Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Former Mar-a-Lago Staffer Repeatedly Contacted By Trump; Interview With Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX); President Biden Says Israel Losing Global Support; Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Capitol Hill. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 12, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:59]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Zelenskyy's mission impossible, Ukraine's president visiting the Capitol to make a last-ditch effort to win military aid for his war against Russia. But Republican lawmakers appear willing to say no deal and leave for the holidays without passing a significant aid package, this as we're learning startling new details about Russia's losses in Ukraine.

Plus, strong words from President Biden aimed at an ally. Biden says that Israel is losing support amid its offensive in Gaza and that Prime Minister Netanyahu has no choice but to change his government.

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN HOST: And exclusive CNN reporting: calls former President Trump made to a former Mar-a-Lago employee. That employee is now a witness in one of his trials. Those calls were apparently made before charges in the case were filed.

We are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. I'm Boris Sanchez, alongside Rahel Solomon in the nation's capital, where political gridlock on Capitol Hill may be jeopardizing the fight against Russia and Ukraine.

Right now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Washington pleading for Congress to approve more military aid for his country. Next hour, he's scheduled to sit down one-on-one with President Biden. This morning, he met with senators and House members arguing that the political bickering over Ukraine aid is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants to see.

SOLOMON: And yet, so far, Republicans seem unmoved. Some GOP senators even walked out of their meeting.

Also today, we have newly declassified U.S. intelligence about Russia's strategy and why the Kremlin is aiming for a winter stalemate.

We have CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju. He is on the Hill, along with CNN reporter Katie Bo Lillis. Manu, let's start with you.

I mean, as we await this White House meeting, what are you hearing on the Hill?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, nothing has changed.

In fact, the stalemate persists. And there are real fears that this aid to Ukraine, even supporters who back aid to Ukraine believe that this will drag into next year, despite the urgent pleas by the president of Ukraine, who is poised to leave Capitol Hill empty- handed.

He met behind closed doors with House -- with Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats trying to make his case about why aid is needed. I'm told that was expecting -- told senators he expected that they would eventually come through. And he indicated that this money would be looked at. There'd be significant accountability in Ukraine for federal dollars.

Then he met with the speaker of the House and the House Democratic leader. But the fact of the matter is that Republicans are still insisting that there needs to be a deal to deal with the Southern border with Mexico to tighten immigration restrictions.

They said that must come first before they agreed to approving aid to Ukraine, even as there is no path for a deal on immigration, as the two sides remain badly divided, something that even staunch supporters of Ukraine aid like Senator Mitt Romney indicated must be dealt with first, immigration, before there is a deal on Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): The reality is that the House is not going to take up a Ukraine bill unless it includes securing the border to the level that existed under the three prior presidents.

When people elect a Republican majority of the House, you have to listen to what they have to say.

RAJU: Are you concerned that if there's no money, Ukraine could lose the war to Russia?

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): Well, that's always been a big possibility the whole time. I mean, I have never thought they could win to begin with, especially the way we eased into it.

RAJU: What are the implications then if Russia wins? Are you worried about the implications if Russia wins?

TUBERVILLE: Well, everybody keep saying they're going to continue to go across Europe. I mean, they can't beat Ukraine on the eastern side. How are they going to continue to go the rest of the way through Europe? I have never believed that scenario.

I think it's -- I think it's a good selling point to send more money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:05:03]

RAJU: So you're hearing the divide within the GOP side, some like Tommy Tuberville saying no more money at all for Ukraine, others saying at least there needs to be a deal on border security first before agreeing on aid to Ukraine.

But there is no deal inside between the two parties on border security, which is why President Zelenskyy, despite these urgent appeals, leaving Washington without any aid. Unclear when and if that may happen -- guys.

SANCHEZ: Manu, thank you so much for the update.

We want to bring in Katie Bo Lillis now, because, Katie, you have some new reporting on this declassified intelligence report that was provided to members of Congress. And it's really providing startling details about Russia's losses on the battlefield.

KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN REPORTER: Yes, some pretty staggering numbers here, Boris.

This intelligence assessment provided to Congress yesterday reports -- and I'm going to give you some of these figures -- reports that, of the 360,000 troops that Russia sent into Ukraine initially and that made up their entire standing ground force prior to the invasion, of those, 315,000 had been lost on the battlefield. That's an 87 percent loss of Russia's standing ground forces before the invasion.

Now, look, important to understand that Russia has been able to defray these losses. They have been able to lean on, for example, the Wagner Group with some of their convict fighters. They have also launched a number of conscriptions and mobilizations to try to sort of throw more bodies at this fight. So they have been able to defray some of these losses.

Still, this assessment warning -- and, again, I'm going to quote from this directly -- this assessment warning that the war has sharply set back 15 years of Russian effort to modernize its ground force, so huge and important figures.

But, again, I think very important to be reading this in the context of what Manu has just been telling us, of course, which is that the real peril for Ukraine here is that U.S. funding may run out. And so I think you're going to hear these sort of staggering numbers, these Russian losses really talked about as evidence that, look, the Ukrainians are capable of exacting costs against the Russian military if they are provided with the military support to get it done.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

SOLOMON: Putin sort of hoping that maybe they can wait this out and sort of get through the winter and... LILLIS: That -- yes, that's exactly right.

I think one of the other things that you are seeing the intelligence community here in the United States watch very carefully is sort of the way Vladimir Putin is thinking about the next 12 months or the next two years.

And right now, the belief is that Putin believes that he can essentially outwait the West, right, that he's going to be able to sort of take advantage of this kind of moment in which there are some real divisions in the domestic politics in the United States and sort of public opinion seems to be kind of in flux about supporting Ukraine, right?

And so I think, for Putin, there's a real kind of benefit to let's just sit back, let's wait, let's see if the United States will get tired of this.

SOLOMON: Katie Bo Lillis, thank you.

And this just in, new comments from President Biden on the state of the Israel-Hamas war. In a speech to Democratic donors, the president said that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to change his hard-line government, and that support for the country's military campaign is waning.

SANCHEZ: Let's go to the White House now with CNN's M.J. Lee.

M.J., walk us through what the president said.

M.J. LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this was a significant moment and significant comments coming from President Biden, where he pointedly told donors that Israel is beginning to lose support as it continues its heavy bombardment of Gaza in its war against Hamas.

In recent weeks, we have seen, of course, this slow crescendo of the growing concerns coming from the Biden administration about Israel's conduct and how it is conducting its military operations, going as far as to say that its operations in Southern Gaza needed to look different than what we saw earlier in the war in Northern Gaza.

It has, of course, raised significant concerns about the widespread civilian casualty and destruction in Gaza. And even last night, we saw President Biden saying at a Hanukkah reception that Israel needs to be careful, because public opinion and support for this war can quickly change.

But now today, it seems that the president has gone one step further in basically confirming that Israel is in fact beginning to lose support. Now, one other comment that the president made to donors just now that was also very significant is, he said that about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government needed to change.

He said -- quote -- "This is the most conservative government in Israel's history." And he went on to say that this government does not support a two-state solution. This is really important, because it is explicitly critical of Bibi's government, which this administration has been before in other contexts, namely, its push for judicial reforms, but now it is -- the president is criticizing it in terms of and in the context of this war.

[13:10:06]

Of course, it signals that the White House is increasingly thinking about what the future of Gaza looks like. We know that the administration, of course, supports a two-state solution, but, again, very revealing comments just now from the president about the future of this war and Israel.

SANCHEZ: Yes, they come as Netanyahu tried to block the Palestinian Authority from taking control in Gaza, a position that the White House has been standing for.

M.J. Lee live from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, thanks so much.

SOLOMON: All right, let's go back to Capitol Hill, where the House Rules Committee is expected to vote any moment now on a resolution to formally begin an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. The full House could vote on the measure as soon as tomorrow.

Now, Biden is facing increasing scrutiny from House Republicans over his son's foreign business dealings.

Joining us now is the vice chair of the House Rules Committee, Republican Congressman Michael Burgess of Texas.

Congressman, welcome to the program. Good to have you.

(CROSSTALK)

SOLOMON: I actually want to start -- welcome.

But let us actually start with Zelenskyy's trip to Washington today. He spoke directly to lawmakers. Can you share with us a bit more about what he said? And, ultimately, I mean, it sounds like it wasn't persuasive. Walk us through what was said there.

REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (R-TX): I will have to tell you, I'd been in Rules Committee all day. I wasn't in the meeting where President Zelenskyy was.

SOLOMON: OK, fair enough.

So let's actually turn there and turn to the vote to formalize the House impeachment inquiry. I know that you have said previously that -- quote -- "The American people deserve answers."

What answers do you expect will come out of the inquiry that we don't already have?

BURGESS: Well, look, what's going on in the Rules Committee today is largely procedural to formalize the investigations that have already been occurring in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Committee on Ways and Means, which is a tax committee, and, of course, the Committee on the Judiciary, which is ultimately where impeachment proceedings reside.

It's -- this is precedent that was set twice when the Democrats were in the majority in the past couple of years. The formal impeachment inquiry, in fact, in 2017, came to us basically in December rather suddenly in the Rules Committee. So this is something it's not new. This road has been traveled now a couple of times before.

But at this time, the purpose of the Rules Committee, purpose of the speaker asking the Rules Committee to do this is to set formally the rules that are governed -- going to govern the investigation.

SOLOMON: No, I understand.

But I just wanted to circle back, because I didn't quite hear an answer, that what answers are you expecting to ultimately come out of this that we don't already have?

BURGESS: Well, I should say that I have not prejudged what answer should come out of the entire process.

But as has been reported going back to the very first part of this year, when Republicans did take the majority, the significant number of suspicious activity reports that the previous Congress had basically ignored, and those suspicious activity reports generated by financial institutions reported to the Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, as the committee began to look into those suspicious activity reports, a rather complex web of different companies and different relationships involving members of the Biden family.

And it became almost impossible to follow. That's when Chairman Comer of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked for additional authority to begin to delve into some of these corporations that were collected to apparently receive money from foreign governments. And it's a lot of money.

So that is the basic -- that's the spark, if you will, that initiated these whole proceedings.

SOLOMON: I take your point about the spark, as you call it, but I do wonder.

Some legal scholars, certainly a number of your Republican colleagues have seriously questioned whether there is any evidence to pursue this inquiry and ultimately whether this should be the priority right now. Does that give you any pause moving forward?

BURGESS: Well, look, as the last Congress did not follow up on these reports that were being generated, financial institutions were encountering situations that required them to issue a report, Department of Justice, Department of Treasury seemed incurious about it. So, the only scrutiny has come now in the past 11 months since

Republicans took the majority. And are there a lot of other important things going on in the world? Absolutely. All of them require our attention. But this requires our attention also, because people do have questions if there is a large about a foreign money being funneled into this various web of companies that have been set up.

[13:15:02]

What is the purpose for that? And why have they gone to such extensive lengths to hide it and obscure it? And to the extent that fake e-mails have been made for several of the people who are involved, it becomes very difficult to ask for an e-mail if you didn't even know that the fake account exists.

SOLOMON: Let me turn to another important issue that's on the minds of a lot of people right now, abortion, a fellow Texan, Kate Cox, who had to leave the state to terminate her pregnancy after what really became a back-and-forth with the courts there.

I mean, Congressman, you are also a physician. I mean, how concerned are you, if at all, about the confusion that seems to exist around these medical exemptions?

BURGESS: Well, just going back to the Dobbs decision itself, I thought it was correct that those decisions were returned to the state.

It never seemed logical to me that the Supreme Court would be the place where that would be generated. I know I have had constituents for years who were concerned about that policy in this country. So now it's correctly been returned to the states.

The states make the decision. And you know what? If people in the state don't like the decisions, they can then correct that problem at the state level.

SOLOMON: But let me just ask before I let you go. I mean, you're a doctor

I mean, how would you feel about courts intervening with a decision or recommendation that you have made for your patient?

BURGESS: Well, look, every -- I do know this. Every case is different. And every case requires a significant amount of sensitivity to the facts of the case.

I don't know all the facts in this case. So I'm a little reluctant to make those projections. But the fact remains that you do have two individuals who each have -- each have some rights. And the -- again, the case is complicated. The condition, my understanding, is not uniformly lethal to the baby.

There are -- there are considerations here for, how do you get to the best decision for all concerned?

SOLOMON: Congressman Michael Burgess, we appreciate the time today. Thank you.

BURGESS: Good deal. Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come on NEWS CENTRAL, there is new exclusive CNN reporting about Donald Trump's classified documents case. We're learning new information about who the former president contacted just a few months after the FBI seized classified records at his estate.

Plus, new developments surrounding the disappearance of jailed Putin critic Alexey Navalny. What the Kremlin is now saying about his whereabouts.

And Harvard University's embattled president is expected to keep her job, but that's not sitting well with the alumni and lawmakers who sparked this whole controversy.

We're back in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:22:00]

SANCHEZ: Now to some exclusive new reporting on a key witness in special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago pro.

Sources tell CNN that Donald Trump and his associates repeatedly contacted a former-employee-turned-witness before charges were filed in the classified documents case.

SOLOMON: And this is the same longtime Mar-a-Lago employee who moved several boxes for Trump and was also privy to conversations between the former president and his two co-defendants.

We're joined now by CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz. Also with us is Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor.

Good to have you both.

Katelyn, let me start with you and this new exclusive new reporting. Just break down what you learned here.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, what we have is a pattern of communication.

I was able to learn through sources and also some material I was able to get my hands on, and it's about a person who was at Mar-a-Lago for a long time really ingrained in that community working for Donald Trump. And then the FBI search happens. This person had witnessed quite a lot of things about boxes, had moved some boxes, had overheard phone calls, then leaves his job.

And when he leaves his job just a couple of months after that FBI search, it's clear there's an investigation ongoing, he gets a call from Trump, something that just didn't happen in his life, to his personal phone. Trump's asking him why he left his job. They have a nice conversation afterwards. The word gets back to him that Trump thinks he's a good guy.

And then there's more communications with other people, people who eventually become co-defendants of Donald Trump, who are telling him things like, if you want to come back to Mar-a-Lago, you could get your job back, that we think Donald Trump would really like to be able to see you. There are tickets to a golf tournament and why don't you come hang out with us?

And also several repeated interactions about the lawyer that he might choose in this case. Now, put this all together, is this just conversations among friends? Quite possibly. This is a small community. They all know each other really well. But, also, it's just a piece of insight the special counsel picked up on in this investigation that shows you how this world works.

People are in touch, and there's a lot of information going on, being exchanged, even in the course of this investigation.

SANCHEZ: It does strike me that this witness told the special counsel that Trump allies randomly showed up at his gym and were like, hey, how you doing? Trump loves you.

(CROSSTALK)

POLANTZ: Very unusual for that person to show up at the gym.

SANCHEZ: Quite a bit unusual.

POLANTZ: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Let's go to Renato Mariotti.

Renato, notably, none of these interactions between this former employee and Trump and his associates are actually referenced in the indictment. Is there anything to read into that?

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Not necessarily.

It may mean potentially that they weren't 100 percent solid in the proof that they had at the -- in the indictment. It may mean that, for example, the -- they're going to be able to -- they may have, for example, additional evidence that they're providing that they didn't have at the time of indictment.

But, look, it's very strong evidence. And, really, it's interesting. We spend a lot of time focusing on the January 6 case and the case down in Georgia.

[13:25:02]

The Mar-a-Lago case is the strongest case by far against Trump of all these cases that he's facing. And this is more of a pattern of activity, where there looks like something like a cover-up, right? Why do you desperately need to reach this guy unless you're trying to keep your -- keep your stories straight or try to alter his testimony in some way, something that the jury is going to find very suspicious. SOLOMON: And, Katelyn, one thing you also sort of did some digging

and found out is there were questions about his legal counsel, who he was being represented by.

What did you learn about that? And why do you think that could be noteworthy here?

POLANTZ: Well, this person chose not to have a Trump-paid-for -- to have Trump pay for his lawyer. He chose to have a different lawyer outside that bubble.

But who is representing these witnesses has been something that has hung over this case, both during the investigation at this stage, when this person was getting these contacts. Investigators were asking a lot of questions about that. And even now that this case is charged, there are still questions being asked in court.

Is it OK for witnesses in the case to have the same lawyers as the co- conspirator defendants sitting next to Donald Trump, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta? There are some overlap in different aspects of the investigation. And it's not unusual for a corporate entity like the Trump Organization or Mar-a-Lago club to be paying for employees' lawyers, but there's just so much interconnectedness here.

And it's an obstruction investigation. It's caught prosecutors' attention. They're watching closely.

SANCHEZ: Renato, to Katelyn's point that a setup like this isn't unusual, where a corporation helps to represent certain employees in prosecution, how does the question of conflict of interests play into this entire case?

MARIOTTI: Great question.

The fact that somebody's paying fees, in and of itself, doesn't create a conflict. Really, anyone can pay for another lawyer's fees. And the idea is, under the law, that they want to increase the ability of people to afford representation. So, the -- essentially, the attitude is that the lawyers themselves have their own ethical obligations to look out for their clients' interests.

So unless the clients that they're representing have a divergent interest from each other that are at odds, paying for the same -- for example, the same lawyer to represent multiple people is OK, as long as the clients don't conflict with each other.

So, very common for a company to have one lawyer representing multiple different employees. Obviously, though, in this case, where there's -- it's an obstruction case, not only a very high-profile case, but a case in which we have actually had one cooperator change lawyers and change his story, it's understandable that people are raising some serious questions about it here.

SOLOMON: Renato Mariotti, thanks for your insights. Katelyn Polantz, it's great to have you and your reporting. All right, still missing, still no answers. What the Kremlin is saying

today about jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny, who has seemingly vanished.

After days of criticism and days of calls for her removal, Harvard's president is staying put. What we know about the university's decision to back Claudine Gay.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)