Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Rudy Giuliani's Legal Jeopardy?; Trump Ukraine Defense Blown Up?; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is Interviewed About the Impeachment Probe. Aired 4-4:30p ET
Aired November 27, 2019 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: The player who made it happen, Nathan Bain, is from Freeport, Bahamas.
And back in September, his family lost almost everything in Hurricane Dorian. At the time, his athletic department launched a GoFundMe page. And before yesterday, it had raised little more than $2,000. It has now topped $68,000. How about that?
I will see you back here tomorrow for Thanksgiving. I'm Brooke Baldwin.
"THE LEAD" starts right now.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: We now know what the president knew and when he knew it.
THE LEAD starts right now.
He knew he got caught before he released the aid -- the new development that could blow up the president's whole defense.
The fall guy? President Trump adding distance between himself and Rudy Giuliani, as a new report says the president's lawyer was trying to make a buck in Ukraine while also working for Mr. Trump's political gain.
Plus, strength in the numbers. A poll shows Joe Biden is still the candidate to beat, as a big four emerges in the Democratic race.
Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Erica Hill, in for Jake.
We begin this Thanksgiving eve with new details about Rudy Giuliani's efforts to help his number one client, Donald Trump. "The Washington Post" reporting President Trump's personal lawyer was in talks to represent a former top Ukrainian prosecutor who Giuliani was also working with to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
And it comes on the heels of another revelation about the timeline. We now know President Trump was aware of a whistle-blower complaint against him when he released the aid to Ukraine. That is, of course, after he withheld that nearly $400 million aid package for nearly two months.
That revelation coming from "The New York Times."
As CNN's Alex Marquardt reports, the new developments are poking holes in President Trump's adamant defense of no quid pro quo.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): New revelations deflating the White House's and Republican allies' defense over the president's actions with Ukraine.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There was no quid pro quo.
MARQUARDT: According to "New York Times," by the time the president released the aid money for Ukraine on September 12, he had been briefed by White House lawyers about the whistle-blower complaint against him.
So, Trump knew about the complaint, which accused him of using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.
Republicans have argued there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine got the U.S. military aid money in the end, without launching the investigations that the president wanted into the Bidens and the 2016 election.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): They Got the call, they got the meeting and they got the money, and there was never an announcement of any type of investigation.
MARQUARDT: But the president knew the whistle-blower was trying to out him.
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): It shows a consciousness of guilt. Then the president tries to backpedal and say no quid pro quo, and then, ultimately, because he's been caught, has to release that aid.
MARQUARDT: As the aid was held up over the summer, two officials in the Office of Management and Budget resigned. Testimony just released showed they expressed concerns about the hold, though an administration official disputes that was the reason they left.
Right before the president released the money, he insisted to a point man on Ukraine, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, on a call that there was no quid pro quo. But Trump did tell Sondland that he wanted the Ukrainian President Zelensky to do the right thing.
TRUMP: I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.
MARQUARDT: Sondland testified that the president had told him to work with Rudy Giuliani, who, "The Washington Post" now reports, at the same time he worked for President Trump was negotiating a potential contract worth $200,000 with Ukraine's top prosecutor to represent him.
The deal, however, never materialized.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: Giuliani has said repeatedly that he hasn't had any business dealings in Ukraine. But "The Washington Post" reported that contracts had even been drafted up. Giuliani was reportedly going to be hired to help recover assets that were stolen from Ukraine.
So, Erica, this drags Giuliani even deeper into this whole affair after two of his associates were already indicted and he, himself, is being investigated by federal prosecutors -- Erica.
HILL: Pull one little thread, and what it unravels.
Alex, thank you.
When we look at this new development with Rudy Giuliani, so potentially representing the former Ukrainian prosecutor who he was hoping would also deliver some dirt on Joe Biden, it is not a good look for Rudy Giuliani, but also, Bill, for the president, when we think back to the president reportedly telling his aides and even Zelensky, work with Rudy Giuliani. Talk to my guy Rudy Giuliani.
BILL KRISTOL, DIRECTOR, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: Yes.
You mentioned that point about pulling one thread. One thing -- and were talking about this before -- is if we didn't have the whistle- blower report, we would know none of this. It is not clear that all these people would have testified. Most of them are still in the government, Bill Taylor and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
Fiona Hill would have gone back to Brookings and stuff. And they tried to suppress the whistle-blower report. People really haven't come to grips, when you think about it, not just the extortion, but the cover-up, because they knew about the whistle-blower report -- we learned that recently -- ahead of time.
[16:05:08]
And it wasn't just that Trump knew about it and pretended, ooh, no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, but he also seems to have talked to the DNI, Maguire, about -- and they clearly tried to prevent it from getting to the Hill.
So, Rudy is one little piece of this. But the degree to which there was a genuine conspiracy going on that we came close to not knowing about is I guess what strikes me.
HILL: Well, there's so much that keep deliberating.
And to your point about what we learned in this reporting just last night from "The New York Times," which may seem like a long time ago, but it is really a blink of an eye in the news cycle the way we do it these days, in this -- this line in the "Times" piece stands out. "The revelation could shed light at Mr. Trump's thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators, his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine, and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time," as you're pointing out here, "that there was a quid pro quo with Kiev. Mr. Trump used the phrase, of course, before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair."
And when we look at the timeline and when the president, Toluse, decided to use these words, what does that do to the president's defense?
KRISTOL: Can I say one word?
That word, those words, are the whistle-blower's report. So Trump was briefed on the whistle-blower report.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, "THE WASHINGTON POST": No. Yes, that is a very important point.
You have to remember that when Sondland testified, he said, basically, I asked the president an open-ended question, what do you want from the Ukraine? And the president goes directly to this sort of criminal defense, I want no quid pro quo.
HILL: Right.
OLORUNNIPA: And it just sort of makes you wonder whether or not that implicates him and whether he had a guilty conscience where he was saying, no, I didn't do this, when no one asked him about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. He just was answering the question about what he wanted from Ukraine, and he went with a very legalistic answer.
And that's something that is starting to come together as we get all of these witnesses, and no one has been able to say why the aid was held up. And it's looking more and more like the Democrats are putting together their case that it was about trying to get these political investigations from the Ukrainians.
(CROSSTALK)
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We did hear Adam Schiff last week talk about the timing and talk about the fact that, so, this call happens, the aid is being held.
We had others -- I believe it was Fiona Hill -- who said the Ukrainians actually did figure out a lot earlier than what the Republicans were admitting to that it was being held up. I mean, they certainly can look at a calendar and know when Congress approved the money, and that, by August, they still hadn't gotten it.
The quid pro quo, though, feels like someone said to Trump, you got to be careful, because that call sounded like you were asking for a quid pro quo, and because just the way when you listen -- when you listen to him, it's like, he will latch on to one phrase.
And so then when he talks to Sondland, he says, no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, but I do want a favor, and I do want -- I want this dirt, and he's not going to get a meeting and he's not going to get this aid until I get what I want.
JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and it further erodes the Republican defense of Trump that we heard over and over again over the course of those hearings.
There was the no harm, no foul. The got the aid anyway. There was that, oh, they were kicking the tires, they were just seeing if Zelensky was the real deal and he actually was going to go after corruption.
The president knew about all of this before he spoke to Sondland, and this timeline moves back. It really just shatters that part of this scenario.
(CROSSTALK)
KRISTOL: And when he speaks to Sondland on September 9, it sounds like he's reading something that a lawyer wrote for him, because, remember, Sondland describes the four or five sentences which ends with no quid pro quo or begins with no quid pro quo.
So that means Trump is working with people in the White House, in full knowledge that there's a whistle-blower report that says quid pro quo that they failed to stop from going to the Hill, and now he's got to get on record.
HILL: Right.
KRISTOL: And it's not good.
So this also makes it unbelievable, for me, that Mulvaney and Cipollone, the White House counsel, are not testifying. They have direct knowledge of this. And why aren't they testifying?
HILL: Well, I think we know why.
KRISTOL: Donald Trump doesn't want them to.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: They may have direct knowledge, exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: The question is, too, is, when we -- adding to this timeline, we keep learning these little threads. Does it change anything in terms of the calculus for Democrats?
FINNEY: It probably doesn't in the context of how Schiff is proceeding with the impeachment.
He's already said, we're not going to play rope-a-dope with people going to court and what have you.
And I think -- I suspect he knew that other pieces of information -- he certainly knew that the Southern District of New York was continuing its investigation of Rudy Giuliani, and as we have seen there, more and more that comes out, the connections. Giuliani even actually met with Manafort at some point to talk about Ukraine.
So it's all -- at the same time he's trying to change the board of an energy company, a gas company, while he's trashing this other energy company and Joe Biden.
So, point being, I think Schiff and his team understand, we have got to just keep moving with the facts that we have to make our case. At the same time, I don't think it hurts their case to have these other pieces of information out there, because, remember, when we get to the Senate, if we should get the Senate, that's where the Democratic senators can help really lay out and connect all these pieces, if we have them by then.
[16:10:03]
HILL: There is the question, though.
I was talking about this earlier today. Republicans are in lockstep, as we know, right? Democrats are not necessarily. And this is becoming more and more concerning for a lot of Democrats.
And so the longer this drags on, there's sort of a two-part issue here, right, Jackie? Because there's new information. So are you better off waiting to see what is all of the information that could be coming your way?
We had no idea about this timeline during the public hearings, right? It came out afterwards. Or do you move through, at the risk of maybe missing one of the most important links that you're looking for?
KUCINICH: It really is a tight-wire act that we're seeing, because they don't want to drag this out and wait, perhaps, for a subpoena to go through or maybe new testimony, maybe new information, because the closer you get to Election Day for Democrats, it's just a fact, the harder any of this becomes, particularly for those members that are in these marginal districts.
On the other side, they do have -- the simpler they keep this, the simpler the messages, the easier it is for their members to stay on board and to be able to explain it in a way to their constituents that they will be able to understand.
When you get into the Mueller report territory, where it got very, very complicated, Republicans were very much able to muddy the water. That's when it -- that's when it gets harder for those Democrats.
HILL: Well, when it comes to his personal attorney in Ukraine, we know the president now says, you should ask Rudy about what was happening there.
But that actually sounds a lot like what he said about one of his other attorneys who's now sitting behind bars.
That reminder ahead.
Plus, a few months ago, she was full steam ahead on the impeachment inquiry, but now this member of Congress is silent. We asked her why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:16:20]
HILL: In our politics lead, President Trump has railed about the unfairness of the impeachment proceedings, yet now we're learning he may not send a lawyer to the new impeachment hearings next week, according to sources.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins has all the details as the White House deliberates its next move.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Sunshine State, my home.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eager to get away from Washington, President Trump is in Florida ahead of a pivotal week in the impeachment inquiry.
TRUMP: Now the same maniacs are pushing the deranged impeachment. Think of this. Impeachment.
COLLINS: He's facing a Sunday deadline to decide whether he will participate in next week's hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee. Sources tell CNN the White House is still weighing whether to send an attorney but likely won't, despite criticizing Democrats for weeks for freezing them out.
TRUMP: We had a great two weeks watching these crooked politicians not giving us due process, not giving us lawyers. Not giving us the right to speak, and destroying their witnesses. It fell apart.
COLLINS: Trump was on the defensive while rallying supporters in his new home state.
TRUMP: I have never had a direct link between investigations and security assistance.
COLLINS: Contradicting testimony and himself, the president now claims he never directed Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine.
TRUMP: Well, you have to ask that to Rudy. But Rudy -- I don't even know -- I know he was going to go to Ukraine and I think he canceled a trip. But, you know, Rudy has other clients other than me.
COLLINS: Trump making that claim despite a White House transcript showing he told the Ukrainian president he would have Giuliani call him three times. The president's denials about his current attorney echo ones he made about his former counsel.
REPORTER: Then why -- why did Michael Cohen make this, if there was no truth to her allegations?
TRUMP: Well, you'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney and you'll have to ask Michael Cohen.
COLLINS: But Giuliani says there is no distance between he and the president.
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: You can assume that I talk to him early and often.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Now, Erica, part of this decision of whether or not they're going to send an attorney to that hearing in front of the hearing Judiciary Committee also comes as they're deciding if they're going to suggest witnesses and what other factors play into this. Essentially, this comes as the White House is spending the next few days mapping out what their defense is going to be in the next phase of this impeachment inquiry.
HILL: We look forward to that update. Kaitlan, thank you.
Joining me now, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz of Florida.
Good to have with us today.
You just heard the president --
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): Good to be with you.
HILL: Thanks again.
You sort of heard the president there say he didn't direct his attorney Rudy Giuliani to push Ukraine for an investigation. Are you concerned the president could be making Rudy Giuliani the fall guy here?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know, watching Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump contradict themselves, contradict one another with all of the evidence that is very clear that they did coordinate and that the president did direct Giuliani is like watching a snake eat itself. I mean, I listen to hours upon hours of depositions where we had witnesses tell us that they were aware that there was direction by the president to Rudy Giuliani to engage in pushing the Ukrainians to launch investigations in exchange for the release of the foreign aid.
I mean, it happened with witnesses saying it happened. It happened with the president in the transcript.
[16:20:02]
I mean, the president didn't shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, Erica, but the abuse of power is laying there in the street for everyone to see. It's just preposterous.
HILL: Chairman Schiff told Jake Tapper on Sunday that the Ukraine case against the president is ironclad which seems to be what you're referring to as well. But he would not say with certainty whether the president would be impeached.
If all of the facts are there, why the hesitation?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, I -- I don't see this as hesitation. What it is is being responsible. Because unlike the president, unlike the Republicans who have been cowering in the corner in fear of losing their power rather than upholding their oath, Democrats have gone through a responsible and careful impeachment inquiry to make sure that we can lay out all of the evidence, get to the bottom of this abuse of power.
I mean, the president jeopardized our national security. I'm a member of the appropriation committee. He violated the appropriations law that we passed providing almost $400 million to Ukraine and he withheld it in order to try to wrestle the president of Ukraine into launching investigations against his opponents. That is abuse of power. It is impeachable.
And we've begun going through a process to lay that out clearly and then we'll debate it and take a vote.
HILL: The president held a packed rally in your district last night as you know.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Yes.
HILL: Are you losing the impeachment argument in your own backyard?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Oh, God, no. I wish I could have brought the president to watch because this was really the beginning of his retirement party. He is not going to win Broward County. He got 31 percent of the vote here in 2016, Erica. This is the most Democratic county in the state and one of the most Democratic counties in the country.
You know, they trucked in people from all over Florida and even the country. This is not Trump territory by any means. Republicans don't win here.
And it's because they don't stand up for the issues that matter, which include making sure that everyone has access to health care, making sure we don't have oil rigs off our coastline, our people get it and Donald Trump is going to be sent packing by Floridians next November.
HILL: I also want to get your take on something that happened yesterday, an exchange with Secretary of State Pompeo. So, he was asked whether he believes the U.S. and Ukraine should investigate the debunked theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that hacked the DNC in 2016. Take a listen to his answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Any time there is information that indicates that any country has messed with American elections, we not only have a right but a duty to make sure we chase that down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: The intelligence community was clear, it was Russia. It was not Ukraine. But when you have the former CIA director who refuses to tamp down that debunked theory, how do you counter that?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Look, Mike Pompeo is -- his main job now is to hold the president's skirts. I can tell you that I heard Mike Pompeo on more than one occasion when he was CIA director definitely say that he agreed with the intelligence community, all 18 of our intelligence agencies that said they had high confidence -- which is the terminology they use -- that Russia was responsible for the hack of the DNC, the DCCC, and for interfering with our presidential election in 2016.
There's no doubt about that. There's no uncertainty. And there is no evidence at all and he knows it that Ukraine had anything to do with this.
HILL: Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz, appreciate you joining us today.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: He is a Trump lackey. That's the -- that's the bottom line, a Trump lackey.
HILL: We will have to leave it there, thanks again.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thank you.
HILL: And Happy Thanksgiving.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thanks, Erica. You, too.
HILL: Thank you.
It was represented by the Republican establishment, then the Tea Party, now a Democrat. A look at how impeachment is playing in one of the most vulnerable congressional districts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:29:04]
HILL: In our to to2020 lead, if you think steering clear of impeachment this Thanksgiving will be tough, well, just imagine being a Democratic lawmaker trying to avoid the topic with voters in critical swing districts like Virginia's seventh.
CNN's Evan McMorris-Santoro hit the road with a once outspoken advocate for impeachment, a congresswoman, who is now worried she's in, quote, risky waters.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): Thank you so much to everyone for joining us.
EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger has a complicated relationship with impeachment. In September, she joined six fellow first-term Democrats with national security backgrounds in writing an op-ed pushing to open an inquiry. But now, Spanberger is keeping her distance from the progress in Congress.
(on camera): Have you decided how you're going to vote? Are you going to vote to impeach?
SPANBERGER: I mean, I'm going to cast my vote depending fully on what articles are put forth.
MCMORRIS-SANTORO (voice-over): Spanberger's approach could be a reflection of the politics she has to navigate between now and next November, in a district she won by fewer than 7,000 votes.
JEAN GANNON, CHAIRWOMAN, POWHATAN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY: The majority of the district is rural and it's very conservative.
MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Virginia's 7th district is a wildly unpredictable --
[16:30:00]
