Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Jewelry Heist; Michael Bloomberg Joins Presidential Race; Court Ruling on McGahn Testimony Expected; Devin Nunes in Legal Jeopardy?. Aired 4:30-5p ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 16:30   ET

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

[16:30:01]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congressman Devin Nunes now facing questions about ties to Ukraine.

An attorney for indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas tells CNN his client is willing to talk to Congress about what he knows about a top Ukrainian at the center of allegations against Biden meeting with Nunes in Austria in 2018. The attorney said his client was told by the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin about the meeting.

Nunes disputed the claim in an interview on FOX Business, but provided no specifics.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): And what always happens is, right when we expose them, what do they do? They go out to kill the messenger. So, this week, another fake news story.

SANCHEZ: Republicans' loyalty to the president, even in the face of facts, epitomized by outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who says he believes Trump is on a holy mission.

RICK PERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY: And I said, Mr. President, I know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one. And I said, you were. I said, if you're a believing Christian, you understand God's plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our -- in our government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And, Erica, President Trump was asked today about a comment that Rudy Giuliani made over the weekend saying that he has insurance in case President Trump were to throw him under the bus.

Today, Trump saying he does not know what Giuliani is talking about, but praised the former mayor of New York City and said that the press treats him unfairly -- Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Boris Sanchez with the latest for us at the White House, Boris, thank you. Phil, as we look at all this, the president and his allies continue to push this debunked notion, right, that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia. And Russia, just to remind people, right, so Russia spread disinformation, hacked into servers, tried to sow division.

Trying to equate that with an op-ed than an official may have written about something that then candidate Trump said about Ukraine, not exactly the same thing.

That being said, this conspiracy campaign seems to be gaining traction and followers. So how do you refute that, when the facts aren't working?

PHILIP BUMP, "THE WASHINGTON POST": That's the question, right? I don't know. I wish I did.

I mean, I'd part of our job as journalists is to say, here's what's actually happening. And when people simply say, no, I don't accept that, like Senator Kennedy, what do you do? I don't know what to do with that.

I wish I did.

I mean, I think it's important to reiterate, though...

HILL: We needed the magic answer from you. Come on.

BUMP: I wish. I wish. I'd be hosting my own show, if I could do that.

(LAUGHTER)

BUMP: But, I mean, the real issue here is the point that you raised at the onset. There's simply no evidence that Ukraine, as an institute -- the body, that the government of Ukraine had any role in trying to interfere in 2016.

There was these piecemeal contexts in Ukrainian officials and these other things, but there's no evidence. And Russia -- the evidence of Russia that was presented by Donald Trump there saying that Ukraine maybe had the server, which is just absolute nonsense, I mean, it's not even tangentially close to accurate.

But this idea that Russia didn't -- the only evidence we have is through this company that Trump says is tied Ukraine is also ridiculous. Robert Mueller has this lengthy indictment of Russians for what they did, including messages from the Russians between -- to one another that somehow they obtained from the Russians.

I mean, it's just -- it is -- all we can do at this point, as far as I'm concerned, is simply say, what is being presented and endorsed by Donald Trump and his supporters is utterly nonsensical and inaccurate.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, the information is overwhelming that Russia was behind this. And we need to focus on that and need to make sure it doesn't happen again. I think spreading this type of misinformation is not good, and it sends us in the wrong direction. And it further goes on to what Fiona Hill said last week.

The more we go about dividing American and dividing politics, spreading misinformation, this is exactly what Russia wants.

HILL: Right.

STEWART: So, we need to stop spreading disinformation.

HILL: It's doing the bidding.

STEWART: Exactly.

And we need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. That's where the focus...

HILL: So, there are also a number of questions after a lawyer for Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas, told CNN that Parnas is actually willing to tell Congress that Devin Nunes, of course, the -- on the Intelligence Committee, Republican ranking member, went to Vienna last year to meet with a former Ukrainian process -- prosecutor to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

Now, Nunes, of course, wouldn't talk to CNN about this, about the trip. Did not deny it when asked about the reporting on FOX. Take a look at that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS: Bottom line, were you in Vienna with Shokin?

NUNES: Yes, 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)

HILL: So, Elie, he eventually told Breitbart that the CNN reporting was, in his words, demonstrably false.

If this is true, though, how big a deal is this?

[16:35:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Devin Nunes needs to be really careful, because let's all remember it is a federal crime to solicit from a foreign national campaign assistance, those three things.

So if he sat down with a foreign national -- that seems to be the case here, if this reporting is true -- and solicited, asked for an investigation of the Bidens, which it doesn't have to help your campaign, Devin Nunes. It can help someone else's campaign too.

If the intent here was to help Donald Trump's campaign, and if that's a thing of value, which is a little bit of a legal dispute, then that's a crime.

So he's on very thin ice here and needs to be really careful.

HILL: And, Keith, Jackie Speier is actually saying she wants House Ethics to look into this.

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think there should be an investigation.

Devin Nunes is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee for Republicans. And he's sitting up there conducting an investigation while never at any point disclosing his own involvement, entanglement with Ukraine, his involvement in digging up dirt, allegedly, on the Bidens.

So he's a co-conspirator in the very investigation that he's supposedly investigating. This makes no sense. And it goes to show you how Giuliani is now under investigation. We know his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman have been indicted.

All these Trump people who are associated with defending Trump have come under this cloud of scrutiny suddenly. But nobody is really scrutinizing Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, because they haven't been -- they haven't been convicted of anything. They haven't been indicted for anything.

Nobody -- there's no federal investigation of them, even from the Trump Justice Department. So why is the Trump Justice Department so curiously interested in investigating Giuliani and his associates, but not interested in investigating Hunter Biden Joe Biden?

It's because there is nothing to find there with Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, but there's plenty of criminal evidence or potential criminal evidence with Giuliani and his associates.

HILL: I think we can all say definitively this is not the last that we have heard of this.

A major court, though, decision we are waiting for, it is expected at any minute. It could have a serious impact on the impeachment investigation.

More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:41:18]

HILL: In our politics lead, any moment now, a D.C. judge will decide if former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify in front of Congress about the president.

It is the first major court ruling in the fight between the White House and the House.

CNN's Evan Perez joins me now.

So, Evan, if the judge rules in the House's favor, what happens next?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it could mean that Don McGahn will have to at least show up to answer this subpoena.

Right now, he's been fighting for several months, Erica, this subpoena from the House for testimony related to the Mueller investigation. And so if the Trump administration loses in this round with the judge, we may still see some appeals, but at least it means eventually that Don McGahn could be forced to show up to answer this subpoena.

HILL: And what's the impact then on some of the other witnesses, the John Boltons, the Mick Mulvaneys of the world?

PEREZ: Well, again, if the Democrats win this, it means that the judge is going to essentially pierce this wall that the Trump administration has built around all of these witnesses, saying that there is absolute immunity, meaning that they don't even have to show up to respond to these subpoenas.

So it could mean that Charles Kupperman, it could mean John Bolton may end up in the same place. But keep in mind, we're talking about months and months away from now. And the Democrats are moving a lot more quickly on this impeachment inquiry.

As you have heard earlier today, that they are saying that they're going to try to wrap this up in the next couple of weeks. And so it may be too late for the impeachment inquiry.

HILL: And just remind us too, Evan, what is it that they want to hear from Don McGahn at this point?

PEREZ: Well, they want to hear what he was -- what he testified in all of his testimony to the Mueller investigation.

There is a lot of that we still don't know. Some of that was obviously in the Mueller report, but the Democrats want to hear a lot more about what the president was doing to obstruct justice in that investigation, according to those findings.

So that's part of what possibly could be part of the impeachment inquiry, whether or not the president is obstructing -- not only obstructed justice in that investigation, but also obstructing Congress in the current impeachment inquiry.

HILL: Evan Perez, appreciate it. Thank you.

PEREZ: Sure.

HILL: Michael Bloomberg jumping into the packed Democratic race with billions and a potentially risky strategy that could disregard the most important person in the race, Mr. Momentum.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:22]

HILL: In our 2020 lead, he's wasting no time, except, of course, for all the time that he's actually lost by now.

The newest Democratic presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg, at his first campaign event today in what many see as not only a last- minute, but a long shot bid for the White House.

And at the center of the conversation about his chances is his money. The former New York mayor dropping $37 million in TV ads that are already bombarding the airwaves.

So will they work?

You know what's interesting is, it's not just the money that's being sent and the TV ads. His camp, Keith, says he's not accepting donations, right? So we're not talking about any debates here.

BOYKIN: Right.

HILL: He's not going to Iowa. He's not going to New Hampshire.

Skipping the early states, not being on that debate stage, what's the message that that sends to voters?

BOYKIN: I think the message is one of arrogance, quite frankly.

I think he's saying he can just come in because he's got billions of dollars and buy his way into the -- into a candidacy. He's not had to go through the whole series of debates the other candidates have gone through. He apparently seemed to think there's an opening because Biden isn't doing as well as he would like.

But the reality is that 75 percent of voters in the most recent Gallup poll say they're actually satisfied with their choices. Compare that to 1991, when only 44 percent of Democrats were satisfied with their choices.

Democrats ended up electing Bill Clinton. So I don't understand the need for Mike Bloomberg. I don't think his policies are supported by the base. I don't think he has much of a chance.

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I hear you.

Bloomberg's folks will tell you, though, that they do see an opening here. They feel as though he can run in that moderate lane, the same lane, obviously, that Biden and Buttigieg are running in as well.

I think there is a question if outside New York, outside of Connecticut, outside of New Jersey, how well he's playing in the Midwest, how well he's playing out in California. I was talking to some folks out there. [16:50:08]

And it was a: Bloomberg who? So there is that there.

But it's very clear that Bloomberg's people see a window here. They see some weaknesses here. And they think they can make a run at -- run for it.

HILL: It's interesting, because we talk about what he's spending on TV ads, and he's bombarding the airwaves.

I mean, he's second in spending here. And he's just jumping in, spending $37 million, second only to Tom Steyer.

As we look at this, he's also getting immediate, not surprising, Phil, but immediate pushback from some of his fellow Democrats. Here's a little bit of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Michael Bloomberg is making a bet about democracy in 2020. He doesn't need people. He only needs bags and bags of money.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't get getting into the race with your spokesperson saying you're getting in because you don't like the rest of the candidates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Is his biggest hurdle at this point his money?

BUMP: I don't think you could say that.

I mean, the only reason he -- we're talking about him as at all viable, of course, is his money, the fact the guy has more than $50 billion.

I mean, I think, when this was first sort of bandied about several months ago, alongside Tom Steyer and the gentleman from Starbucks, whose name actually escapes me...

BOYKIN: Howard Schultz.

HILL: Howard Schultz.

BUMP: Schultz -- which shows how well his campaign went.

(LAUGHTER)

BUMP: Yes, when that was first being discussed, I mean, you sort of had to stop and ask yourself, is an older white man who is extremely wealthy who Democrats want to pick? I don't think the answer to that has suddenly become yes. I do think

that he's making this conscious choice to say, you know what, I am standing aside from the field. By not taking donations, he doesn't end up on the debate stage. I think he sees that as advantageous.

But I also think we have a recent history of a New York City mayor who was decided to forgo early states and hope that he would play catchup at the end. And that was Rudy Giuliani in 2008, who got absolutely demolished.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Yes, how did that work out for him? Not very well.

The reality is, in presidential politics, money is good, but writing a check may open the door, but pressing the flesh closes the deal. You have to get out there and talk with voters.

You have to go to Iowa. I think it personally should be against the law to run for president if you haven't been to Iowa and had a pork chop on the sticks at the Iowa State Fair.

HILL: You have to do the state fair.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: You really do need to go out and do that.

HILL: Do you see him really, Alice, as we're looking at this -- because we were talking briefly in the break. And I know you see Pete Buttigieg really as a strong candidate in your mind.

If he's putting himself out there as a moderate, is he really a threat at this point to any candidate?

STEWART: Bloomberg.

I don't see so, because what he's doing really is he's really showing a contrast between he and Donald Trump in most of the language that he's pushing. I hate to break it to him. It's not a binary choice at this point. He's running against a large field of candidates, some strong moderate candidates, Joe Biden and Buttigieg.

And depending on how the Democratic field wants to go and Democratic voters wants to go -- want to go, they have -- they can go far left and go to the far left candidness of Warren and Sanders.

So they do have a lot of choices. Whether or not they have what it takes to take on Donald Trump, I don't know. But there are plenty of choices out there. And for Bloomberg to get in here, I think it's going to be a heavy lift.

HILL: Well, we will be watching it all. Thank you all.

New video just in shows thieves in Germany pulling off what may be one of the biggest jewelry heist ever. So you're looking at the video here. You can see the thieves breaking into Dresden Castle, smashing glass in the Green Vault. They stole some 100 diamonds and gemstones.

Keep in mind, some of these a back to the 18th century. Some of them are sold. They are literally priceless. They can't be covered by insurance.

CNN's Melissa Bell is live in Dresden, Germany.

So, with these new pictures, Melissa, we're also getting pictures of some of the jewels that were stolen.

MELISSA BELL, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, the police tweeting out some of those pictures of what have been described as immeasurably valuable pieces of jewelry.

You can see on those photographs, Erica, just how intricate they are. In all, we're hearing that about 100 treasures were stolen in the early hours of the morning. You see that CCTV footage. Two men made their way inside Dresden Castle here into that Green Vault.

Now, initially, we had heard reports of a fire nearby that had put out the electrical grid. And that has now been specifically linked to this by the police.

So, all the streets -- all the lights in the street were off when the two men made their way in. On that CCTV footage, you see them using an axe to get into those windows to get through to jewelry, trying to break it. Six blows, it took to get through, and then making their way out.

In all, it took just a matter of minutes. Now, how much has been stolen? That's one of the big questions. We've been reaching out to specialists all day.

They have said you simply can't put a figure on this. What we're talking about is artifacts and jewelry that have such historical and cultural value that they are quite literally priceless.

HILL: Is there any sense too that other people may be involved here?

I know you said the fire was connected.

BELL: Well, when you look at the CCTV pictures, you see two individuals on them.

[16:55:02]

What the police have specifically said is that they believe that there could be other people who were involved in that. They were looking for an Audi that these two people who left here had made their way away from the scene in.

That same car was then found later burnt out close by in Dresden. So how they made their escape from there, whether they left the city, these are still unanswered questions tonight. Two or more individuals remain on the run -- Erica.

HILL: Melissa Bell with the latest from Dresden, Melissa, thank you.

Happening right now, a judge is about to sentence the Chinese woman caught breaking into President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property carrying multiple cell phones and a hard drive.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)