Return to Transcripts main page
Rudy Giuliani Will Not Testify On Impeachment Inquiry Against President Donald Trump; Senator Cory Booker Getting Some Fundraising Help From New Jersey Royalty; Thirteen Have Now Died Due To Vaping. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired September 29, 2019 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Top of the hour, you are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I am Ana Cabrera in New York.
And this weekend, the last relatively calm days before the impeachment inquiry storm thunders onto the American landscape and possibly into America's history books. Today, we learn that the person who set this monumental machine in motion, the whistleblower, is a big step closer to going under oath.
The man or woman who filed that high-level complaint accusing President Trump of strong-arming a foreign government, Ukraine, into digging up political dirt on Joe Biden and his son, that person has reached a tentative agreement to testify according to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff.
Now, the exact date, we don't know yet. The name of the whistleblower and where he or she works, we don't know that either. But his or her attorney tweeted a short time ago that discussions about the pending testimony continue and protecting the whistleblower's identity is their top priority. Congressman Adam Schiff says the testimony will happen very soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): All that needs to be done at this point is to make sure that the attorneys that represent the whistleblower get the clearances that they need to be able to accompany the whistleblower to testimony and that we figure out the logistics to make sure that we protect the identity of the whistleblower. That's our paramount concern here.
This whistleblower has done, obviously, a cardinal service to the country by exposing wrongdoing of the most serious kind, a breach of the President's duty to the country that endangers our security. And he's got to be worried about his own security right now with the President issuing threats like he did the other day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: The security concern Schiff is talking about comes from President Trump's comments on Thursday when he called the whistleblower's source close to a spy and referred to how spies were dealt with in the past.
Now, also preparing to testify about what he knows, Kurt Volker. He's a top State Department envoy to Ukraine. At least he was until he quit the day after that bombshell whistleblower report went public for all to read. Three committees are going to question Volker. They haven't said yet if those depositions will be open or closed.
Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal attorney, his name pops up in the whistleblower report 31 times. Giuliani said today that anything the Intelligence Committee wants from him is a no. Or is it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think Adam Schiff should be removed. If they remove Adam Schiff, if they put a neutral person in who hasn't prejudged the case, if they put someone in, a Democrat who hasn't expressed an opinion --
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: You're not going to cooperate?
GIULIANI: I didn't say that. I said I will consider it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you wouldn't do it.
GIULIANI: I said --
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you will not cooperate with Adam Schiff.
GIULIANI: I said I will consider it. I have to be guided by my client, frankly. I'm a lawyer. It's his privilege, not mine. If he decides that he wants me to testify, of course, I'll testify. Even though I think Adam Schiff is an illegitimate chairman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: And what about the American people? What's the public appetite for this impeachment probe?
A CBS/YouGov poll released just today shows a majority of people in the country support not necessarily impeachment but at least an impeachment inquiry. And here's the question, is an impeachment inquiry into President Trump's conduct necessary? Fifty-five percent of respondents said this weekend that they believe it is.
Now, some breaking news, a brand-new tweet from the President which reads, in part, quote, in addition, I want to meet not only my accuser who presented second and thirdhand information but also the person who illegally gave this information which was largely incorrect to the whistleblower. Was this person spying on the U.S. president? Big consequences.
I want to bring in Mike Rogers. He is the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the powerful position Congressman Adam Schiff now holds.
What's your reaction to that tweet? Does the President deserve to meet this whistleblower and whoever provided information to this person?
MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Well, look, you know, in an impeachment inquiry, if information from the whistleblower leads to that, there probably -- you know, in this country, you do have the right to meet your accuser in court. I am a little surprised by the President's aggressiveness on this. I think it's absolutely counter to what I think he is accomplishing, and I think it's unfortunate.
We -- you know, you -- as a chairman of the Intelligence Committee who handled whistleblower complaints, you know, we kept it, A, very quiet -- as they should be. And you need to investigate the accusations of the whistleblower. Some may be accurate, some may not be accurate. There may been some lost in translation, you know, as the -- even the I.G. said these are -- some are secondhand bits of information.
All of that would be fair and, I think, consequential. The President getting out in front of this, I -- honestly, I just don't -- I don't understand it.
CABRERA: I mean, could this be, you know, witness tampering?
ROGERS: Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I think this is somebody who is flailing a little bit, it feels like to me. And again, when he does it, it emboldens the people who already have figured out that he is guilty, right? They just -- they thought he was guilty when he got sworn in.
It makes the people in the middle kind of question, you know, why are you doing it? And the people who are going to defend him, you know, on the other end of the spectrum, they're going to continue to defend him.
But, you know, that big mass in the middle are the folks that are going to make the determination on what happens here going forward, I think. And now, you just put more doubt into those folks' heads. I -- again, I just don't think it's very productive.
I don't ever think you should go directly after a whistleblower. That will be determined through the course of the investigation that should happen, by the way, in a classified setting. We really shouldn't be talking about it. As a matter of fact, I thought it was terrible, if they're really considered about the whistleblower's identity --
ROGERS: -- to release the -- release the complaint. I thought what -- you know, it gives a lot of clues in there. And if you're looking at it pretty closely and you have access to the White House and the intelligence community, you can probably figure out who this is. I didn't -- CABRERA: Well, at this --
ROGERS: I just thought that was a little crazy, honestly.
CABRERA: At this point then, how do you protect their identity if they're -- especially if this person is going to go in to testify or meet with the committee members, you know, just to get them in the building, considering this is someone the President of the United States is saying he wants to know who it is and implying they should be punished?
ROGERS: So, you know, they might want to look at an alternative location. We have -- when I was the Chairman of the Committee, we did bring some very high-profile people in. We were able to get them in and out the committee unnoticed to the public in the Capitol building, so there are ways to do that.
But given the -- certainly the focus on who, what, when, where, I would argue they might want to look at an alternative location. And I would limit the staff severely, as who has exposure to this, in the -- in the testimony. I think that would be an important thing for this whistleblower.
Remember, if you do it in another classified setting, people who have clearances and who are there -- and believe me, there can be as much gossip in the intelligence committee as anywhere else in the world, they just do it in a classified setting -- you don't want that kind of thing happening in this wild speculation of who it may be.
So you need to take extra precautions, I think, if you want to continue to protect the whistleblower's identity. And I think you should. It doesn't mean they are right, by the way. It just means that they have that right, and the Congress and the I.G. has the responsibility to protect their identity.
CABRERA: Would you be concerned about allies of the President inside that committee, like Devin Nunez, leaking to the White House?
ROGERS: Well, I mean, I wouldn't speculate any individual that would do that. They would -- if they did that, that's violation of the law, anybody. But, you know, it is Congress after all and it wouldn't even -- you know, it could be the other team, too. There's just no corner on people not keeping their mouth shut.
Information tends to be the coin of the realm on Capitol Hill, and people cash those coins in sometimes. That defies logic to me, but they cash it on to be important. And when they do that, you know, bad things can happen.
You expose this person to that environment, I mean, it is -- it's a rough and tumble place, as I said earlier. It's like the -- you know, you're walking between the lion and a fresh red cut meat when you walk into that committee on both sides, and it's just a dangerous place to be. So they need to take extra precautions to protect the whistleblower in that context.
And by the way, it doesn't mean that they should -- you know, that they're not going to get tough questions to the whistleblower either.
ROGERS: That should happen. You're just -- you're making a serious accusation. You need to make sure that that information is accurate.
CABRERA: Yes. And I'd like to get your reaction to another tweet from the President just now, which reads, referring to Congressman Adam Schiff, quote, his lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things and said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for fraud and treason.
Adam Schiff has your old job, Chairman of the Intel Committee. What's your reaction to that?
ROGERS: Yes. I mean, again, it's hard to explain why the President takes this route. He would be better off to be tweeting about the economy, other things that need to happen, and all of the tensions in the Middle East, the fact that he has now got to use a hobbled national security team to do some really important work.
If he focused on those things, about the issues of governance, I think he would be a lot better off. The more he does this -- and it seems to me it's just intemperate. The more he does it, the more questions are going to be raised. And if there is nothing there, then don't worry about it, Mr. President. Move on and convince the people in America that you're doing your job, not that you're tweeting and personally attacking people.
Listen, I agree with one thing. I think the committee has lost its credibility and lost it early when most people were coming out saying, I saw classified information and I saw issues of collusion and -- but I can't talk about it. All of that, to me, took away the credibility of the committee investigating this. That, I think, no doubt.
They're going to have to perform in a much higher standard way here if they're going to gain the credibility of both sides of the aisle and come out with a product that both sides of the aisle can say, that's a fair and decent assessment of the facts.
So that's different than, I think, what the President is doing, is attacking Adam Schiff personally. Again, I just don't think the President of the United States needs to go there, shouldn't go there. It's not good for good decorum. And I don't think it helps his cause.
CABRERA: Mike Rogers, congressman, former Chairman of the House Intel Committee. I really appreciate you taking the time. We'll be talking to you again later about "DECLASSIFIED," the upcoming season which premieres tonight. Thank you.
ROGERS: Thank you. CABRERA: Now, if many House Democrats have their way, Donald Trump
will become only the third U.S. president to be impeached. David Gergen who worked in both the Clinton and Nixon White Houses joins us next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
CABRERA: Breaking news, the President tweeting just moments ago about the whistleblower. He writes, like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called whistleblower, represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way.
David Gergen is a CNN senior political analyst. He was an adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.
David, what's your reaction?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, Ana, I think the -- there is one point the Republicans are right on. It was a mistake by Congressman Schiff to take the -- to take that phone call and to elaborate on it and to create a narrative that could -- then be mocked and pointed fun at. I just think it didn't work and it was a mistake.
Having said that, it's nuts for the President to be talking about treason in this environment. He said the other day he -- you know, basically suggested in a breakfast that whoever this was spying and ought to be -- you know, the implication was we ought to execute that person.
There is a very good chance that the name of this whistleblower is going to get out, one way or the other, in the next two or three weeks. If somebody goes after him, the blood is going to be on the hands of the President to -- you know, those words simply give license to crazy people to go after someone they think is an enemy of the people.
CABRERA: You reference this other tweet that the President had that talks about Adam Schiff, and I'm just going to quote again here.
CABRERA: His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things and said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for fraud and treason.
I mean, we've heard him say now, referring to whoever gave the spy information -- or the whistleblower information --
CABRERA: -- that they were like a spy and you know what we used to do with them in the old days. Now, he is --
CABRERA: He is talking about treason and fraud with the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I mean --
GERGEN: It's unheard of. It is absolutely unheard of.
GERGEN: It is bizarre, and it goes way beyond the norms. And it's dangerous for the President, I mean, in terms of trying to win people to his side and maintain public support, which is slipping away from him. To do that, to go -- you know, to raise those kinds of questions, to take hyperbole to that level in such a threatening way, is just so nuts. I think he ought to be listening to Mike Rogers who had -- I think, had it pegged well.
CABRERA: We just got some other information just in.
CABRERA: This is from a Democratic caucus call, some notes that Speaker Pelosi apparently said during this call, saying, quote, the idea that this has anything to do with whether you like him or not, forget that. That's about the election, this is about the constitution. I think impeaching the President is very divisive unless we have to.
And the aide goes on to say that she said, I said we would wait until we have the facts, and we have the facts. And I said when we have the facts, we will be ready and we are. I will only close by saying the polls have changed drastically about this.
Let's just look at the latest poll here, David. We know this was a CBS News poll conducted by YouGov that just came out this weekend.
CABRERA: And now, 55 percent of Americans approve of congressional Democrats starting an impeachment inquiry, 45 percent disapproved.
And on the question about whether, at this time, the President should be impeached, we're also seeing the numbers tick up, the question being, does Donald Trump deserve to be impeached over his actions? Forty-two percent say he does, 36 percent say he does not, and 22 percent say it's too soon.
What do you make of that? Do you think the tables or the tide is turning?
GERGEN: It's turning some. And the question about what the polls -- the direction the polls suggest, let's get a step back. The CBS poll is about 2,000 people and their interviews. They're -- it's not done over, you know, computers or something like that. It's not an Internet kind of question, so it has a lot of credibility. You interview that many people, it has a lot of credibility as a poll.
And what we know is that about two weeks ago, the poll is saying people -- how many people support some sort of impeach proceedings. This was before the phone call was revealed. The polls were about -- around in the mid-30s, somewhere. A majority of people did not want to see an impeachment proceeding.
Last week after this broke, the percentage of people who thought it would be wise to go forward and we should go forward with impeachment proceedings was in the mid-40s. And now, today, it's in the mid-50s.
GERGEN: So there has been a swing. Now, it is mostly among Democrats, but notice that in this new poll, among independents, which are your key -- as Mike Rogers said earlier in your show, the independents are key, that's up in the mid-40s now supporting impeachment.
And very importantly, very noticeably -- we've talked on CNN in the past about cracks in the Republican ranks -- over 20, I think it's 23 percent, in this new poll are self-identified Republicans who believe we should go forward with these proceedings. So there has been a shift.
Now, it may shift back. The whistleblower may be a dud. There may be all sorts of things that happen, but as of the moment -- as of the moment -- the opinion is shifting.
Now, the Republicans are picking up a lot of money. They raised about $15 million, they say, to use against the Democrats in future races, and they're going to go after a lot of people who had the bravery to step forward, especially the military veterans and the intelligence people, who voted in the House to go forward with impeachment.
I want to say one other thing, Ana, if I might and that is about the security of the whistleblower.
GERGEN: You know, in effect, this person ought to be entering a witness protection space in which we have maximum protection to the person. I would think, in that situation, best. One of the things that ought to be, Ana, is that the person should be allowed to testify behind the curtain. And there -- I think it will be best if there not be ways that members of the committee can identify that person and go run into the press with it.
CABRERA: That's an interesting idea and a good way, perhaps, to conceal their identity without --
CABRERA: -- any chance of it getting out publicly. David Gergen, always good to have your wisdom on this show, your perspective.
GERGEN: Thank you, Ana.
CABRERA: Thank you. Wow, what a night, right? A live look now at the calm before the storm. We're back in just a moment.
CABRERA: We're back with the breaking news, the President tweeting tonight about the whistleblower. Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, he writes, especially when this accuser, the so- called whistleblower, represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way.
And with us now is former Associate White House Counsel under President Trump, James Schultz, and former White House Counsel under President Clinton, Jack Quinn.
Jim, does he deserve to meet his accuser, a.k.a. the whistleblower?
JAMES SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I think he has a very good argument that he has not been -- he is not getting treated here with due process in any way, shape, or form, and not getting due process in any way, shape, or form in the way this is being handled.
Whether he has the right to -- there's nothing provided in law that he should have the right to see his -- to meet with his -- meet his accuser, but the fact of the matter is he does have the right as it relates to due process.
CABRERA: Jack, how do you see it?
JACK QUINN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: He has the right, but, you know, it amounts to nothing. I mean, look, one of the things that a lot of people are concerned about is the safety and security of the whistleblower.
And I must say, you know, this comment by the President strikes me as much as sort of a veiled threat that they're going to out him and expose him to potentially, you know, threatening communications from others.
The President is going to have plenty of time to respond to the accusations against him. He's going to have, you know, all the time in the world that he wants to respond to this.
SCHULTZ: Hey, look --
CABRERA: And then there is this tweet about Adam Schiff --
SCHULTZ: Sorry, go ahead.
CABRERA: -- and he wants him questioned at the highest level for fraud and treason, Jim. I mean, seriously? What exactly is the fraud and treason the President is referring to?
SCHULTZ: Look, Adam Schiff has no credibility whatsoever as it relates to the American public from his -- from the last time we dealt with this with Russia-gate when he said we have proof of collusion. Well, there is no collusion.
And now, this time he gets out, he makes stuff up when -- in his comments. It's just time and time again, Adam Schiff comes out, the sky is falling, there's -- you know, there's breathlessness. And quite frankly, he made facts --
CABRERA: I mean, I hear what you're saying, you can judge his --
SCHULTZ: So --
CABRERA: You can judge his credibility, but to say --
SCHULTZ: And the fact -- the fact that the President is willing to come out --
CABRERA: -- he should be investigated for treason?
QUINN: Well --
SCHULTZ: Well, look, Adam Schiff makes no bones about it.
QUINN: What does it have to do with treason?
SCHULTZ: This is personal for him in -- this is personal for him as it relates to the President. He didn't agree that the President should have been elected --
QUINN: What does that have to do with treason?
SCHULTZ: -- and now he's trying to find a way out of -- out of it by and through impeachment. He's been trying it since day one.
QUINN: Jim --
SCHULTZ: He's been making up facts since day one.
QUINN: Jim, you know better. You know better. You know what treason is. You know that the President is just, you know, full of something here. I mean, this is nonsense and you know it.
SCHULTZ: Well, I'm going to say --
QUINN: What's treasonous about what Schiff or anyone else is doing?
SCHULTZ: Should the President be talking about treason in the way President says things? I criticize the way President Trump says things all the time and the way he characterizes things. But also, that doesn't give Adam Schiff a pass to go and make up things about the President of the United States that he knows isn't true and just continue down this path.
And look, I think Congress, especially Democrats in Congress, are going to suffer as a result of this because they just don't credibility.
QUINN: You see, every time the President gets his hands caught in the cookie jar, he wants to talk about somebody else. Every time he gets caught doing something that's questionable --
QUINN: -- he wants to talk about something else.
SCHULTZ: Yes, but they're giving him a lot to talk about, Jack.
QUINN: He wants to talk about his accuser.
SCHULTZ: They're giving him a lot to talk about.
QUINN: He wants to name call. It is -- yes, there's plenty to talk about.
SCHULTZ: Look, this is -- this is all they do.
QUINN: There's plenty to talk about like --
SCHULTZ: I mean, do we have to talk about name-calling and what --
SCHULTZ: -- and what -- and what a member of the House of Representatives that we need to impeach that MF-er is what she said in public. Are you kidding me?
CABRERA: I mean, you talked about Rashida Tlaib there but -- but that's --
QUINN: We need to talk about --
CABRERA: -- that's a different topic.
QUINN: Look, the President could --
CABRERA: Yes, I thought -- I mean, let's stick to the -- stick to what we're talking about here.
QUINN: May I make another point on this?
SCHULTZ: Let's talk about -- talk about telling him what people are saying.
QUINN: May I make one more -- may I make another point on this? What this is about, my friend, is that the President of the United States is supposed to protect and defend the constitution. He's not supposed to represent a security threat to the United States, which is what this is all about.
SCHULTZ: I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I mean, look, we had -- we had Hakeem Jeffries on this morning -- you saw him on the talk shows today talking about the three things. One, the cover-up, which there was no cover-up.
Jack, you and I both know that that happened all the time in prior administrations as to where they -- where they place information, on what servers they place them on. Because there is --
CABRERA: Hold on. Hold on though because this is not how prior administration handled the same kind of phone call that --.
QUINN: No, no.
CABRERA: The prior administration did not handle this. I got to get in a quick break.
QUINN: We did not place calls routinely with foreign leader on the information database. We did not do that routinely. That's absolutely not correct. And we certainly did not use that database. Wait, let me finish, we did not use that database to protect the president from things that are embarrassing to him instead of that represent potentially a compromising situation for national security.
He used that database or whoever did this. And it remains to be seen, who made that call to put it on the special information database in the national security council. We still don't know who ordered that. And I am telling you, I simply don't believe that it was NSC lawyers who issued that directive. Lawyers you know as well as I do --
CABRERA: Quickly if you will and we'll get a quick break and you guys will come back.
CABRERA: Yes, let's do a quick break. I appreciate that, Jim. Sorry, there is as little delay. We are struggling with that in a moment. But we will have you both back on the other side. We will be right back.
[19:35:47] CABRERA: The President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani at the center of the impeachment inquiry after being named 31 times in that whistleblower complaint. Today, he flip-flipped when asked repeatedly if he would testify before Congress if subpoenaed?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I would not cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think Adam Schiff should be removed. If they remove Adam Schiff, if they put a neutral person to let them prejudge the case. If they put someone in, a Democrat who hasn't expressed am opinion yet, if I had a judge in this case and he already announced I'm going to impeached, if he already went ahead did a whole false episode, would I move to refute that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that is your answer. You are not going to cooperate.
GIULIANI: I didn't say that. I said I will consider it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you would not do it.
GIULIANI: I said I would consider it. I have to be guided by my client, frankly. I am a lawyer. It is his privilege, not mine. If he decides that he wants me to testify, of course, I will testify.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Our legal minds are back with us. Former associate White House council under President Trump Jim Schultz and our White House council under president Clinton, Jack Quinn.
So Jack, is attorney-client privilege enough to keep Giuliani from testifying or if he has been acting as unofficial or even official adversary for the state department?
QUINN: I don't think so. But preliminary let me make the suggestion that this time we try not to talk over each other.
I don't think Rudy will have the opportunity to client attorney privilege. Number one, he has a number of occasions said confessed that he actually not acting as a lawyer. He is rather, you know, somebody who plays a lawyer on TV. Additionally I think that in any number of respect, Rudy has waved whatever attorney-client privilege any other privilege he may have had by all the talking he does do on TV and outside the context of a relationship with a client.
So I don't think that he is going to have privileges. I think that really, you know, from the moment that administration decided to release the transcript and release all these other materials, the ability to claim privileges including by the way, executive privilege have gone by the wayside.
CABRERA: Jim, where do you stand on Giuliani?
SCHULTZ: So, you know, I have been critical in Rudy Giuliani in the way he has conducted himself and some of the things he said of public domain and some of it I agree with Jack. But the fact the matter is, he is having communications with his client and that he is acting as a lawyer at the time he is communicating with his client regardless of what he said another topics before, does not mean he waves every conversation he has ever had with the President on any particular topic. Jack knows that.
But also, as it relates to executive privilege that is going to be something that is going to be litigated. Attorney-client privilege is going to be litigated. This whole issue as to whether he was working as a state department adversary or not, I am sure that they are going to try to pull him in to talk about what the heck he was doing over in Ukraine. And you know, to the extent that he was out there depending on what capacity he was in and what he was doing there. He is probably going to have to testify about those issues.
But the bottom line is if he wants to fight it tooth and nail, he can. And he made a good point, right? And it is not a legal point, but it is a political point. But look, he is not going to go talk in that committee as long as Adam Schiff is chairing it because Adam Schiff had prejudged the case. Well, that is the fact. Adam Schiff has prejudged the case and he comes out every time like I said before, you know, blowing you out of smoke with no substance behind it and in times making up facts.
CABRERA: OK, let's talk about smoke with no substance behind this. Because I want you to listen to something. Former Trump homeland security advisor Tom Bossert said this morning about Trump talking about the unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine has a DNC server. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM BOSSERT, FORMER TRUMP HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR: It is not a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked. You know, I don't want to be (INAUDIBLE) about this matter but last year retired former senator judge gray wrote the three ways or five ways to impeach one self and the third way us to hire Rudy Giuliani. And at this point I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and repeating that debunk theory to the President. It sticks in his mind when you hear it over and over. For clarity here, George. Let me just again repeat that it has no validity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[19:40:13] CABRERA: Jim, is all of this turmoil for president trump because he believes the conspiracy theory?
QUINN: The former top Ukrainian -- he was quoted in the "Los Angeles Times" of saying that he saw no crime on the part of the Biden's and he told Rudy Giuliani that a long time ago. You know who know what is they believe. But by the way --
SCHULTZ: Jack, wait, wait. We are not talking over each other.
QUINN: Yes, you had a lot of time. So on this issue of privileges, you know, don't be surprised the Rudy may assert them and they want to litigate this, you know, up to the Supreme Court and all around town. There is going to be negative inferences drawn including potentially in the process of voting impeachment if this comes down to that. I am not saying it will be coming down to that. I am not saying as yet that the Democrats have actually determined to do that. But negative inferences will be drawn from everybody engaging. And, you know, there is conspiracy of silence and what amounts to a cover up. CABRERA: Jim, go ahead.
SCHULTZ: What is the matter if Schiff has made up his mind anyway about the negative inferences. But, going back to the comments relating to Adam Schiff and this --
CABRERA: I do want to get your response though, yet to Bossert. Jim, go ahead.
SCHULTZ: Let's go back to Bossert. So, you know, look, Tom Bossert is credible guy. I worked with Tom Bossert at the White House. I think he is a very credible guy. I don't know the facts it relates to this issue. So don't know who is credible and who is not. But I know Tom Bossert is a stand up guy. Knows his business, knows that area. And I respect his opinion. And you know we had seen instances where Rudy Giuliani just have not gotten it right.
But moving onto some of the other issues that --
CABRERA: Quickly, because I am up against the clock.
SCHULTZ: If we want to talk about what the Ukrainians have said, I mean, Ukrainian president himself said he didn't feel pressure by the president of the United States. And secondly, the Ukrainian at the time, at that phone call, had no idea there that there was even a thought of withholding any of those fronts. So the fact that someone is saying that the president was pressuring the president of Ukraine is just ludicrous and the whole idea that he was doing -- OK, go ahead.
CABRERA: The last word. Jim Schultz, Jack Quinn, I know. Thank you guys. I appreciate the passion in the discussion and we'll have you back soon.
QUINN: Thank you, Ana.
[19:46:49] CABRERA: He was trained by al-Qaeda to bomb the New York subway and the he switched sides. Tonight, season premier of the CNN original series "declassified" takes you inside the case of a convicted terrorist turned informant who once tracked by agents in New York as he tried to carry out his plot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now it is the day before 9/11. So we start to game plan, how is this guy going to make it to New York? And so what they did was they set up individuals at all entry points at New York City.
The great thing about working with the joint terrorism task force is that you have NYPD. You have the port authority. So we are talking with the port authority cops is what they got to do entering into these spots. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We cannot let this guy get into Manhattan with a
bomb in his car. So We need to do a vehicle stop and we need to try to do it in such a manner to overly raise suspicion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE). And we got these surveillance teams calling it out where is he. We start at the outer bridge crossing. He does not take that. And then he goes up to (INAUDIBLE) and he doesn't get off. And then he goes to the Holland tunnel and he does not get off. And then he goes to the Lincoln tunnel and he does not get off. Well, the only place he can go to now if he is coming to New York is George Washington bridge.
CABRERA: Mike Rogers is former House intelligence chairman is with us again. He is the host off "Declassified."
Congressman, this episode looks at the case of Najibullah Zazi who in 2009 plotted the blow up the subway on the anniversary of 9/11. He was not a known terrorist at the time. So how can authorities become aware of this plot?
ROGERS: Well, what's great about this Ana is that you are going to get to see the role that the NSA play. And we are going to have a director at the time telling that story which is pretty rare and unusual. So we are pretty excited about that aspect.
And think about it, this person went to Pakistan. He trained in al- Qaeda training camp, learned explosives, learn how to build explosives in the United States and then deliver those explosives for a suicide terror mission. And at this case, they are going to blow up subway trains in New York city. And so the interesting thing about this is that how short a time that whole joint task force had to react that had really a matter of days before that first fluke came in, they went operational. They have a terror cell went operational to do the bombing in New York.
CABRERA: And Zazi it ended up calling office plan at the last minute. But how close did we get to an attack being carried out in the New York subway? And what was the fact that stop it?
ROGERS: Yes. Well, it was the joint terrorism task force and that whole team that decided to interject this, Zazi, at a certain point, meaning they became known and they let themselves know that something was up just to try to stop the plot. And then and when you just think the story over, there is a whole another chapter including one of his accomplices moving forward with a plot after he was also confronted by law enforcement. So it is a great case of how something like this can happen and how our law enforcement community, FBI, our local law enforcement, our port authority and New York police department, all of them came together, the national security agency to stop an ongoing and operational terror plot.
[19:50:14] CABRERA: Well, we look forward to tonight's episode and the season ahead.
Mike Rogers, thank you so much. Really appreciate you sticking around as well.
ROGERS: Thanks, Ana.
CABRERA: Thank you.
Find out the true stories of the agencies protecting us.
The CNN Original series "declassified" returns tonight at 9:00 right here on CNN.
We will be right back.
[19:54:12] CABRERA: Senator Cory Booker getting some fundraising help from New Jersey royalty. I'm talking about rock star John bon Jovi who is urging his fans to donate to Booker's campaign. Bon Jovi has also hosted a fundraiser to benefit Booker's campaign. Booker announcing this weekend that he has reached the minimum donor threshold to qualify for the November Democratic debate.
Speaking of royalty, Britain's prince Harry and Meghan Markle are paying tribute to his mother's legacy in the fight against AIDS as they continue their Africa trip. In Angola, prince Harry spent time with HIV positive teenagers and expected mother who are learning more about the disease. The late princess Diana shuttered stigma in the 1980s when she publicly shook the hand of an AIDS patient. And that was a moment that helped shift the conversation around the disease.
Back here at home the Centers for Disease Control are now reporting a 13th person has died from a vaping-related illness in the U.S. And more than 800 patients across the country have been hospitalized after lung illnesses associated with using e-cigarettes. Health officials have yet to pinpoint what is causing he illnesses. But many of these patients reported using e-cigarettes containing products derived from marijuana like THC and CBD oil.
And tonight CNN'S chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta takes an eye opening look at the risks for people who vape CBD.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Why did you do it?
JAY JENKINS, TRIED CBD VAPING: I didn't think there was any risk in trying it. I had never heard about anybody having any negative effects from it. So I thought that I had nothing to lose. I took two puffs off of it. Next thing I know I'm feeling crazy and I'm not thinking straight, not being able to move.
GUPTA: Within seconds Jay appeared to have lost consciousness and started to have frightening hallucinations. His friend drove him to Lexington medical center where he started having seizures.
JENKINS: On the Glasgow coma scale they said I scored a three.
GUPTA: So 15 is basically normal and three is brain dead essentially?
GUPTA: Yes, sir.
CABRERA: That does it for me. I'm Ana Cabrera.
Stay right there because Sanjay is searching for the truth about CBD in a CNN Special Report, "Weed 5, the CBD craze." It all gets started right here on CNN.