Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Trump Declares Victory In Handling Of Syria Crisis; Interview With Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); CNN Poll: Biden Widens Significant Lead Among 2020 Dems; Trump's Lawyer: President Is Immune To Investigations, Even If He Shoots Someone On Fifth Avenue. Aired 4:30- 5p ET
Aired October 23, 2019 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Just last month, Taylor testified, a National Security Council official told him that Sondland told one of Zelensky's top aides -- quote -- "The security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
And that is the alleged quid pro quo. And it's what led Taylor to text Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
Sondland responded -- quote -- "Call me."
Taylor says, in that phone call -- quote -- "Sondland said everything was dependent on Zelensky publicly announcing investigations, including security assistance."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: And joining me now is impeachment attorney Ross Garber. He's represented four governors who have faced impeachment.
Ross, does Taylor in that testimony, at least what we have been privy to, the 15 pages of prepared remarks in his introduction, does he prove a quid pro quo?
ROSS GARBER, IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: He definitely alleges a quid pro quo, and it's an incredibly detailed statement.
I set aside time this morning to kind of reread it. It's an incredibly compelling statement. It's very detailed. And it's very convincing.
And you're right, we haven't heard all of the testimony. But he certainly alleges a quid pro quo and provides a lot of backup information for the potential existence of one, yes.
TAPPER: And does it matter? I mean, does there even need to be a quid pro quo proven in order for President Trump to be found abusing his office?
GARBER: Yes, so it all goes back to that constitutional standard of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's very vague, and it was vague on purpose.
There's no specific definition to it. I think most of us would agree it doesn't have to technically be a crime, although most impeachable offenses are so bad that they would be.
But there's no sort of strict definition for it. It's something that's really bad, that abuses somebody's office and sort of gets to the heart of governing.
TAPPER: In Bill Taylor's statement, he says, in early September -- quote -- "According to Mr. Morrison" -- that's somebody on the National Security Council -- "President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a quid pro quo. But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and the 2016 election interference."
And this, of course, is in the context of the fact that the Ukrainians are wondering where their military aid is, and it's not there.
I mean, for President Trump to say, this is not a quid pro quo, but then you have to go do X...
GARBER: Yes, it's not only a quid pro quo if you say it in the Latin. If it happens in English, it can also be a quid pro quo.
TAPPER: Even if you say, this is not a quid pro quo, but you need to do this?
GARBER: Yes, yes, yes, right, exactly.
A quid pro quo means this in exchange for that, this for that. If it is -- it's an exchange of one thing for the other. That's a quid pro quo.
And it points up the real issue, I think, which is why? What's the intention of that quid pro quo? As Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, pointed out, quid pro quo, exchanges, conditions happen all the time in government.
TAPPER: Sure, of course.
GARBER: The issue is the why. Why was this happening? And that's why I think Taylor's testimony was so devastating, is, he offers the why. And he backs up the why.
And, again, there's a lot for us to see and hear. And I think we would do well to keep an open mind to all this. But right now, there hasn't been a White House answer to counter the Bill Taylor narrative for why, which was essentially campaign assistance.
TAPPER: Yes. And that's the difference between normal quid pro quos in foreign policy, is normally it's like you do this for our country, we do this for your country, not you do this for me personally, then I will use taxpayer money to help your country.
GARBER: That would be bad.
TAPPER: All right, Ross Garber, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
President Trump says one thing. His top guy in Syria says something completely opposite. So who is telling the truth?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:38:09]
TAPPER: In today's world lead, the president's top envoy to Syria testified today that Turks going to Syria mark the -- quote -- "tragedy and failure of U.S. policy."
He said that Turkish-backed forces have committed war crimes and that more than 100 ISIS terrorists have escaped.
Meanwhile, down the street, President Trump declared victory.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People are saying, wow, what a great outcome. Congratulations.
It's too early, to me, to be congratulated, but we have done a good job. We have saved a lot of lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: The president also said he's lifting all sanctions against Turkey, his announcement coming one day after Russia and Turkey brokered a deal to push Kurdish forces out of Northern Syria, the same Kurdish forces who allied with the U.S., did a lion's share of the fighting and dying in the war against ISIS.
I want to bring in Democratic Senator Bob Menendez. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator, thanks for joining us.
I want you to take a listen to this from President Trump today:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Is it necessarily a bad thing to be pulling U.S. service members from Northern Syria?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): Well, absolutely. Look, the bottom line is that, instead of claiming that he defeated ISIS, he's giving it new life.
Instead of having our presence that allowed us to go toe to toe with Russia, that allowed us to block Iran from threatening our ally the state of Israel, that kept the Arab countries in the region in line as it relates to Assad, and, most importantly, that had an active fight against ISIS, where the SDF forces, the Kurdish forces, were doing most of the fighting for us, he has created a situation where all of that has sifted away with one decision, one of the worst national security blunders I have seen.
[16:40:13]
TAPPER: President Trump today said that a few ISIS fighters got out, but they had been largely recaptured.
But I want you to take a listen to U.S. envoy for Syria James Jeffrey speaking before the House Foreign Affairs Committee today, talking about the escaped ISIS terrorists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES JEFFREY, U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR SYRIA ENGAGEMENT: We would say that the number is now over 100. We do not know where they are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, President Trump says they have largely been recaptured. General Jeffrey says more than 100 have gotten away and they don't know where they are. Who's telling the truth here?
MENENDEZ: Well, in my mind, it's Ambassador Jeffrey, who is a career person, special envoy.
Even though the administration did not consult with him after the decision they made before they made it, he's the one who has the best knowledge.
But, to be very honest with you, I don't really know that anybody truly knows how many ISIS fighters escaped, because we don't have a presence there as we did to understand what's happening on the ground. And that's another huge loss.
TAPPER: And what does that mean in terms of the safety and security of the American people or our allies in Europe or the Middle East?
MENENDEZ: Well, this is why I say it's one of the biggest national security blunders that we have ever seen.
You have, according to the Department of Defense inspector general, in testimony to Congress, saying that there are still, despite the president's comments about defeating everything, the bottom line, 14,000, 18,000 fighters still. And then you have these 10,000 ISIS fighters that have been detained and imprisoned by the Kurds. If the Kurds have to fight for their life or have to withdraw from the region, then they're not going to be worried about detaining those 10,000 ISIS fighters.
If those fighters are released, along with the 18,000 that already exist, that's a potential fighting force of nearly 30,000 hardened terrorists. That's a clear and present danger to the United States.
TAPPER: And, Senator, Ambassador Jeffrey said today that the U.S. has seen several incidents by Turkey that the U.S. considers to be war crimes, including the suspected execution of civilians with their hands tied behind their backs and the killing of a female Kurdish political leader.
What should the United States do about this?
MENENDEZ: Well, look, this is why we believe seriously that Turkey has to be sanctioned.
Our aspirations for Turkey as a strong NATO ally, as the country, the bridge between East and West, as the country that was going to be more democratic, has gone by the rails under Erdogan.
I mean, this is a country that was letting foreign fighters into Syria, against our national interest. This is a country that's doing nothing about al Qaeda along its border with Syria. This is a country that wants to get a land grab of what is historical Kurdish homes. This is a country that violated both NATO's principles and U.S. law by purchasing a Russian missile system.
And the list goes on and on. So, the bottom line is that we have been an enabler of Turkey. It's time to give Turkey a consequence through the sanctions that we have called for. Senator Risch and I have legislation that does that. Senator Graham and Senator Van Hollen have another version of just sanctions.
At the end of the day, it's time to give them a consequence to understand that this type of action by a NATO ally is simply not acceptable.
TAPPER: All right, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, thank you so much for your time, sir. Appreciate it.
MENENDEZ: Thank you.
TAPPER: As Senator Warren gets all the buzz for her surge in the polls, Joe Biden says, I'm still here, in a big way.
The surprising news CNN poll -- next.
[16:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our "2020 LEAD," some good polling news for former Vice President Joe Biden. Our new CNN poll showing him nationally among Democrats significantly ahead of Elizabeth Warren. He has 34 percent, Warren has 19, Bernie Sanders bringing up the third place contingent at 16 percent.
Biden jumps ten points since September CNN poll. And the Vice President is getting similarly good news out of a Monmouth University poll in the early state of South Carolina. Biden is sitting at 33 percent to his closest challenger, Elizabeth Warren, with 16 percent.
Let's discuss. Jackie, let me asked you. Do you think the scandal, this Trump Ukraine scandal so focused on defeating Joe Biden through these -- and let's call them irregular means -- has helped Joe Biden?
JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it could. You know, Democrats I was talking to when I was in Ohio, who liked Joe Biden, this just hardened their resolve. And they felt like if Trump is going after someone, well, then they must be doing something right.
So it both you know, raised his profile as if he needed it, but also caused people to circle the wagons and kind of rally around him.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And it humanizes him and makes -- it seems that -- we have every reason to believe that Joe Biden is playing by the rules. We have every reason to believe that Donald Trump is not, and it makes Joe Biden a more sympathetic figure. And I think people who aren't following this stuff that closely might be more drawn to Biden.
[16:50:04]
TAPPER: And I have to say also, we've discussed this before, President Trump has lied repeatedly about it, and President Trump has done things that are -- that are arguably impeachable in trying to push you the Ukrainians to investigate it. But that said, Hunter Biden's position on the board of Burisma swampy, and would have been a bigger problem for Joe Biden if President Trump hadn't decided to get involved in it.
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And if President Trump weren't president, no doubt about it. Look, I think, you know, as Jackie was mentioning, you know, Democrats kind of circled the wagons. When some Democrats who are running for president came out and sort of, you know, inch toward criticizing Joe Biden, they were -- they were pushed back by not just people in the party, but other presidential candidates that no doubt helped him. Before that, he was the kind of getting the firing from every angle.
The other number, though, that I thought was very interesting in the CNN poll was how he's moved on health care. He had a 13 point jump on that particular question, which does tell you -- I don't know if it tells you about Joe Biden or it tells you where the electorate is on that issue.
Because in the beginning of this race, there was this view that Medicare for all was going to be the driving agenda for Democrats. But that's doesn't appear to be exactly where the country is because the poll also showed that most people would rather have incremental change than massive change.
So that may not be where everybody at the table is but that seems to be where the electorate is. And I thought that was a pretty interesting view into that issue.
TAPPER: Does this make you more bullish on Biden's chances to be nominee or do you think he still has some fatal weaknesses?
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Both. I wouldn't go on a limb.
TAPPER: That's not really an answer.
WILLIAMS: Democratic primary voter Bill Kristol.
KRISTOL: No, no, I would say, I do think the Democratic primary electorate is more moderate than the Democratic field of candidates in general. And Biden -- I mean, I don't know that he's getting -- I think there is like Medicare for all, Warren is putting out our plan to pay for it in a few weeks, Sanders is even more enthusiastic than Warren, the others -- Harris have sort of reluctantly signed on.
And I think there's a certain default to Biden of look, I just want to beat Trump, and I don't want -- you know, I want some maybe Liberal reforms and healthcare along the lines of ObamaCare, but I don't really know about this Medicare for All. And you could say the same about five different areas where Biden has been more moderate.
I think that if he fades, I do think there's an opportunity for a different moderate, though, to come up because there is a pretty big part of the Democratic Party that is not entirely on board, the whole litany of pretty far-left positions than Sanders and Warren are.
PSAKI: Yes. I mean, I was -- the Iowa -- well, national polls are interesting. I just referenced the healthcare number. I mean, the South Carolina number is what's most interesting to me or I would feel best about if I were in the Bible camp. And the Iowa polls are still looking -- I'd be a little concerned if I were his campaign because Warren is leading there. She by all accounts has the best operation. That would be -- would cause some concerns.
TAPPER: Iowa Democrats are more Liberal in general than South Carolina Democrats.
PSAKI: Sure, that certainly is true, but it's still is the first in the -- in the state -- first in the country caucus. It's going to determine momentum, and that's not where he's surging as much.
WILLIAMS: And sort of you know, debunking bills rise of centrist argument a little bit is that if you look at who people's number two choices, Elizabeth Warren actually does remarkably well. And that's relevant when you have some 25 people running for president whose people second choice. Elizabeth Warren could have an opportunity if Biden does fail.
TAPPER: I should note that not all good news for Joe Biden today. He woke up and the mayor of the city where he's put his campaign headquarters, my beloved Philadelphia, has endorsed Elizabeth Warren, Jim Kenney there. So not all good news today, but generally a good news --
KRISTOL: That's very Philadelphia, Jake.
TAPPER: Remember when President Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away -- get away with it? Yes, that's so-called joke is now being used in court by the President's lawyers. That story is next.
[16:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In politics, what was once said as a joke by then-Candidate Donald Trump on the campaign trail is now being used as part of a legal argument by his attorney in federal court. The President's lawyer is saying today the president should be immune to prosecution while in office, even telling the judge that would still apply if President Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, a reference to this comment from back in 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Trump's lawyer using this immunity argument to claim that President Trump's tax returns cannot be subpoenaed. Let's talk to the lawyer here on the panel. And Elliot, you actually almost predicted that his lawyer would say something like this.
WILLIAMS: I wanted to say I told you so, but on October 9th, I'm quoted in the Washington Post making this very point that one day they're just going to make the argument that the President is actually immune from the law and that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Both making executive privilege arguments and attorney-client privilege arguments, but also this idea that Congress can investigate the president. From the beginning, they've made -- the administration, the President made the point that the President just can't be investigated. And the natural conclusion to that is that, yes, if the President wants to murder somebody, he's going to get away with it.
It's stretching the bounds of the law and it means -- and it's not what the Framers intended that any president could always get away with any kind of misconduct. That is just not the case and they stretched it.
TAPPER: Very, very quickly. Didn't President Clinton wasn't -- didn't the Supreme Court ruled that he wasn't above the law in terms of sexual harassment claim?
WILLIAMS: Spoiler alert, if we want to call it that, no one's above the law, Jake.
TAPPER: All right, thanks so much. You can follow me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter @JAKETAPPER. You can tweet the show @THELEADCNN. Our coverage on CNN continues right now. I will see you tomorrow. Thanks for watching.
