Donald Trump, Russia, United States discussed on Amanpour

|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Will not see in this particular statement by the Washington Post, it is entirely false and offensive because first of all was not whispering anything to them. It was talking to them quite openly. And there's a role in the Princess of quite a few others, including a number former senior officials so it was. Wolman was very much an open book. The second thing is when your ask about what they want. I think it would be better to ask them. But you know, I was on your show in the past. I wrote for the New York Times for the Washington Post on many occasions, and that kind of sinkers at the people who are looking for him. Why expertise not only on Russia, but on foreign relations in general publisher and CEO of one of reading American foreign policy publications the initial interest, which by far as the greatest presidents of internet in terms of eight years, American or international publication. I don't think that it's appropriate to imply there was something unusual about the compaign being interested in talking to me. Okay. So let's just break it down. Then because there was clearly something enough inch. Interest that the mother investigation and the mother team talk to you and mentioned you quite so this just taking, you know, point-by-point then at one point in the report it says the u provided bullet points on Russia for Donald Trump to us is that accurate. Do not remember that particular portion of the report, but I did communicate with a campaign. Some of my colleagues people not associated to the centers, well, provided multiple impetus speech. It was agreed that she's fast speech on foreign policy would be delivered under the center almost Pacific law magazines, initial interest or specific, and they were interested in our input into speech in preparation of the speech together with maniacs organizations in Washington. So from this standpoint our involvement, my enrollment was spefically appropriate and normal for Washington syntax, and they don't seem to demolish reports imply Denison girls. About the speech at the Mayflower, which all of us covered because it was the first major Trump candidate foreign policy speech, and we all want to know what his priorities, and what is focused was going to be. We know now that Richard Burr, the former US ambassador to Germany, also, I believe a director at CNI, the think tank yours helped write the speech, and this is what he has said about it. And it's just play a little bit of a let's just play a little bit of what Trump said in the speech. I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength. Only is possible absolutely possible. Common sense as this cycle. This horrible cycle of stability must end. And ideally will end soon. Good for both countries. Now, obviously, I assume you agree with that. And that was clearly a part of the perspective here. But I just want to ask you a little bit about how this came about. Because again, it says in the report that you received subsequent draft outlines from Stephen Miller who is a prominent Donald Trump and remains upon prominent Donald Trump advisor, and that he and CNI executive director Paul Saunders along with Richard Burt spoke to Mila by phone about substance substantive changes to the speech, again, how appropriate is that. And why was that that degree if you will of kind of micro managing of this speech? Well, first of all, there was absolutely no micromanagement comes the speech to the extent that I did not when she is the final version of the speech. So I did not know what would be in the speech before it was delivered by by Mr. Trump, and I'm sure the disabled through with Mr. Saunders. That's what I thought. And I'm busted the bet when you ask appropriate. I will tell you. I think that, you know, Washington, and you do knows that Washington think-tanks are not only entitled but fully expected to help to the candidates and to assist them in developing programs in statements. It is a process with many participants. And it doesn't LSU MD is that if you helped in this process that means is that they went along with all your conditions, and that are responsible for speeches, which are not have seen before they were actually deliver. Just a very. Quick issue. He had me something tanks. Avowedly partisan others are not yours claims to be nonpartisan. So I guess what I want to know is why did you feel that you wanted to reach out and help this campaign? And was it like Russia felt you know to make sure that Hillary didn't win. And maybe there was be a different policy from the United States towards Russia. Well, say I you describe the beginning of Russian American will I was born in Russia. I am an American citizen since nineteen eighty and they think that by far the greater part of my life, and settling practical all my career took part in the United States. And you know, what I think when titled to an American who was born in Russia, and that's exactly how I feel and incidentally, when they feel and the Russian TV that's always how a position myself and Calway. Being user point number one point number two. If you're would look Damola reports, you would know that we help star inch a couple of dinners with a number of leading foreign policy experts. And there were chairs they were kind of presided by Senator session school late. Of course, became attorney general sessions for your understands in each of his Dina's where we provide our input to compaign fest. Everyone who attended his dinners with an exception of me who was a former here official or at least three or four star. General this dinner, civil included former director of national intelligence, second son of people who took part in the dinners at should or not Trump supporters at all they ended up being Cutie Clinton supporters. But we invited them to take part with a clear understand. Adding that we would not be called advisor to campaign is that people who take part in this DNS would not describe themselves as vice to complain. But we would be decades compaign, and which one final point eucheuma ask me, why wouldn't you do it for Hillary Clinton Wickham? Unlike chiller Clinton on a very senior level, unfortunately, she could not do it. But a month later, we had Tim Kaine who became of course, Hillary Clinton's running mate. No, just being speaking at the center being owner, the dissenter delivering the foreign policy speech and before that he spoke twice at the center. So we genu- new Andom partisan. Okay. You know, obviously, I've been reading things here to you that that that point out that the Senate did advise the campaign, and you also obviously arrange for instance, at that speech introduced Donald Trump to the to Sergei Kislyak the Russian ambassador. I mean, there are all these issues. You might call perfectly normal. But nonetheless, they've been raised in the course of this investigation. But I do actually to your points right now. Want to ask you them? Why you know, I assume having been Ocelot lot by the Trump campaign. You seem to have said to Jared Kushner that certain to close contacts would be quote, bad optics. Let me read you a paragraph from the Mahler report, the golden lot of attention Symes. That's you raise the issue of Russian contacts with Kushner advise that it was bad upticks for the campaign to develop hidden Russian contacts and told Kushner both the campaign should not highlight Russia as an issue and should handle any contacts with Russians with care. So you know, unpacked that for us because it seems to basically be your answer to some of the issues that people are asking you right now about the exceptionally close contacts with one campaign, which is the Trump campaign. Well, I I think that. The special counsel has described where a fairly my input to the Trump campaign in my suggestion that they should not have any secret contacts with the Russian government and more broadly is they should be extremely careful about any contacts with Russia during the campaign. I myself was not even a single time in Russia since Tramper became a candidate and till two thousand seventeen when radio was president. My view was that what Trump said about the personality of a better relationship with Russia from the position of strength is that it was appropriate. I did not think that he was always describing the reasons for this interest in a better relationship appropriately. When he talked about putting praising computing, calling Kim brilliant. I thought it was not what. The US interest was about the interest was about in having a relationship with another great nuclear power, which would allow the United States to have a normal dialogue and incidentally to extend the major substantive input. I suggested that Russia should be described more as an adversary that we should focus on continuation of American alliances boss Nate in Europe and US alliances in Asia. So while though I sold that what Trump for saying the mayor respects was refreshing and constructive, but I was simply did not agree entirely with his approach in particular with us rhetoric. I just very quickly. A given the way everything is unfolded over the last couple of years since Donald Trump has become president. Do you? Do you have any qualms or questions, and I'm not talking about Russia because we know that Russia into. Feed in the election. Do you have any qualms about that? You think it was the right strategy of the Russia's sought to help a President Trump in this in this election.

Coming up next