Boris Johnson Seeks Snap Election; New Report Finds U.S. Spy Extracted From Russia In 2017; Sources: Trump Overruled Advisers On Taliban Meeting
HALA GORANI, CNN HOST: Hello and welcome, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani.</s>RICHARD QUEST, CNN HOST: I'm Richard Quest. And, again, we are live outside the Houses of Parliament because it's another extraordinary day at Westminster.</s>GORANI: There is a flurry of activity behind us in the House of Commons. At stake? Could the future of Brexit and also the future of the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, be in play? It's a race against the clock with just hours to go before the government suspends parliament so they won't be working for five weeks, Richard.</s>QUEST: Now, at the moment, there's a sort of an end-of-school term feel about everything because there's an emergency debate under way that is seeking documents, looking at the suspension of the government's plans for a no-deal Brexit. They're hoping to get more information.</s>GORANI: Right. And so this is one of the debates. There will be a few others this evening, and it will all culminate in the very important piece de resistance moment for Mr. Johnson, who is seeking a snap election.</s>QUEST: Which is extraordinary because he's expected to lose, so we'll be investigating why he's bothering to have a vote on something that he's going to lose. Also, despite a new law aiming to prevent that no deal. He does admit such a prospect amounts to failure.</s>BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN: I want to find a deal. I want to get a deal. Like you, I've looked carefully at no-deal, I've assessed its consequences, both for our country and yours. And yes, of course, we could do it. The U.K. could certainly get through it. But be in no doubt, that outcome would be a failure of statecraft, for which we would all be responsible.</s>GORANI: So what does it all mean? Bianca Nobilo joins us now. Why bother with a vote on a snap election if he's widely expected to lose it?</s>BIANCA NOBILO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he committed to holding this vote last week, that's when they announced it. So that was before the opposition parties -- even though we thought that they wouldn't back it before they officially came out and said, "We're not going to support this." Because ordinarily, an opposition party, the Labour Party, or the other smaller opposition parties, should back any opportunity to have a general election.</s>GORANI: Why not pull it? Why not pull it today?</s>NOBILO: Because it might be useful, even in terms of a campaign strategy, to be able to day, "Well, the Labour Party, you didn't have enough confidence to go to the polls when we asked you. We gave you two opportunities. The first opposition in history not to allow an election on their watch, and we were offering it to you on a silver platter." There could be a number of strategies at play, or it could actually not be conspiracy, it could not be strategy. It could be the fact that they've slightly fuffed (ph) up their hand here.</s>QUEST: All right. Now, in the event that all this plays out, the really important question is what happens during this interregnum, when the -- this prorogation. Because he's got to go to, with the letter (ph), sign (ph) the letter seeking a delay, by -- if he hasn't got another plan, by October the 19th.</s>NOBILO: That's right. So parliament is now scheduled to come back after it's prorogued tonight, on the 14th, giving him five days to bring back a deal that's approved by the House of Commons, or he has to write that letter, or he's breaking the law. So Boris Johnson now has two options in that situation. Either he goes back on his word, or he breaks the law.</s>GORANI: Well, and which is --</s>GORANI: -- he going to choose -- or he resigns.</s>NOBILO: Or he resigns, yes.</s>GORANI: Would he?</s>NOBILO: It's being talked about today because he's --</s>GORANI: Does he have any other options?</s>NOBILO: -- well, exactly. He's booked himself in. That's why --</s>QUEST: Well, I mean, you know, yes, he could send the letter and immediately rescind it, which --</s>NOBILO: Or do this other option, of sending the letter and then sending an accompanying letter, undermining the first letter --</s>QUEST: Exactly.</s>NOBILO: -- saying that it would make</s>QUEST: Exactly. Or sending a letter and basically not negotiating --</s>NOBILO: Yes.</s>QUEST: -- because, you know, he's obliged to accept whatever date comes back. But you could throw the ball into the European Court. And the French, tonight --</s>GORANI: Well, it's not a given that the Europeans, especially the French, will grant an extension. Because I think from the point of view of Macron -- pardon my voice, and this is not helping, by the way, behind us, the fact that I've lost my voice -- from the point of view of the French and even the Germans, you can understand that this prolonged period of uncertainty is hurting them as well at this stage. And that they also might want to rip the Band-Aid, which makes sense.</s>NOBILO: And Leo Varadkar has said --</s>GORANI: Yes.</s>NOBILO: -- in the press conference he gave with Boris Johnson this morning, that basically they're all getting fed up and he needs a good reason in order to warrant an extension. Now, the E.U. have always said that, granted. But for them, a good reason is usually an election or a second referendum. Those are the kind of terms that it's (ph) spoken about.</s>QUEST: If Boris Johnson does try and play games with the letter and the rescinding or not negotiating, if he does, they might still grant him the - - the delay because they know there's an election coming. You've -- sorry, that was my phone -- oh, no, it wasn't, it was yours. Never mind. I'll get it for you in a minute.</s>NOBILO: That's OK. But I agree. It's like game theory on steroids. This is just so difficult to predict. There are so many strategies that could be in play, but it really is not just a game of chicken any more. There are so many different outcomes. And I find it very hard to believe that this is the result of some kind of concerted strategy.</s>GORANI: Right. If there was a loss tonight for Boris Johnson, it will his -- how many, it will be his fifth loss in the House of Commons?</s>NOBILO: It would be, yes.</s>GORANI: In just a few weeks.</s>NOBILO: Yes.</s>GORANI: He -- if this is some high-level chess strategy, he's not very good at it.</s>NOBILO: Well, so the only way in which this might be electorally helpful for Boris Johnson is, on the weekend in Britain, this hashtag was trending, #PeoplesPrimeMinister. This idea that Boris Johnson is the prime minister that's trying to deliver on the popular result of the referendum, and parliament is stopping him from doing that. It's such a populist strategy, it's the establishment versus Boris Johnson, championing the people. That's how he'll want people to see it.</s>QUEST: All right. Now, one of the most familiar faces in parliament to date --</s>GORANI: People will be very sad around the world. Because even those who don't follow Brexit closely, know one thing about this whole story. And that's this man's "Order, order!" But yes, as you said --</s>QUEST: Speaker John Bercow says he'll leave his post by the Brexit date of October the 31st or even earlier, if snap elections are approved for then (ph). This is how he said he was off.</s>JOHN BERCOW, SPEAKER, HOUSE OF COMMONS: I have served as a member of parliament for 22 years, and for the last 10, as speaker. This has been -- let me put it explicitly -- the greatest privilege and honor of my professional life, for which I will be eternally grateful. I wish my successor in the chair, the very best fortune in standing up for the rights of honorable and right honorable members, individually and for parliament institutionally, as the speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you.</s>QUEST: So we know -- we knew he was going. He said -- he'd said earlier on, that he was going to leave us. But he's tightened it now. He will, despite the crocodile tears on the Tory side, will he be missed?</s>NOBILO: He has been speaker since 2009, so it was about time. But there was a grudging respect, and then a genuine heartfelt respect across the House, even those Conservatives that were very different from John Bercow when it came to Brexit and most other issues, and perhaps resented the fact that even though John Bercow started his career as a Conservative in 1997, he did migrate and then was considered to be maybe defecting to Labour, so they kind of resented him for that. But there was a respect for him. It's a tough job, trying to command that chamber.</s>QUEST: Who gets the next one? Who -- do (ph) they (ph) go from either side, or do they --</s>NOBILO: No, it can be --</s>QUEST: -- one of the</s>NOBILO: -- no, it's any -- it's -- in terms of who will actually get the - -</s>QUEST: Yes.</s>NOBILO: -- next role, so anybody who's an M.P. can put themselves forward. You need between 12 and 15 other M.P.s to back you from three different parties, and then it's an exhaustive ballot, I believe --</s>NOBILO: -- testing (ph) me this morning.</s>QUEST: No, no. I</s>GORANI: And we'll get back to Brexit, of course, a little bit later in the program. But we have some exclusive CNN reporting I'd like to bring to you. Ever since Donald Trump became American president, he and his administration have been accused of mishandling classified intelligence. CNN has learned about a 2017 incident that is raising some new very serious questions. Sources say a high-level Russian government source, who had been spying for America, had to be pulled out of Russia partly because of CIA fears that Trump administration leaks could expose that person. Jim Sciutto is CNN's chief U.S. security correspondent. This is his reporting. He is standing by, live. Tell us more about this story -- Jim.</s>JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Hala, multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge tell me that in a previously undisclosed secret mission in 2017, the U.S. successfully extracted, from Russia, one of its highest level covert sources inside the Russian government. Knowledge of the Russian covert source's existence was highly restricted within the U.S. government. According to one source, there was no equal alternative inside the Russian government, providing both insight and information on the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. A person directly involved in the discussion said that the removal of the Russian was driven in part by concerns that President Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence, which could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy. Now, the decision to carry out the extraction occurred soon after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office, in which Trump discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The intelligence concerning ISIS in Syria had been provided by Israel. The disclosure to the Russians by the president, though not about the Russian spy specifically, prompted intelligence officials to renew discussions about the potential risk of exposure. This, according to the source directly involved in the matter. At the time, I should note, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo told other senior Trump administration officials that too much information was coming out regarding this asset.</s>GORANI: And, Jim, this wasn't the first time that there were concerns about this asset being exposed?</s>SCIUTTO: That's right, Hala. And this is important context. At the end of the Obama administration, so months before, U.S. intelligence officials had already expressed concerns about the safety of not only this spy, but other Russians assets, given the length of their cooperation with the U.S. This, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official. Those concerns grew in early 2017, after the U.S. intelligence community released its public report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, which said that Putin himself had ordered the operation. The intelligence community also shared a classified version of that report with the incoming Trump administration, which included highly protected details on the sources behind that intelligence. Senior U.S. officials at the time considered extracting at least one Russian asset, but did not do so, according to the former senior intelligence official. Then, the meeting with the Russians happened in the Oval Office. That raised new talks, and concerns in the intel community continued to grow in the period after Trump's Oval Office meeting with Kislyak and Lavrov. Now, weeks after the decision to extract the covert source, the president met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Hamburg. You may recall that at the meeting, he took the unusual step of confiscating the interpreter's notes. Afterward, I'm told, intelligence officials, again, expressed concern that the president may have improperly discussed classified intelligence with Russia. This, according to an intelligence source with knowledge of the intel community's response to the Trump-Putin meeting. So, Hala, it was not just one incident here.</s>GORANI: Yes. And the -- what has been the administration's response here?</s>SCIUTTO: So I've reached out to the White House, certainly also the agency and others. A U.S. official said that before the secret operation, there was media speculation about the existence of such a covert Russian source. And such coverage or public speculation poses risks to the safety of anyone that a foreign government may suspect could be involved. However this official did not identify any public reporting to that effect at the time, of this decision, and CNN could not find any related reference in media. As for comment, Brittany Bramell, she's the CIA director of Public Affairs, told CNN, quote, "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false. Misguided speculation that the president's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence, which he has access to each and every day, drove an alleged exfiltration operation, is inaccurate." A spokesman for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to comment to me. White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said, quote, "CNN's reporting is not only incorrect it has the potential to put lives in danger." I should note, this removal happened at a time of wide concern in the U.S. intel community, about mishandling of intelligence by Trump and his administration. Those concerns were described to me by five sources who served in the Trump administration, the intelligence agencies and Congress. I should also note that CNN is withholding several details about this spy, to reduce the risk of the person's identification.</s>GORANI: And that's understandable. And finally, can we measure the cost of losing this asset?</s>SCIUTTO: Well, I've spoken to a number of people in the intel community and formerly. This is key. It's left the U.S. without one of its key sources on the inner workings of the Kremlin and the plans and thinking of the Russian president at a time when tensions between the two nations have been growing. The U.S. intel community considers Russia one of the two greatest threats to U.S. national security along with China. A former senior intelligence official tells me, quote, "The impact would be huge because it is so hard to develop sources like that in any denied area, particularly Russia... because the surveillance and security there is so stringent." Adding, "You can't reacquire a capability like that overnight." Hala, in the simplest terms, this was a significant decision and a significant loss for the U.S.</s>GORANI: All right. Jim Sciutto with exclusive reporting. Thanks very much.</s>SCIUTTO: Thank you.</s>GORANI: Much more ahead tonight, including this, a firsthand look at one town in the Bahamas that was virtually wiped off the map by that Category 5 hurricane. Also, Benjamin Netanyahu has a message for Iran. "Israel knows what you are doing." More on the Israeli prime minister's new accusations about Iran's nuclear program. Plus a top-level meeting at the president's retreat between the U.S. and the Taliban has been called off. First, was it ever on? And then some lawmakers are furious that the Taliban were invited at all, just days before 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11.