Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Phone Records Show Calls Between Giuliani and Associates to GOP Rep. Nunes; House Intel Report Says Trump Placed Own Personal and Political Interests Above Those of The U.S.; Intel Report Accuses Trump of Obstruction, Misconduct. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired December 03, 2019 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: -- about this. I mean it's drumming up this idea that the Bidens are corrupt.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Right.

TAPPER: And that Ukraine interfered in the election.

HENDERSON: And at least the first part this idea that Ukraine interfered in the election completely debunked, right? And also a talking point that Putin wants to advance. Talked about it I think in February of 2017, and you have had the conservative chattering classes advance this as well as folks on The Hill. Nunes among them. John Kennedy -- Senator John Kennedy also seemed to advance this idea and then had to pull back and this is something that the President also believes, too.

And they feel like if this is true, this idea that Ukraine was the one who actually meddled, then the President had every right to go to Ukraine and say, where is this server? But of course, it's all based on a lie and a conspiracy theory.

TAPPER: And in fact, I'm reporting this later in the show also, but the Senate Intelligence Committee as I reported yesterday --

HENDERSON: Exactly. Right.

TAPPER: Looked into --

HENDERSON: And found nothing.

TAPPER: -- the Ukraine allegations, interviewed the former DNC advocate or consultant, Alexander Chalupa, and also interviewed Sean Henry, the President of CrowdStrike on October 5, 2017. And Sean Henry who would not comment, he is -- you know, CrowdStrike is like as heard Adam Schiff say, it's the shorthand for this conspiracy theory. The Senate Intelligence Committee led by a Republican interviewed him.

HENDERSON: And Nunes over and over and over again, mentioning Chalupa. I mean almost at every turn.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But you're going to keep hearing that. We're going to keep hearing from Republicans in the Senate. Senator Burr chairs this committee.

TAPPER: Right.

HABERMAN: He refused to say yesterday, he refused to condemn his colleague Senator Kennedy for talking about the idea that both Ukraine and Russia interfered. And what you're going to hear I think from Republicans going forward is, well, it may not have been a government- organized thing but there are people who did it. Individuals. And that's where --

TAPPER: There was an op-ed in "The Hill." But you can't compare that to the GRU.

HABERMAN: That's right.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Lindsey Graham by the way today, just came out and said that he's 1,000 percent confident that Russia, not Ukraine, meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

TAPPER: Let's see how long that lasts. Stick around. We have a lot more to talk about. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. When we come back, new details from this impeachment report that the report the House Intelligence Committee just released. Stay with us.

[15:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We're back with our breaking news coverage. The House Intelligence Committee this afternoon released the impeachment report. It accuses President Trump of misconduct with Ukraine and obstruction in the impeachment investigation. Let's continue our discussion.

Maggie, the July phone call, the July 25th phone call is at the center of the inquiry. But Schiff argues in his preface.

This telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump's efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for personal gain. Rather it was a dramatic crescendo within a month's long campaign driven by President Trump.

This argument is that like, President Trump can say it was a perfect call, it was a perfect call.

HABERMAN: Exactly

TAPPER: It's almost irrelevant this has been going on behind the scenes for a while.

HABERMAN: Right, the big issue I think the for the -- well, one of the big issues for the Committee, for the Democrats on the Committee is not the call itself in isolation. It's the call amid this campaign to withhold this military aid to Ukraine that Ukraine has made clear was vital to its self-defense and its ability to rely on the U.S., and that is something that we still don't have a ton of answers on. Even the report itself does not make clear certain details about how

that came to be. And that's because the White House withheld documents that were asked for and witnesses that were asked for, and I'm not clear we're ever going to know, frankly, some of these details.

TAPPER: And Elliot that leads to this other part of the preface by Adam Schiff. It says it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began as Maggie just referenced. Reams of documents, numbers of witnesses including the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, et cetera, not testifying, not explaining what happened.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right and so, it has been a strategy of the White House frankly since the beginning to obstruct Congress. And to regard Congress not as a co-equal branch of government, that they don't have to comply with. If you notice, they were very careful the last few sections of the summary. The President categorical refusal to comply, the President's refusal to produce and subpoenaed documents, the President's refusal to allow top aides to testify.

What they're making a case for is what -- at least one article of obstruction of Congress. Now, the big question going into the House Judiciary Committee hearings tomorrow, Jake, is whether they pull in some of the material from the Mueller report. Because if you remember, volume two of the Mueller report was entirely based on acts of obstruction of justice. Four of which they said could have been charged as crimes.

TAPPER: In this one, it's section two.

WILLIAMS: Two seems to be the obstruction section. And so the question here is whether -- now, there's a political cost to that, because many important people polled this and found that there's some fatigue around the Mueller report and being seen as reviving that even though frankly, again, the President seemed to have broken the law, whether that reopens that question.

BORGER: And there's also disagreement among Democrats about whether they ought to be doing that. And can I add to this?

[15:40:00]

Which is, they spent an awful lot of time also talking about not only obstruction but witness intimidation.

WILLIAMS: Right.

BORGER: Which this summary points out, it is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. And they go on about the summary says that the President publicly attacked and intimidated witnesses who came forward to comply and then went through chapter and verse. And I'm wondering whether that will be a part of this as well. WILLIAMS: Right, one thing you can do is put one big umbrella under

acts of obstruction --

BORGER: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: -- you know, tampering, witness intimidation.

BORGER: Exactly.

TAPPER: You might remember that during -- when former Ambassador Yovanovitch was testifying, the President tweeted an attack on her and Adam Schiff read that to her. At the time, I said, that looked like an article of impeachment about to happen and it is in here. I don't know that it will be separate, it will probably be under one blanket rule.

Something that just happened that was very interesting, we were talking before the break, Nia, about the fact that Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on this very committee, the House Intelligence Committee, is mentioned a number of times having phone calls with Giuliani, Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas and others.

Clearly Schiff has suspicions as to why that was happening but Schiff has been very against this impeachment proceeding to begin with. Lev Parnas' attorney just tweeted.

Devin Nunes, you should have recused yourself at the outset of the House impeachment hearing, and #letlevspeak, whatever that means.

Let his client speak and then it links to a tweet by the reporter, Natasha Bertrand, who puts up these phone records showing phone calls between Devin Nunes and Lev Parnas. And as Elliot points out, I mean they were making a big deal out of the fact that the whistleblower talked to somebody on the Committee staff as if that was a crime --

HENDERSON: Right.

TAPPER: -- whereas this is a lot more unusual.

HENDERSON: Yes, and they were also suggesting that somehow maybe Adam Schiff should be a witness to this. And you heard Adam Schiff in his press conference there say that members of Congress were complicit. You know, not enough information at this point, and I imagine he was talking about Nunes. Because as you point out, he shows up all through this talking to Giuliani, talking to Lev Parnas.

Do they wait for more information? Something else that Schiff said there was that there is this discussion about whether or not they wait for every fact. Right? Every witness to come forward. Obviously, some witnesses, a lot of witnesses have been blocked by this White House or is this a matter urgent enough right now to just move forward. And Schiff said that he feels like it's urgent enough where they don't necessarily have to wait on every fact.

HABERMAN: There is a risk to them in what they're doing though. I think that it's worth noting which is the way -- TAPPER: A risk to Democrats?

HABERMAN: For the Democrats --

HENDERSON: In terms of not waiting.

HABERMAN: In terms of not waiting. There's clearly information they're not going to have. As I mentioned before. And they made their piece with the fact that they're probably not going to have it. There is a risk to rushing ahead and not following what has traditionally been a schedule for how you handle this kind of thing. I understand there are all kinds of crosscurrents as to politically as to why they're not.

But that is something you're going to see Republicans seize on. That this is not a typical process. They've already made process a huge part of their response at the White House and I think you're going to see that continue as you have this expedited version. While Schiff has real reasons he's laying out I still think you're going to see Republicans grab on that.

TAPPER: Moments ago the White House responded to the impeachment report released by the House Intelligence Committee. We'll bring you that response next. Stay with us.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Breaking news in our POLITICS LEAD. Just moments ago the White House responded to the impeachment report released this afternoon by the House Intelligence Committee, a report that accusing President Trump of misconduct with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.

I want to welcome to our panel here CNN senior White House correspondent Pamela Brown. Pam, what did the White House have to say?

PAM BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Stephanie Grisham, the Press Secretary released a statement not long after this 300-page report was released. So hard to imagine they had a chance to really go through all of it.

But in this statement the White House says, at the end of a one-sided sham process, Chairmanship Schiff and Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump. This report reflects nothing more than their frustrations. Chairmanship Schiff's report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.

So really, nothing new in this statement, Jake. This what they've said all along, calling it a sham process. Saying that it's mainly people's interpretations. Their allegations but there's no direct evidence to back up the claims. Other White House officials I've been speaking with today say this is weak report, and you know, they are really sort of pouring cold water on it. Another official you know made reference to what the Democrats are trying to do, and say, look, this is bigger than just what the President did in Ukraine.

Here's why you should care. It's because this has to do with our democracy with checks and balances. Officials are saying in the White House saying, if you care about democracy, what about the election next year? So this is kind of the talking points are emerging. Much of what we have already heard before -- Jake.

[15:50:00]

TAPPER: But nothing really substantive in terms of the allegations and evidence being made. In fact, earlier today in London, President Trump attacked in very personal terms the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being, I think he grew up with a complex for lots of

reasons that are obvious. I think he's a very sick man and he lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's President Trump there. What does that say to you?

BROWN: It's clearly this is all getting under his skin. You know on the one hand the White House is trying to say, look, the President's doing the people's work, the government's business in London focusing on NATO. But really, it's clearly, he's distracted by this. I mean this is getting under his skin, that was a deeply personal attack against Adam Schiff calling him deranged and a very sick man. And at pretty much every press opportunity the President has brought up impeachment. He's been tweeting about it. It is clearly top of mind.

We're not sure yet, I reached out to the White House asking if he's been briefed on this report, it's unclear if that has happened yet.

TAPPER: What would you advise the President if you were his legal counsel right now, what would you tell him to do?

WILLIAMS: But I guess the question is, his legal counsel or his political and messaging counsel. Because those are two different strategies and it seems like they are all being mashed into one right now. It seems that the best approach for the President is to undermine the process which is what they are doing. Because of the fact, Jake, that while this is a legal process you still have to get the American people behind it, and what they are doing is calling -- what was it? Deranged individual, calling the person running it a deranged individual. Saying it is not fair from the start and we never had a chance to mount a fair defense. That's all their doing is just turning off the public and turning off Republicans in the Senate and the House, and to some extent that is an effective/legal strategy.

BORGER: And it doesn't move the ball at all. Because people are where they are. And the House is going to vote the way the House is going to vote. And most people presume they will come with articles of impeachment and they will send it to the Senate. I think the question may be, it ought to be, well, what is the White House thinking about when it comes to the Senate?

Because the Senate is a whole different ball of wax. They believe, I think, that they may get a fairer shot in the Senate. Who knows? Will they be sending -- well, they'll have somebody defend them in the Senate but will they be allowing certain witnesses to testify that they put the kibosh on so far.

BROWN: But they're focused on that. I mean I can tell you Vice President Pence is meeting with lawyers on The Hill today, Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel will be up there tomorrow. I mean there's a big focus on the Senate because there's a feeling that's where that they can really make their case.

BORGER: And it's TV.

BROWN: It's TV. It's unlikely they're engage in the judiciary hearings. But at the same time, there is actually in the White House some skepticism that it may get to the Senate. I mean officials I've been speaking to are actually saying that they are not convinced the Democrats will hold this vote and it will go to the Senate.

HENDERSON: Yes, but I think the President is thinking at some point but then it is likely, if you listen to Adam Schiff, this probably will go to the Senate.

TAPPER: And Nia-Malika, I just wanted to ask you the bigger picture here beyond the White House response and the politics in the Senate. What does it mean if U.S. Presidents are allowed, with no punishment --

HENDERSON: Right.

TAPPER: -- to ask, pressure, whatever, other countries to investigate domestic political rivals? What does that mean for American democracy? Let's take the Democrats argument here at face value. What does it mean?

HENDERSON: I mean it means that an American President can cast about for dirt be is it real or unreal to any foreign power they wanted to. And possibly use the levers of his government, possibly use taxpayers' money as this document alleges the President did. I mean this would be a terrible precedent for an American President to do this, to have foreign powers interfere in American elections, and that is what you hear Schiff saying over and over again. They have to draw the line here.

Listen, Democrats didn't want to be here. Pelosi was dragged here. Schiff was dragged here. But they hear the call of history. They here the call of precedent too that says, listen, if an American President does this, they have to be held accountable even if it is only in the House of Representatives. WILLIAMS: You know what? It would be irrational not to. In the

future if you could get away with this, why wouldn't you? If this is now the baseline for conduct for a president of the United States, you would be a fool not to enlist the help of foreign governments. It is the duty and this is where the House Intelligence Committee right now, they're seeing it as their duty to stop this norm, yes.

BORGER: I think what they're saying in this report is, first of all, they're foreshadowing this epic Constitutional clash we're going to have. And they have also written about what the framers of the Constitution were thinking who, after all, bridled under monarchs and wanted to make sure that authoritarianism wasn't brought to this country. And they said having just won hard fought independence from a king with unbridled authority they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to law and the constitution.

[15:55:00]

TAPPER: A republic if you can keep it. Everyone stick around, we've got more to talk about, the impeachment report is out. Democrats say there is overwhelming evidence of President Trump's misconduct. The new details that we're learning as we go through this more than 300- page report. That's next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD, I'm Jake Tapper. We begin this hour with the major breaking news. A day for the history books with President Trump's, quote, misconduct, detailed in more than 300 pages by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Who argue that President Trump personally and with the help of multiple senior administration officials solicited the interference of a foreign --

[16:00:00]