Return to Transcripts main page


Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Subpoenaed For Ukraine Documents; White House Limited Access To Trump's Calls With Putin And Saudi Prince; Trump's Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Named 31 Times By Whistleblower; Giuliani Says He Won't Testify Without Consulting The President; Guyger: "I Was Scared He Was Going To Kill Me"; Democratic Candidates Weigh In On Ukraine Controversy. Aired 7-8a ET

Aired September 28, 2019 - 07:00   ET




[07:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have learned the White House efforts to limit access to President Trump's conversations with foreign leaders extended to phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow's interference in the U.S. election.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: CNN has confirmed that Kurt Volker, President Trump's Ukraine Diplomat, has now suddenly resigned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The White House in crisis. We just learned the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has just been subpoenaed by three House Committees.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Democrats saying if they don't get this information from this subpoenas or other subpoenas, it will only strengthen their case for impeachment.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): To impeach any President over a phone call like this would be insane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The President is blatantly extorting a foreign leader.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No push, no pressure, no nothing. It's all a hoax, folks. It's all a big hoax.


ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY WEEKEND, with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul.

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome this Saturday morning. We're glad to have you with us, and we're following major developments this morning. First of all, in Ukraine, the scandal and the impeachment inquiry again President Trump within just past 13 hours. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been subpoenaed to turn over documents related to Ukraine and the whistle-blower scandal. He's already missed two deadlines. His third and final chance to hand them over is now on Friday.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, is now out of a job. Three sources tell CNN that he resigned yesterday. The whistleblower complaint says Volcker advised Ukrainian officials on how to deal with President Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

PAUL: Also, the Washington Post reporting this morning that in 2017, President Trump told two Russian officials he was not concerned about their interference in the 2016 election because the U.S. "did the same in other countries."

BLACKWELL: And CNN has learned that President's phone call with Ukraine's President may not have been the only one the White House wanted to keep quiet. Our sources say, details of the President's conversations with world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin were subject to tighter than normal restrictions.

PAUL: So, three House committees have subpoenaed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and, again, this is after he missed two deadlines to turn over those documents on Ukraine. Friday is his new deadline to produce them in the impeachment investigation.

BLACKWELL: White House Reporter Sarah Westwood joins us now from the White House. Sarah, good morning to you. What's the likelihood that Pompeo hands over those documents? Any indication from the White House, and what are these three committees looking for?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, good morning, Victor and Christi. And these three committees: the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Oversight Committee, they are looking for documents related to that now infamous phone call that President Trump had with Ukrainian President Zelensky in July and they also want aides related to a decision that CNN has reported Trump made about a week before that call to suspend military aide to Ukraine.

Now, House Democrats has sort of upped the stakes here. As you mentioned, they have already twice requested these documents. Pompeo and the State Department, they've blown two deadlines going all the way back to September 9th, but now raising the stakes saying that if the State Department doesn't comply with this latest subpoena by October 4th, that's Friday, then they will consider the administration to have obstructed their impeachment inquiry. So that could actually strengthen the Democrat's hand in this impeachment inquiry that the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got behind this week.

Now, Chairman Engel of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that Democrats felt they had no choice but to step up their efforts and issue the subpoena for Secretary of State Pompeo because the administration ignored their previous inquiries. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D-NY): The subpoena's the last thing you should do,

and we only did it because they turned a blind eye to whatever we asked for. We asked for information, we asked for documents, and we were stonewalled, not even so much as an answer. You know, this administration --


ENGEL: Ignored us. This administration thinks that Congress doesn't have the right -- you know, the checks and balances we go over when we were kids in grade school. This administration seems to feel that it doesn't apply to them.


[07:05:27] WESTWOOD: Now, in addition to documents, House Democrats are also looking for depositions from State Department officials including former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, who issued his resignation last night. Now, Volker is a key figure in the whole Ukraine controversy. He is named in the whistleblower complaint as someone who set up a key meeting between Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, and a top aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky. The whistleblower alleged that this was in order to follow up on the President's July 25th phone call. So, Volker's actions facilitating Giuliani's contacts with the Ukrainians, those are going to be under scrutiny by House Democrats as well, Victor and Christi.

BLACKWELL: Plenty of questions there. Sarah Westwood, thank you.

PAUL: So, let's begin with Lynn Sweet, Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun Times with us this morning. Good morning, Lynn. Good to see you.


PAUL: So, coming off of that, I want to ask you about Secretary Pompeo. What are Congress' options here? What can they do to compel him to speak?

SWEET: Well, this may end up in a court battle. It may end -- you know what, what you can't do here is raid an office. You know, if this was not what it was, a battle with the White House, battle with the secretary of state -- well, authorities just go in an investigation and raid and cart out materials, obviously, you can't do that here. So, we'll see if this becomes a court battle and we'll see if the committees are able to get what they need in some other ways while they fight this.

You know, this thing has gone on at remarkable speed. The White House did release these documents which has given the basic facts. Just think of the trail now that you have and people to interview. So, there's quite a lot of work to do right now before Pompeo comes in and other people to compel to testify. Kurt Volker now is not an employee of the administration, so he has more flexibility if he chooses to cooperate. And why the -- you know, Pompeo might not be the one and only person

you need because if there are more instances, as we now learn -- after Ukraine there was more information about what had been already famous Russian meeting, there just might be so much to do that there will be something worked out. But in the end now, this is such a specific targeted probe -- not swirling like a Mueller probe -- that there may be fewer options.

And why stonewalling worked during the Mueller years? It is different now because people will understand a lot better how specific the questions are over specific interests -- instances, and certainly it would be hard to see that Rudy Giuliani cannot, one or the other, be forced to give information.

PAUL: Yes, to speak as well. Lynn, stand by with us here because I do want to take your take on another huge headline that we're learning this morning.

BLACKWELL: Yes, CNN has learned that it was not just the details of the phone call with Ukraine's President that the White House wanted to keep under those tight restrictions. Conversations with other world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, those were kept under wraps as well.

PAUL: Senior White House Correspondent Pamela Brown says transcripts of those calls were placed under tighter than normal controls.


PAMELA BROWN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have learned the White House's efforts to limit access to President Trump's conversations with foreign leaders extended the phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin. This is according to several people familiar with the matter.

Now, those calls, both with leaders who maintain controversial relationships with Trump were among the Presidential conversations that aides took remarkable steps to keep from becoming public. In the case of Trump's call with Prince Mohammed, officials who ordinarily would have been given access to a rough transcript of the conversation never saw one according to one of the sources.

Instead a transcript was never circulated at all, which the source said was highly unusual particularly after a high-profile conversation. The call which the person said contain no especially sensitive national security secrets came as the White House was confronting the murder of Jamal Khashoggi -- which U.S. intelligence assessment said came at the hand of the Saudi of the government.

Now, with Putin access to the transcript of at least one in Trump's conversations was also tightly restricted according to a former Trump administration official. It's not clear if aides took the additional step of playing the Saudi Arabia and Russian phone calls in that same highly secured, code word operated system that held that now infamous phone call with Ukraine's President and which helped spark the whistleblower complaint made public this week, though, officials did confirm calls aside from the Ukraine conversation were placed there, and those calls also didn't reach the threshold similar to the Ukraine conversation.

But these attempts to conceal information about Trump's discussions with Prince Mohammed and Putin further illustrate the extraordinary efforts taken by Trump's aides to strictly limit the number of people with access to his conversations with foreign leaders. I'm told this practice really went into place more than a year ago after there were conversations leaked between the leaders of Mexico and Trump as well as Australia. We should note the White House did not comment about the limiting of access to calls with the Russian and Saudi leaders. Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.


[07:10:43] PAUL: All right. Lynn Sweet back with me now. So, we heard there it was because of leaks about a year, year and a half ago that that was their reasoning for switching some of these conversations to a different server. Good enough excuse, Lynn?

SWEET: No. No, because if you just want to tell the story of what happened, it could be that the President wanted to -- if all this was about was a story that the President wanted to crack down on leaks, we wouldn't be here this morning talking about this; if it was just that routine or crackdown of a leaky White House. We're talking about conversations where we know in the case of the Ukraine conversation that had potential massive impeachment now related problems for the President.

So, one thing to keep in mind as these investigations go on, the National Security community is highly organized. Things are signed in and out. There is a trail. It could be with -- if more whistleblowers emerge, the investigators could figure out who knew the chain of command, and there are people that -- I think this is a more investigable situation than people might think because of the protocols of handling information.

And not every phone call perhaps was as sensational as this one was, so we have another lane here: a President who just didn't want to work in their usual protocols of having the people who are authorized to learn this learn it and then -- and let's keep our eye on this ball -- conversations where he said things that wouldn't be merely embarrassing to the President but it would have shown to have crossed a line.

PAUL: All right. Lynn Sweet, appreciate you taking time for us this morning. Thank you.

SWEET: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: Well, still to come, another huge headline out of the White House. We're going to bring you new details from the Washington Post about President's meeting with two Russian officials in the West Wing.

PAUL: And more fallout from this impeachment inquiry we've been talking about. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo we said subpoenaed by Congress for failure to bring forward Ukraine documents. We're talking to a special advisor to former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, as well as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney.


[07:15:59] PAUL: 15 minutes past the hour right and we have some new details about an already highly controversial meeting at the White House. The Washington Post this morning saying President Trump told two Russian officials that he was not concerned about Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Those comments came during the President's infamous 2017 oval office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and then Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

BLACKWELL: So, the Post says that President Trump told the two officials that he was not concerned because the U.S. did the same in other countries. One of the reporters who broke that story spoke with CNN last night. Watch.


SHANE HARRIS, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: But he was essentially asserting from his perspective that this wasn't a matter of grave concern because it's something that was equal to what he thinks the United States does to try to influence politics around the world. And these comments alarmed senior White House officials for a number of reasons: one, which was that they feared that Russia could perceive that the President was essentially saying you have a green light do this in other country or perhaps again in the U.S. elections in the future.

Steps were taken to then really lock down this memo and restrict it even more tightly than memos of leadership meetings and calls that already been restricted in the White House because of press leaks. And I think it's safe to say that the people who heard this at the time, it struck them as also troubling because it seemed that the President was showing a certain kind of deference or kind of solicitousness to Russia. This was also coming one day, of course, after he had fired the FBI Director James Comey and the suspicions at that point, publicly, had been mounting that perhaps he had done because he knew the FBI been investigating his campaign in connection for Russian.


BLACKWELL: The chairman of three House committees have subpoenaed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over his failure to bring forth documents related to Ukraine; he's already missed two deadlines. The are expected to be part of the impeachment inquiry. Here with me to discuss: CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig and former Clinton White House Advisor Guy Smith -- who served as a Special Advisor to former President Bill Clinton during his impeach. Gentlemen, welcome back to NEW DAY.

GUY SMITH, BUSINESS EXECUTIVE, GREENWICH: Good morning. BLACKWELL: Elie, let me start with you. The White House has brushed

off subpoenas in the past, but that was pre-impeachment inquiry. How can the Secretary of State be compelled now? I mean, how does executive privilege hold up in court if gets to that in this new context?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure, Victor. So, I think the whole landscape has now from we saw previously with the Mueller-related impeachment inquiry. Where we saw that, really, the White House took this blanket position of: we're fighting all the subpoenas. That came out of Donald Trump's mouth. And as a result, they really managed to stall out that investigation. Some of the cases were stuck in court. They're still pending stuck in court.

But essentially, Congress got nothing. Now, technically, there's no difference but the political winds have shifted so much here. And one important think that Congress as: A, they can go into court and say we have an official impeachment inquiry, that's why we need the documents and they have a Trump card, no pun intended, so to speak, if there is massive obstructionism, Congress can impeach based upon obstruction of Congress. So, if they get fed up and feel like there's too much stonewalling, they can impeach based on that.

BLACKWELL: Now, of course, that's the third article of impeachment -- the Nixon impeachment. Guy, let me come to you. We know what the Democrats are doing. They're issuing subpoenas. We're told that members of the House Intelligence should be prepared to come back any time; taking depositions. Volker would be questioned on Friday. The President's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, says that there is no war room in the White House. What should the White House be doing to ramp up and prepare for what's coming up over the next several weeks and months?

SMITH: The Trump White House is woefully unprepared the deal with something as massive as impeachment. During the Clinton era, there was a separate team set up and everyone else ran the government. The impeachment team ran the impeachment.

[07:20:07] In the Trump White House, there's not communication other than the President's Twitter account. There's no political apparatus, there's no coordination between them and the campaign, between the RNC.

But your interactions with the Congress. I mean, we saw how ham- handed it was just the other day when the White House staff sent the Republican talking points to the Democrats on the hill.

I mean, it makes you kind of laugh, but they're just not prepared to deal with this, and it shows and it's going to show. And one of the things that's so different now from the Mueller report; the Mueller report was long, it's poorly written, distorted by Barr, hard to understand.

This Ukraine thing in the President's own words is very, very clear. And think about it this -- think about it this way: everybody in the United States has watched "The Godfather" and "The Sopranos." They know exactly what Trump is saying in that telephone call. There's no confusion.

BLACKWELL: That's the kind of context that Chairman Schiff tried to put it in on Thursday when the acting DNI was testifying. Elie, let me come back to you, and Rudy Giuliani, he shared a text message that he says came from now according to sources, the former U.S. envoy to Ukraine, in which he says that Volker texted: "Mr. Mayor, really enjoyed breakfast this morning. As we discussed, connecting you here with (INAUDIBLE), who is very close to President Zelensky of Ukraine. I suggest we schedule a call together, Monday, maybe 10:00 a.m., 11:00 Washington Time. Signed, Kurt."

Volker has now resigned. Is Giuliani causing more trouble for himself in the White House or is he trying to craft some defense for himself if people question why or if he was some type of pseudo envoy for the State Department?

HONIG: Rudy Giuliani is carving a path of destruction for himself and for many people around him. Frankly, Victor, I don't understand what his legal or tactical strategy is here at all. He's essentially openly admitting that he was serving as an envoy for Donald Trump and for the United States government.

And keep in mind, Rudy Giuliani does not work for the United States government, he's a private citizen; he only works for Donald Trump. Rudy Giuliani's come out, and openly admitted -- almost boasting about the fact that he was trying to get Ukraine to dig for dirt on Joe Biden. That fact alone is very problematic for Donald Trump. Why on Earth would his personal attorney be involved?

If there needs to be high level diplomatic negotiations, there are plenty of official channels to do that. But by having Rudy Giuliani do all this, it makes even more clear that the real goal here was to benefit Donald Trump personally and politically.

BLACKWELL: Guy, this is what I don't understand. We know that the President likes loyalty, for people to be loyal to him. But we've seen over the last several years that when people close to him become inconvenient, he jettisons them when necessary. Why is he allowing or keeping Rudy Giuliani so close to him considering his name showed up so many times in the phone call, in the whistleblower complaint. Why keep Giuliani close?

SMITH: Well, I think that's the $64.00 question. I mean, why does Trump do some of the things that he does? Frankly, they don't make any sense on any level.

BLACKWELL: What would your advice be?

SMITH: My advice would be: stop the Twitter accounts, set up the communications operation. Come out with talking points and coordinate them with the campaign, with the RNC, with the Congress, and communicate in a coherent way and separately run the government. Because the people of the united states expect -- and this is what we found with President Clinton: he ran the government, he kept doing what the people elected him to do and we managed impeachment. Now, there was another big difference in the end. Back then, there

was one blue dress and a special counsel who was sex-obsessed and knew that the longer and louder he talked about the blue dress, that people would absolutely believe that Bill Clinton was a terrible person. Well, the American people separated the mistake, the dumb mistake with the blue dress from a constitutional damage.

In this case there are dozens of blue dresses with Trump and there's these front and center things, and you saw the whistleblower complaint is a roadmap, and we saw in the Washington Post just this morning. The first step of the roadmap is now more on the Russian stuff, which is going to reignite the Russian part of the Mueller thing. I mean, he's creating a deeper and deeper hole.

BLACKWELL: There are plenty of Congressional Republicans who have called this hearsay, but every element that has come out since the reporting of the whistleblower complaint has been confirmed.

SMITH: Absolutely. It's not hearsay.

[07:25:07] BLACKWELL: And some of the elements we've seen in the last 24 hours. Elie Honig and Guy Smith, thank you both.

HONIG: Thank you, Victor.

SMITH: Glad to be with you again.

PAUL: (INAUDIBLE) said she joined the police force because she wanted to help people. The former police officer now on trial for murder; charged with fatally shooting a man when she mistook his apartment for her own. What she's saying on the stand?


BLACKWELL: Now to Ukraine, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers are meeting with military and political leaders today. It was supposed to be a trip to see how military funds are being spent in Ukraine, but now, the context, if not the actual focus of this trip has changed.

PAUL: Yes, Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance is with us from Kiev. So, how has the whistleblower report, Matthew, affected this trip? What's modified?

[07:29:37] MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: In terms of the trip, I think it's changed it massively because this was meant to be a bipartisan group of congressmen and women who are coming here to assess how U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which is considerable, is playing out, whether it's been placed in the right places, whether more is needed, or less is needed.

But what it's become is an assessment of the damage that's essentially that's been caused by the Trump administration's decision to suspend that military aid unilaterally in terms of Ukraine's effort.

Remember, Ukraine is fighting an actual conflict on its eastern flanked with Russian-backed rebels. It depends very heavily on U.S. military aid, and U.S. military training and assistance in other areas to prosecute that war.

And, you know, for many people in the U.S. Congress, and for many people across the United States, this is a sort of moral battle. A battle against an aggressive Russia, which is expansionist under Vladimir Putin. And Ukraine is on the front line literally of that conflict.

And so, depriving it of military aid is a sort of immoral thing to do. But anyway, the -- this congressional delegation is here to assess what damage has been done by this suspension. Back to you.

PAUL: All right, Matthew Chance. We appreciate it so much. Thank you.

BLACKWELL: All right, let's talk now with CNN commentators, Maria Cardona, Scott Jennings. Scott is also a former special assistant to President George W. Bush. Good morning to both of you.



BLACKWELL: Scott, let me talk with you first. And considering the reporting overnight, adding the call with the Ukrainian President that was stored on this special server. Now, we know that the President's conversation with President Putin and with the Saudi crown prince were under tighter than normal controls.

Is the White House abusing the protocols -- these special servers in keeping them tight to the vest, it's not for a national security concerns but because they may be politically embarrassing?

JENNINGS: Well, I think one of the reasons you'll have an investigation over this is to find out why they were doing it. I mean, remember, early on when Donald Trump took office, several of his very first calls with world leaders immediately leaked to the press. Transcripts, and notes, and conversational information leaked to the press.

Now, conversations that our Presidents of every party has with world leaders are supposed to be private. And so, when those started to leak, I think they start to take steps to try to protect that information.

However, that doesn't absolve them of transparency in this case. And so, I think the Congress will ask legitimate questions.

But if they were trying to protect this information from leakers and try to protect our national security secrets, that is legitimate purpose. But again, they'll answer questions about that in the near -- in the near future.

PAUL: OK. So, when we talk about these impeachment hearings, Maria, there's a lot of questions about how far they need to go, and there is this timeline put on it. Some Democrats are saying, we want this impeachment inquiry to be voted on and done by Thanksgiving. How realistic is that?

CARDONA: Well, I think that we should go by what Speaker Pelosi has said from the very beginning, which is that she and the Democrats will be led by where this investigation goes, by what the facts are, by what the truth is, by what this investigation uncovers. And I think that's exactly what they should be doing.

I think what was really smart about what she did and what the Democrats are doing now, is that right now, this investigation is very narrowly focused. It is very narrowly focused on the whistleblower complaint which is just nine pages. And I urge everybody who has not read it to read it. It is very clear and it really states exactly what this impeachment proceeding is all about.

The egregious abuse of power by the President of the United States, the subsequent seemingly very focused cover-up that happened by White House officials, who were directed tom as you said, Victor, move the transcript to a code word secret server so that it wouldn't be made public.

That is incredibly easy to understand for the American people. That's why I think you have some Democrats who do believe that this will go quickly but I think that instead of prejudging how quickly it will go with Speaker Pelosi and most Democrats who are focused on this investigation are doing, is that they're going to be led by the facts.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Maria, let me stick with you because some -- I guess, Democrats who are familiar with the matter, we should say this, say that supporters of the former Vice President Joe Biden are considering setting up a super PAC to protect him against some of the claims at the top of the list -- this unfounded claim that the President is promulgating.

Do you think that this is sticking with all of the discussion about the President's handling of this call with Ukraine and the content that there's some residual impact that's going to hurt the Biden campaign?

CARDONA: Yes. I don't think that it's sticking, Victor, because I think that in every appropriate and legitimate reporting that is out there, people do understand that the conspiracy theory that Trump is trying to put out there against Biden is exactly that a conspiracy theory that is no -- has no basis in facts or evidence, it has been debunked over and over again, and it is just an excuse for this President to extort a help from Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections.

But I do think that what they are -- what the Democrats who want to protect Biden are preparing for is that they understand that this President, and his supporters, and the network that supports him have no respect for the truth, have no respect for facts, have no respect for evidence, and they will try to continue to push this conspiracy theory.

And we know that everything that this President says and does needs to be answered and needs to be debunked over and over and over again. And that's exactly what I think this effort is focused on doing.


PAUL: So, Scott, we know that Rudy Giuliani, says he will not testify without a green light from President Trump and that the conversation should be protected by attorney-client privilege. Is that protection applicable here?

JENNINGS: Well, I'm as qualified to give legal advice, as Hunter Biden is qualified to give natural gas advice for a $50,000 a month. But I'll give it a shot. No, I don't think it's applicable. I mean, he is not a government official, he's unelected, he's an appointed. I'm not sure what privilege might be of executive nature.

I mean, I guess, if he was doing legal work, there's some privileges associated with that. But then, again, it doesn't sound like he's giving very much legal advice as much as he is giving diplomatic advice.


PAUL: But he went to Ukraine as the personal -- he went to Ukraine as the personal attorney of the President. He was not in government at the time, yes?

JENNINGS: Yes, yes. But, the question is, was he doing legal work enough to cover that privilege? And I don't think we know the answer to that question. Look, I think there's a lot of stuff here, by the way, with the Biden stuff.

CARDONA: I think we do.

JENNINGS: But if you're a Republican -- but if you're a Republican, and you think it's a good idea for an unelected, unappointed Rudolph Giuliani to be gallivanting around Eastern Europe, conducting some shadow foreign diplomacy, you're a fool because it's a terrible idea. And it open that all kinds of levels.


BLACKWELL: Yes, but you know who -- but you know who fits that qualification?


BLACKWELL: President Trump.

JENNINGS: Yes, yes.

BLACKWELL: If that's -- if that's the problem you have, the Republican who thinks it's a good idea to have Rudy Giuliani, gallivanting across Ukraine is President Trump.

CARDONA: That's right. So, he's a fool, clearly.

JENNINGS: Well, it's a terrible idea. Look, there are legitimate ways to have conversations with the foreign countries. We do it all the time, every President does it. But most of the time it doesn't occur with unelected, unappointed officials.


CARDONA: Not like this.

JENNINGS: And the President would have been a lot smarter to have these conversations through official channels, just the way Obama, Bush, Clinton -- everybody else has done it.

Rudy in the middle of this is the worst fact for the Republicans. And Hunter Biden, profiteering off the vice presidency is the worst fact to the Democrats.

CARDONA: I completely agree with Scott that President Trump is a fool. That is true.

BLACKWELL: All right, Maria Cardona, Scott Jennings, we wrap it there. Thank you both.

CARDONA: Thanks, Victor.

PAUL: Thank you both.


PAUL: So, there were tears and apologies and a wish that she was the one that was dead. All of that we heard during a murder trial for former police officer Amber Guyger, who will be in court again today. She's charged with fatally shooting a man after she mistook his apartment for her own.


AMBER GUYGER, FORMER POLICE OFFICER, DALLAS: I was scared. I was scared this person inside the apartment is going to hurt me, and I'm so sorry. I'm sorry.


PAUL: Joey Jackson, with us next. Stay close.



PAUL: 7:41 on this Saturday morning. Good morning to you. In this morning's legal brief, more witnesses are going to be called today in the trial of Amber Guyger. She's a former Dallas police officer who is accused of killing a man in his own apartment.

She took the stand yesterday, as she told the court that she believed she had entered her own apartment on the night that she killed Botham Jean. Let's listen to the 911 call from that night.


GUYGER (via telephone): I'm an off duty officer, I thought I was in my apartment. And I shot a guy thinking that he was -- thinking it was my apartment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (via telephone): You saw someone?

GUYGER: Yes, I thought it was my apartment. I'm (INAUDIBLE). Oh, my God. I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, and where are you at right now?

GUYGER: I'm in -- what do you mean? I'm inside the apartment with him. Hey, come on man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's your name?

GUYGER: I'm Amber Guyger. I need -- get me -- I'm in --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, we have help on the way. Hold on.

GUYGER: I know, but I'm, I'm going to lose my job.


PAUL: Criminal defense attorney and CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson with us now. Joey, I know that Guyger's attorneys are building their case around the fact that she was in her rights because she believed she was in her own apartment, she shot somebody she saw as an intruder.

But let's watch together here real quickly how she handled this yesterday in court.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You pulled your weapon (INAUDIBLE), and you fire? Why did you fire?

GUYGER: I'm (INAUDIBLE). I was scared. I was scared this person inside the apartment is going to hurt me, and I'm so sorry. I'm sorry.


PAUL: Joey, do you see a woman on the stand who is at risk of being convicted of murder?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do and I do not. Here is the issue. Now, this is a tragedy of horrific proportions. Imagine if you will -- being in your own apartment and someone comes in and you're as confused and confounded, apparently, as they are, because they believe it's their apartment, and you die. That should never happen, it did.

The issue now is whether it's criminal. Whenever you put a defendant on the stand, what happens is, and she is charged with murder, which means an intentional crime, in addition to manslaughter, which means she acted with some negligence, we call it recklessness. You consciously disregard the risk, right that. I mean, how could this happen?

And so, those are what she's facing. However, it comes down to the issue of and whenever -- you know, you testify and you have a defendant testifying, it's fraught with difficulties because the issue becomes, do you believe him? Do you not believe him?

And then, of course, they can always get tripped up on the stand. But when it comes to actually convicting her, her issue is, listen, I am completely sorry, this is an unimaginable, I wish I was dead, I wish the other person had the gun, and I hate myself every day.

And I think she did do herself a service here by showing that she didn't mean to do it. The jury has to assess credibility, Christi, evaluate credibility. But from where I sit and from how the case is going, I think the defense is certainly not that they have a case to make, that's the prosecution's burden. But I think that they're -- you know, really doing the job in terms of trying to avoid the murder and manslaughter conviction.

PAUL: Rare to put somebody. But rare to put a defendant on the stand. So, you believe that she is believable to this jury? Even though, you know she's trying to make the connection that what would you do? You know, we heard that a couple of times. What would you do if you're in the situation, you walked into a room, you saw somebody, but she's a police officer? She's trained differently than probably most of the people sitting on that jury. They might say she should have done something else.


JACKSON: Without question and that's certainly the risk. I mean, at the end of the day, though, you know, people are people, and police officer, firefighter, teacher, if you're confronted with the situation how would you act? Would you be in shock? Would your training kick in? Would it not? Would you be in a state of surprise? How many hours did you work that day?

You know, apparently she worked many, and as a result of that, that's playing into it. Horrible horrific tragedy, the way the jury evaluates it will determine whether she's convicted or not. But to this point, I think that certainly, the defense is making a case.

PAUL: All right. Joey Jackson, perspective is always important to us. Thank you, sir.

JACKSON: Thank you, Christi.

BLACKWELL: Next, Presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks to us exclusively about the crisis facing the White House, and she tells us why she is worried about the safety of the whistleblower, who first raised the alarm about the President's call with Ukraine.


BLACKWELL: 12 minutes to the top of the hour. The 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates, they are weighing in on this whistleblower complaint, Ukraine, and the impeachment inquiry.

PAUL: Well, CNN's M.J. Lee sat down with Senator Elizabeth Warren. Here's what she said.


M.J. LEE, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: You've read the whistleblowers complain? Do you worry for their safety?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, I do. And I worry about this whole investigation as it unfolds. Donald Trump and his administration have made clear, not just that Donald Trump is willing to break the law but that they're doing their best to try to cover this up and discredit anyone who's trying to get to the truth.

LEE: And as this process unfolds, do you have any reason to believe that any of your Senate Republican colleagues will vote to convict the President?

WARREN: You know, I don't know. But, I see this as a lot more important than politics. And Donald Trump has admitted and it's right there in the documentation that he has solicited a foreign country to interfere in our 2020 elections.

That isn't right, it's a violation of the law. No one is above the law in this country, and that's why it is so important that Congress bring impeachment proceedings to hold him accountable.

It isn't just about this President, it's about the next President and the one after that, and the one after that. This is our constitutional responsibility whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.


LEE: And do you think that impeachment investigation should be narrowly focused on just the Ukraine issue or everything else about the President and his conduct while in office?

WARREN: Yes, right now, I'd like to just see us do the Ukraine issue, because it is so clear, and it is such a clear violation of law. The President is asking for help against one of his political rivals and asking a foreign government for a thing of value for himself, personally. That's against the law.

And after all that happened in 2016, and the Mueller investigation, President of the United States knows that. This is not he somehow stumbled into it and didn't think about the consequences. No, he knew, he believed he could break the law and get away with it, and so did his administration.

Look, they didn't leave that transcript in the regular course of transcripts of phone calls with foreign leaders. Why? Because it wasn't a regular call, it was a call that violated the law and so their immediate instinct is let's lock it up let's make sure nobody can see it, let's cover it up, so no one's there. And that's why it is that this impeachment proceeding is so important on this issue.

LEE: Do you think it's important that all of this be wrapped up before voting begins in February?

WARREN: Oh, I hope that it is. I'd like to see us get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible, and then let people vote. You know, I know there are a lot of folks who say, all but the politics, this the politics that. I think this is a lot bigger than politics. I think everyone in Congress should be called on to vote, everyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And then, they should have to live with that vote forever.

LEE: And just very quickly, obviously, the President has gone after Joe Biden and his son. Do you think his conduct, his business dealings, Hunter Biden, should be off-limits in this campaign?

WARREN: I believe that this issue is about Donald Trump. And that's where we need to keep our focus. He is the President of the United States and he has solicited a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 election. That is a threat to democracy and it is a threat to our Constitution. That's where we need to focus.




PAUL: Oh, you got to see this video out of Colorado here. Take a look at this elk ramming a crowd of people after it was spooked by a camera flash, apparently.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh!


BLACKWELL: Look, it knocked a woman to the ground and then kept butting her, as I know, she's OK. Another man who leapt over a rock to avoid the elk, he's still in the hospital.

PAUL: And the city employee -- you're going to see this too, I think. Drove the truck in, there it is -- between the elk and the woman, and the elk is butting the truck.

BLACKWELL: Truck's OK. Truck is OK.

PAUL: Well, truck is OK, everybody's OK. That's what's important. The message is stay away from the elk. Just like them from afar. We're back in a moment.