Interview With Congressman Adam Schiff; Trump's Big Week; Trump's Son-in-Law Named Senior Advisor.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now: Moscow meeting. A spokesman for Vladimir Putin says a meeting with Donald Trump will take place, as Trump dodges questions about Russian election hacking the U.S. says was ordered by Putin. Will Trump address the controversy at his news conference scheduled this week? Confirmation bias. The congressional calendar is jam-packed with confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's nominees. But some haven't completed background and ethics checks. Will Trump try to push them through without scrutiny? Menacing America. Iranian boats come within hundreds of yards of U.S. Navy ships, forcing an American destroyer to fire warning shots. The latest tense encounter between the two countries, is it Iranian backlash against warmer ties with the West? And caught on camera. New video of the shooting rampage at the Fort Lauderdale Airport, as the suspected gunman appears in court for the first time. Could he face the death penalty for the deadly attack? We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You are in THE SITUATION ROOM. With just over a week before he assumes office, Donald Trump is staying largely silent on the election cyber-attacks which U.S. intelligence says were ordered by Vladimir Putin to benefit Trump's campaign. Today, the president-elect dodged questions about it, promising instead to address Russian hacking at a long-delayed news conference scheduled for Wednesday. Tonight, we are learning Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will be a senior adviser to the president at the White House. Kushner will not be paid for his White House role and we are told he is resigning all his positions at Kushner companies as well as divesting a significant number of assets. Also tonight, there is new video of the shooting rampage at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport that left five people dead; 26-year- old suspect Esteban Santiago made his first court appearance and was told he could face the death penalty. As the Syrian civil war is about to enter its seventh year, I talked about failed U.S. efforts to stop the bloodshed with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry. He calls the ongoing conflict deeply frustrating. We are covering it with our guests, including Republican Senator Cory Gardner. He's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. And the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff. Our correspondents and expert analysts, they are also standing by. Let's begin with Donald Trump, largely silent on the issue of Russia's election hacking, which U.S. intelligence says was ordered by Putin in an effort to help Trump win the White House. Our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, is joining us with the very latest. Jim, Donald Trump takes office, what, 11 days from now.</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. Donald Trump made a major announcement today, tapping his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior adviser to the president. But he also dodged some important questions today on a range of important issues from Russia to his potential for conflicts of interest in the White House. But Trump promises those answers will come at his first post- election news conference on Wednesday.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): With Inauguration Day closing in, Donald Trump is trying to change the conversation away from the cloud of questions hanging over his looming presidency.</s>DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT-ELECT: We will talk about that on Wednesday.</s>ACOSTA: Asked by reporters about Russia's attempts to meddle in the election, Trump punted to his news conference Wednesday. A key question for Trump is just how much he buys into the U.S. intelligence community's report that concludes Russia directed hackers to tilt the election his way. Top transition advisers are not offering much clarity, indicating Trump believes some of the findings.</s>REINCE PRIEBUS, INCOMING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: He is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign.</s>ACOSTA: But suggesting it doesn't really matter.</s>KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: There's no smoking gun when it comes to the nexus between these hacking activities and the election results.</s>ACOSTA: Over the weekend, Trump tweeted: "Having a good relationship with Russian is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only stupid people or fools would think that is bad," part of a softer tone on Moscow that worries Republicans.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: If after having been briefed by our intelligence leaders, Donald Trump is still unsure as to what the Russians did, that would be incredibly unnerving to me because the evidence is overwhelming.</s>ACOSTA: Trump is creating even more questions with transition sources confirming to CNN that his son-in-law Jared Kushner will serve as a senior adviser to president. Critics wonder how Trump will hand his businesses off to his sons while other relatives like Kushner are working in the White House. Not to worry, says Trump.</s>TRUMP: We will talk about it on Wednesday. It's very simple. All I can say is it's very simple, very easy.</s>ACOSTA: Adding to the pre-inaugural drama, hearings for a slew of Trump's Cabinet picks are getting under way. And Democrats are howling over delays in background materials coming in to the committees.</s>ACOSTA: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is making his case by reprising a 2009 then from then Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the majority leader at that time, Harry Reid, outlining a series of standards that should be met before Obama were advanced by the Senate.</s>SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: They are almost exactly what Democrats requested. Mr. President, I don't bring this up to play gotcha. I am doing it to show that our requests are eminently reasonable and, in fact, have been shared by leaders of both parties.</s>ACOSTA: Now Senate Majority Leader McConnell insists there will be no holdup.</s>SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Everybody will be properly vetted, as they have been in the past, and I'm hopeful that we will get up to six or seven picks of the national security team in place on day one.</s>ACOSTA: One name already generating heat is Trump selection for attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Gold Star parent Khizr Khan sent a letter to the Senate reminding lawmakers of Sessions' past battles with civil rights group: "Thirty years ago, a bipartisan group of senators rejected Mr. Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge. His record since then does not give us any reason to believe that those senators were in error." Trump is standing by Sessions.</s>TRUMP: I think he's going to do great. High-quality man.</s>ACOSTA: Now, a few more details on Jared Kushner serving as a senior adviser to Donald Trump. The transition says he will not be taking a salary when he's at the White House, that he is also divesting himself of his various assets and resigning from the various positions he has at his multiple companies. Wolf, as for daughter Ivanka Trump, she will not be taking an official job at the White House for now. She is also though resigning from many of her various positions, divesting herself of her assets. She will be in charge somewhat when it comes to that new Trump hotel in D.C., and when those matters come before the White House, Jared Kushner will have to recuse himself from those matters. But, Wolf, transition officials are insisting they believe Donald Trump has broad authority to select the team of his choosing. Jared Kushner falls into that category and they believe Jared Kushner will have a pretty free rein when it comes to most of what he wants to do at the White House -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Jim Acosta over at Trump Tower in New York City, thank you very much. Now let's get some more on the meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Our chief security national correspondent Jim Sciutto is working the story for us. Jim, a Kremlin spokesman says there are already plans in the works for this meeting. What are you finding out?</s>JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. In fact, the Kremlin spokesman, Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, saying this meeting between Trump and Putin is going to take place. They have not set a timeline. He said, in his words, it's going to be carefully arranged. What is interesting, Wolf, of many things about this upcoming summit would be the timing, because it will almost certainly happen, particularly if it's early in the Trump administration, while you have a continuing investigation on Capitol Hill or consideration perhaps of new sanctions against Russia for election hacking. Those are sanctions that have the public support now of both Democratic and Republican senators. The backdrop to any upcoming meeting is going to be very interesting where even members of Trump's own party back here in Washington will be looking at a tougher, rather than a friendlier approach to Russia.</s>BLITZER: Also today, Jim, congressional Democrats renewed their call for an independent commission on Russia, the hacking and other issues. Where do you see this battle over Russia, intelligence, for example, going from here?</s>SCIUTTO: This is a test, especially when you speak to Democrats, because they are interested in something that is independent or bipartisan. You and I know well, Wolf, that committee hearings on the Hill that are sponsored by one party as opposed to another party, they can have the whip of partisanship, no question. Right now, Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell among them, have said they would be satisfied with non-bipartisan investigations of this. So who wins this out? And do you then take a further step like we saw after 9/11 of not just having bipartisan congressional hearings, but something more independent that brings in outsiders? That's something that hasn't been decided yet. From Democrats' perspective, it will be a test of how hard-hitting, how thorough any investigation is.</s>BLITZER: Jim Sciutto reporting for us, our chief national security correspondent. Thank you. Let's get some more on all of this. Congressman Adam Schiff of California is joining us. He's the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.</s>REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: You bet.</s>BLITZER: One of the frustrating things about the declassified intelligence report that came out the other day was the substance, the backup, if you will. There were conclusions. They were very, very blunt, why the Russians did this. But the evidence backing it up was missing. I was frustrated as a reader. I'm sure a lot of others were frustrated as well. You are privy to sensitive information. And so we have to take your word and the word of others that they have the goods?</s>SCHIFF: Well, I understand the frustration. On the other hand, it was very important, I think, to get before the American people just what the intelligence community has concluded and, in fact, Putin's very direct role in orchestrating this, what the motivations were. But you can imagine the Russian intelligence services are now poring over that document, looking at every sentence, every comma, every punctuation point, to figure out, how do they know this? What is their source of information? The more that we share with the public, unfortunately, the more we are sharing with our adversaries. And when they try this again -- and one of the key conclusions of that report is, this was not a one-off, they are going to do this again, to us, to the Germans, to the French. We don't want them to know our sources of information. We have to protect it. One other, point, Wolf, this is why I think it is so damaging when Donald Trump denigrates the intelligence community and calls into question their work product, because he is going to come to rely on it. He is going to come before the country one day and ask us to believe what he is saying and what the intelligence community is telling them. And by impugning them, he is harming his own presidency.</s>BLITZER: Because what also stood out was that two of the intelligence agencies, the CIA and the FBI, they said they had high confidence in these conclusions. The NSA, the National Security Agency, had what was called moderate confidence. Somebody who wants to know more and more -- and a lot of people I'm sure want to know more and more -- why do you think that they disagree on what level of confidence they should have?</s>SCHIFF: Well, that was only on one of the sub-conclusions.</s>BLITZER: But a significant conclusion.</s>SCHIFF: A significant one. But even moderate confidence is a pretty strong finding on something of that key significance.</s>BLITZER: But as sensitive of an issue as this, moderate confidence does not suggest complete confidence.</s>SCHIFF: No, it is not complete confidence. And, indeed, the intelligence community never talks about complete confidence.</s>BLITZER: Why couldn't they release more of the background, more of the reasons, more of the information that led them to these conclusions? I understand you don't want to tip off the adversary in this particular case, Russia. But somebody who studies this, don't you think they could have released some more of the backup?</s>SCHIFF: I think over time we will release more. It is my hope that the investigation that goes forward in Congress will produce a public component, will have open hearings and will also public its own results so that, over time, we can disclose more. But the sole reason, the 100 percent reason why they didn't do more by way of disclosure is that they don't want to tip off the Russians. There is nothing the Russians would like more than that. And we don't want to inform our own public at our own expense. But it is obviously not a bright line. And they have to make judgment calls and that's why they made them.</s>BLITZER: What's wrong with wanting to have better relations with Moscow? What's wrong with a summit meeting between the incoming president and Putin?</s>SCHIFF: Well, there's nothing wrong with it in theory. I would like nothing better than the mullahs to resign and have better relations with Iran. That's not likely to happen, because the Iranian interests are different than ours, just as the Russian efforts -- interests are very different than ours. And what we can't do is to allow Donald Trump to go to the Kremlin and be given a great big steak dinner and have nice things said about him and then persuade him he ought to change U.S. policy because he's being flattered by the Kremlin. That would be a terrible mistake. I think what the president-elect needs to do is say, look, I would like improved relations, but they have to be on terms that meet our national interests. And here's what our interests are. We need the Russians out of Ukraine. We need them to abide by the Minsk accords. We need them to stop bombing modern opposition and civilians in Syria. We need them to stop trying to tear down democratic institutions around the world. And we are going to push back on you hard in these areas. Where you want to work together on counterterrorism, we will work with you, but only when it is in our national security interest.</s>BLITZER: I know you don't have a high degree of confidence in the president-elect, but what about his top national security team that he is putting together, General Mattis, the incoming, assuming he's confirmed, defense secretary, Rex Tillerson, secretary of state? What do you think of some of those people? I know you like Mike Pompeo, the congressman who has been nominated to be the CIA director. I wonder how you feel about Dan Coats, who is nominated to be director of national intelligence.</s>SCHIFF: With respect to Dan Coats, relieved I think is the emotion I first felt.</s>BLITZER: You have confidence in some of these?</s>SCHIFF: I do. I think Dan Coats was a good selection. I think he is someone committed to the intelligence community and the work that they do. He is someone that is viewed as I think quite rational, not a partisan ideologue. I think he's a good solid choice. I like General Mattis. I had some initial heartburn over the fact that we need to grant a waiver. But, frankly, given the president- elect's other choices, many Democrats are putting their hope and faith in General Mattis to be a voice of reason within that Cabinet. But others, I have a lot less confidence.</s>BLITZER: General John Kelly, secretary of homeland security, I assume you appreciate him too?</s>SCHIFF: I do. I do very much.</s>BLITZER: It sounds like on national security, homeland security, intelligence, you are more positive than negative?</s>SCHIFF: Well, yes and no.</s>BLITZER: Mike Pompeo, I know you like that.</s>SCHIFF: Questions that I have raised about General Flynn in terms of his temperament and judgment and problems he had at DIA, and he may be running the show there.</s>SCHIFF: There may be a real collision course between he and General Mattis. That concerns me a great deal. The degree to which Steve Bannon wants to get involved in national security and foreign policy, that concerns me a great deal. I do have profound concerns. And even with Mike Pompeo, who I like and respect, he is going to need to set aside some very strongly partisan instincts to do that job well. I think he can do it. And he is going to have to do it. And we will see the first test of that during the confirmation hearings.</s>BLITZER: But on the whole, though, you are encouraged by at least most of these national security, the team that he is putting together?</s>SCHIFF: Most is probably stronger than I would say. I have very serious concerns about Rex Tillerson.</s>BLITZER: What's your biggest concern about him?</s>SCHIFF: Well, that he won't be able to set aside a lifetime of work for a single company whose interests are not coincident with the national interest. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. The fact that when he was asked not to engage in the Kremlin when we were trying to sanction them, and did nonetheless, some of the work that he did in Iran, for example, these are profound concerns. Will he be a vigorous champion of continued, indeed, increased sanctions on Russia over Ukraine when it hurts his lifetime callings at his former company? It is possible, but it gives me profound concern.</s>BLITZER: Because a lot of people leave big business experience and when they take a job as a national security adviser or secretary of state, secretary of defense, they no longer represent in his particular case ExxonMobil. They represent the United States of America.</s>SCHIFF: Well, yes. But have we ever had a case where someone got a Special Friendship Medal from the Kremlin and whose whole life was devoted to a single company and who now must take on that very company and that friend who gave him that award? I don't think we have ever seen this kind of situation. And it ought to give Americans a lot of heartburn. He is going to have some very tough questions to answer and he should.</s>BLITZER: The whole notion of the intelligence community though moving forward, you are frustrated that the Obama administration did not react more assertively during the campaign to the Russian cyber- attacks.</s>SCHIFF: I was frustrated about it. Senator Feinstein, as you know, took the extraordinary step in September, the month before the Intelligence Committee released their own attribution, calling out the Russians on what they were doing. I understand the reasons why the administration was hesitant. They didn't want to be seen as putting their hand on the scale in the American election. They didn't want to risk retaliation by the Russians. But, nonetheless, our experience with the Russians is, if you don't push back hard with, they view everything as an open door. I was urging that we take a harder line on Ukraine years ago and provide the defensive weapons and urge the stronger support response when North Korea hacked Sony. I think all of these things did contribute to a Russia that felt it had more of a green light than it should have.</s>BLITZER: Would the appropriate response, a U.S. cyber-attack on the Russians or something else?</s>SCHIFF: That ought to be one piece of it, frankly. I think, in a covert way, we can make the Kremlin and Mr. Putin pay a price for their interference in our affairs. But much of the deterrent should come overtly and it ought to come in the form of working with our allies who are also the subject of Russian malign influence to sanction them. What Putin cares about more than anything else -- sometimes more than anything else -- is the perpetuation of his own regime. And the number one thing that threatens that is the poor Russian economy.</s>BLITZER: Because President Obama has said the Russians are good in cyber-attacks, the Iranians are good, the North Koreans are good, the Chinese are good. But you know what? He says the United States is better than all of them. Is that true?</s>SCHIFF: It is true. It is true.</s>BLITZER: If the U.S. wanted to launch a cyber-attack, let's say, against Russia and release a lot of embarrassing information about Putin, it could do that?</s>SCHIFF: It absolutely could do that.</s>BLITZER: Would you recommend that?</s>SCHIFF: I would recommend that we take appropriate cyber-steps. We don't want to escalate all out of control and get in a very destructive cyber tit for tat. But I do think we do need to push back hard. And we have the capabilities of doing it. Yes, at one level, if we decide to get into cyber-warfare, there is nobody that has the capabilities we do, but we also have a lot at stake. We are more technologically integrated than any other country on Earth, so there are risks. But there are ways to show that two can play at this game. And if Putin wants to dump embarrassing information about U.S. political figures, there is a lot that he ought to be worried about that we could do as well.</s>BLITZER: So, when President Obama last September at one of the international summits told Putin, cut it out, referring to the cyber- attacks, did Putin listen, did he cut it out?</s>SCHIFF: The administration has been making that argument. Frankly, I'm not fully persuaded by it. If what they mean by that is they didn't escalate further, they didn't try to affirmatively manipulate the vote count or the voter registration databases on Election Day, yes, they didn't do that. I am not sure that they were prepared to cross that line anyway. But if they mean by that they feel they have established enough of a deterrent to stop Russia from doing this again, I don't think that deterrent has been established.</s>BLITZER: Congressman Schiff, thanks for coming in.</s>SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Much more coming up. We will take a quick break and we will be right back.