Return to Transcripts main page


Val Demings (D-FL) Discusses About The Different Strategy Of Republicans In Today's Hearing; In Fiery Impeachment Hearing, Republicans Use Chairman Nadler's Comments from Clinton Impeachment Against Him; Giuliani Refuses to Deny He's Back in Ukraine After NYT Report Says He's There Meeting with Former Prosecutors. Aired on 7-8p ET

Aired December 4, 2019 - 19:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: As I said, it doesn't get much more important than the House of Representatives considering impeaching a President of the United States. That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next breaking news, the impeachment probe entering a crucial new phase, all but one witness today is saying it's time to impeach President Donald Trump.

Plus, Republicans including the First Lady taking on the star witness from today's hearing. That witness is firing back tonight.

And is Rudy Giuliani really back tonight in Ukraine? Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight the breaking news, the House Judiciary Committee has just ended its first impeachment hearing. It was contentious and highly partisan. Aggressive questions and answers.

The committee expected to announce its next hearing at any moment. And the Chairman, Jerry Nadler, is clear on where he stands. Three of his witnesses, all law professors, said it was clear that President Donald J. Trump should be impeached.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Professor Feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings?


BURNETT: It was a powerful moment and series of testimonies, but there was an exception on the day as today. A fourth law professor, the Republicans' lone witness Jonathan Turley.


JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.


BURNETT: Alex Marquardt is OUTFRONT in Washington with the details on today's contentious hearing.


ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT(voice-over): The blistering conclusion from all but one of the witnesses that the President should be impeached.


NOAH FELDMAN, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: I believe the framers would identify President Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): Professor Noah Feldman from Harvard laying out the reasons the President committed impeachable offenses alongside professors Pamela Karlan and Michael Gerhardt who agreed. All three were invited by the Democrats.


MICHAEL GERHARDT, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW PROFESSOR: If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.



MARQUARDT(voice-over): Karlan hitting back at ranking member Doug Collins who dismissed the hearing and suggested the experts hadn't digested all of the facts of the investigation.


PAMELA KARLAN, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): The lone witness called by Republicans, Professor Jonathan Turley said he was not a supporter of the President's, but argued the record for impeachment is wafer thin.


JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: Close enough is not good enough. If you're going to accuse a president of bribery ... (END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT(voice-over): Turley, who testified in the Clinton impeachment warned that a slip-shot impeachment process could pave the way for more in the future.


TURLEY: That is why this is wrong. It's not wrong because President Trump is right ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): From the get go, Republicans blasted the hearing and the entire process.


REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): But this is not an impeachment. This is just a simple railroad job ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): GOP members interrupting and delaying proceedings with procedural maneuvers.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry before you ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): While Chairman Nadler previewed possible articles of impeachment, which may include obstruction of justice. Going back to the Mueller probe.


REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation ...


MARQUARDT(voice-over): The experts drew on history, repeatedly making the case that the country was founded on principles opposing absolute power.



KARLAN: So kings could do no wrong because the king's word was law. And contrary to what President Trump has said article two does not give him the power to do anything he wants ...


MARQUARDT: In comparing President Trump to a king, Professor Karlan also said that the President could name his son Barron, but not make him a baron. And that got a lot of blowback, including from the White House for invoking the President's teenage son.

Just a short time ago, Professor Karlan apologized saying she was wrong to do that and she regretted it. But also said that she wishes the President apologized himself for all that he's done, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Alex, thank you very much. And we're going to much more on Professor Karlan later this hour, really became the center of the stage today.

OUTFRONT now Democratic Congresswoman Val Demings who sits on both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee. So she's investigating and drafting articles of impeachment when that time comes.

It was clear early on today, Congresswoman, that Republicans were going to do everything possible to stall the hearing. There were all those procedural inquiries and points. Some of them clearly pretty arcane. Chairman Nadler didn't seem to expect them all.

It didn't happen nearly as much during the Intel Committee hearings that you were also a part of. Why do you think that is? What did Republicans do differently this time?

REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): Well, it's good to be with you, number one. But I just think as we get closer to the end of this process and further along, I just think that my Republican colleagues feel the desperation. The facts are stubborn things as has been said many times before.

And the facts, the evidence in this case against the President is pretty overwhelming. And so all of the procedural motions that they raised today, at the end of the day though, the President still used his power to try to coerce a foreign power into interfering with our elections and that's what we have to stay focused on.

BURNETT: What do you think was accomplished today, Congresswoman?

DEMINGS: I think the witnesses did an exceptional job and really laying out for us and for the American people what the framers had in mind when they were so concerned about our president trying to act like a king or trying to act like a dictator. That they were so concerned about the President of the United States abusing his power working with a foreign government.

And isn't it interesting as they laid that out that that is exactly where we are today. A president who abused his power, betrayed his oath of office, really jeopardize our national security and tried to obstruct Congress and justice.

BURNETT: The one witness we heard from today who supported the Republican view was Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. Here are a few of the crucial things that he said.


TURLEY: I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him ...


BURNETT: In his written opening statement, he also said that Trump's reference to the Bidens on the call with the Ukrainian president was highly inappropriate. So he voted against him. He doesn't support him. The call wasn't OK. The Biden part wasn't OK.

But he thinks that it is the wrong call to impeach the President based on what you have now. When you put all of that together, was Turley a powerful and effective witness for the GOP?

DEMINGS: Well, we certainly appreciate Professor Turley coming in and share his viewpoints. But I just think it's so interesting that when the Republicans and their witness talk about the wrongdoing of this president, they'll say things like, well, the call was not perfect or the President was just joking. He couldn't have been seriously.

As a former law enforcement officer, I'm sure the criminals who I arrested and were eventually prosecuted which we would have looked at every time they broke the law we said that, well, it wasn't perfect but because it wasn't perfect, we should just let it go.

We appreciate Turley's, as I said, testimony today. But the facts are still stubborn things and we are still where we are in terms of the President's wrongdoing, trying to coerce a foreign power.

BURNETT: Congresswoman Demings, thank you as always.

DEMINGS: Thank you.

BURNETT: And OUTFRONT next, we have more breaking news. Another impeachment hearing to be announced momentarily and possibly votes to follow in the next days. Plus Melania Trump going after one of the witnesses tonight. And the judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler's words coming back to hunt him.



BURNETT: Breaking news, the House Judiciary Committee expected to announce its next impeachment hearing. This could come at any moment.

Manu Raju is OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill. And Manu, you have learned a lot about what's coming next.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. This is going to move pretty quickly. We're expecting in the House Judiciary Committee starting likely next week. We expect another hearing to occur with staff attorneys for the House Intelligence Committee who have gleaned all of the information through the course of the more than two month investigation of the President's handling of Ukraine.

Detailing the report, the Democrats allege abusing the President's office handling a foreign policy with that country. That's going to be - we expect the staff counsel for the House Democrats on the committee to testify next week followed by a Republican staff counsel who will also testify in that same hearing.

We also expect articles of impeachment to start begin drafting articles of impeachment. We expect that to be formally introduced probably as soon as next week before the committee votes on articles of impeachment, then it could move quickly to the House floor soon thereafter. And that mean setting up a pre Christmas vote, making President Trump as the third American president to be impeached in history.


Then, come January, Erin, the Senate already blocking off weeks at a time to have the President's trial in the Senate. And, of course, you will need two thirds majority in the Senate to remove him from office, something that seems incredibly unlikely at the moment. But still, they will have to go through that process.

So this is going to move quickly. It's going to consume Washington and, of course, consume President Trump, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Manu, thank you very much. I want to go OUTFRONT now to former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, our Chief Political Analyst, Gloria Borger and David Axelrod who was a Senior Advisor to President Obama and is now the host of "THE AXE FILES".

Gloria, so you just heard Manu laying this out. OK, we knew they wanted to move quickly but this is very quick, right? They're going to announce this hearing. It could come within hours that they're announcing it and extensively that would seem to be it and then they are off to the races to get it out of committee into the floor.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. And that was the question about this sort of why rush to judgment argument of Jonathan Turley today, who was the Republican witness there who said, "Why are you rushing to do this? Why do you need to do this so quickly?"

And Congressman Collins said the same thing. And what was so interesting to me about this hearing today was it raised the large question about timing. What does Congress do when you have an administration that is clearly trying to run out the clock on this? That is stonewalling?

And it's not allowing Congress to really do the kind of investigation that it would like to do. Do you allow a president to run out the clock? And they're saying, "No, we're going to get this done." And what would that do to the issue of checks and balances if you're not allowing Congress to do its job? So to those who would say they're rushing it, the question is, well,

if you don't want to rush it, how about providing some more witnesses for the Congress so they could hear from people who actually spoke with the President about these matters.

BURNETT: Right. And, of course, the President is fighting that all the way through the courts.

BORGER: Right.

BURNETT: They did. Their one witness today though David made it clear that he thinks they are rushing it, you should go ahead and fight that fight, Jonathan Turley, right? He had a warning for Democrats and here he is.


TURLEY: Why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment ...


BURNETT: David, does Turley have fair points?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, he had some problems with his argument. One is that the Andrew Johnson impeachment took place, I think three days after the offense for which he was brought up on charges.

BORGER: Right.

BURNETT: Right. Yes. Technically not the fastest.

AXELROD: So he was wrong on his facts. It seems to me it's kind of a paradoxical thing. You heard members of the Judiciary Committee said, "We should be doing all of these other things and we shouldn't be absorbed on impeachment." And Turley is arguing and I guess they grabbed on to this point saying, "You're rushing."

But Gloria's point is the most important one, which is it is the President who -- when they complain that all of the evidence hasn't been heard, the main witnesses are being withheld from the Congress by the President. And they do want to run the clock out. And what if they did run this through the courts, would they all be arguing?

Now we've heard from all of the witnesses in June or whenever it happened and let's have the vote now. No. So it's kind of a cynical argument and I suspect those who don't want to impeach the President will seize on to it and those who feel the President committed an impeachable offense will have been compelled by the testimony of the others.

BURNETT: So John, Turley also tried to go at not just the process itself, but at some of the charges. He said Trump did not commit bribery and I want to play him. And then also Professor Noah Feldman, who obviously feels completely the opposite as did the other two professors were there and that the President should be impeached. So here's Professor Turley and then Feldman.


TURLEY: The statement has been made, not just by these witnesses but Chairman Schiff and others, that this is a clear case of bribery ...


BURNETT: So what do you make of that, John? I mean, Turley trying to muddy the water on something that is a pretty clear thing in all of this which is bribery.


JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Law professors arguing about historical bribery versus contemporary bribery are going to come to very different conclusions on what facts are needed and that's what Turley is doing. He just throwing up some dust in this whole thing. He is one of those who, as you said, wants to slow this process down.

But Erin, there's a real reason the House is rushing and that's the case that Chairman Schiff made, that this is an ongoing offense. We saw it in 2016 when Trump solicited the Russians and he's now solicited not only the Ukrainians, but China.

So this is something that needs to be resolved before we get to the 2020 election and get a hold on it or focus the light on it so that Trump is reluctant to do it.

BURNETT: All right. All of you stay with me because I didn't play Professor Karlan in this segment, because we're going to hear a lot from her in just a moment. You see her, she was just quietly sitting there at the beginning and then wow she came out strong and now Melania Trump is slamming her after Professor Karlan this.


KARLAN: ... while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron.


BURNETT: And world leaders laughing with President Trump or at him at the NATO meeting in London? Well, Trump sure knew what they were doing.



BURNETT: Breaking news, one of the Democrats' constitutional experts arguing that President Trump should be impeached, apologizing now for invoking President Trump's 13-year-old son's name during today's hearing after she faced attacks for doing so. So here is Professor Pamela Karlan's initial comments and then her apology towards the end of the hearing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARLAN: ... contrary to what President Trump has said, Article Two does not give him the power to do anything he wants ...


BURNETT: OK. That came after Karlan faced a series of attacks for doing so from Republicans, the Trump campaign and Melania Trump who went on Twitter and said, "A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it."

Everyone is back with me.

Gloria, look Professor Karlan's points, of course, that she was making was made extremely clearly by the example she used, but she obviously did feel the need to apologize for that at the end of the hearing. It is extremely clear though with her performance in that hearing where she was completely unafraid that team Trump feels that she is a target now.

BORGER: Oh, yes. She is. Look, and she admits she made a mistake. She's not used to testifying. This environment was not hospitable to what was kind of not a great joke and she apologized for it only after Melania and, of course, the Vice President himself also went after her.

So she is a target. She's a liberal professor and they tried to - well, who did you contribute to and they tried to figure out who these people voted for as well. So she's kind of an easy target for them and when you -- you're not arguing the case itself, you're arguing the process, which they continue to argue all day. And then you were arguing about the witnesses whom they felt were these eggheads from liberal elite institutions.

BURNETT: Right. All right. So to the point that Gloria just made, John, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz also called out Professor Karlan for a series of donations she made to Democrats over the years. And let's just play that and then Karlan's defense.


REP. MATT GAETZ (D-FL): Professor Karlan, you gave 2,000 bucks or you gave a thousand bucks to Elizabeth Warren ...


BURNETT: Another witness, Michael Gerhardt, John, also confirmed his family donated to President Obama. And, of course, the Republican witness said he had voted against Trump. The question though, John, remains should Democrats have found witnesses who didn't provide this fodder, didn't have multiple thousand dollar donations to Democratic candidates. DEAN: I don't know that that was necessary. I don't know that they

even asked going in, who did you contribute to, who do you vote for, this is information they could have found at the outset. What Matt Gaetz is doing is just really a sign of the times. He's a cheap shot artist and he loves to do this and he did it with aplomb. So it was expected this sort of thing out of him and it really cheapens the process and that's what they want to do.


They want to make this look like a much more unfair, bipart -- less than partisan undertaking and that's what he tried to accomplish with those questions.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Now, David, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee also went after Professor Karlan and the other witnesses by suggesting and it wasn't whatever their donations might have been, and it was also that they did not actually know what they were talking about. Let me play that.


REP. DOUG COLLINS (D-GA): No offense to our professors, but please, really? You could aren't have actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the Republican response in any real way?


BURNETT: And the one who fired back, David, was Professor Karlan, here she is.


PROF. PAMELA S. KARLAN, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor, I don't care about those facts.


BURNETT: David, you know, she was unafraid to be combative. Was that effective?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I thought that answer was very effective and I thought that she signaled from the start that she was not going to be cowed by those kind of tactics. The joke was unfortunate, something that when you're a professor you can make tasteless or bad jokes in the classroom and the students have to laugh, but it shouldn't have happened there and she was right to apologize and frankly, she deserved the criticism she got.

But on that point, she was -- they were there, and they're esteemed scholars. She clearly had done her homework and she warrant going to get pushed around. I thought that was very effective. But John's point is very important. The Republican strategy from the beginning is to depict this as a partisan scrum, as politics as usual, and take it out of the realm of something extraordinary, and just fit it into the rubric of Washington politics. So, what Gaetz did was very much in keeping with that, as were many of the other questions that were asked.

BURNETT: Right. And, Gloria, I guess the question is how effective were Republicans at trying to cheapen the whole process?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think they did cheapen the process to a degree. I think that we learned a lot, however, in this hearing about the Constitution, about what the framers had in mind when they were talking about high crimes and misdemeanors, and about what the articles of impeachment, quite honestly are likely to be which is abuse of power, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice.

So, try as they did to kind of make this just a discussion about process and other things, what we learned from these constitutional scholars, I think, was very important for the American public. Whether that breaks through, probably not to a degree. I think people are probably set.

Is this going to change any votes? I don't think so, but it was a hearing that the Judiciary Committee ought to have.

BURNETT: Yes, we did. As a country, whether you cared or moved your view was almost beside the point, we did need to hear from people who truly know about this and know about the Constitution.

Thank you all very much.

And, next, Republicans using the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler's own words against him.

And new details on those phone calls that Rudy Giuliani was making to the White House, the Budget Office and the mysterious caller number one.



BURNETT: Breaking news: Chairman Jerry Nadler under fire. Republicans are going after the Judiciary Committee chairman by using his own words from the Clinton impeachment.

Ranking member Doug Collins was the first one to launch an attack.


COLLINS: You have the vote. You may have the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of a national consensus or the constitutional imperative. The partisan coup d'etat will go down in infamy in the history of the nation. Those are all Chairman Nadler before he was chairman. I guess 20

years makes a difference.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Rick Santorum, former Republican senator of Pennsylvania, and Joe Lockhart, former Clinton White House press secretary.

You know, Joe, what was powerful about Collins doing that and reading it the way he did was it sounded the way exactly like he wanted it sounded, right, that he was saying it now and I know that's Chairman Nadler 20 years ago.

What does this do for Nadler? Does he need to defend himself?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think he needs to defend himself. Listen, you know, there are a lot of these things from 1998. Lindsey Graham, you know, has all sorts of stuff --

BURNETT: That guy is in a class of his own.

LOCKHART: I would argue that Jonathan Turley, Professor Turley, if you go back and look at his testimony, he testified in 1998 that if Congress does not think something rises to the level of impeachment, they make that decision which Democrats were arguing, it will vastly expand executive power and we will regret it forever. That's exactly what he said.

I think these things are two totally different things because I argued in 1998 that it didn't rise to an impeachable offense because it was a very personal mistake he made. It was wrong and he apologized for it and he cooperated. He testified.

BURNETT: The sexual lies, right, and it wasn't an abuse of power, right.

LOCKHART: This goes to using the office of the presidency in a corrupt way, in an abusive way to try to get a foreign country to influence our elections. That was what the main takeaway today was. The three -- other law professors said this is the worst thing a president has ever done, worse than Nixon.

BURNETT: Yes, so what you're saying is now it could be completely consistent with what he believes now.

I mean, Senator, look, you know well things can change when the shoe is on the other foot. Do Republicans really want to go down this path?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, yes. I think they have to go down the path to show that there's a hypocrisy here on the part of the Democrats in saying that you have to have a national consensus in order to move forward with impeachment. Clearly, no matter how much they're convinced that the president or this is the worst thing the president of the United States has ever done, which is a bit of the hyperbole of itself, but even despite that the American public isn't with him, the vast majority of the American public is -- well, I shouldn't say vast, the majority of the American public --


BURNETT: It's fairly evenly. Certainly, Republicans would be right in the vast majority.

BURNETT: So, the idea that moving forward on impeachment, I go back and I look at the Clinton impeachment and say, you know, in retrospect, given the fact that the American public was not being moved by what was going on, you know, we may have thought better of moving forward, because it certainly was not a political winner for us. I don't think in the end this is going to be a political winner for the Democrats.

BURNETT: Joe, is what we saw again and again from Republicans during the hearing today.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I make a parliament inquiry before you --

NADLER: Gentleman, this is not an order for parliamentary inquiry.

Quickly call the roll.

COLLINS: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

NADLER: You're not recognized for parliamentary inquiry this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

NADLER: The gentleman is not in order to offer a motion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition.

NADLER: The gentleman was -- the gentleman's recognized.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I offer a motion to postpone to a date certain.


BURNETT: And so it continued. And then they'd have a voice vote.


BURNETT: And then they would raise their hand and demand that it would be counted and you'd have to go through all 40 people and count them, and it just delayed, delayed, delayed, and stalled, and the whole goal seemed to be to slow the process down and sort of demean and diminish the chairman.

Did they succeed at all? LOCKHART: Well, I seek recognition to answer the question and I want Rick to, you know, call the roll on that.

I don't think -- I think maybe their success was in losing some viewership, but they showed their hand early on which is they don't believe this is a serious process. They don't believe that what the president did on that call, and not just on that call, in the months surrounding --

BURNETT: Months proceeding it.

LOCKHART: Proceeding it and after, pressuring the Ukraine, and using the leverage of the aid and the presidential visit. They just don't think there's anything wrong with that. Now, and that's partly view of the Republicans, but there was a poll out, speaking of Republicans, that said 53 percent of Republicans thought that Donald Trump was a better president than Abe Lincoln. So, the world has gone crazy.

BURNETT: So, Rick, do you think they were -- they were successful? I mean, they did keep doing this and I will say it hit a certain point where I would say this is just disrespectful.

SANTORUM: Yes, look, I wasn't a big fan of what they did, but Joe's right and you're both right that the Republicans don't think that this is -- this is a -- the president did anything wrong and that this is just another effort after the Mueller investigation to get this president. And that's really the stark difference between the Clinton impeachment and this impeachment, which is, even in the Clinton impeachment, you had Democrats get up and say what the president did was wrong. What the president did, you know, was illegal. I mean, he shouldn't lie to a grand jury.

But then they said it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. You don't even have that among Republicans and that's what makes it much harder get for the Democrats.

BURNETT: Yes, it's also what makes it sad, honestly, as an American citizen.

There are Republicans who are saying it's wrong, but they don't want to impeach. Maybe John Thune might be in the category or others, but certainly none in the House.

LOCKHART: But that's what's wrong, that they won't even look at the charges, they won't even deal with the evidence, they won't even deal with the facts. There were Democrats back then who looked hard at the evidence and criticized President Clinton harshly. And that's the difference.

BURNETT: That's not happening now.

LOCKHART: Not happening.

BURNETT: All right. Next, Rudy Giuliani, is he's in Ukraine tonight?

And President Trump pulls punches when it comes to another world leader.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, he's two-faced. And honestly, with Trudeau, he's a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy.




BURNETT: Breaking news, Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine tonight.

"The New York Times" reporting Giuliani is there right now as he is front and center in the Ukraine scandal, pretty incredible. When reached by our Dana Bash by text, Giuliani wouldn't confirm whether he's in Ukraine, just saying he can't discuss what he's doing.

And this comes as we're learning new details about calls Giuliani made to someone identified only as dash one.

Rene Marsh is OUTFRONT.


RENE MARSH, CNN GOVERNMENT REGULATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Newly revealed phone logs show repeated calls and text messages by Rudy Giuliani to the White House and the Budget Office. But one number stands out, an obscure, single-digit caller noted as dash-one on phone records.

BURNETT: Who do you think Giuliani was talking to, who was number one?

REP. DENNY HECK (D-WA): Probably somebody in the White House.

MARSH: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff points to evidence shown during the Roger Stone trial, including these phone logs showing a call from dash-one, the implication at trial, it was probably Trump.

President Trump Wednesday brushed it off.

REPORTER: Mr. President, can you explain why your personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, would need to talk to the Budget Office?

TRUMP: I really don't know. You'd have to ask him. It sounds like something that's not so complicated. You'd have to ask him. No big deal.

MARSH: Giuliani took a similar tone via tweet, quote, the mere fact I had numerous calls with the White House does not establish any specific topic. Remember, I'm the president's attorney.

And in a text message, Giuliani told CNN he didn't remember calling OMB and not about military aid.

Multiple calls between Giuliani who was not a government employee and the White House including the Situation Room, and the Budget Office came just days before the president's first call with Ukraine's new president on April 21st and a few days after that call. The records only show the calls and not the content, but Giuliani speaking directly to the agency that in June instructed the State Department and Pentagon to freeze military aid to Ukraine is raising concerns.


MARSH: April 12th, eight hours before this Fox News appearance, a short call from someone using the Office of Management and Budget phone number to Rudy Giuliani. Then seconds later, another call lasting more than 12 minutes, this time from the mysterious dash-one. After the Fox News that night, Giuliani is back on the phone with the White House for more than five minutes.

GIULIANI: I think I'd get some interesting information about Joe Biden from Ukraine about his son, Hunter Biden.


MARSH: The same warning of this Fox News appearance on April 24th, records show three phone calls between Giuliani and a number associated with the Office of Management and Budget. Throughout the day, there were eight calls with someone at the White House. One of the calls between Giuliani and dash one lasted more than eight minutes.

Later the same day, the State Department recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch over concerns from the White House and August 8th, Giuliani texts a White House number at 8:53 p.m., a little over an hour later, he misses five calls from the dash-one number placed to both of his cell phones. Sixteen minutes later, dash one calls him back, and they talked for more than four minutes.

This call came as Ukrainian were pushing U.S. diplomats for a meeting between Zelensky and Trump. Democrats say the call log show the extent to which Giuliani was running the show on Ukraine matters, conspiracy theories and the push for investigations.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): It does tell a story of Giuliani really being the guy who is doing all of these things and driving this stuff in Ukraine. And as we know, Rudy Giuliani is not an employee of the federal government.


MARSH: Well, Erin, we cannot overstate it what the phone records reveal are highly unusual. As a former OMB official said to me this morning, there is no reason the president's personal attorney should be calling people at OMB regarding budgetary matters, because that's what the agency handles. We should point out, the Budget Office says that no one at the agency ever spoke to Giuliani. There is some speculation that some of the calls may have been to Mick Mulvaney who earlier in this year moved from OMB to the White House.

But tonight, a White House official told CNN that Mulvaney and Giuliani have not discussed Ukraine and Mulvaney's call records show he didn't speak to the president during the times noted in the report.

So, everyone is saying it wasn't me.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Rene.

And let's go now to CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez.

So, Evan, a lot of questions here obviously as Rene said, highly unusual. Will we find out who number one is formally and what was said on the calls with number one?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Perhaps if some day Rudy Giuliani is -- has to answer question about this, Erin, maybe we will find out. Obviously, as you heard from Rene, the Democrats believe it's the president. And the timing of in is right around the time that the president is about to oust the Ukrainian ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, and it's also around the time of the end of the Mueller report.

So, a lot of different explanation that Rudy Giuliani could eventually have to provide on this.

BURNETT: And as was just said here, there is reports Giuliani is in Ukraine tonight, which seems like a joke, but apparently may be true. He wouldn't confirm his location to Dana Bash, sort of playing a coy game, oh, I'll tell you later. What is the game he is playing?

PEREZ: Look, he really believes the only way to defend himself and the president given the fact that he is under investigation is to go on offense. I think that's what you're seeing.

"The Times", "The New York Times" reported that he is working on some sort of documentary, which is going to blow this entire case wide open. And so, we'll see whether that happens.

Erin, remember he is under investigation by the Southern District of New York, the prosecutors there. And there are still a lot of questions what he was doing in Ukraine, the removal of the ambassador, that could end up being part of a crime.

So, we'll see whether or not Giuliani ever has to answer question about what he is doing.

BURNETT: All right. Evan, thank you very much.

And next, video that's gone viral, world leaders talking behind Trump's back and Trump's reaction. He got scared.



BURNETT: World leaders aren't above a little gossip about the president of the United States.

Here is Jeanne.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Forget the bagpipes, the drums, the horns. It's what we weren't supposed to hear at the NATO summit that stole the show.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau regaling other leaders about President Trump's long press conference during his photo op with the president of France.


JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: He was later because he takes 40 minute press conference off the top.

MOOS: And then there was this eyebrow raiser about a jaw dropper.

TRUDEAU: You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

MOOS: Trudeau later told reporters that was a reference to President Trump saying the next G7 summit would be at Camp David.

Asked about the hot mic moment, the president unloaded on Trudeau.

TRUMP: Well, he is two-faced.

MOOS: Don Jr. tweeted his dad is 100 percent right. Trump calls Trudeau two-faced. See evidence below, posting a split screen of Trudeau in black face, referring to the prime minister's recent controversy.

(on camera): Mics were smoking hot it at the NATO summit. There was even a second hot mic moment inspired by the first one.

(voice-over): President Trump was picked up complimenting his own diss of Trudeau.

TRUMP: That was funny what I said the guy is two-faced.

MOOS: Both world leaders were labeled embarrassments by their critics, even using the same meme. But after calling Trudeau two- faced, President Trump dialed it back.

TRUMP: And honestly, with Trudeau, he's a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy.

MOOS: And Trudeau later said.

TRUDEAU: I have a very good relationship with President Trump.

MOOS: President Trump cancelled a scheduled press conference saying he had given enough before heading home.

"The Daily Show" put the hot mic moment to Trump's own words.

TRUMP: They laugh at us behind our back.

MOOS: At the U.N. in front of him.

TRUMP: Didn't expect that reaction but that's OK.

MOOS: As for calling Trudeau two-faced, the president had to face taunts like, well someone likes both his faces.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.


BURNETT: He cancelled the press conference after that.

OK, thanks for joining us. Anderson starts now.