Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Federal Judge Ruled That Don McGahn Should Testify; A Temporary Sigh Of Relief For President Trump; U.S. Navy Secretary Forced Out From His Post; President Trump Doubles Down On Support For Eddie Gallagher; Giuliani Associate Willing To Tell Congress Nunes Met With Ex-Ukrainian Official To Get Dirt On Biden; Rick Perry Says Trump Sent By God As the Chosen One. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[22:00:00]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: So, we'll see where it leads to. And we'll see where it spawns in terms of more conspiracy theories about Ukraine meddling because that seems to be the defense de jour. That's French.

Now, remember, Giuliani has denied wrongdoing, but the federal prosecutors are all over it.

Thank you for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with the upgrade, Laura Coates, starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Is that French, too? Upgrade? I can't --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: That's a fact, it's what that is.

COATES: Well, I'll take it. I don't speak French, but I like the way that sounds. Thank you for having me on your, you know, network today. It's a bad --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I like it. Cuomo news network. Very nice. Always a pleasure. One of the best minds in the business.

COATES: Thank you.

CUOMO: Good preview to the audience.

COATES: You know -- that's nice of you. I got to tell you; this is going to be a big story with Giuliani. I mean, talk about bolo, things to look out for, I mean it's not going to end here. You cannot imagine people who are connected to him are just going to be quiet and silent and not try to implicate other people, right?

CUOMO: I agree with you. Let me ask a question to the better mind. In this subpoena, this federal grand jury subpoena, when they start outlining a lot of things they're investigating, they seemed like it wouldn't be about Rudy directly. It would be about his knowledge or any paper they can get from him about these other guys. Does it read like that to you also?

COATES: Yes. I mean, you got to cast the widest net. Right? You don't know what you're looking for. It's an investigative state at this point in time. You can't just say I want these two particular things. You want to have a wide enough net to be able to say, I have a full, I have a comprehensive investigation. It may lead to nothing. It may lead to everything. We got to stay tuned.

But you know, in a place like Washington, D.C., we've seen recently if you cast too narrow and small a net, people criticize you for that as well, right?

CUOMO: We have seen that. And, look, we'll see how it plays out. We know of at least two investigations that are somehow involving Rudy Giuliani, but I'll tell you what. The president made an obvious play tonight. He's got to be going to Rudy Giuliani. The guy knows too much. He's got too much power, and he's a fighter, and we know he will fight if he gets thrown under the bus.

COATES: Well, in his words, he's got insurance, right, Chris? Well, have a good one.

CUOMO: You, too.

COATES: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Laura Coates sitting in for Don Lemon.

A big legal defeat for the president tonight. A federal judge ordering former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to Congress, sinking the administration's claim about that thing called absolute immunity.

The judge even writing that, quote, "absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist." Does not exist. Sounds like an awful lot like what the White House tried to do was make up some kind of fake law there.

The judge going on to say, "Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings."

The ruling is a huge win for Democrats, but it leaves the door open for White House officials to now refuse to answer questions claiming executive privilege. So, the question is going to be what will all this mean for the other White House witnesses who have been stonewalling thus far?

We've got a lot more to come on that. And another big ruling today. The Supreme Court handing the president a win, ruling that the House will not get his financial records -- well, not right now anyway.

The court granting an emergency request to block the House subpoena while it considers whether to even hear the case. And that comes amid fallout over the forced resignation of the secretary of the navy.

Richard Spencer essentially fired, reportedly for working a White House back channel to try to resolve a standoff over the fate of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. Now let's remember Gallagher was convicted of bringing discredit to the armed forces after posing next to a dead ISIS fighter's body.

Now, he was acquitted of more serious war crimes even though several SEALS did testify against him. Now, the navy wanted to kick him out of the SEALS, taking away his trident pin, which is the symbol of the SEALS. But the president took his side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: With Eddie Gallagher, you know that story very well. They wanted to take his pin away, and I said, no, you're not going to take it away. We're going to protect our war fighters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The naval secretary had approached the Oval Office to try to resolve this standoff, which left Defense Secretary Mark Esper and chairman of the joint chief General Mark Milley, quote, "flabbergasted," and it led to Spencer being forced out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've been thinking about that for a long time. That didn't just happen. And I have to protect my war fighters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president says he has to protect his war fighters. But listen to what Richard Spencer says about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD SPENCER, FORMER U.S. NAVY SECRETARY: I don't think he really understands the full definition of a war fighter. A war fighter is a profession of arms. And a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to, and they hold themselves to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:05:01]

COATES: Secretary of the navy goes against the president's wishes and is forced out. If you need further proof of that slavish devotion goes a long way with this president, well, there's this from the Departing Energy Secretary, Rick Perry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY: Mr. President, I know there are people that say, you know, you said you were the chosen one, and I said you were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The chosen one? The secretary sure has changed his tune since he said this during the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: Let no one be mistaken. Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Yes, things sure have changed. Cancer and now the chosen one? Well, is that what you have to do to stay on this president's good side, praise the dear leader?

Well, lots more to come on all of that tonight.

Let's get to today's big court rulings. Joining me now is CNN's own Evan Perez. Good to see you, Evan. You know, Evan, the judge was blasting the administration's argument for blocking Don McGahn's testimony. How big of a blow is this going to be to the new White House stonewalling strategy?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It's a big blow. Look, Laura, one of the things that I -- from watching this court hearing, I was there just a few weeks ago when the judge was just ripping apart their arguments from the Justice Department because these were some very novel arguments.

The idea that the president can essentially grant absolute immunity to everybody, not only people who still work for him but people who worked for him in the past, and that's what we're talking about with Don McGahn, who's been fighting this subpoena for now seven months.

I'll read you just a part of the ruling from the judge in which he says, "this court holds that the executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process, no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years, even if the president expressly directs such officials' noncompliance."

And she, as you noted earlier said that essentially over 250 years of recorded American history, it's -- we've established that presidents are not kings. And so, what was remarkable about this ruling, she not only answered the question about whether Don McGahn should show up to respond to this subpoena from the House but also other national security officials and even the president himself.

COATES: And of course, you point out correctly that Don McGahn no longer even works for the White House or the administration.

PEREZ: Right.

COATES: This is somebody who is now a former official. But what does this now mean, Evan, for other officials who you know have refused to testify? I'm talking about John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or other officers, officials like Charles Kupperman? What about them? PEREZ: Well, you know, it's not clear right now because obviously

this is a ruling that the Justice Department is going to appeal. We expect that it's going to go to the appeals court over the next few months and then possibly to the Supreme Court.

But keep in mind one of the more interesting things has been Mick Mulvaney. One of the things he said or his earlier legal team said was they were going to abide or they were going to look at the McGahn ruling as sort of their guidepost. I'm not sure if they believe that anymore, but certainly what we've heard from all of these officials' lawyers is that they're reviewing the ruling. They're going to see what else the Justice Department does as far as appeals is concerned.

But you can bet, Laura, everybody who has wanted to show up for these impeachment hearings have done so. The ones who don't want to show up have been doing the opposite. So, I think you're going to expect that they're going to keep waiting for these appeals to work their way through.

COATES: Evan Perez, thank you for your reporting.

PEREZ: Thank you.

COATES: You know, joining me now is Max Boot, and Kim Wehle, author of "How to Read the Constitution and Why." You know, first of all, Kim, I want to ask you -- this is a great book by the way.

KIM WEHLE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.

COATES: I also want to ask you the idea of Evan talking about giving, you know, cover essentially. Those who wanted to testify were able to testify and did testify. Did this new ruling now give some cover to those who said, look, I have to? My rock and my hard place have gone away. The judge says we got to do it and McGahn is a good litmus test for us.

WEHLE: I'd like to say yes but I have to say no because this ruling was already issued in 2008 by Judge John Bates who I worked with in Ken Starr's Whitewater independent counsel. And Judge Bates said in 2008, listen, there is no such thing as immunity for people who work for the president.

And in fact, when Presidents Nixon and President Clinton went up to the Supreme Court challenging subpoenas, they both lost.

And so, the argument is, listen, if presidents don't have absolute immunity from subpoenas, certainly the advisers, the people that work with the president don't have absolute immunity.

This challenge, this claim really was something that was off the edge or on the edge of what is legally even legitimate for a lawyer.

[22:09:59]

So, this will be appealed. Maybe it will give cover, but I think it's really more of a political than a legal question. Legally these subpoenas should be complied with.

COATES: So, let's hear from the ruling. She says that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. Indeed, absolute testimonial immunity from senior -- for senior level White House aides appears to be a fiction."

In other words, kind of a spin on the fake news, fake law at this point.

WEHLE: Yes. And the only authority for this was in internal memos by the Office of Legal Counsel, which of course is the same entity that produced the famous you cannot indict a president memorandum.

And the judge said, listen, that's the fox guarding the hen house. Those are the president's own lawyers saying the president's own advisers don't have to testify. That doesn't count as law. That's not binding. And she said, listen, this 2008 ruling, I'm justify going to piggyback on that. That's been around for almost over a decade now.

COATES: Well, Max, I mean, Mel Brooks famously said it's good to be the king. But this judge has said now that presidents of course are not king. So how big of a rebuke is this to the administration to hear this from a judge?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, I think it's an important symbolic rebuke even if the practical import of it is not clear as Kim suggested. You know, in fact, you may continue to see fights over trying to compel testimony from other aides.

But I think the symbolism, Laura, is important because, you know, remember Donald Trump is a president who keeps asserting that he has an absolute right to do just about anything. He said, I have an absolute to fire Comey. I have an absolute right to fire Mueller. I have an absolute right to close the border with Mexico. I have an absolute right to demand that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden.

So, in his own mind, Donald Trump thinks he is the king of America, and the judge is saying, no, you're not. This is still a rule of law republic where even the president is not above the law.

And so I think that is an important message to send from the judiciary upholding our liberties, although I'm sad to say that, which of course what you're going to see is that Trump and his supporters are then going to trash the judge just like they trash anybody else who tries to impose any kind of limitations on what this president can do.

COATES: So, will this ruling speak to someone like a John Bolton, Max?

BOOT: Well, I don't know that it's going to speak to him directly. Again, I think to the point that we were just discussing, I think, you know, ultimately if somebody like John Bolton wants to avoid testifying, I suspect that he will find a way just by dragging the process out, and Democrats have made clear they don't want to hold up the entire impeachment process simply to try to compel testimony from people like Bolton.

But they should not be hiding behind legalities. What this makes clear is that if John Bolton is not testifying, it's not because he's not allowed to testify under the law. It's because he has something to hide or because he's hide --

COATES: Yes.

BOOT: -- he's waiting to deliver his testimony in return for a $2 million book payment rather than doing his civic duty and actually telling Congress what he knows about this impeachment inquiry.

COATES: Now, Kim, the judge does give a little bit of a way out for McGahn, though, right? I mean, he doesn't have to answer questions. He has to show up, is that right?

WEHLE: Well, that's the distinction between immunity and a privilege. You mentioned a privilege. So, a privilege like attorney-client privilege that regular people have means, I'm not going to answer that question because it calls for information that's protected. But you still have to show up, and that's really what these witnesses should have done from day one. And then the question of whether it's appropriate to assert the privilege, that would go then to a court.

But I think the decision that came down also today that was perhaps even more interesting is the Freedom of Information Act case in which the court said that the government has to turn over records relating to OMB's decision to not release the $400 million in aid for Ukraine.

That's interesting for a couple of reasons. One, it's because that plays into this Trump narrative that the president is above the law. Congress authorized the aid in September of 2018, and there is scant legal authority for the idea the president can say, you know what? The appropriations clause doesn't bind me.

So, I think that's really important. Number two is that was on a preliminary injunction. The court issued a preliminary injunction, said you have to turn over these records.

So, the Trump administration is losing in the courts. The courts understand there is no king. The courts understand there's a separation of powers. The courts are standing for the rule of law, and I frankly don't think this president is going to have any more luck at the Supreme Court than the last two presidents that have faced this question in connection with impeachment.

COATES: Stick around, we'll talk more. Stay with me, everybody. There's another ruling today that was a win now for the president. Well, I mean at least for now. But it means a very big test is going to come up, and what will the Supreme Court do? We'll try to break that down next.

[22:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: The Supreme Court tonight giving President Trump a brief reprieve, granting his emergency request to block a House subpoena from seeing his financial records. The justices are now going to have to decide, though, whether to actually take up the case after lower courts already ruled against the president.

Back with me, Max Boot and Kim Wehle. And Kim, you know, if the court takes up this case, it would actually be huge to do so. I mean it would be really the first major separation of powers sort of case on the Supreme Court. Now, what is really at stake here?

WEHLE: So, what is -- this is a little bit different from what we were just talking about in that the House wasn't asking for documents from the president. So, the president doesn't have -- from the Office of the President --

COATES: Right.

WEHLE: -- can't say listen, these are presidential documents. They're protected that way. This is from a third-party accounting firm. But the wrinkle here for the Democrats is that this is not pursuant to an impeachment process. It's general oversight.

So, the question really is, can the president, because he's president, stop the House, stop Congress from getting records from his financial history from third parties based on when he wasn't even president?

[22:20:02]

This is him as a private party, a private person, and I think one of the relevant issues -- cases here is the case involving Bill Clinton, where Bill Clinton, when he was president, said you know what? I shouldn't have to respond to a subpoena for testimony in a civil action seeking money damages from me for actions that I took as a private citizen.

The Supreme Court said, no, you have to comply even though it means it's going to pull you off the offices of the duties of the presidency. So, we have that precedent. It will be really interesting to see if the court takes this, if a more conservative court will shore up the president's power, the office of the presidency's power from this kind of oversight.

COATES: So, Max, I mean, this is as she mentioned about the power of the Supreme Court during the Clinton era, about saying, hey, we are a co-equal branch. We're going to flex our power. What do you take from this as the judicial branch? Are they really asserting their authority here to let people know they will weigh in potentially on issues that are of political importance?

BOOT: Well, I mean I think it's not too surprising that the Supreme Court does want to weigh in at least to decide whether they want to grant full review to the case or not because, again, as you were discussing, this is such a major separations of -- separation of power case. But I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court actually stepped in

to review it and then to rule in favor of Trump because, you know, in the lower court it was not that close of a call. It was a two-one decision in the appeals court, and the one the Trump appointee actually said that the reason why she was ruling in favor of Trump was because, you know, the House should not be able to get these documents just as part of their normal legislative oversight. It should be part of an impeachment process.

Well, guess what? Now we actually have an impeachment process, so they could very easily fold that into the impeachment case. I think that makes the case very, very strong. I mean, if the Supreme Court were to rule for Trump, it would be really placing him well outside of the normal legal boundaries of previous presidents.

But to my mind, this is not a serious legal case from Trump like these other cases, asserting an absolute right on a legal -- from a legal standpoint as I think you two would confirm, this is just absurd.

There's no real basis for this in the case law, but it makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint because I think what Trump is trying to do is basically run out of the clock to kick this can down the road and to get past the election on the assumption that whatever horrors are buried in his finances, if he can just keep it quiet until November of 2020, after that it won't matter anymore.

COATES: Well, and Max Boot says he's not a lawyer, Kim Wehle. I don't know if I believe him right now. But I will tell you kicking that can, we know the court has said they only have until, I think December 5th to really actually file the opening briefs. They're well aware of the deadline in the impeachment and the inquiry. We'll see how that match up over time.

Thank you both for your time. I appreciate it.

You know, what is the impact of President Trump's lies? Well, join Jake Tapper as he investigates the truth.

CNN Special Report, "All the President's Lies" airs tonight at 11. We'll be right back.

You know, the secretary of the navy actually is forced out over the case of one controversial actual Navy SEAL. In the middle of all the turmoil, the secretary is speaking out tonight, and so is the attorney for the SEAL. He's here next.

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump now doubling down today on his decision to reverse the demotion of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. By the way, he was convicted of discrediting the armed forces after posing next to the body of a dead ISIS fighter.

Gallagher was facing expulsion from the SEALS, but the president put a stop to that and ordered the return of his trident, which is a symbol, a pin that symbolizes membership in the elite force.

Now, controversy surrounding this case actually led to the secretary of the navy being forced out just yesterday.

I want to bring in Timothy Parlatore, who is Gallagher's attorney. Welcome to the show, Timothy. I'm glad you're here. Thank you.

TIMOTHY PARLATORE, ATTORNEY FOR NAVY SEAL EDDIE GALLAGHER: Thank you for having me.

COATES: You know, I have to ask you why should your client, Eddie Gallagher, have received special treatment from the President of the United States instead of letting the military review process actually run its course without any interference?

PARLATORE: Well, that's easy. Because the military justice process has demonstrated itself repeatedly in this case to be completely flawed.

Right from the beginning we had misconduct from investigators, prosecutors. Prosecutors and investigators were committing crimes, illegally tracking me, other members of the media, other attorneys. And in fact, the lead prosecutor was kicked off the case.

So, for the president to just sit back and say, OK, let's let the process that has already demonstrated itself to be failing in this case to just play out, I don't think that that's necessarily a call that he had to make.

COATES: Now Timothy, it's a little bit foreboding what you just said because of course, one of the critiques that had people pushed back on is the idea of the military justice system being villainized in this way, and you've just called it essentially this conspiracy-based or this problematic institution. Is that fair overall? I mean, think about the countries that are hosting the American troops.

PARLATORE: Well, I think that in this case we certainly have demonstrated that the UCMJ as written is something that was appropriate many years ago but needs to be updated. The way that it was used and abused in this case really shows problems.

You had a prosecutor who went completely rogue, and he went out and committed crimes to try and get a wrongful conviction. And in the end, we went through a trial. They presented evidence. They didn't have it. He was convicted of a single count of being in a photo with a terrorist that every single member of his platoon was also in that photo.

[22:30:05]

And every single member of the platoon also went out and took individual photos with that terrorist, including the Lieutenant, Tom McNeal and yet Eddie Gallagher seems to be the only one they want to hold accountable for this.

COATES: Well, you know, the former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was actually on CBS News tonight and he reacted to the president saying he had to protect his war fighters like Gallagher. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD SPENCER, THEN-SECRETRAY OF THE NAVY: I don't think he really understands the full definition of a war fighter. A war fighter is a profession of arms. And a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to and they hold themselves to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So what's your reaction to his statement? Does this send a signal by the president that something like posing for a photo with a corpse of an ISIS fighter, which your clients would convicted of doing and you say others as well were involved -- is that OK? Is that the right message?

PARLATORE: I think what it sends is that when you have somebody like Chief Gallagher, who did pose for a photo with a dead body, who had his kids drag out of their house at gunpoint in their underwear by NCIS, was thrown in a cell for six months, surrounded by pedophiles and child molesters.

So when his kids came to visit him, they had to wear robes so the other inmates wouldn't get aroused, then has his name and face plastered all over the media worldwide, has his pay taken away, all the president did was give him his rank back so he could retire after he was cleared of these serious charges. So to say that by giving him his rank back and allowing him to keep his pin is somehow giving him a pass, I think that ignores the facts of this case. He suffered tremendously.

COATES: Well, your client was actually on Fox yesterday calling out Rear Admiral Colin Green. He's the commander who ordered the military review. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDDIE GALLAGHER, U.S. NAVY SEAL: I just get a feeling of embarrassment for my community that Admiral Green is letting the ego get the best of him at this point, and he's trying to take my trident, because it's all about retaliation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, he also accused Spencer of meddling. Is that appropriate for someone in the military, because you got against leadership like that. What about the chain of command that's so inherent in the military. What do you think?

PARLATORE: Exactly. And that's part of the problem with this case is you had former Secretary Spencer from back in November of last year reaching out to people personally to peddle a false story about there being a video of this murder, to try and convince them do not assist Gallagher, trying to prevent him from helping to get competent legal counsel, putting his thumb on the scale throughout. NCIS, the agency that committed the crimes in the illegal email

tracking investigation and the totally failed investigation, they report directly to Secretary Spencer. They're outside of the military chain of command. So the person who was supposed to hold them responsible is Secretary Spencer.

He failed to do so, and for him to come out now and make this speech where essentially what he's doing is he's repeating canned lines out of a leadership textbook from the naval academy instead of actually identifying specific issues, I mean it's revisionist. It's defensive. It's unbelievable.

COATES: Timothy Parlatore, thank you for being here. I appreciate your time.

PARLATORE: Thank you for having me.

COATES: I'm joined now by retired Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby. Now -- hi, John. I'm glad that you're here. Thank you for being here tonight.

JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Thank you.

COATES: Especially on a night like this where we're hearing about this information. You heard officer Gallagher's attorney speaking, and he says his client is really the one who has been victimized here. What's your response?

KIRBY: There's no question that the Navy prosecutorial team did not exactly crown itself with glory, Laura, when they conducted a court martial trial for him for this alleged murder. It's clear there was prosecutorial misconduct, and they've paid a price for that, and of course Chief Gallagher was acquitted on the worst charges.

But what's forgotten here is, he was convicted of the crime of posing with the corpse of a dead ISIS fighter which is a violation of uniform code of military justice. And there were other sailors, other SEALs, as the lawyer just said who also were posed in that picture and who also have been held to account.

As a matter of fact, three of those SEALs were with Chief Gallagher going through this administrative review process to see if they could keep their trident pin. And so now those three cases are kind of thrown up in the air because the president has weighed in and said that Gallagher can keep his pin. So now the Navy is left to figure out what they're going to do with these other three?

COATES: So what's the deal with the pin? I mean, I keep hearing about the trident. Help us unpack for the American people.

KIRBY: Yes, sure.

COATES: It sounds trite. It obviously is not. Tell us why.

KIRBY: No, it's not trite. So there are four main war fighting communities in the Navy, aviators, submariners, surface warfare officers, which I was a long time ago and Navy SEALS. Each of those warfare communities has a special device that you wear on your chest above your ribbons, a gold device that indicates that you are a qualified member in that warfare community.

The trident is a very -- it's a very well-known, a very famous warfare device that designates you as a Navy SEAL and it has significance not just from a cultural perspective but also from a performance and capability perspective.

[22:35:05]

So, it's clearly -- I mean, I certainly understand why Chief Gallagher would want to be able to retire with that trident. Any Navy SEAL who has gone through an incredible crucible of training to become a Navy SEAL wants to earn that coveted pin and keep that coveted pin. But I would also tell you, Laura, that this process that he was going through, it's a peer review process that the SEALS have been doing for many, many years.

And there are, you know, dozens if not hundreds every year of SEALS that their trident pins are revoked from them, because of poor conduct, ethics violation or you know, other performance issues. This is a very typical process, very normal process. It's a functional process, and it really should have been left to the SEALS to determine whether Gallagher got to keep his pin or not.

COATES: And yet it was not. The president of the United States has weighed in and has doubled down. Admiral Kirby, thank you for your time in explaining this to us all. Something tells me it's not going to end here.

KIRBY: No, I don't think it will, because, look, I mean not just for the SEALS, because we've got three others that have to go through this process, we think. But look at the army, Laura. He pardoned Major Goldstein, another one of these individuals who was going through a court martial, hadn't even been through trial yet. His case had not even been heard by a jury. He was alleged to have killed three Afghan -- I'm sorry -- another prisoner that was in detention, a Taliban prisoner, excuse me.

Anyway, he had never gone through court martial, and the president pardoned him. And now the army is going through a similar review process to see if he can keep the Silver Star that he won in that engagement as well as his ranger tab, which is a very similar thing to a trident pin. It's a warfare designation inside the army. So the army is watching this Navy case very closely because they're next in the chute.

COATES: Admiral Kirby, thank you for your time as always.

KIRBY: My pleasure. You bet.

COATES: You know, Congressman Devin Nunes accused of pursuing his own scheme to dig up dirt on the Bidens. We need answers about this, and I'll make my case. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:00]

COATES: Did Congressman Devin Nunes meet with an ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on the Bidens? Well, according to the attorney for Lev Parnas, the indicted Rudy Giuliani associate, his client is now willing to testify about that very thing to Congress. Where Congressman Eric Swalwell first raised the allegation during impeachment hearings just last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA), 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put into the record the Daily Beast story. Lev Parnas helped Rep. Devin Nunes' investigations from yesterday.

First two paragraphs reading, Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018 Parnas' lawyer Ed McMahon told the Daily Beast. Nunes aide Derek Harvey, participated in the meetings, the lawyer said which were arranged to help Nunes' investigative work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And now Nunes could be facing a potential ethics review and a whole bunch of questions. Now, one question is whether Nunes took a taxpayer-funded trip where Parnas' lawyer alleges Nunes was looking for the same type of dirt that President Trump asked for in that now infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president. Maybe that's why the Congressman led the pack slamming the impeachment hearings maybe?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Whatever drug deal the Democrats are cooking up here on the dais, the American people aren't buying it. It's an ambitious attack to deprive the American people of the right to elect a president, the Democrats don't like.

I'm glad you're here. I'm really not glad you're here, but welcome to the fifth day of this circus. You are here today to be smeared. An inquisition victim had more rights than the Democrats are giving the president. After all, inquisition victims had the right to know their accuser's name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Nunes says the allegations about this meeting, by the way, are demonstrably false, and he's even threatened to sue media outlets for even reporting it. But listen to how he answered a direct question about it on Fox News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX ANCHOR: Bottom line, were you in Vienna with Shokin? NUNES: Yeah. So, look, Maria, I really want to answer all of these

questions, and I promise you I absolutely will come back on the show and answer these questions. But because there is criminal activity here, we're working with the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, that's interesting. I mean if it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. That answer was a dodge, a dodge to the question is the very thing Nunes is trying to shield the president from, trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine. Is that what he might have done himself?

In reality, if the story from Lev Parnas' attorney is true, wouldn't that be election meddling? The Republican talking point during the impeachment hearings, as you know, is that Democrats just withheld valuable information that would have helped the public to assess the credibility of the witnesses. That's why they said they wanted to call Hunter Biden for example.

So, did Nunes have his own conflict of interest, and if so, shouldn't the public have known just how big of an interest he might have had in pushing a false narrative that Ukraine meddled back in 2016? Shouldn't the public have been informed of that? I mean the impeachment inquiry comes down to questioning the president's motivation in Ukraine.

[22:45:00]

Shouldn't we perhaps now question Nunes' motivation? These are questions Congressman Nunes promised he would go back on television and answer. Don't the American people deserve at least that level of transparency?

Lavish praise on his way out the Trump administration door from Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY, ENERGY SECRETARY: Mr. President, I know there are people that say, you know -- you said you were the chosen one. And I said you were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But the thing is he's not the only one saying that sort of thing. How Republicans are amp-ing up their devotion to President Trump, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

COATES: Departing Energy Secretary Rick Perry's is praised for President Trump, well, it may say more about him than where the Republican Party is right now than it does about this president. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: I said, Mr. President, I know there are people that say, you know -- you said you were the chosen one. And I said you were.

None of us got here by accident. I'm a big believer that the god of our universe is still very active in the details of the day-to-day lives of government. You know, Barack Obama didn't get to be the president of the United States without being ordained by god. Neither did Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, joining me now to discuss. Alice Stewart and Wajahat Ali. You know, Alice, I'll turn to you first. You're a woman of faith. Right? Tell me, what was your reaction when you heard Rick Perry say this about the chosen one and the president of the United States?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I say, he is 100 percent correct.

COATES: Really?

STEWART: As a woman of faith, as a Christian, I truly believe god is sovereign. All authority comes from God. And when it came down to who God thought should lead this country at this time. He decided for whatever reason that it should be Trump. Just as he did when it was Barack Obama. And George Bush, Bill Clinton. I truly believe as a Christian this was Gods divine choice at this time and this is what God wanted.

And a lot of people might take what Rick Perry said, and say how can someone look at someone like Donald Trump and say he is the one that God specifically chose. That is the way it is. And as a person of faith, that's how I view it. And I know exactly what Rick Perry was meaning to say when he said that. And it is because god is the sovereign god.

COATES: So, you think that Rick Perry was right. And Donald Trump is the chosen one. But you said also that you think, that you know what he meant to say. I mean, --- (inaudible) being Gods plan. I think, you described Gods plan as you are talking about colloquially as opposed to notion of the chosen one. One has a very different connotation, don't you agree?

STEWART: When he's talking about God being the chosen one, what he's referring to in a way Christians and evangelicals view that terminology. It is -- as I said, God is the great God. He is the one that all knowing, all powerful. And he decides what -- he's the vessel of what happens. Whether we are talking about in this country, in this world.

And for whatever reason Donald Trump is a broken person. He a person who has made many mistakes. I'm a broken person. I've made many mistakes. I'm not perfect. Donald Trump is not perfect. But for whatever reason, God decided that Donald Trump is the one that needs to lead right now.

COATES: Well, Wajahat, there was one separation church and state, but we will put that away for a second. Former Ambassador Nikki Haley made similar comments, by the way, in a new interview with the Christian Broadcast Network. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: I think it goes to show that things everything happens for a reason. And the way I see it is look at result of Donald Trump as president. Look at we have more friends and family with jobs than we have ever had before.

We have the economy moving in a direction it' you know, hasn't been in a long time, but its doing great. We are acknowledging real truths with the president that had the courage to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Wajahat, it sounds more like compartmentalizing because the results are favorable than one bad argument for religion. What do you think?

WAJAHAT ALI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Gods plan was also to give the Democrats a blue wave majority in the House and allow impeachment hearings. God also raised Moses to over throw the pharaoh. So, let see what God's plan is.

But we should see the ideology under pinning this, because Gerry Falwell Jr., one of the many white evangelical leaders who supports Trump in an interview, said in January that I will support Trump no matter what. Franklin Graham recently said that he also believes that Trump is god's chosen one and those who oppose him are demonically possessed.

That means the majority of Americans are demonically possessed. So, the idealogi here of Trump being a flawed instrument is for this implementation of a Christian nationalist ideology and they say that Trump is the flawed instrument like the Pagan Persian King Cyrus, whom God uses to do good things.

The good things for them is, he will fight for religious freedoms for Christians, he will implement conservative judges. He will take out Roe V Wade, deregulation, less taxes on the rich and also, Jews have to control Jerusalem, according to this theology, for Jesus to return.

They only care about the Jews, because if you listen to what they say about Jews, pretty bad, but this is also an apocalyptic end of times theology, Laura. They say that he's setting up the stage for the rapture. Who has said this? Pompeo, as Secretary of State. He literally said, that I believe God chose Trump so that Israel will be protected from Iran.

[22:55:03] Sarah Huckabee Sanders also said that. That's he's chosen by God. And

so, I say, what are we doing as a nation when we see white evangelical leaders literally say that he can do no wrong. And no matter what he does, we will support Trump. (Inaudible), United States of America.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: This is a longer conversation. You both have great points to make. I wish I had more time to do it, but not tonight. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues with Jake Tapper and a CNN Special Report, "All the President's Lies."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)