Return to Transcripts main page


Pelosi Points To Bribery Charge Against Trump; WH Braces For Day Two Of Public Testimony; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) Discussed About The Rebranding Of Quid Pro Quo To Bribery Which According To The Constitution Is Impeachable; WH Budget Official Will Testify If Subpoenaed; Ex-Counterintel Officials: Russian Spies Likely Intercepted Sondland's Cell Phone Call With Trump; Bill Clinton To Trump: "You Got Hired To Do A Job" And Should Work With Dems Despite Impeachment Probe; At Least Two Dead, Three Injured in California School Shooting; Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Announces Run for President. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired November 14, 2019 - 19:00   ET



WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, Pelosi accuses Trump of bribery and says the President could be impeached for that. This is the White House braces for more high-stakes testimony hours away. Plus, alarming new details about Trump's call with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the same call that was overheard by a State Department aide, were Russian spies listening in too? And another school shooting, two students murdered today. Let's go out front.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight Nancy Pelosi accusing President Trump of bribery saying Trump's actions are worse and bigger than what forced Nixon from office.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): What President Trump has done on the record in terms of acting to advantage his foreign power to help him in his own election and of the obstruction of information about the cover-up makes what Nixon did look almost small. The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery, uncovered in the inquiry and that the President abused power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival.


BURNETT: Using the word bribery instead of quid pro quo is significant. I mean those words may mean the same thing to most people, but the reality of it is, is that the word bribery is in the Constitution. "The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's right there. Making it clear to the American public that bribery

is an impeachable offense. And Trump himself knows it, he has been tweeting and retweeting through the day insisting he never tried to bribe Ukraine's President, using that word as well. It comes at the same time as Trump's aides are trying to get ahead of tomorrow's public testimony from the President's former Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

She testified behind closed doors that she was targeted by Trump because she was trying to fight real corruption in Ukraine. Her testimony backed up publicly from the Democrats' first impeachment witnesses.


GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS: ... of 2018 and 2019, I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others including his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch.

BILL TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: The former Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch has been treated poorly, caught in a web of political machinations both in Kiev and in Washington.


BURNETT: Tonight, the White House responding and officials suggesting, well, the attacks on Yovanovitch aren't impeachable adding, "The ambassador serve at the pleasure of the President." Well, Yovanovitch is not the only one who will be testifying tomorrow. There's going to be another crucial testimony.

The Diplomat who is said to have overheard President Trump asking Gordon Sondland about the status of the investigations in Ukraine is also going to be meeting with investigators tomorrow.

Kaitlan Collins is out front live outside the White House. So Kaitlan, how is the President reacting today to all of this?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, yesterday the President said he hadn't watched a minute of the first public hearing. But today he said only normal people who had watched it would shut the impeachment inquiry down after seeing George Kent and Bill Taylor testify and that comes as not only the White House but Republicans are leaning on this defense of saying that there was nothing new learned yesterday, which just simply isn't true as you just noted by what Bill Taylor said, drawing the President closer to this pressure campaign than we've seen from any of these other closed- door testimonies so far.

The other thing they're relying on is saying this is only second or third-hand information. But there are questions inside the White House about just how long a defense like that can last given the fact and Gordon Sondland is going to testify next week and he's someone who has spoken with the President directly. Now, putting that aside, the President has been talking about

impeachment a lot today at the White House our sources tell us, including at a lunch with Republican senators today. And then, Erin, just before Trump left the White House tonight to go to this rally, he had a very interesting meeting that reporters notice where you could see him in the Oval Office with the Attorney General Bill Barr and the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone having what some described as an animated discussion.

You can see Bill Barr there through the Oval Office windows, something that essentially left reporters outside waiting on the President for over half an hour. But then he came out and exited the White House and instead, Erin, of talking to reporters, he went straight to Marine One and didn't say a word about what that meeting was about.

BURNETT: All right. Kaitlan, thank you very much. And out front now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin who is on both the Oversight and Judiciary Committees. So, obviously, front and center in all of the testimony.

So Congressman, Speaker Pelosi is now using the word bribery, specifically. Chairman Schiff also indicating bribery could be an impeachment charge against the President.


Is this essentially a rebranding of quid pro quo? Bribery is now the new word that will be used, because it is the word in the Constitution.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, bribery and extortion are intricately interwoven in what the President did in the Ukraine shakedown. Essentially, he took this $391 million that we had voted in military and security assistance for a besieged foreign ally resisting Russian aggression and occupation. And said I'll give you this if you comply with all of my demands and all of my conditions, that's bribery.

Or, alternatively, you can view it as a shakedown, as exercising coercive leverage to extort these conditions from the Ukrainian government. In either event, the President has betrayed his oath of office. He's betrayed our foreign policy and he's betrayed our election, because he tried to lure a foreign government into the election in order to essentially smear one of his rivals.

BURNETT: So you're going to be in the room tomorrow for the Holmes deposition. Now, according to Ambassador Taylor, Holmes overheard this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland which took place in a restaurant. And Trump according to what Taylor says Holmes will say asked for an update on the investigations in Ukraine and then after the call Sondland said to the aide that Trump cared more about the Bidens and the investigations than Ukraine.

Why are we only finding out about this call now? Does that bother you?

RASKIN: Well, no. This is how trials work and this is how evidence comes into being. Certain people testify and then other people hear things that remind them of things that they saw, and they knew, and I'm not quite sure what the situation was here.

But, look, all of the evidence points to just one story which is the President deployed Giuliani and his team of Parnas and Fruman to go over to Ukraine to clear the U.S. Ambassador out of the way and we'll hear about that tomorrow with Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony to get her out of the way in order - better to apply direct pressure onto the Ukrainian government to do the political bidding of the President. And all of that was about his personal reelection.

It had nothing to do with the strategic foreign policy objectives of America, much less the defense of democracy and human rights in Ukraine.

BURNETT: So I want to ask you about Ambassador Yovanovitch in a moment, but first on Holmes. When you say you're not quite sure what happened there, what kind of questions do you have? What do you want to know from Holmes tomorrow?

RASKIN: Well, I would like to know exactly what he heard and how he knew it was the President who was on the phone and I would like to know exactly what he heard the President say, what were the words. And this is just one more piece of evidence that fits into an entire sequence of events.

There's no rival hypothesis out there about what happened. All of the bricks are adding up to one big wall, which says the President tried to exercise coercive control over Ukraine or to bribe Ukraine in order to do his political bidding.

BURNETT: So you're talking about all of these bricks adding up to one big wall and yet multiple sources are telling us that in a private meeting this week, Speaker Pelosi and her top lieutenants were skeptical that there would be any dramatic shift in public opinion even as these public hearings are getting underway. Do you share that skepticism or not, Congressman?

RASKIN: Well, I'm by nature a very optimistic person and I think that the vast majority of Americans want their government to be involved in good public policy and to act with honesty and integrity. And I think when the story gets out, most Americans will be really shocked and very upset about what they're seeing.

On the other hand, there have been big changes not so much in the basic character and honesty of American people but in people's access to information. There are people whose only access to the news is through certain channels like Fox News that are not reporting the facts in a disinterested and objective way and that's a real danger for the Republic.

BURNETT: So tomorrow will be the second public impeachment hearing. Obviously, you referenced Ambassador Yovanovitch. She's going to testify about an alleged smear campaign against her which led to Trump getting rid of her. The thing is that Trump owns that. He says, "Absolutely, that's what I did." And the White House tonight is telling CNN, "Is that an impeachable offense? The Ambassador serve at the pleasure of the President."

Does the President need to give any reason really at all to get rid of an ambassador or is he on more solid footing on this?

RASKIN: Well, I think that just confuses the issue. They're answering the wrong question. No one is saying impeach the President because he removed an ambassador. The question is whether the removal of the ambassador was for reasons of clearing all obstacles to their political and financial schemes in Ukraine and that's what took place with Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Rudy Giuliani and his team wanted to get rid of her, so they could exercise the leverage over President Zelensky that they wanted. She was a real corruption fighter.


They were on the side of all of the corruption. They were trying to exploit the corruption and direct the corruption at Zelensky. So the President could get the favors that he wanted. She got in the way because she was forwarding the real American policy which was to oppose corruption in Ukraine and to try to nurture and strengthen democratic institutions there.

All over Europe, all over the world, there's a struggle between the tyrants and the despots. Putin's team and Orban's team, they're all on the side of corruption. And she was opposing them and they wanted to get her out of the way so the President could essentially work his will on Ukraine.

BURNETT: Well, it'll be obviously fascinating tomorrow and at least equally as much as the crucial closed-door one that you will be a part of as well. Thank you so much, Congressman Raskin. I appreciate your time tonight.

RASKIN: Thank you for having me.

BURNETT: And next, new concerns this evening about president Trump's alleged call with one of his top diplomats and this is the question, Russian spies, were they listening on that call? Plus, did the televised testimony change any minds about impeachment? So we traveled to a crucial swing state to find out the reaction from that big day. And Senator Elizabeth Warren taking on big money.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So sad, so sad that they might have to pay $0.02 out of their bazillion dollars.


BURNETT: So will it work or backfire?


BURNETT: Breaking news, a White House budget official is set to break ranks and testify in the impeachment inquiry. A lawyer for Mark Sandy, he's a career OMB official, says that Sandy will testify behind closed doors Saturday if subpoenaed which, of course, is almost certain to happen.

Sandy would be the first OMB official to testify in the probe. Three others from that agency have defied subpoenas. This comes as Russia and numerous other countries likely intercepted the Ambassador Gordon Sondland's reported phone call to President Trump from a restaurant in Ukraine.

That's the phone call where Bill Taylor testified that an aide overheard Trump discussing a potential probe of the Bidens with Sondland. And you may remember Trump says he does not remember that call.

Out front now CNN Political Correspondent, Abby Phillip, former Assistant FBI Director and Republican State Senator in Nevada, Greg Brower, Joe Lockhart who was President Clinton's Press Secretary during his impeachment investigation, and former Federal Prosecutor Laura Coates.

Laura, let me start with you with this news from the OMB. It's really significant not just that you have someone breaking ranks when three others from the OMB have declined to do so. It's that the order, according to the testimony that we have from transcripts to withhold the aid came specifically obviously from the OMB and they said it came from Mick Mulvaney and directly from the President of the United States, so Sandy could be very important.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely, and it would actually kind of undermine that statement that Mick Mulvaney said that this happens all the time, just get over it. This is somebody could actually give information as to what was the foundation for the decision, what were the reasons given to people within the office about the halting of the aid, what was out of order about this and what was the full context.

In a way of showing us for the very first time, essentially, that people are starting to catch on that the CYA mode can't last for long and that the idea of somehow being able to thumb your nose that a subpoena will be an indefinite state of affairs, particularly if it's an opportunity for you to demonstrate to Congress that you were not complicit in something.

Remember that OLC opinion, Erin, only relates to one person, the President of the United States and whether he could, in fact, be indicted.

BURNETT: So Greg, what do you make of this of an OMB official breaking ranks, defying the White House, the first to do so? Again, given that the OMB was crucial here, that's where the order came and apparently from the testimony we have and we'll find out more, but from the Chief of Staff and the President himself.

GREG BROWER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Yes, very significant, potentially. It's the old adage follow the money and OMB controls the money. And so exactly what and who at OMB did exactly what and when and at whose direction is critical to this investigation.

BURNETT: What does it mean that someone is willing to defy, break ranks here?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's someone, it's like the patriots who were the career foreign service people. This is someone who's putting his country ahead of his allegiance to a political figure and just to underscore that this really puts Mick Mulvaney in a box. Because he was very clear in his press conference that what he did was at the direction of the President.

And for all of the Republicans who were talking about we need direct linkage, we need direct linkage, this can be direct linkage, it went from the President to Mick Mulvaney to the mechanics of moving the money. That money was going to move unless someone intervened. Congress appropriated it, it was ready to go, somebody stopped it and this gentleman is likely to say it's Mick Mulvaney at the direction of the President.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think it also potentially answer some questions about why the money was actually released. This has become part of the Republican talking points that the money was eventually released, so it doesn't matter anyway. They got the money that they wanted. There's no quid pro quo if it was eventually going where it was supposed to be going.

But at the same time, some of the reporting out there is that it was released in part because the whistleblower report was sent to Congress in the intervening time. So it's going to be a major question for people at OMB, what did they know about why that money was released, was it related to the whistleblower report, was it related, perhaps, to something else, did they discover that there was actually no legal basis to withhold that money that was appropriated by Congress or was it released for some other reason.

That's a big part of the puzzle that will help Democrats undermine if they can, that part of the Republican argument.

BURNETT: And so this is obviously going to be crucial and again, Laura, we do anticipate, I mean, there's really no question about it that Sandy will be served with the subpoena and will appear.


So that is going to happen on Saturday and that is going to be crucial. This comes as we are finding out that the President is on the phone with an ambassador in a public place on a cell phone. Just to make it clear here, Laura, this is completely outside the norm, right?

COATES: I mean, of course. The idea there not being a secure channel to talk to the President of the United States who remember the reason we allow there to be an executive privilege per say is we want to have a frank and candid discussion between the President of the United States and members of his cabinet, people who he appoints that hold offices. Why?

Because they want them to have that free flow of information without anyone trying to interfere or being able to capitalize or use it for compromise, forgive the pun at this point in time, but what he or she may not say in the future. And so the idea that you would take away that privilege and also to just say, "You know what? It doesn't matter who could be listening." It's ridiculous.

And remember, it also makes the President of the United States vulnerable for a variety of reasons. Number one, if we, as Americans, and those who are in a position to need to understand about issues of National Security and how the U.S. may be vulnerable or what diplomatic decisions we've made with other foreign leaders, if we do not know that and yet maybe a Russian intercept does, it does make them vulnerable.

We see this time and time again from Helsinki to the previous calls that even with Zelensky when we have ellipses where they would have the actual transcripts, we are vulnerable to having that gap of information. It's very problematic.

BURNETT: I mean, Greg, as former Assistant FBI Director, when you hear something like this, this is an ambassador going around in a restaurant in Ukraine, having a conversation with the President of the United States where apparently the President of the United States is speaking loudly enough that you don't even need to be listening in, in some surreptitious manner to hear what he has to say. I mean, how unusual is this?

BROWER: It's unusual, it's concerning, it reflects very poor OPSEC or COMSEC or communication security procedures. There are special phones that are used by government officials for classified or very sensitive communications.

I can recall being in the car with the FBI Director on one occasion where a certain call came in, we had to divert from our route, go to a secure facility just to do that phone call.

BURNETT: Right. So it's not like a phone that you could just, "Oh, I'm going to pick this phone up in a restaurant and we're OK here."

BROWER: Not even close. And so it's troubling and let's understand that our adversaries around the world are covering as we say certain people like Ambassador Sondland, no doubt, at all times trying to pick up any little thing from his conversations and his meetings and his travel. So no doubt he was being covered at the time.

BURNETT: And Abby, I mean, President Trump says he can't recall the conversation, but obviously this is something I think Laura is alluding to.

PHILLIP: Yes. BURNETT: Then, they would be able to hold over his head.

PHILLIP: Yes. First of all, that's not a denial if he believe the conversation never happened, that would be one thing but to not recall it is another thing altogether. It also seems to indicate just for the very fact that the President was having a conversation, a direct conversation with the EU ambassador is unusual according to former ambassadors who say that there is usually a process for this.

You usually go through other people within your chain of command, not directly to the President. So it suggests that this relationship between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland was far more direct or closer than either man wants to acknowledge right now.


PHILLIP: And that's going to be a live inquiry for (inaudible) ...

BURNETT: And to your point, Joe, to your point, the President has made it very clear what he thinks about other people who don't recall things. He says he doesn't recall the call. He said if Hillary Clinton once, I don't want to play the sound bite, but he said, "Hillary and her top aides told the FBI that they can't recall or remember. By the way if she really can't remember, she can't be President."

LOCKHART: Yes. Well, there's a tweet for everything with Donald Trump. The one thing that I'd add as color here is the single most frustrating thing for President Clinton and I remember Vice President Gore at the same time was having to do these secure calls. They would say, "I'm not going to be doing anything interesting on this call."

And they didn't always work and he'd have a cell phone in his hand and he'd start dialing and someone would take it away, because some people are always listening. Trump, from the beginning, according to reports has always used the cell phone. My guess is if someone called Trump, he didn't go through the White House operator, he called his cell phone which means everyone was listening.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much. Stay with me. Next, how did the impeachment hearing play in the battleground state of Arizona, these must-win states? What were they're talking to voters? And the latest on the shooting in California, two children are dead tonight in another school shooting.



BURNETT: Just hours away from the second public hearing in the House impeachment probe, former President Bill Clinton called into CNN and had this bit of advice for President Trump.


BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, you got hired to do a job. You don't get the days back, you blow off. Every day is an opportunity to make something good happen. And, I would say, 'I've got lawyers and staff people handling this impeachment inquiry, and they should just have at it. Meanwhile, I'm going to work for the American people.' That's what I would do.


BURNETT: OK. That advice coming as voters are weighing in on the testimony that they have heard so far, Kyung Lah is out front.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... is about to begin this historic moment. This is true history unfolding ...


LAH (voice-over): The sentiment of a possible impeachment.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When there's smoke, there's fire.


LAH: Amid the breakfast rush.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would you say it doesn't pass the sniff test and I say that as an independent, middle-of-the-road guy who could vote for a Republican or a Democrat.


LAH: That middle ground, independents, make up about one-third of Arizona voters.

BOYCE O'BRIEN, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN: My entire life, I've voted Republican.

LAH (on camera): Every single time.

O'BRIEN: Every single time up until the last election.

LAH (voice-over): Until Donald Trump says Boyce O'Brien, watching to see if it's a party he will return to.

O'BRIEN: I am so disappointed in the Republican Party, it's embarrassing to me to be affiliated with them at this point. I hope that they'll finally develop a backbone and stand up for what's right.

LAH: While there are plenty who have made up their minds from the right --

KENT JEFFERS, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN: (INAUDIBLE) other people getting. I'm pretty sure I'll vote for him again.

LAH: To the left.

CROWD: Hey, hey! Donald Trump has got to go!


LAH: It is those in the middle in places like the Phoenix suburbs who represent the battleground.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They insulate him. He doesn't hear any of this.

LAH: Carly Rebuck grew up a McCain Republican.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then Meghan McCain is here.

LAH: She switched parties after Trump's election, and the lifelong political identity gone, the maverick senator who left a lasting mark.

CARLY REBUCK, FORMER REPUBLICAN, NOW DEMOCRAT: It made me feel proud to be an Arizonan. It made me proud to be a former Republican to see him do that was just -- it meant a lot.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): This is what I can't believe and you're their star witness.

REBUCK: I don't recognize the Republican Party as it is right now.

LAH: Wearing her sentiment, as she watches the impeachment hearings with friends.

CINDY HANS, REGISTERED INDEPENDENT: My card actually says no matter.

LAH (on camera): Your card says no party.

HANS: No party.

LAH: And as the day begins to wrap.

HANS: I haven't heard anything yet to make me think that this president is innocent.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): This concludes this portion of the hearing.

HANS: So if you can show me that, I might change my mind.


LAH: Independents we spoke with said that they were glad to see this public hearing, that they can watch it live and direct without any sort of filter. They said that they were looking forward to seeing it again tomorrow.

But, Erin, we should also point out I spoke with a lot of other independents who said they didn't have the interest or the time to sit there all day and watch the hearings -- Erin.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right. Kyung, thank you very much.

And, look, this is obviously important from the perspective of independents and Republicans, obviously, Democrats, you know where they are.

Greg, one woman was moved to tears in Kyung's piece saying she did not recognize the Republican Party anymore. You're a Republican and former state senator in Nevada. Do you relate with voters who are expressing frustration with the GOP? And that lady was moved to tears.

GREG BROWER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS: Oh, I do. I'm a Republican who has never agreed with everything in the Republican Party platform, but most of it, I did. And that's why I was a Republican elected official, felt comfortable as one.

But things have changed. I guess what I'm most surprised at is the number of Republicans both in Congress and just out there in the country who seem to be OK with not knowing all the facts, who seem to be OK with the president directing witnesses who clearly have information relevant to this inquiry directing them to not cooperate and testify. I respect everyone, every Republican's decision potentially upon listening to the facts to decide it's not impeachable or the Senate, it's not removable conduct.

And to not even want to get the facts, that surprises me.

BURNETT: Well, and, Abby, you heard what Kyung just said there, a lot of independents were saying, look, I have other things to do. I have a life, I'm busy, which, by the way, this is now a public hearing. And if you're not going to get it now, then you're not going to get it.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: This is a real problem for Democrats. And they're actually pretty complicated. I mean the kind of back-and-forth about all of the machinations that were going on about various officials. I mean, we spent weeks talking about this and digging into the transcripts and talking about all these different witnesses and knowing all these new names.


PHILLIP: And who was who? And how do you even defend someone's credibility if you don't even know who they are?

So, I think this is a real problem for Democrats. It's one of the reasons why you started to see them and started to think more clearly about distilling this in a way that's easier for people to understand, talking about bribery instead of quid pro quo, doing things like that to help distill this for the listener and for the watcher because that is exactly the kind of voter, I would say, the vast majority of voters in this country are not going to have time to dig in.

BURNETT: I mean, and, Laura, you know the independent voter at the end of the piece, I haven't heard anything yet to think this president is innocent I might change my mind. She's being looking for the burden of proof to be on the president.

I guess the question, Laura, do you think there are true independents on this issue at this point? Are there really people who just have a true open mind?


COATES: Well, I certainly hope that there are people with an open mind, but I suspect that given the information that is coming out, I think the people have their own partisan leanings, but here's the thing, Erin.


COATES: We've had more than one bite at the apple here. This is the part of the day we're talking about the impeachment, the articles of impeachment and the drafting. Should they actually come about and actually essentially charge the president, guess what?

There is a publicized Senate hearing, as well. And so, perhaps, the reluctance of some people and not so much that they're open minded right now, but more looking towards the actual trial and saying, at that point, I would need to be very, very focused and I would have to have all of the information. Right now, it's kind of the deliberation of the grand jury.

When it comes time for my senators to actually vote on the issue and for us to be armchair jurors, then I'll pay attention.

BURNETT: Which is, that's a really interesting point, I wonder if that's how it will play out.

I mean, Joe, this comes as Bill Clinton called on to CNN today, and we just played a clip of that and he gave some advice for Trump. You know, look, it was odd to hear him in light of the current antipathy between the Clintons and Trump, and yet that was his real advice, right?

LOCKHART: No, and that's what he would advise anyone, whether it would be a Democrat or Republican. He's not a person who holds grudges and much to the chagrin of some of the people around him. But his -- his view was he ought to be doing it the way he did it which was don't talk about it. Don't pay attention to it.

The way you can appear to be presidential is to act like the president and not act like the tweeter in chief.

BURNETT: Yes. LOCKHART: So I think it was a genuine, it's fresh and what's best for the country which in this case just happens to be I think what's best for Trump.

BURNETT: So, Abby, I mean, you know, Clinton's advice, ignore it. Do your job. Have a crack, amazing staff on the impeachment.

I mean, this is the opposite of everything Trump is doing, right? He's talking about it all the time. He is rung the defense and not letting anybody else do it. I mean, Trump's not going to take this advice.

PHILLIP: No, and they've tried this before. The White House has thought at various times if there was a Mueller investigation or other things that the president would somehow refocus on the task at hand, they planned all kinds of programming at the White House to get him to have things on his schedule --

BURNETT: That's right. Infrastructure week.

PHILLIP: Infrastructure week, ad nauseam.


PHILLIP: These were things that they actually did to try to get the president to refocus on the job at hand. He refuses to do that. And even, yesterday, during the hearings, the secretary -- Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham insisted the president didn't watch any of it and he's busy doing his job, and yet the president sent about 30 tweets in a single day and then proceeded to talk at the press conference for quite a bit of the time about the impeachment inquiry.

So, it's kind of a lost cause at this point.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much.

And next, police interviewing the relatives of the latest deadly school shooting suspect. What was the motive?

And the 11th hour, the Democratic field of presidential candidates -- guess what, everybody? It just got bigger today.


DEVAL PATRICK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Replacing that with our own better version of division is not the ultimate solution.


BURNETT: Does Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, have a chance?


[19:42:07] BURNETT: At this hour, two teenagers are dead. The suspected shooter clinging to life. This just outside of Los Angeles where this morning detectives say a 16-year-old boy pulled a gun from his backpack shooting five of his classmates and then himself.

Sara Sidner is OUTFRONT in California tonight.

And, Sara, I know you just heard from the sheriff. What did we learn?

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We learned a few things. One, he reluctantly because of security reasons said that yes, indeed, all of the victims have been released from the hospital who were left in the hospital except for one person who is still in critical condition. It turns out that one person is the suspected shooter himself.

We have also learned about the suspected shooter's Instagram, his social media and that the day before this happened, just yesterday he posted on Instagram or someone from his account posted, Saugus, have fun at school tomorrow. That was the day before the shooting.

This morning, just before 7:30 in the morning there was chaos at this high school.



SIDNER (voice-over): A terrifying day for students in Santa Clarita, California.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Saugus High School.

SIDNER: As a gunman opened fire at Saugus High School, two students, a 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, were killed, three other students are recovering from gunshot wounds.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We didn't know how to react.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At that point, I knew it was a gun.

SIDNER: The shooter, police say, a 16-year-old student, began his assault on campus before morning classes around 7:30 a.m.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Detectives have reviewed the video at the scene which clearly show the subject in the quad withdraw a handgun from his backpack, shoot and wound five people and then shoot himself in the head.

SIDNER: Police say the shooter emptied the ammunition from his weapon, the last shot he used on himself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol which had no more rounds in it, had no more bullets in it.

SIDNER: Students who did escape the scene said it was surreal and horrifying.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We heard the one shot and then four after and we just started running, and just all I heard was all these kids running and just screaming and calling their parents.

SIDNER: Some hid, others fled. Homeowners living next to the school opened their doors to dozens of students.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It must have had 20 of them run in my house. I wanted to make sure they were safe.

SIDNER: Parents frantic and emotional rushed to the school as soon as they heard frantically calling their children.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to walk to get you. Don't move, please. I just -- you just need to be in my arms right now.

SIDNER: Students say they had gone through active shooter drills, but the reality was nothing like what they had practiced for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They didn't train us to actually be scared. In an active shooting situation, we're not going to stay calm. It's not how we work. We were panicked and we will run.



SIDNER: The suspected shooter's birthday, according to law enforcement was today, and on this day, the 16-year-old suspected shooter took the life of a 16-year-old and 14-year-old. There are a lot of folks mourning in this community today -- Erin.

BURNETT: Thank you, Sara.

And, next, Elizabeth Warren, some of America's wealthiest businessmen in a war of words with her. Are they helping or hurting the 2020 candidate?


LEON COOPERMAN, BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR: We don't need another fabricator in the White House.


BURNETT: And Jeanne on how Trump's tough guy letter to the Turkish president was returned to sender.


BURNETT: Tonight, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick making his run for the White House official. The governor explaining his last-minute bid and taking a shot at the current field in an interview this afternoon with Jake.


PATRICK: We came to a point where I thought I really need to understand not just the sense whether the electorate is undecided and I think that's very much the case, but whether practically you could make it happen at this point.


And that decision we came to fairly -- fairly quickly and we're going to be very, very competitive. I'm confident of that.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, David Axelrod, former adviser to President Obama and a former advisor to Governor Patrick.

So, David, OK, great to have you with me.

So, obviously, Patrick says he's going to be very competitive in part because he feels the overall field is pretty weak. I mean, here's what he said specifically about Joe Biden today.


PATRICK: I think he is an extraordinary public servant, frankly, whose deep, deep personal empathy doesn't always come through this in this campaign. But I think that the instinct that his campaign seems to have to say, you know, to project in effect if we just -- if we just get rid, if you will, of the incumbent, we can go back to doing what we used to do, misses the moment.


BURNETT: So, David, you're part of Deval Patrick's first campaign for governor. Will he be competitive? And is he right when he comes out directly today saying Biden's campaign is, quote, missing the moment?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I -- I do -- I did work with him in 2006. He started at 3 percent when he ran for governor of Massachusetts and ended up winning a landslide for the nomination and then to get elected. But he had a year to do it.

He has a short period of time here. He doesn't have a war chest. He doesn't have an organization, and he isn't really a household name.

So he's got a lot of work to do. His theory seems to be he can go into New Hampshire where he is well-known because he was the governor of Massachusetts, do very well there, and then roll into South Carolina where 60 percent of the electorate is African American and do well there. And then he's in the game.

But there's a lot of steps between here and there.

BURNETT: So, you know, this comes as you have this sort of battle going on the more progressive edge of the field, right? Elizabeth Warren, and she has been embracing this war with the ultra wealthy. She ran out on CNBC, right?

She's embracing this tonight. It slams some billionaires, including hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman who came out and responded today. Here he is.


COOPERMAN: We don't need another fabricator in the White House. Your attacks are directed to the wrong person and the wrong issues.


BURNETT: And the former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein also tweeted in part, David, vilification of people as a member of a group may be good for her campaign, not the country. Maybe tribalism is just in her DNA, which is obviously a bit of a shot there.

But look, she loves this, David. She thinks this is great. She is selling mugs to keep billionaire tears. Is this battle a win for her or is this a risk for her?

AXELROD: Look, I think she is welcoming these comments because she is in a battle right now for dominance of the left with Bernie Sanders. And this is a high profile fight. It began over this wealth tax that she has proposed which actually polls very well, even with many Republicans.

These are not sympathetic figures, not to take anything away from them, but they're not very sympathetic figures in the general public. So, yes, I think she was trying to provoke a fight, provoke the response she got, and she feels she'll profit, certainly within the Democratic electorate or her portion of it.

BURNETT: Yes, I mean, certainly they are fighting back. And as you can see from these comments, they're not able to resist. And she is embracing him.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, David.

AXELROD: See you. Sure.

BURNETT: And next, take it back. Jeanne on the letter the Turkish president returned to the sender, the sender being Donald J. Trump.



BURNETT: Return to sender.

Here's Jeanne.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Have you ever written someone what you thought was a great letter and then they give it back to you? Me neither.

That's what happened to President Trump.

JAKE TAPEPR, CNN ANCHOR: I saw this letter, and I thought it was a joke.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So weird, we had to check with the White House to make sure it's real.

MOOS: Oh, it was real. President Trump sent it last month to the president of Turkey.

JIMMY KIMMEL, TV HOST, COMEDIAN: Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool. I'll call you later. Sincerely, Donald Trump.

MOOS: At the time, the BBC reported Turkish President Erdogan threw the letter into a trash bin. But if he did, someone fished it out, because when Erdogan visited the White House Wednesday and a reporter brought up the letter --

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, TURKISH PRESIDENT (through translator): We gave back the letter that we have received".

MOOS: Twice the Turkish president made it clear that on that very afternoon --

ERDOGAN: This letter was represented to Mr. President.

MOOS: The letter was re-presented? That's a nice way of saying it. He could have said -


MOOS: President Trump now often talks of receiving --

TRUMP: I had a very beautiful letter from President Xi.

Well, he just wrote me a beautiful letter.

He wrote me beautiful letters.

MOOS: But to have his own beautiful letter given back?

President Trump nodded and almost smiled when Turkey's president told reporters. The two leaders seemed friendly. President Trump calling himself --

TRUMP: A big fan of the president.

ERDOGAN: I would like to thank my dear friend, President Trump.

MOOS: The missive has been dubbed Trump's --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't be a tough guy --

MOOS: -- letter. It inspired this Jimmy Kimmel parody from JFK to Khrushchev during the

Cuban missile crisis.


MOOS: Even Hillary Clinton shared that joke.

Forget postage. Trump's letter was returned for insufficient diplomatic finesse.

Jeanne moos, CNN --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I write I'm sorry but my letter keeps coming back

MOOS: -- New York.


BURNETT: That was public humiliation. Thanks for joining us.

Anderson starts now.