Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Developments in the Impeachment Inquiry; President Trump Remains Defiant; Secretary of State Pompeo Has Not Supplied Subpoenaed Documents; House Democrats Subpoena White House Documents from Mick Mulvaney; Sanders Vows to Return to Campaign Trail After Heart Attack; Ukraine Says It Will Review Investigation into Energy Company; Some House Dems Facing Pushback Over Inquiry Support; GOP Senator Confronted Over Her Silence on Trump's Behavior; Officials: DeVos' Security Could Cost $26M Over Four Years. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired October 05, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello, again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

All right, we begin this hour with a barrage of stunning new developments on the impeachment inquiry and a defiant President Donald J. Trump. Democrats for the first time have subpoenaed the White House for documents on the Ukraine. This coming after President Trump announced that he will not comply with their investigation until House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry in the House.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We'll be issuing a letter, as everybody knows, we have been treated very unfairly; very different from anybody else.

(END VIDEO)

WHITFIELD: The House Speaker is pushing back against the president, arguing that American democracy is at stake.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Some people say why are you doing this? He's not worth it to divide the country this way. I say he may not be but our Constitution is worth it. Our democracy is worth it.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO)

WHITFIELD: House democrats are also now demanding that Vice President Mike Pence hand over documents on Ukraine. The vice president has ten days to respond. This as the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo missed his Friday subpoena deadline. Meantime the "New York Times" is reporting a second potential whistle-blower is considering filing a separate formal complaint.

"The Times" reporting that an intelligence official with more direct knowledge of President Trump's dealings with Ukraine than the original whistle-blower whose complaints sparked the impeachment inquiry. And finally, the "Washington Post" reveals more concerns now coming from the president's aids about his phone calls with other world leaders which left at least one former White House official quote, genuinely horrified.

"The Post" reporting in one of the calls, Trump fawned over Vladimir Putin telling the Russian President he was a great leader.

Let's go straight to CNN's Kierston - Kristen Holmes at the White House. So Kristen, the president seems to be sending a message to the world, to America, and particularly to other republicans by going after Senator Mitt Romney who called the president's latest invitation to China appalling and now he is the target of the president's tweets this morning.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right Fred and I don't know if going after a strong enough language. It is an all out character assassination on twitter deeply personal attacks. I'm going to pull it up so I can show you exactly what I mean. The first line of the first one saying someone please wake up Mitt Romney and tell him that my conversation with the Ukrainian President was a congenial and very appropriate one and my statement on China pertained to corruption not politics.

Now let's skip to the next one because it gets more personal. Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He's a pompous A who has been fighting me from the beginning except when he begged me for my endorsement for the senate run. I gave it to him and when he begged me to be Secretary of State I didn't give it to him. He is so bad for ours.

A couple things I want to note here. One, we don't know whether or not any of this is true, the begging for Secretary of State or for the endorsement. But on top of that, I want to talk about this strategy here. I've been talking to so many republicans up on the Hill, so many republicans within the administration who are really trying to craft messaging and strategy going forward through this impeachment inquiry and through this possible impeachment process if that does happen. This is not part of that.

President Trump is sending a clear message by sending out these tweets, as you said, in response to Mitt Romney saying he is talking to China and Ukraine asking for dirt on political rivals was appalling. He is sending a very clear message -- he will go after, he will attempt to discredit and humiliate anyone who goes up against him despite all of this messaging from republicans that we're seeing from every other angle, the president himself, he is being very clear. That is his way of getting through this impeachment process and anyone who stands up against him is going to face this. WHITFIELD: So we're also hearing from the U.S. Secretary of State,

Mike Pompeo this morning. He has defied his Congressional subpoena and he is also saying or sending the message that the Trump Administration does indeed want to go after corruption.

HOLMES: Yes, that's right. This was a press conference next to the Foreign Minister of Greece. I will start with the second part of what you just said. They're talking about going after corruption, he did not talk about Biden. He did not even mention the words Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. He really just focused on the part of this that was asking the Ukraine to work with them, to look back at the 2016 election and see if there was any election interference saying that is totally okay. But again, that is not what is at the center of this impeachment inquiry.

What's at the center of this is the fact that President Trump asked foreign leaders to help him dig up dirt on political rivals so no mention of that at all but he did address the fact that he had missed that deadline. Take a listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The State Department sent a letter last night to Congress which is our initial response to the document request. We'll obviously do all of the things that we're required to do by law. I was a member of Congress once. Article I has a certain set of powers and Article II has an obligation to make sure that we protect officials at the state department.

(END VIDEO)

HOLMES: And Fred, we're standing by to see what Congress -- how they respond to that letter.

WHITFIELD: All right Kristen Holmes. Thank you so much and later on you'll hear from Joe Biden who also spoke out on this and quoting him now he says all of this talk of corruption comes from the most corrupt president ever. That from Joe Biden, the target of this back and forth between the president and his democratic rival.

All right, meantime, damming text messages given to Congress are now muddying up Trump's claim that there was no quid pro quo between his administration and Ukraine. CNN's Shimon Prokupecz joining me right now. So Shimon, how significant are these text messages?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: I mean they really give us an inside look at what was going on during this period. The campaign that was under way to help try and influence the Ukranians to do what the president wanted them to do. By Rudy Giuliani certainly in meetings, they describe how some of this was going on and then also one significant piece it raises is that there was a career U.S. diplomat who raised serious concerns that military aide could have been -- it was being held up because of political reasons, because of the political campaign, and that is certainly one of the most significant things we see in these text messages. And just to go over some of them, there's the ones from Kurt Volker who was the former special envoy to Ukraine where he talks about getting the Ukrainian president, trying to convince that he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 201s6. He writes about that and then he says we will nail down visit to Washington. Somehow if they can convince the Ukrainian president to go along with this then perhaps there will be this visit to the United States.

Then there's of course the messages from Volker to Rudy Giuliani and here we really see Rudy Giuliani obviously a big player in all of this. He writes to the mayor, had a good chat with (inaudible) last night. He was pleased with your phone call, mentioned Z making a statement - that's the Ukrainian president. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advice Z correctly as to what he should be saying, want to make sure we get this done right.

And then he responds, thanks. Now this is what I was just talking about, this career diplomat. These are text messages from Bill Taylor who was the acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and he writes to Gordon Sondland, he was the Acting U.S. Ambassador to the E.U., a political appointee by the president, a friend of his and also someone who donated to the inauguration and Bill Taylor writes to Sunland, as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance with a political campaign.

And then some five hours later, Sondland responds and says Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. And then almost like this (inaudible) like fashion he writes, the president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. And then he writes that the president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during the campaign. And then he writes that he suggests that they stop going back and forth over texts and if Taylor has any issues, he should reach out to a couple of folks on the phone if he had any issues.

So clearly, that I think is something that members on the Hill are going to zero in on. Sondland is supposed to appear before members on the Hill in a closed-door deposition on Tuesday so certainly that is going to be a big day and it will be interesting to see how Sondland describes all of this.

WHITFIELD: All right, Shimon Prokupecz, thank you so much. We'll check back with you. All right, let's talk more about this, I want to bring in Jamie Rubin, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State under President Clinton. Jamie, good to see you. So in your view, you know, what are the consequences from the U.S. Secretary of State missing a deadline and why would he want to miss a deadline?

JAMES RUBIN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE IN THE BILL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: Well clearly there is a struggle going to go on between the Trump White House and the officials that work for the president and Congress over documents, over subpoenas, over witnesses, over whether the impeachment process has indeed begun or not. It is unusual when we're dealing with specifics like this. The State Department and the Justice Department, frankly, are supposed to be depotliticized. They're the two agencies -- certainly when I was in government where political matters tended to be avoided. Certainly anything related to campaigns, anything related to political questions within the United States, an effort was made to depoliticize them.

WHITFIELD: Yes, well you've seen though, these newly surfaced text messages where the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. says call me. This after a diplomat says, wait a minute. Let me get this right. Are you saying it's OK now that we withhold aid for political purposes? I mean how else does a diplomat handle a situation like this if not for some documentation or for request of clarity especially so there's some record?

RUBIN: Absolutely. Look, this is in an unusual situation to have a White House interfering in the question of politics. I remember when President George Bush, Senior, was alleged to have asked for documents from the British government about Bill Clinton at a demonstration. There was a big scandal that it turned out not even really to be true, so when it comes to election time, the State Department more so than any agency is supposed to, as Madeleine Albright used to say, have their political genes removed from their body, but obviously that didn't happen here. I was struck frankly by the degree to which some of the officials that had been foreign policy experts like Kurt Volker and others who were fully participating in what was clearly pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Remember when it comes to Ukraine, there is a long history here where the bureaucracy has been very tough on Russia, helping the Ukraine, helping them with equipment, trying to push back against Russia while the White House has had a different policy from the beginning and so there's been a struggle between the president's views on Russia and the bureaucracy and you're seeing that struggle play out in these texts.

WHITFIELD: Yes. So I wonder if you can then tell us what it might be like for Volker. Any other career State Department or long time State Department employee who is being asked to do something that feels uncomfortable, possibly illegal, possibly unconstitutional, but does reluctantly or otherwise, carry it out. I mean what is the - what becomes the justification of that? It's just I want to stay in this game and I do believe in the work that we're doing and this too, shall pass? Or is it I'm going to do it as long as I can until I just can't any more. What could be the explanation for tolerating or enduring what you don't - what you feel is uncomfortable?

RUBIN: Well Fredricka, you've really put your finger on the dilemma that an administration official would face here and if we're all going to be honest with ourselves, we should admit that over the last two years, every since President Trump has run for election, the standards by which government behavior had been expected have changed. Every since he first asked the Russian government to look into Hillary Clinton's e-mails, this whole concept has changed. And dozens and dozens of times people have suggested that this behavior was beyond the pale. But the truth is, it's up to the Congress to decide what these matters, whether they entail high crimes and misdemeanors. Beyond that, all these issues are political issues. So if I were to imagine what it was like, here is the best case I can

make. An official wants to have Ukraine stand up to Russia, knows that Russia is committing an act of aggression by attacking Ukraine day after day and they're trying to figure out a way to get the president to be on Ukraine's side knowing that once the president does that and shows support for Ukraine and sits down with the president and allows military aid to be provided, then Ukraine can feel more safe and secure that Russia will not continue its aggression.

So if you believe in the policy of preventing Russia's aggression, I can see you taking it quite far so long as these political questions are - have been out there for years now without any real answers for bureaucrats who are trying to in many cases do the right thing but I think you're right to point out that people will want to get stuff in writing maybe a little bit more and maybe WhatsApp texts probably aren't' the best way to get your instructions when you're dealing ith this.

And you saw a responsible official, Bill Taylor there finally said in exasperation, I'd have to quit if the military aid was cut off because of a refusal to do this. So it's going on every day. There's obviously this is the most stark example but if we're going to be frank, the standards have changed across the board over the last couple of years.

[12:15:00]

WHITFIELD: All right, we value your point of view. Jamie Rubin, thank you so much. Good to see you.

RUBIN: You're welcome.

WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead with President Trump facing serious legal questions, he is turning to two of his most trusted supporters, not lawyers, to head up the White House's response. Plus, Ukraine now says they will take a second look at investigations, some involving the company where Hunter Biden sat on the board. Details coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, we are learning new details today about House democrats widening their impeachment inquiry. "The New York Times" reporting that a subpoena was delivered to the White House to Mick Mulvaney, acting Chief of Staff calling for documents and communications that are highly delicate around the president's calls with Ukraine. With me now to discuss this is Shan Wu who is a former Federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst and Jeff Mason, a White House correspondent for Reuters. Great to see you both.

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you too Fred.

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR REUTERS: You too, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right so Shan you first. You know lots of Congressional subpoenas, some that have gone directly to questioning the testimony and then others talk about documents. And when you have the Secretary of State thus far who has missed the deadline which was yesterday to supply material, how will any of these committees compel someone to comply?

WU: They have a few choices. They could go the traditional route which is to try to get them to comply through contempt and then seek legal, civil lawsuit basically to enforce that contempt.

The could kind of go old school and force the contempt themselves, use their inherent power to do that and also given the direction that the White House seems to be going in with this let's stonewall everything, they could simply add that stonewalling effort to another article of impeachment. Let's remember that Article III of the Nixon articles was obstruction of Congress. And they could also do all three so they do have a number of options available to them.

WHITFIELD: Because thus far there has been a lot of stonewalling and if that option has not been taken, if no options from the committees are taken in terms of contempt, forms of contempt, then they won't be able to get the material hat need can they? Or are there other avenues to take?

WU: If the White House doesn't produce them voluntarily, then they have to seek some form of compulsion and I think ultimately Trump has a slight misunderstanding of the Supreme Court but he gets the idea that he always wants to rely on them. They're ultimately aiming for a fight over executive privilege and/or their newly invented doctrine of immunity. And I think he's going to have a nasty surprise on that front because there's a big difference when the Supreme Court considers things that are more policy based versus something like this which is much more legal analysis about the power of the executive. So I think it's going to be headed there in some way or another.

WHITFIELD: And Jeff, the president continues to be defiant. Saying, yes, I talked to him, it was a perfect call, Ukraine and China, you know this is kind of like a Russia if you're listening. Get involved as well but then the president has spent his time today going after democrats, calling them do nothings and then even targeting a fellow republican, Senator Mitt Romney. Saying that - well saying lots of terrible things because Mitt Romney has said this behavior is appalling.

So is this the president's defense strategy against impeachment, just try to get the last word on being insulting. Why is this and how is this the most effective route.

MASON: Yes, I think it's a terrific question and I think the answer so far is yes. That doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. I mean as this impeachment inquiry intensifies, one would - one would think or one would anticipate that the White House would also intensify its strategy for dealing with that both on a legal and a political communications level. But so far I think the main part of the strategy is exactly what you just said. It's the president's tweets, it's the president expressing his grievances be it online or be it in person at press conferences or Q&As with journalists like myself and my colleagues. And it's showing. I mean the frustration that he's showing is very transparent in terms of where he is about this whole thing but it has also frustrated some of his fellow republicans who would like to defend him, who would like to be part of a more robust defense strategy and they're not seeing that leadership or that direction anyway so far from his team.

WHITFIELD: And you experienced it first hand to see the frustration from the president this week when you were pressing him on very pertinent questions and he was trying to deflect by saying ask the Finnish(ph) president something. You got a question for him? And you were like, I do. I have a follow up but first I really need you to answer this. So at that moment, did you see in this president a different in how he is handling himself as so much seems to be revealed about his interactions with Ukraine or is it...

MASON: You know I think we have seen this president get frustrated before and lash out in anger. He did lash out at me this week but that's not the first time we've seen him do that to a journalist. So I'm reluctant to say that there's a difference or a shift but I do think the anger and the frustration was intense - has been intense this week and we see that with him or in him at times when he feels under pressure, when he feels like he's under the gun and clearly that's how he's feeling right now with regard to the impeachment inquiry and with regard to the coverage of it and the direction its moving.

WHITFIELD: And Shan, how about your thoughts on the White House impeachment team really being run by a political team instead of a legal one. Why? What is the approach here? Is there an advantage to doing so?

WU: I don't think there's any advantage. This team of Mulvaney and Jared is not a team that's going to strike fear in the hearts of anybody. I mean looking back to the last time a close family member was part of a close inner circle. Bobby Kennedy - Jared is no Bobby Kennedy. I think probably the reason they're turning to this group is that these are perhaps two of the only people that are still in good graces with the president and can at least talk to him about some strategy.

[12:25:00]

But whatever team you put in place, political, communications as Jeff was talking about, or legal, their biggest problem has always been their client which is Trump is not able to stay on message. He gets rid of someone whose message he doesn't like. So whatever strategy you come up with, you just can't execute.

WHITFIELD: All right Shan Wu, Jeff Mason, good to see you both. Thank you so much.

WU: Thanks Fred.

MASON: Good to see you Fred. WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead, democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders vowing to get back on the campaign trail following a heart attack. His message to supporters coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back, Senator Bernie Sanders is traveling back to Vermont today after doctors confirm that he had a heart attack earlier this week. The 78 year old Vermont Senator will continue his recovery in Burlington after he was released from a Las Vegas hospital yesterday. Despite the scare, Sanders is reassuring his supporters that he isn't going anywhere. CNN's Ryan Nobles has been following Sanders' campaign.

[12:30:00]

So Ryan, you know, along with obvious health concerns, how concerned is Sanders' staff about all of this?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, at this point, they're putting on a brave face. They are acting like this does not change the game for them at all. That Bernie Sanders is going to make a full recovery and as a result, he's going to be back out on the campaign trail very soon. In fact, that's what Sanders told his supporters last night in a video message.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hello, everybody, we're in Las Vegas, I just got out of the hospital a few hours ago. And I am feeling so much better. I just want to thank all of you for the love and warm wishes that you sent to me. See you soon on the campaign trail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: And I don't think there is any doubt that Sanders does feel a lot better. This procedure has made his health -- has improved his health quite a bit. But there is a political reality here, Fred, this is a 78-year-old man who just suffered a heart attack that will be in the back of voters' minds. But the campaign continues, they're re- launching a $1.3 million ad buy in Iowa on Tuesday. They have surrogates across the country today. They say the campaign moves forward.

At this point though, the only thing he has committed to in the near future is the October 15th CNN/New York Times debate. That may be the first time we see Bernie back on the campaign trail.

Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right, to the flip side to this is his financial, you know, health is quite robust, isn't it? NOBLES: Oh, in a big way, Fred. In fact, we broke last night that his campaign will report $33.7 million cash on hand. That is a massive number especially coming into the fourth quarter of 2019 and heading into 2020. There will be no other campaign that comes close to that number. Elizabeth Warren's campaign will report $27.5 million cash on hand.

This is the reality for Bernie Sanders. Yes, this health concern is going to make it difficult for him but he still has a lot of supporters and he has a significant war chest. Fred, the reason that candidates get out of presidential races isn't because of their poll numbers, it's because they run out of money. Bernie Sanders is not running out of money anytime soon so that means he is likely in this race for the long haul.

WHITFIELD: All right, Ryan Nobles, thank you so much.

All right, so with all of the squirreling around the White House, how do people in Ukraine feel about being wrapped up in an international scandal and what is the government there doing about it. More right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:36:50] WHITFIELD: Ukraine says it is going to review its earlier investigations into the owner of an energy company linked to the son of former vice president Joe Biden. The country's prosecutor said he was reviewing a number of cases opened by his predecessor Viktor Shokin. Here is what Ukraine's current deputy prosecutor said about Shokin this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I just ask if Mr. Giuliani has used a lot of evidence coming from Mr. Shokin? Do you think Mr. Shokin is a reliable witness?

VITALY KASKO, UKRAINE'S DEPUTY PROSECUTOR GENERAL (through translator): We're not going to discuss the allegation against Mr. Biden.

KILEY: But you worked with him.

KASKO: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you trust him?

KASKO: But I don't think that he is a reliable person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate both lied Bidens during a phone call in July. And that was Sam Kiley who was asking those questions, he's joining me right now from Kyiv, Ukraine. So, do we know if this decision, this latest decision to review cases targeting the company not necessarily the Bidens, right? Was this prompted by what's going on here in the United States or by the initial calls from the White House?

KILEY: Fred, it's very hard to say with any clarity but certainly the position of the Ukrainian officials, you saw the prosecutor general there with the deputy prosecutor general, his boss was absolutely adamant that this was part of a much wider investigation into much bigger fish that they have to fry, much wider and more finally damaging to Ukraine rather than getting involved in the minutia of whether or not Hunter Biden should or should not have been on the board of the Ukrainian gas company as Mr. Trump would like to see investigated.

But, if one looks at the exchange of tweets particularly between diplomats, American diplomats here in Ukraine and the new Ukrainian administration, you can see there the degree of pressure being brought on the government but also that they wanted specifically, 2016, the role of Ukraine in the 2016 elections mentioned and the Bidens. They got neither and ultimately I think really what the Ukrainians have found is a formula that on the surface certainly meets the minimum requirements perhaps asked of the Americans without any kind of national humiliation. They were very keen there, Fred to stress that this is a country that doesn't cave in to political pressure.

Remember, it's got a war going on with Russia and Russian-supported rebels in the east. That is their principal focus, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, Sam Kiley in Kyiv, thank you so much.

All right, with U.S. Congress in fall recess, many lawmakers are meeting with constituents in their home districts and getting an earful on the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. What voters are saying, next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:43:43] WHITFIELD: Right now, there are just nine House Democrats who are withholding their support for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. But right now members of Congress are all on fall break holding town halls and hearing from their constituents.

CNN Correspondent Polo Sandoval is in New York this afternoon. First of all, Polo, what kind of reactions are these lawmakers getting?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Fred, good afternoon. You know, one of those representatives rather is Max Rose, he's the Democratic congressman, the last one is in New York City, there was essentially a holdout when it comes to deciding whether or not to support this impeachment probe. However, a change in this message this week as he essentially added his name to the growing list of Democratic moderates who are supporting Nancy Pelosi's effort to really find out more about this impeachment inquiry. And he's not alone.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congresswoman Slotkin, welcome. SANDOVAL (voice-over): It's a change of heart for some more moderate Democrats in Congress who at one point refused to go anywhere near the word "impeachment".

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I have not been supportive of an impeachment inquiry up until now.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin's announcement this week prompted a not so warm response from Trump's supporters in her district. The most powerful man in the world reached out to a foreigner, a foreign leader and asked him to dig up dirt on an American.

[12:45:06] SANDOVAL (voice-over): Impeachment also on the minds of constituents in Congressman Max Rose's district.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How are you doing?

REP. MAX ROSE (D-NY): I'm good, I'm good.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): It's one red spot in New York City.

ROSE: But we need to emphasize that this is a sad and tragic day for the United States of America.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): At a Friday night town hall, the Democratic lawmaker once again took questions about his recent decision to back impeachment.

ROSE: We are going to push and push and push so we make sure that we are holding this White House to a standard.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): Rose's district includes Staten Islands' Richmond County, it's the only county in New York City that voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Despite that, there was little evidence of any brought anger at Rose's town halls this week even among non-Democrats like Roy Russo.

ROY RUSSO, NEW YORK RESIDENT: I think that's a political thing he just almost has to do because he's a freshman congressman. I don't know how we can go otherwise. It's a political party and he has to support it. It doesn't affect my thinking of him or my opinion about the impeachment.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): While many of his constituents say impeachment is not a top priority, it is for Democrats like Rose. He has a message for congressional Republicans.

ROSE: They can show some semblance of political courage and integrity as we seek to get to the bottom of what perceives to be a serious issue of corruption and national security.

Hi, how are you doing?

(END VIDEOTAPE) SANDOVAL: Rose also told me that he's very confident that this impeachment inquiry will not necessarily distract him of constituents from some of the more local issues which really dominated most of the conversation last night during that town hall, Fred. But, as Rose said, that he is very well aware that there are many who will be upset with his decision or at least his announcement, but to use his word, he believes that there will be many who will be elated, as well.

WHITFIELD: And Polo, it's really not just Democrats who are getting an earful, right? I mean, we just saw that Iowa Senator Joni Ernst encountered, you know, a rather heated exchange from a constituent when she was back in her district. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of our allies, he is pushing aside, he's making fun of them on Twitter. He called them -- and we end up with oh, we love people from North Korea or we love Russia. But where -- I mean, I understand it's a non-answer answer and I understand. I get it. I know what you're saying.

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): I'll just say that I can't speak for him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know you can speak for him but you can speak for yourself.

ERNST: And I do. And I have said this time and time again, North Korea, not our friend, Russia, not our friend. I have made that very, very clear and the president knows where I stand on those issues.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about whistleblowers?

ERNST: And I've already said that, too. Whistleblowers should be protected. I stand with Chuck Grassley on this. We have laws in place. Again, laws need to be enforced.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So Polo, you know, does this just exemplify that there are a lot of constituents who were saying they're feeling emboldened to talk to these elected officials. Talk to, you know, their representation, you know, face-to-face and tell them what they think and feel.

SANDOVAL: Yes, I think what we just heard a little while ago, Fred, not just from the Republican from Iowa but also from the Democrat from New York is that their constituents are certainly holding them accountable here. For example, when you talk about Max Rose, Representative Rose, he is a Democrat representing a predominantly red district, and then you hear from Joni Ernst a little while ago, she is a Republican senator representing a Republican region. Yet both of them are certainly getting heat from their constituents right now.

WHITFIELD: All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you so much, appreciates it.

SANDOVAL: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: We got so much more straight ahead in the NEWSROOM. But first, meet this week's CNN hero, Robbin Carroll.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBBIN CARROLL, CNN HERO: I started coming out to the community, the lots were all empty, the houses were getting boarded up, and people were not coming outside. I stood on the corner then just asked everyone that walked by, are you interested in taking back your community. And everyone said absolutely yes. We are a really brave space and courageous space. We're going to get there and we will work through all of what is holding you back to becoming the person and the potential that you have to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: To learn more about Robbin's work, go to cnnheroes.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:53:20] WHITFIELD: All right, shocking new estimates that taxpayers could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars to protect Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. According to the U.S. Marshals office, DeVos' security detail is expected to rack up more than $26 million in cost over President Trump's first term.

Let's bring in Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent under President Obama. So Jonathan, trying to offer protection for the education secretary, I mean, there is a minimum, right? But what explains the extenuating circumstances or why a Betsy DeVos, in this case, would have on average of what more than $7 million in security detail per year.

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I think, first of all, Fred, you know, close protection and executive protection needs to follow a threat-based methodology. By which threats that are received or directed towards the secretary are assessed fully for the means, opportunity, and intent for somebody or a group to cause physical harm towards that individual. You know, I think right now, what I'm failing to see are the threat indicators that would warrant this level of protection.

Here's what I mean by this.

WHITFIELD: Would that be public information because -- I mean, even just according to like Washington Post reporting that she became the first education secretary to receive protection from marshals who more typically guard judges and witnesses and catch fugitives. The Marshal Service said, Washington Post quoting, it regularly conducts threat assessments on Ms. DeVos to determine threats to the secretary's safety. So does that speak to what you're about to say?

WACKROW: Oh yes, it does, Fred. You know, listen, I hold the U.S. Marshals Service in the utmost respect. [12:55:01] However, you know, I think we have to look back at the genesis of when the Marshals Service came into taking over this operation which is in 2017 when the secretary then encountered some protesters at a middle school. Protesters are not threats, protesters are individuals who are expressing their, you know, First Amendment right to free speech. You know, in this instance we also have not seen others -- other individuals being arrested for making threats, so I just really question the veracity of the threat environment that is currently being mitigated.

WHITFIELD: And that's why you tweeted out that you think this or you're hoping this is not vanity protection detail?

WACKROW: Yes, absolutely. If this is a vanity detail, then what it does is it undermines the credibility of not only the protective construct but the individuals that are executing it.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jonathan Wackrow, thank you so much.

WACKROW: Thanks a lot, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, tomorrow night, the CNN original series, "Declassified: Untold Stories of American Spies" takes a look at a classic follow the money investigation. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BONNIE KLAPPER, RET. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: My role in the investigation was at the prosecutor, the assistant U.S. Attorney in the eastern district of New York and I was a member of the El Dorado Task Force.

And then he explained how he'd identified a store that was moving in an extraordinary amount of money. Once I looked at the documents, it was obvious that Tele Austin on its surface was a regular money remitter store. But that was really a front. Tele Austin probably did three percent legitimate business and the other 97 percent was running drug money through the store, sending it back to what we eventually came to know as the Norte del Valle Cartel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:00]