[Jim Sciutto, Cnn Chief National Security Correspondent/anchor:] Yes, they've been sitting on those numbers for some time. Barbara Starr, thanks very much. Our coverage on CNN continues right now.
[Wolf Blitzer, Cnn Anchor:] Happening now, breaking news. "Maybe he did." President Trump stands by the Saudi crown prince, insisting the CIA has not definitely concluded that he personally directed the murder of a U.S.-based journalist. The president says maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, making it clear, there will be no punishment for Saudi Arabia. Returning his responses. The president finishes answering questions from the special counsel, Robert Mueller, about possible collusion, and his lawyers have now submitted the written responses. So what's Robert Mueller's next move? E-mail excuses. The president concedes that his daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, used private e-mail for government business. Is that any different than what Hillary Clinton did? And Putin's Interpol pick. A close ally and top aide of Vladimir Putin is in line for the top job at the global police organization Interpol. Why are Putin's critics very worried? I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in
[The Situation Room. Announcer:] This is CNN breaking news.
[Blitzer:] Breaking news. President Trump sides with Saudi Arabia, shrugging off an intelligence assessment that the Saudi crown prince personally ordered the murder of a U.S.-based journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, saying, "Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't." The president lets the crown prince off the hook and signaling that the United States will not punish Saudi Arabia, while stressing that the kingdom has pledged to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. I'll speak with Congressman Adam Smith. He's the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. And our correspondents and specialists are standing by with full coverage. Let's begin with our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. Jim, the president is now making it abundantly clear that he's backing the Saudis.
[Jim Acosta, Cnn Chief White House Correspondent:] That's right. First, some breaking news, and that is the president's legal team has sent out a statement, saying that they have submitted the president's written responses in the Russia investigation to the special counsel's office. But as you said, Wolf, there is arguably a bigger story today. And that is that President Trump is sending a strong signal today that he stands with Saudi Arabia, despite the kingdom's apparent role in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The president seems to be dismissing a CIA assessment that the Saudi crown prince ordered Khashoggi's murder. And when I asked the president whether he is allowing the Saudis to get away with murder earlier this afternoon, he said his decision is based on his policy of "America first."
[Acosta:] Just moments before a ceremonial pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey at the White House
[Donald Trump , President Of The United States:] I will be issuing both Peas and Carrots a presidential pardon.
[Acosta:] President Trump delivered a chilling message on the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In a statement that begins with "America first," the president seemed to dismiss a CIA assessment that found Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered Khashoggi's killing, saying, "It could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't." Leaving for Thanksgiving, the president defended his decision to side with the Saudis. [on camera]: Are you letting the Saudis get away with murder?
[Trump:] No.
[Acosta:] Murdering a journalist?
[Trump:] No, no. This is about America first. They're paying us $400 billion-plus to purchase and invest in our country. That's probably the biggest amount ever paid to the United States.
[Acosta:] Don't you believe the CIA?
[Trump:] They didn't make a determination. And it's just like I said. I think it was maybe he did, maybe he didn't. They did not make that assessment. The CIA has looked at it; they've studied it a lot. They have nothing definitive.
[Acosta:] In a statement, the president also appeared to buy into a Saudi smear of Khashoggi, adding, "Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an enemy of the state, and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood." Khashoggi's family has blasted those claims as ridiculous. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo backed up the president's statement.
[Mike Pompeo, U.s. Secretary Of State:] This is a long, historic commitment, and one that is absolutely vital to America's national security. It's a mean, nasty world out there.
[Acosta:] But not all Republicans are on board.
[Rep. Francis Rooney , Foreign Affairs Committee:] I'm concerned about our standing in the world and what it says about the United States.
[Acosta:] The president's willingness to believe Saudi denials is consistent with his posture toward other undemocratic countries like Russia and its meddling in the 2016 election.
[Trump:] Maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?
[Acosta:] The president's explosive statement comes less than a day after his own daughter, Ivanka Trump, came under scrutiny for her use of private e-mails to do government business.
[Marc Short, Cnn Political Commentator:] It's hypocritical, and certainly, it looks bad. And I'm sure that the media will have a field day with it today.
[Unidentified Male:] Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!
[Trump:] Tell you what. For what she's done, they should lock her up.
[Acosta:] Hypocritical, because it's a reminder that her father savaged Hillary Clinton for her private e-mail use.
[Trump:] If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. Because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.
[Acosta:] A source close to Ivanka brushed off the story in a statement saying, "This is a 14-month-old story. There was nothing there then, and there is nothing there now." The president insists his daughter did nothing wrong.
[Trump:] They weren't deleted like Hillary Clinton, who deleted 33 she wasn't hiring she wasn't doing anything to hide her e-mails. There was no deletion; there was no nothing. What it is, is a false story.
[Acosta:] Now as for Ivanka Trump's e-mail use, a source close to the White House and the Trump family says the president's daughter obviously knows better, as she watched the 2016 campaign like the rest of us. As this source put it, Ivanka, quote, "deserves to get hit over the issue." And as for Khashoggi, the president keeps defending the decision that he made with claims that the Saudis are spending a fortune on U.S. weapons, but only a fraction, Wolf, of those financial gains have actually materialized at this point. The president said today, he's not willing to destroy the U.S. economy over Khashoggi, but, Wolf, a lot of lawmakers in his own party would argue that he can do plenty of about Khashoggi without wrecking the economy. We should also point out on the economy, the president did weigh in on the stock market dropping some 500 more than 500 points today. The president made it clear to reporters he is not overly concerned about this downturn in the stock market, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] All right. Jim Acosta, our chief White House correspondent, reporting tonight from the White House North Lawn. Thank you very much. Now to two stories that breaking right now. The president's lawyers say the president has now turned over his written answers to questions from the special counsel, Robert Mueller. And moments ago, "The New York Times" is reporting that President Trump wanted to order the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute Hillary Clinton and former FBI director, James Comey. Let's bring in CNN's Laura Jarrett. She's over at the Justice Department. CNN's Kara Scannell is here with me. And Laura, let me just read the first couple sentences of this "New York Times" article, which is explosive. The headline, "Trump Wanted to Order Justice Department to Prosecute Comey and Clinton." "President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring of this year that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries, his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton and the former FBI director, James Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation." The article continues. "The lawyer" that would be the White House lawyer, Don McGahn "rebuffed the president, saying he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that, while he could request an investigation, that, too, could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump, warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment." Laura, this is an explosive article we're getting. And clearly, they didn't go ahead, and the Justice Department didn't begin to prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey. But this is pretty explosive right here.
[Laura Jarrett, Cnn Justice Correspondent:] It's remarkable reporting, Wolf. And it's interesting that McGahn obviously saw the writing on the wall, saw how this could turn bad and fast, even resulting in possible impeachment. And so he had the lawyers in the White House counsel's office, according to this reporting, draft up a memo, trying to outline for the president all of the different down sides of this. According to the reporting from Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt, it's not clear that the president actually read that memo, but clearly, McGahn tried to warn him of this. And it's also not clear whether, in fact, this ever was conveyed to the Justice Department through other channels. We know that John Huber, a prosecutor out in Utah, has been looking at Hillary Clinton for some time. We know the inspector general over here at the Justice Department has also been looking at James Comey. And so we don't know whether he went around McGahn and found some other way to get this dirty work done. But it's, again, one of the most striking examples of how the president has tried to encroach, slowly but surely, on these traditional norms between the Justice Department and the White House. And I should also point out, Wolf, of course we know that Don McGahn has spent quite a bit of time with the special counsel's office through their investigation into obstruction of justice. And so you can imagine, this has come up. You can imagine that memo has been turned over. And just finally, Wolf, the other tidbit in here is his disappointment, apparently, with the FBI director, Christopher Wray. The reporting here is that he feels like Wray has been weak, because he has declined to go after his political rivals, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] All right. Stand by. You mentioned Maggie Haberman. She's joining us on the phone right now. She's one of our CNN political contributors, the coauthor of this explosive new article in "The New York Times." So step back and give us the big picture, Maggie, on your excellent reporting. What have we learned?
[Maggie Haberman, Cnn Political Analyst:] Thanks for having me and thank you for reading the reporting. Look, what we have learned is that the president engaged privately in, frankly, what he has talked about publicly on and off for quite some time, but that he tried to use the levers of power to do so, which was prosecute his political enemies. He made clear to the White House Counsel's Office that he wanted the Justice Department to go after James Comey, the FBI director who he fired, and Hillary Clinton, his rival in the 2016 campaign, who he claimed just a week after the election, you know, he didn't want to do any more damage to. But he has changed his tune, and he himself has found himself under investigation. He made clear at the White House counsel's office he wanted this done. And Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, made clear there were a range of negative outcomes that could face him if he went ahead with that, including but not necessarily limited to, impeachment. It is extraordinary to have a president who so openly talks about using the levers of power this way. I think not since Nixon have we heard of something like this. And the degree to which Don McGahn documented what was taking place is in the form of a memo explaining to the president what was going on and what could and couldn't be done. But it clearly laid out, I think, in case, you know, the president went further and went around Don McGahn, that he had tried to stop this.
[Blitzer:] You say that the president wanted to prosecute James Comey and Hillary Clinton. But for what charges? What specific charges did he want the Justice Department to go after two of these rivals?
[Haberman:] It's never entirely been clear. I think in the case of Comey, it was for leaking. I think in the case of Comey, it was possibly how certain pieces of information were handled. In the case of Hillary Clinton, it was related to Uranium One, more specifically donations to the Clinton family foundation by those associated with the company, Uranium One, which was a Russian
[Blitzer:] The other really explosive note in your article, and once again, really terrific reporting, is that the president is now deeply disappointed in the FBI director, Christopher Wray, whom he nominated, whom he appointed to be the FBI director.
[Haberman:] He has complained about Chris Wray on and off for quite some time, almost since he was nominated. First he wasn't moving fast enough to rid the FBI top ranks of, you know, Trump detractors. Then it was related to Hillary Clinton and Comey. You know, he has had all sorts of complaints about officials at the Justice Department. Chris Wray had very a very narrow honeymoon, frankly, before he started incurring Trump's frustration. But, yes, one of his frustrations is that he didn't think things were being done to go after his rivals.
[Blitzer:] So where does it stand now, that relationship between the president and the FBI director?
[Haberman:] Look, as far as we know, you know, it remains unchanged. I don't think that it is anything like the level of toxicity with what we saw with Jeff Sessions. But remember, that was a very specific thing related to Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia probe, which literally everybody recognized had to happen, except the president. This is this is a different issue. There's nothing that is ever going to top that. But look, people come in and out of Donald Trump's favor all of the time. But you come in and out of favor, because you're not using the Justice Department as a way to settle personal political scores.
[Blitzer:] We remember at least some of us that Richard Nixon, then president tried to use his presidential power to influence law enforcement, the Justice Department, to go after individuals, political rivals. But this is pretty extraordinary, if this president, President Trump, were to try to do something similar, right?
[Haberman:] Yes. I mean, this is this is as far as we know, nothing happened beyond this discussion. But, you know, there's a statement in our story from a lawyer for Don McGahn saying that, to his knowledge, the president never ordered anyone to do this. I think that is a very specifically worded statement to make clear that "We don't know whether the president tried to go around the White House counsel and tell anyone else to do anything." You know, our reporting does not show that he did. But I don't think people are willing to rule it out.
[Blitzer:] And it's unclear whether McGahn's suggestion to the president, that if he were to order such an investigation, such a prosecution by the Justice Department, that could lead potentially to impeachment. It's unclear whether that did have a negative effect on the president, forcing him to step back, right?
[Haberman:] Oh, I think it did. I think it did. I think repeatedly, anything that has come toward the third rail of impeachment appears to get through the president as a problem. You know, again, whether he tried to do something on his own, he thought he could put in place, I don't know. But I do think that, at least for a time and possibly permanently, it got him to back off.
[Blitzer:] In your article, Maggie, you say a White House spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the FBI declined to comment on the president's criticism of Director Wray. But there is a statement here from the lawyer for Don McGahn, who was the White House counsel. Let me read it: "Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president. Like any client, that the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey." That's the statement. That's a very carefully written statement from Don McGahn. I wonder if you'd like to elaborate on it.
[Haberman:] Well, I think it I think it speaks for itself. But again, as I said before, I think that the words "to my knowledge," I think, speak to nobody wanting to say as an absolute certainty that the president didn't try to find other avenues to influence the Justice Department. BLITZER; We also know that Don McGahn, as the White House counsel, spent hours, I think some 20 hours, talking to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team. Is there any indication that this specific issue came up, that the president wanted to have the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey? That I don't know the answer to. I do know he spent more than 30 hours with them, and we also know that Mueller has called a number of witnesses back if this did not get asked about. I imagine McGahn could be called back in the future and asked about it.
[Blitzer:] Do we know if McGahn actually wrote that memo he said he was going to write to the president explaining the negative consequences of potentially launching this kind of Justice Department prosecution?
[Haberman:] A memo was written about the parameters of his office by White House counsel officials. I'm not sure about how detailed it was about the possible ramifications of it.
[Blitzer:] And do you know if Mueller has that memo?
[Haberman:] I do not know the answer to that. But I think if he doesn't have it already, he will after this story.
[Blitzer:] Yes, I'm sure he will. This is once again, explosive information. And just to be precise, want to be precise. There's no indication that any such prosecution no such investigation was ever launched.
[Haberman:] Correct. Correct. We have our reporting did not show that anything like that happened. Again, I want to refer back to Don McGahn's very carefully worded statement. To his knowledge, nothing was done. To our knowledge, nothing was done either.
[Blitzer:] And the relationship that Don McGahn had with the president when he left the White House was what?
[Haberman:] Not positive. I mean, I think that the it was neutral, I would say, at best. You know, the president remains very angry at Don McGahn for essentially blames him for the Mueller probe. That he thinks was his fault, that Sessions recused, and it was his fault that, you know, after they fired Comey that they ended up with Mueller. He likes a lot of other things that Don McGahn did, including efforts to toward deregulation. And I think there were other areas where he thought McGahn was really helpful, such as nominating Supreme Court justices. Judge Kavanaugh was a close friend of McGahn's. McGahn helped shepherd that through. I don't think they're going to break apart. But it has been a very, very, very rocky relationship over a long period of time. McGahn was a tremendous target of the president's.
[Blitzer:] And we know what has happened over the past couple of weeks. There's a new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker. Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, was fired. How does that potentially fit into this narrative?
[Haberman:] Well, I think that look, I don't want to speculate about what could happen in terms of whether the president would go after somebody. I think it's a little unlikely that he would do that now with the Democratic Congress taking over with its own subpoena power. I think that the belief among a lot of Trump loyalists is that Matt Whitaker is going to be potentially more helpful to the president is related to the special counsel's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and any improprieties related to that.
[Blitzer:] I asked the question, as you know, Maggie, because in the past as a private citizen, Matthew Whitaker, the now acting attorney general of the United States, had made a case that Hillary Clinton could be prosecuted.
[Haberman:] He did. I think, again, I think it would be really hard for them to go ahead with that right now. But, yes, he most certainly did make that case when he was a private citizen. And when you know, around the time the president was tossing this kind of thing around. Remember, the president said in a radio interview a year ago that he was not being allowed to do some of the things he wanted to do. This appeared to be one of them.
[Blitzer:] Yes. Well, you did excellent, excellent reporting, Maggie. Thank you for the good work, as usual.
[Haberman:] Thank you, sir.
[Blitzer:] All right. You know, let me bring back Laura Jarrett, our Justice Department lawyer. She's over at the Justice Department right now. Any more in the article, there was no comment from the Justice Department, no comment from the FBI. Anything coming in?
[Jarrett:] No reaction yet, Wolf. But I have to say, I mean, some of the details in this are quite remarkable, including just, again, to underscore this piece on Director Wray. It appears his only gripe with the FBI director is the fact that he hasn't been aggressive enough in going after Clinton for this Uranium One deal that we've heard so much about. Again, that is the issue that John Huber, a federal prosecutor, the top prosecutor out in Utah, has been looking into for some time. And we all kind of wondered kind of how all of that would hash out eventually. Even at the time, some suggested that the fact that Jeff Sessions had appointed him in the first place might have been viewed as political, given that there hadn't been any real allegation of impropriety, other than on fringe sites and by the president himself. So we're going to have to do more reporting, obviously, on all of this, including what role, if any, Matt Whitaker, the new acting attorney general, had in any of this and whether he was privy to any of these discussions, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] Yes, that's a very, very serious potential that we lead to investigate. Let me just read a couple more sentences from this article. Kara Scannell is with us. I want, Kara, you to weigh in on this. "Ultimately, the lawyers warned Mr. Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power," abused presidential power. And then the article says this. "For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials follow the evidence and the law." So potentially, this is explosive. If, in fact, the president would have ordered the Justice Department to launch this kind of prosecution, that could be seen as an abuse of presidential power.
[Kara Scannell, Cnn Correspondent:] That's right. I mean, and it's sort of the red line, the third rail, this political interference in DOJ investigations. And so if there is evidence that the president did insert himself in this, that that's a big problem. The Department of Justice is supposed to be independent. It's not supposed to be an arm of the president to investigate his enemies or foes. So that is a that is a real key issue here that more reporting assets get to the bottom of. Is that, you know, was there any interference? Did this message ever make it to DOJ and did they act on it?
[Blitzer:] I want to bring in our chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, who's now gone through this article. Jeffrey, give us your thoughts, because as I've been saying, it's all very potentially explosive.
[Jeffrey Toobin, Cnn Chief Legal Analyst:] I'm sorry, Wolf. You're breaking up. I didn't I didn't get that. I apologize.
[I -- Blitzer:] Can you hear me?
[Toobin:] You better go to someone else. I can't hear you.
[Blitzer:] ok. We'll fix your earpiece over there. We'll get back to you. Let me bring in Laura. It's also explosive if the president would have gone forward with this order to launch of prosecution of Hillary Clinton and James Comey.
[Jarrett:] That's right. And you know, it's interesting. In the article, he appears to be saying to McGahn, "Don't I have the authority to do this?" He's fixated at least on the idea that, in theory, as the head of the executive branch, of course, he can make this type of order. But the question is should he, and is that a good idea? Is that the kind of thing that we want and the kind of norms that we want to be establishing between the White House and the Justice Department? And, of course, you know, it still has shades of what we've seen from him, as Maggie said. His public behavior, calling on Twitter all the time for Jeff Sessions to investigate Comey and Clinton repeatedly. And even then bemoaning the fact that the Justice Department has actually gone after Republicans. We remember that tweet right before the midterms when the president lambasted the fact that the Justice Department had opened investigations into Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins, because they're Republicans. And so there's the idea that the Justice Department is just a puppet for his whims, instead of actually trying to carry through on legitimate, well-founded investigations, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] Yes, this is very, very significant. Kara, as we've been pointing out, there is a new acting attorney general of the United States right now who as a private citizen made abundantly clear he thought Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted.
[Scannell:] That's right. I mean, he has been, Matt Whitaker has been very outspoken of his views of the Clintons, you know, perhaps even going further publicly than what Trump is even saying here. I mean, he's been looking for an investigation. So this could be something that would be welcome to him. But it would still cross that line of interference that, you know, is the whole integrity of the Justice Department and of line prosecutors is that you don't cross. You don't do these political-motivated investigations. That's something that, at least a lot of the line assistants and the career professionals view as sacred to them.
[Blitzer:] The the charge that James Comey leaked classified information, what's that based on?
[Scannell:] I mean, I think what they're focusing on here is that he was leaking information related to the investigation of Clinton, and some of the foundation investigation had come out. Remember, they were two sort of competing investigations. And that, you know, was that something that was coming out to help balance, perhaps, the other investigation that was out there? But this is, you know this remains to be seen what exactly he is focusing on in you know, with that specific allegation of a leak by Comey.
[Blitzer:] Kara, the other breaking news you're working on is that the White House, the president's lawyers, personal lawyers, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani, have now both confirmed that the written responses to Mueller's written questions have now been sent from the White House to Mueller's office.
[Scannell:] That's right. So both attorneys are saying that the written answers that Trump himself said that he wrote have been submitted to the special counsel's office. We have a statement from Rudy Giuliani, one of the attorneys, in which he says, "It has been our position from the outset that much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry. This remains our position today. The president has nonetheless provided unprecedented cooperation. The special counsel has been provided with more than 30 witnesses, 1.4 million pages of material, and now the president's written responses to questions. It is time to bring this inquiry to a conclusion." So the president has responded, but these questions are focused on collusion and whether anyone from the Trump campaign had any interactions with Russia. It does not cover the potential topics of obstruction of justice or what happened during the transition. So it remains to be seen if this is going to satisfy the special counsel's inquiry. I mean, this was part of a negotiated deal, but there's still a lot remains to be seen here, whether this is the final note in this investigation as it relates to the president.
[Blitzer:] I want to bring in Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, likely to become the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, you've been hearing all the breaking news. Let me first get your reaction to this bombshell report in "The New York Times" that President Trump actually attempted to order the Justice Department to prosecute Hillary Clinton and the fired FBI director, James Comey. What's your reaction?
[Rep. Adam Smith , Washington:] Well, it's not even remotely surprising. I mean, President Trump has made these types of charges before. I mean, he gosh, he admitted on NBC News he fired, you know, Director Comey because of the Russia investigation. He has been quoted as asking for loyalty out of people from the Justice Department. As your guest pointed out, traditionally, presidents separate themselves from the Justice Department and let the Justice Department do their jobs. But over and over and over again, over the course of the last two years, President Trump has made it clear that he views it as his Justice Department and will use it in any way he can to protect himself and punish his enemies. So there's nothing terribly surprising about this, unfortunately. It's fits with the pattern of the way he's talked about the FBI and the Justice Department during his time as president.
[Blitzer:] Yes, and expressing his disappointment in the FBI director, Christopher Wray, this he isn't tough enough. I want you to elaborate, Congressman. What does it tell you about the president's views on the Justice Department, the FBI, and his own presidential powers?
[Smith:] Again, it tells us what we've already known. How many times has he tweeted over the course of the last two years as he's complained about the Mueller investigation, you know, "How come they're not investigating Hillary Clinton? How come they're not investigating the Democrats?" So, you know, he's been very public about his desire to have them investigate his political enemies. You know, if you just think about it logically, it's hard to imagine that in private he wasn't trying to do that. I mean, remember James Comey's accounting of, you know, his meeting with the president, where the president kept asking him for loyalty, kept wanting, basically, to get an assurance from James Comey that he would look after Donald Trump, as opposed to the law. So it is deeply disturbing Don't get me wrong that a president views the Justice Department and the rule of law in this way. But it is a consistent pattern with President Trump, as he's tried to undermine the investigation. And keep in mind, I mean, the Russia investigation, when it first started, as an investigation into what the Russians were up to. They didn't necessarily have to be connected to Trump or his campaign. But Trump was trying to stop it from the very start. So yes, this is deeply troubling. We are a nation of laws, not of people. President Trump does not understand that. He sees the entire government apparatus as his, basically. He got elected to president, so now it should do his bidding. And it's disturbing. And I'm only, you know, happy that we've had people at the FBI, at the Justice Department, who are willing been willing to stand up to the president and not let him do that, to maintain the integrity of the rule of law in this country.
[Blitzer:] Well, what do you think of the acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, right now?
[Smith:] Well, I don't think there's cause for optimism in terms of how he's going to approach this, given his track record and his connections to President Trump. And the very obvious reason why he picked Trump sorry, why Trump picked him for the position. We'll have to wait and see what happens. But the No. 1, most important thing is to protect Mueller's investigation. And as you mentioned during your reporting, and I thought it was a very good point I forget, sorry, which person it was who said this that whenever Trump is told that his actions may lead to impeachment, he pulls back. So and he's been told that about any effort to fire Mueller. But you can definitely see the appointment of Whitaker as a step towards getting to the point where he could do that. So, you know, the media everybody has to really stand up for the rule of law here and protect the Mueller investigation: maintain its independence and allow it to do its job. Because if President Trump could get away with it, he would end it tomorrow. I have no doubt about that. We have to make sure that he thinks the price of doing that is too high. That the price would be his presidency and the price would be impeachment. Whitaker is a step towards Trump trying to move in that direction, but it is not a step that gets him there. So we need to stand up and make sure that it doesn't.
[Blitzer:] You're expected to become the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Let me get your thoughts on the murder of the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. The president seems to be arguing now, in this lengthy statement that he released earlier today, that Saudi Arabia is way too important an ally of the United States to hold it accountable for the murder of this journalist. Is that just the price of doing business with the Saudis?
[Smith:] This is incredibly disturbing, as well. I mean, it's hard to say what's more disturbing: the president wanting to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies or for him to basically he just said it. He said, "Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't." And the way he said that was, basically, at the end of the day, President Trump doesn't care, which means the United States doesn't care. And this is part, again, of a pattern of dictatorship and autocratic approach to government. We have seen the media targeted in many countries throughout the world, with new constitutions placing restrictions on free speech and the freedom of the media. And I think the most disturbing thing about this is that the Saudis thought they could get away with it. You know, ten years ago, if they had been thinking about this, that the international price that would have been paid, the way the U.S. would have reacted, they never would have considered doing it. But it appears that the Saudis knew President Trump fairly well. And they figured that they could get away with doing this. And if if it's open season on your political critics, and the United States does nothing about it, that is just appalling. It creates a situation where we creep towards a complete shutdown of freedom, of political freedom, the ability to express yourself. And the president is just wrong, like crazy wrong to say our relationship with Saudi Arabia is somehow our economy hinges on it. It does not. The weapons sales he keeps pointing to are but a mere pittance of our committee. So it's really just a cover of the fact that the president really doesn't mind if autocratic dictators take out members of the media. So, again, this is not the direction that U.S. values and U.S. policy should be going. And it is deeply, deeply disturbing.
[Blitzer:] Congressman Adam Smith, thanks so much for joining us.
[Smith:] Thanks, Wolf. I appreciate the chance.
[Blitzer:] All right. There's lots of breaking news we're following. We're going to take a quick break. We'll resume our special coverage right after this.