Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Does Trump Have Presidential Immunity?; Former Mar-a-Lago Staffer Repeatedly Contacted By Trump; Republicans Set to Move Forward With Biden Impeachment Probe; Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Capitol Hill. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired December 12, 2023 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:02:41]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Exclusive new reporting: getting calls from Donald Trump. What one former Mar-a-Lago-employee-turned-witness says he was offered by the former president.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, happening now: new details emerging on the pitch that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is making to U.S. lawmakers behind closed doors right now, the surprising topics he is touching as he pleads for new money.

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Also on Capitol Hill, House Republicans are expected to take a big step forward toward an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, the White House calling the effort baseless and a sham investigation. Where things stand right now.

I'm Sara Sidner with John Berman and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BERMAN: All right, in the breaking news, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he is about to meet with House Speaker Mike Johnson.

He's trying to break through all the U.S. politics and secure aid that he says he desperately needs now to fight Vladimir Putin. We're getting new details about how he is trying to persuade U.S. lawmakers what subjects he is willing to discuss and some he is not.

CNN's Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. Nick Paton Walsh is in Ukraine.

Nick, please stand by for one second for us.

Manu, I want to start with you on exactly how this pitch is going so far.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he did make the case that he -- money is needed urgently, especially air missile defense systems that he says is needed to shut off a land bridge into Crimea, something he says is essential to push back against Russian aggression.

He warned that, if Ukraine falls, that the migrant crisis in Ukraine will get much worse and that it will lead to migrants rushing into other countries in Europe and potentially even into the United States.

And this comes as a separate debate over immigration within the United States is holding up aid to Ukraine. We're actually looking at pictures right now of Volodymyr Zelenskyy walking on Capitol Hill. We expect him to meet in a matter of moments.

Let's listen to what he has to say.

All right, so, it looks like he didn't address remarks, but he walked into this meeting that is currently ongoing with -- he's going to meet with Speaker Johnson, a critical moment here.

[11:05:07]

But what Zelenskyy's pitch has been is that aid is needed immediately, even as the U.S. lawmakers are grappling with this separate issue of immigration in the United States, tightening laws that deal with the border with Mexico to prevent an influx of migrants. That debate is nowhere near getting resolved at this critical moment, which means that Ukraine aid could wait, could wait for some time.

But I'm told that Ukraine -- that President Zelenskyy said that he is fully expecting Congress to still come through, despite the stalemate on Capitol Hill. And leaving the meeting, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made clear about the warnings that Zelenskyy made behind closed doors and said it's time for Congress to act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Even many of our Republican colleagues talked about we are winning this war and if we get the help that -- if he gets the help he needs, he will win.

On the other hand, he made it clear, and we all made it clear, that, if we lose, Putin wins. And this will be very, very dangerous for the United States. So we cannot let Putin influence through any surrogate what is -- what we need to do for Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, I'm told in the meeting with senators he was asked questions about how that aid would be spent, accountability to that aid.

He insisted that there would be no corruption, that there would be no people within his country buying yachts of sorts for -- from that U.S. aid. The question, does that convince enough Republican skeptics in particular to come on board? He did not give a total price tag about how much money ultimately will be needed from the United States to help his country beat back Russian aggression, but still wanted this money urgently, as the White House says it needs to happen this month, or you can't -- Ukraine could be at the risk of collapsing in its war against Russia.

The question is, does it change the dynamics on the Hill? At the moment, it appears it did not as he moves into this meeting with Speaker Johnson in a matter of minutes -- guys.

BERMAN: All right, we're going to watch that meeting very carefully.

Manu Raju, thank you.

Let's go to Nick Paton Walsh, who is in Ukraine right now, the Zaporizhzhia region.

And, Nick, we can see by the cold and the precipitation there winter is not waiting for the U.S. Congress to figure out how it wants to deal with its politics here, the fighting season not waiting for the U.S. Congress. What's the view from there?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and Vladimir Putin not waiting either, in fact, relishing, it seems, the final moment where Western resolve, so clear and unified since the start of the Russian invasion nearly two years ago, seems to be stalling, if not beginning to crumble to some degree.

It's interesting, hearing all those discussions on Capitol Hill, the disconnect between the perception of this war there as something that could potentially have an ultimate price tag with a guaranteed result and what's actually happening here, which is a life-and-death fight.

People on the front lines we meet furious, frankly, angry that the money that's kept them alive, that kept them able to defend Ukraine may suddenly disappear potentially, and the results that could mean for their lives, potentially under Russian occupation going forwards.

This is a key moment for Ukraine. Just today, we know of shelling in Kherson, the town in the south where we were just recently in tents there, dead and injured too, cell phone service across the country knocked out, the Ukrainian Security Services pointing towards a Russian cyberattack potentially behind that.

Yesterday, missile attacks again towards the capital, fears that Ukraine's infrastructure as winter is here is being targeted. The front lines, yes, static to some degree, minor Ukrainian progress near Kherson on the other side of the river there, an unlikely advance, but an important one potentially, if it sees some progress, but, importantly, Russia on the front foot in the east near Avdiivka, moving towards another town.

I think it's important just to point out finally, the U.S. argument they don't want to get dragged into another war here, well, the other argument is, the money they give Ukraine helps Ukraine do the fighting and not end up with Russian nearer NATO borders, dragging the U.S. potentially into a wider conflict in Europe, John.

BERMAN: Yes.

And, look, I'm sure those troops on the front line when they hear that this funding issue might not be resolved until January, they must be thinking, do we have until January?

Nick Paton Walsh for us in Ukraine. Nick, you and your team, please stay safe -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, we are watching what's going on right now as the House Rules Committee is going to vote to formalize a GOP-led impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

The investigation centers around whether (AUDIO GAP) benefited from son Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. If the resolution survives the Rules Committee vote, it could head to the House, to the floor as soon as tomorrow.

CNN's Lauren Fox is following all this from Capitol Hill. We're watching this happen in real time.

What do you know is the latest?

[11:10:00]

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Republican support certainly coalescing behind this impeachment inquiry vote we expect to hit the floor of the House tomorrow evening or early afternoon.

One thing to keep in mind about this is that the committees that have been doing the investigating, House Ways and Means, Judiciary, Oversight, they're going to be continuing their work. If you remember, Speaker McCarthy -- or former Speaker McCarthy had announced an inquiry was opened several months ago. This is simply a vote to formalize it.

But there were a handful of Republicans running in districts where Biden won back in 2020 who were skeptical about moving forward with this impeachment inquiry and now say they believe it is an essential move to ensuring that they get the information they need for part of this investigation.

In fact, our colleagues talked earlier today to Don Bacon, and our Haley Talbot sent this report that Bacon argued that this is an essential step, but he did not think it was inevitable that the House would eventually vote on articles of impeachment against Joe Biden.

That, of course, is extremely important and an important point to make, because he argues it should be up to voters to decide if the committees find high crimes and misdemeanors. The speaker also addressed this issue earlier. Here's his argument for why this impeachment inquiry is crucial now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The impeachment inquiry is necessary now, as -- with -- Emmer just explained, because we have come to this impasse where following the facts where they lead is hitting a stone wall.

We have no choice. To fulfill our constitutional responsibility, we have to take the next step. We're not making a political decision. It's not. It's a legal decision. (END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And that is an argument that you're hearing from many Republicans who had been on the fence prior to this moment. They're arguing that this simply bolsters a case in court if you want to go to court and try and enforce some of the subpoenas, some of those requests for information that Judiciary and Oversight have been making.

That, of course, the argument that the they are making at this moment, but, Sara, obviously the question becomes, inevitably, what happens? Do they vote on articles of impeachment against the president? And what do they find in the meantime, Sara?

SIDNER: Yes, a lot of unanswered questions. And we will be waiting to see what they vote on today.

Thank you so much, Lauren Fox, from Capitol Hill for us -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Let's talk more about this.

Joining us now is former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania Charlie Dent. He's the executive director of the Aspen Institute's Congressional Program.

It's great to see you again, Congressman.

So you just heard from Speaker Johnson this is not a political decision, it's a legal decision. What do you think of this inquiry?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, of course, impeachment is a political process. It's really not a legal process.

The impeachment inquiry, Republicans -- House Republicans have made a compelling case to impeach Hunter Biden. The problem is, of course, Hunter Biden's not a federal official, and Republicans have not yet demonstrated any real connection between Hunter Biden's misdeeds with his president -- with father, and did his father benefit in any way financially?

They have not made that case. And this impeachment inquiry, it's kind of like a missile launch. Once you launch it, you really can't call back the missile. So once you launch the inquiry, it's likely that they will move to an actual impeachment at some point.

So, as a political matter, I'm not sure it's helping Republicans very much. I'm sure this is very difficult for the president both emotionally and psychologically. But -- and, of course, if you're Joe Biden, you probably don't want this to be discussed over the next several months, because -- because of what his son had done in his business dealings. You probably don't want that aired all the time.

But, at the end of the day, Americans are more concerned about the issues that affect them. And I can say that I don't think Hunter Biden really is affecting their lives in any meaningful way. So, again, at the end of the day, Republicans are probably better off, I think, focusing on other things, but they have made this decision and they're going forward.

BOLDUAN: So, Lauren just quoted one Republican, Congressman Bacon, who -- the way he puts it is that he thinks it's not inevitable that this inquiry leads to articles of impeachment.

And even before hearing Congressman Bacon, I was going to ask you, do you see a scenario -- and I'm guessing not since we're talking about rocket launches, but do you see a scenario that they start going down this path and do not move to articles of impeachment for the president?

DENT: Well, my suspicion is, they will move towards articles of impeachment. It's clear that the hard-liners in the House GOP Conference are insisting on this inquiry to begin with.

Now, to be fair, they have already launched the inquiry, but they did it without a vote. Now they're voting on it. But I suspect the hard- liners will want more. They will want an actual impeachment vote.

Now, that doesn't mean that the Don Bacons of the world, who's a good friend, Don Bacon and others may not be supportive of actual impeachment. We don't know how they will vote when that time comes. And I suspect the question would become -- would come at that point in time, will Republicans bring up an impeachment resolution if they do not, in fact, have the votes to pass it?

[11:15:00]

So that's another question that we could spend a lot of time talking about.

BOLDUAN: And I'm sure we will down the road.

But you talked about the hard-liners who have been pushing for this. And then you have folks like Congressman Bacon. What do you think this -- even short of down the road, any articles of impeachment, what do you think this means for Republicans in these swing districts who must be nervous about where this is headed and what this could mean for them?

DENT: Yes, I think that most of them would probably rather not deal with this issue. I don't think it helps them in any way.

I'm not going to say it's going to hurt them terribly, just as when Donald Trump was impeached for the first time, I don't know that that was a real big political issue for many of those Democrats in swing districts. I don't think it had much of an impact at all in the election in 2020 for them.

Same thing here with Republicans. I would -- if I were in one of those swing districts, I would rather not have to defend the inquiry into Hunter Biden. I think that would be an enormous problem for them. But at the same time, I don't think this is going to be the issue that most voters will be casting their vote for. It's not going to help them, but it may not hurt them as much as some people think. BOLDUAN: I feel like we're going to hear a lot of we can walk and

chew gum at the same time coming very soon as this moves down the road. And, as we know, it's nearly impossible when you're in Congress or even outside of Congress.

It's good to see you. Thanks, Congressman.

DENT: Good to see you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: A CNN exclusive: Donald Trump repeatedly contacted a key witness in special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago probe. There are new details emerging.

And a big campaign development this morning, Nikki Haley picking up one of the biggest endorsements of the campaign season.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:21:23]

SIDNER: We're learning new exclusive details this morning about a phone call Donald Trump made with a former Mar-a-Lago employee who ultimately became a key witness in special counsel Jack Smith's probe in the classified documents case.

Sources telling CNN the former staffer told prosecutors that Trump and others allegedly offered him incentives after he left his job at the resort.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz has all of these exclusive details, digging this up for us.

What can you tell us about this relationship and what happened here?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Sara, this is about a person who worked at Mar-a-Lago for a very long time, was very ingrained in that community, and then left his job at a pretty crucial moment.

He had witnessed quite a few things that ended up in the indictment of Donald Trump. He had moved boxes. He had overheard conversations that became part of the charges against Donald Trump and two others.

And this employee left his job a little bit after the FBI search, when it became apparent there was an ongoing criminal investigation, and then shortly after got a call from Trump himself to his personal cell phone, something that rarely happened, where Trump found his cell phone number through one of his contacts, called him and asked him why he was leaving Mar-a-Lago.

Later on, they had a nice, pleasant conversation, I'm told, and then Trump got word back to him that he was a good guy. That was just a blip on the radar of this person as he's leaving his job at Mar-a- Lago. But he had a couple other conversations that stuck out to him that he remembered as unusual, people talking to him about why he wasn't using a Trump-paid lawyer for his legal representation in the classified documents investigation as people were approaching him to speak to investigators.

Wouldn't he want to have tickets to an upcoming Trump-sponsored golf tournament there, Donald Trump very well would like to see him, and then also repeated reminders that he could return to his job at Mar-a- Lago if he wanted to.

SIDNER: Why does this matter in the big scheme of things? Why does this matter so much to Jack Smith?

POLANTZ: Well, Sara, it's hard to say, in that these particular instances, this pattern of communication isn't reflected in the criminal indictment against Donald Trump and his two co-conspirators.

However, these are conversations that this former employee at Mar-a- Lago spoke to investigators about, told them about how these things had happened, how there was this unusual pattern. This was an obstruction investigation before it was charged. There wasn't anything about this particular aspect of it charged.

But there is just a really curious situation here of the timing, that these contacts are coming at a moment in time where there are a lot of people around Donald Trump in South Florida, a lot of people with insight into Mar-a-Lago, and clearly behavior in Trump world of people keeping tabs on one another.

SIDNER: Katelyn Polantz, you are all over this. Thank you so much for the new information -- John.

BERMAN: All right, new developments after special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in immediately on whether Donald Trump has a kind of presidential immunity from the federal election charges with a trial scheduled to begin in March.

The High Court said it will expedite the request.

With me now is Temidayo Aganga-Williams, former lawyer for the House January 6 Committee.

Counselor, thank you so much for being with us.

The Supreme Court says it will expedite it, which is, I imagine, a good sign if you're Jack Smith, but when will he know? When will prosecutors know and how will they know how quickly the Supreme Court will move here?

TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, FORMER JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: That question is really up to the Supreme Court.

[11:25:00]

But I think what Jack Smith is hoping for is that, by early next year at the latest, early January, all of this is settled. And what that allows us for the pretrial motions to move forward in front of Judge Chutkan, and that case to procedurally keep progressing.

The danger he has now is that, if there's what's called a stay, holding all those pretrial deadlines, in D.C., nothing happens, no pretrial motions, no filings. And it basically makes it impossible to have a trial in March. And that's exactly what he wants.

BERMAN: If you're looking for sort of a citizen's guidebook to what the Supreme Court does here, sometimes, the court looks for ways out, looks for ways to say, we don't have to decide on this right now.

What's their sort of escape route here?

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: One way they could do is to direct the appeals court to move in an expedited fashion. That would allow the court not to decide itself and keep this case progressing the typical way, but on an expedited timetable.

That's the one way out. I think it's more likely, in my view, that they will take it on head on. I mean, this decision does not get more important than this. And I expect it they will take it on right now.

BERMAN: It's a foundational constitutional issue and one for which there really is no -- not much case law, shall we say, beyond Nixon. In this case, it would be nice if the court weighed in.

Let me ask you about something that has to do with your work a little bit on the January 6 Committee. We have learned that special counsel Jack Smith, his team might have a witness, might present evidence of Donald Trump's Twitter use, digital experts who can explain what he was writing and how he was using Twitter and exactly when on January 6.

Why might that be relevant?

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: I think one thing they want to do is put that phone in the former president's hands.

We know generally that sometimes the president used his Twitter account and others in his orbit did. Why it's critical for January 6 is because, during the attack, he was tweeting out. He -- when he was asked by Mark Meadows and others to tell the crowd to stand down, he didn't.

He went to his Twitter, and he tweeted out basically more inflammatory language indicating that Vice President Pence didn't have the courage to do what was needed. If -- if Jack Smith can put that phone in the former president's hands, he's going to be showing criminal intent, because he will be able to put together both that the former president is watching the attack on television, which the committee showed.

He's being asked by all those around him to ask these folks to stand down, and he's refusing. And then he's then tweeting out more inflammatory information. And what that does perhaps is show the intent to obstruct, the intent to inflame. And that's one of the charges, obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

BERMAN: If you had this kind of capability in the January 6 Committee, how useful would this have been for you?

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: It would have been incredibly useful.

I was a federal prosecutor before I joined the Jan. 6 Committee. And this is exactly the kind of evidence that I got all the time. It's critical. Get that phone, put it in someone's hands. And if you're in the -- put it in their hands, you get inside their mind, and that's critical for intent.

BERMAN: All right. Thank you very much, counselor. You explained that to me in a way that I hadn't quite thought about before. I really appreciate it -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: That was interesting.

Coming up for us, tonight, a CNN presidential town hall event, Ron DeSantis in Iowa taking questions from Iowa voters. Can he dent Donald Trump's 30-point lead there? We are live in Iowa next.

President Zelenskyy on Capitol Hill possibly about to head in to his toughest meeting yet with House Speaker Mike Johnson.

What we're learning about his specific pitch for more aid for Ukraine to lawmakers behind closed doors right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)