what, I'm going to ask you again, have a seat.

WATT: So, they forced him. You're watching security camera video from the apartment complex and this from the officer's body cams.

POLICE OFFICER: Just sit down, bro. Down.

BENJAMIN TAYLOR, ATTORNEY OF ROBERT JOHNSON: They didn't stop until he was knocked out.

ROBERT JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF: You didn't need to put all that force on me.

RAMON BATISTA, CHIEF, MESA POLICE: The level of force is troubling. Certainly, at first glance, this looks like a mistake and it doesn't look right. And it's my job, it's our job to collectively investigate.

WATT: The local officers union tells CNN that Johnson was not compliant and physically resisted what we feel was a lawful detention. Johnson appears calm but not entirely cooperative before he is hit. Afterwards, he's apoplectic.

JOHNSON: All y'all headed (BLEEP). All y'all (BLEEP).

WATT: Sitting on the ground, that's Johnson's friend, Erick Reyes. Reyes' ex-girlfriend had called 911 after Reyes allegedly trying to break into her apartment. Reyes claims he was fetching belongings. He's been charged with disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia. CNN could not reach him for comment. Johnson's being charged with disorderly conduct and hindering a prosecution for his role in the fracas. He's pleaded not guilty.

TAYLOR: The reason why they did that, to justify their actions for beating him up.

WATT: This actually happened May 23rd.

BATISTA: I learned about it last week, so a week later. And I learned about it from a community member.

[17:45:02] WATT: That community member brought the security camera video to the chief and this week, he released that and the body cam video with sound to the media.

POLICE OFFICER: Sit your (BLEEP) down mother (BLEEP).

WATT: The department has now changed policy regarding punches to the head and face.

BATISTA: Henceforth, any strikes are only authorized in situations where a person is actively fighting with us, actively taking a swing at us.

WATT: Robert Johnson wants more. He wants those officers charged, his charges dropped, and he plans to sue.

TAYLOR: They hogtie him. They drag him to the elevator door.

POLICE OFFICER: Don't start that!

(END VIDEOTAPE) WATT: Now, Johnson's lawyer tells me that he does not believe that

this incident was racially motivated. He says -- and this are his words, that Mesa P.D., quote, doesn't really discriminate who they hurt. Wolf?

BLITZER: Nick Watt reporting for us. Nick, thank you very much. Coming up, they aren't legal but special antennas that can spy on mobile phones are showing up at very suspicious locations around Washington, D.C. including right near the White House. So, who's behind it?

And the Secretary of State assures reporters that President Trump will be ready for a summit with Kim Jong-un even though the President says he doesn't have to prepare very much.


[17:50:59] BLITZER: Tonight, we have new details about electronic spying devices showing up in very suspicious places including right near the White House. Let's bring in CNN's Brian Todd. Brian, what kind of threat do these listening devices pose? And do we have any idea who might be responsible for planting them?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, intelligence experts and members of Congress say they believe foreign intelligence agencies could be planting these devices. Now, this has real urgency tonight because President Trump, according to multiple sources, has been using his personal cell phone more and more often in recent weeks to contact outside advisors. One senior White House official telling CNN he's, quote, talking to all sorts of people on it. Tonight, new information suggests that those calls could be more vulnerable to being spied on.


TODD: A new report from the Department of Homeland Security says there were signs that cell phone surveillance devices were detected as recently as last year operating near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington. The devices are called Stingrays or international mobile subscriber identity catchers. And they're not only illegal for non-law enforcement usage in America, they're capable of gathering a lot of secret information.

MICHELLE RICHARDSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY: The IMSI catcher pretends that it's a cell phone tower. So, your phone will connect to it and it will collect things like the device number, so it knows who you are, records of who you communicate with, and in some instances, even the contents of your communications.

TODD: The Department of Homeland Security isn't saying who it believed deployed the devices or even if they're still around, but members of Congress and analysts say they were likely planted by spies.

ROBERT BAER, FORMER CIA OFFICER: The only people that could do this and get away with it, are people under diplomatic cover which means foreign intelligence services, it could be China, it could be Russia. TODD: Former CIA officer Bob Baer says there's also spy software called SS-7 used all over Washington, which can listen in on cell phones and pick up even more content than Stingrays can.

BAER: I can take this phone or your phone, send -- introduce malware into the phone, which then will bleed off over a phone line our conversations, room harmonics, and conversation of people talking, texts, and e-mails.

TODD: Experts say all of this technology capable of intercepting calls is why they're concerned about reports that President Trump is using a personal mobile phone inside the White House. They say even if he isn't discussing top secret information, he could still be creating a security risk.

VINCE HOUGHTON, FORMER MILITARY, CIVILIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL: Whether it's him trying to get around John Kelly by using this cell phone, and someone could ask, well, what's Kelly going to think, and he responds, well, it doesn't matter he's at the Pentagon right now. That's not classified but that can tell foreign intelligence agencies, huh, the Chief of Staff at the White House is meeting with people at the Pentagon.

TODD: Baer says drastic measures might be needed to protect the President's conversations.

BAER: Look, the President is completely vulnerable to having his conversations listened to. I would take his phone away from him. There's no way to secure it.


TODD: The Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of the Intelligence Committee and other members of Congress have called on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the use of those interception devices. So far, the FCC has resisted that, saying it has no particular evidence that the devices are being unlawfully used. Now, we reached out to the White House but they've not responded to the concerns over those surveillance devices or the concerns about President Trump using his personal cell phone so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: Brian, Senator Wyden and other Democrats are now putting more pressure on President Trump specifically over his use of his personal mobile phone, right?

TODD: Right, Wolf. Today, Wyden and three other Democratic Senators wrote a letter to the Director of National Intelligence's office requesting that a formal threat assessment to determine whether any sensitive information has been intercepted from President Trump's cell phone be made and to determine whether any foreign adversaries might have used that information. He's getting a lot of pressure over that personal cell phone.

BLITZER: Yes, pretty worrisome development, indeed. Brian Todd, thank you very much. [17:54:54] Coming up, as more key Republicans break with the President

over his claim of a FBI campaign spy, I'll talk with a key Democrat, the Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner. We'll be right back.


BLITZER: Happening now, breaking news, willing to walk. President Trump hedges his bets ahead of the -- his summit with Kim Jong-un, suggesting they could sign an agreement or the whole thing could fall apart. Is he overconfident that his attitude will carry him through?

Rudy goes rogue, after the President's lawyer said Kim Jong-un begged for the summit, America's top diplomat is trying to downplay the insulting words, saying Giuliani doesn't speak for the administration. Why doesn't the White House rein him in?

Birth of a conspiracy. CNN investigates the origins of the President's FBI spy claim as more top Republicans reject the bogus theory.