Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Orders Remaining U.S. Troops Out Of Syria; Northern Syria Situation Deteriorating Rapidly; Biden Retaliates At Criticism Of Hunter; Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) Is Interviewed About Joe Biden And The Ukraine Scandal; Trump Calls Giuliani An Honorable Man; House Democrats Speed Up Impeachment Inquiry; Elie Honig Answers Legal Questions On "Cross-Exam"; Trump Threatens To Sue Pelosi And Schiff; Increasing Support For Impeachment In Polls; CNN Analysis On Whistleblower Allegations; Texas Police Officer Kills Black Woman In Own Home; Simone Biles Sets Record In Germany. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired October 13, 2019 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: You are live in the "CNN Newsroom." I am Alex Marquardt in New York in for Ana Cabrera. There is breaking news here on CNN. American troops are going to be leaving Syria. That was just announced today by the Secretary of Defense. Almost every single U.S. service member in Syria right now will be pulled out.

This on top of the troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria that President Trump announced last week, which triggered widespread shock and outrage as well as accusations that the U.S. is abandoning a loyal and proven ally, the Kurds, with "zero help in its fight against an advance by Turkey's military."

It is important to understand the lay of the land so here's a map. This is the area where the U.S. troops will be leaving northern Syria, shown here in dark red. The Pentagon says that a small contingent of U.S. troops will stay behind but that's in the southern part of the country, far from that northern border where Turkish forces are already pushing into Syria and taking control of towns.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said today that the decision to pull troops out of the northern Syria was President Trump's.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We have American forces likely caught between two opposing advancing armies and it's a very untenable situation. So I spoke with the president last night after discussions with the rest of National Security team. And he directed that we begin a deliberate withdrawal of forces from northern Syria.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: As the fighting heats up, our senior international correspondent Nick Paton Walsh is in northern Syria. We'll get to him in a second, but first to the Pentagon and CNN's Barbara Starr. Barbara, this announcement from Mark Esper is new. It's a far bigger pullout than the president announced last weekend. That was just around 50 or so troops. But that did cause a lot of outrage.

How Barbara, is the Defense Secretary Esper explaining the rationale behind pulling out almost every single one of the remaining U.S. troops?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, with the security situation really deteriorating by the hour in northern Syria and Nick of course has much more on this, there really is no choice for the Pentagon. They can't leave U.S. troops there.

They were there to fight ISIS and now they are in fact caught between the Turkish army heading south and a Syrian and Russian army heading north. There are about 1,000 troops involved. How is this pullout going to work?

Well, already, we know from our sources, defense officials, that there are armed aircraft, armed U.S. fighters overhead in Syria tonight at every position where U.S. forces are located for their protection as this situation develops.

They are consolidating into fewer positions to turn and improve their security situation. The Pentagon wants to do this in what they call an orderly manner and it could take they say days or weeks. But that's really a big if -- the security situation deteriorating by the hour by the day.

Will these forces be able to hang on to depart in some orderly fashion over the coming days or weeks or are they really going to have to pack and go? And if they have to go in an extreme situation, will they be able to take all their classified equipment and weapons with them? Will they have to destroy things in place before they either fly out or drive of northern Syria? Alex?

MARQUARDT: Yes, no doubt, lots of logistics to figure out. But Barbara, you did hit on a very important point there that the Syrian army as well as the Russians are moving north. We now know that the Kurds are striking a deal with the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

We know they have been speaking with the Russians. Is the U.S. administration, is the Pentagon, the White House admitting that America's rivals, even enemies, are filling the void that the U.S. is leaving?

STARR: Well, publicly talking about it, not very much this weekend I have to say. But look, the Russians are the best hope the Kurds feel that they have right now. They want the protection of Russian aircraft overhead protecting them from Turkey.

The U.S. of course cannot attack any Turkish assets. Turkey is a NATO ally. But will the Russian agreement, will the Russians really stick with the Kurds and keep them protected. There's a lot of people that feel this could be a very short-term deal that the Russian's ultimate goal is access to Kurdish oil fields in eastern Syria. And of course the big question, ISIS. Thousands of ISIS fighters potentially some already getting out of their detention facilities being on the loose, being on the run.

[17:05:00]

Nick, again, can tell you more, but there's a good deal of evidence that there are ISIS and al-Qaeda adherent on the roads in northern Syria already conducting attacks, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right, Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you very much. And I want to head over to northern Syria where we find our Nick Paton Walsh. Nick, we just heard Barbara there talking about the Russians and the Syrian forces moving in. What can we expect in terms of the fighting if that does happen?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's key here is what we saw today was the main highway being seized by Syrian rebels backed by (inaudible) Kurdish military themselves, cutting the west of Syrian Kurdish held territory from the east.

Now, that essentially leaves key towns like Manbij and Kobane that the Syrian Kurds held kind of at the mercy of advancing Turkish forces. That's probably why they've struck a deal it seems to invite Syrian regime forces with their Russian backers in to assist them.

Early days, that could change. It could not work out or it could lead to confrontation between Turkey, the Syrian regime and Russia. But today, things have slit and deteriorated so fast. Here's what we saw, what we thought would be a simple drive to Kobane.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALSJ (voice-over): The road to Kobane tells you how savage this war already is and where it's going. Here, Kurdish female activist Havrin Khalaf was shot dead allegedly by Syrian rebels Turkey is backing -- a gruesome video of the killing, viral online.

Just outside Ain Issa and its huge ISIS family camp, there's panic. Gunfire up ahead, trucks turn around fast. Families in disarray. There were heavy clashes there, he says. Nobody can go.

What do you want from us, he says. They're coming and they'll take everything. May God end America. Turkey and the fallen ISIS have been their enemies here, but only America will betray them. And they are leaving. Just down the road, this patrol pulling out of Ain Issa.

(on camera): I once talked to a spot, clearly, Americans still active in areas around the Syrian Kurds.

(voice-over): As they leave, Turkey makes its bold ambition to go anywhere here felt. Jets flying low, sending a message to us. The Kurds and the Americans, leave now.

But the arrival of two U.S. Apache helicopters to circle the area and their patrol show the Americans are not ready to do that just yet despite President Trump's instincts to end the endless wars as he says. Syria's war though, just keeps getting longer.

(on camera): One U.S. official has told me that actually the road now towards Kobane where they have some of their troops based is being cut off by Turkish-backed Syrian rebels. They set up checkpoints just outside that town we were in. We've had to leave. But it's extraordinary nobody thought this was originally part of Turkey's invasion plan.

(voice-over): And as we drive away, it seems clear Turkey plans to seize the road in part. These are Turkish armored personnel carriers and tanks bearing Turkish flags. More of them arriving in the dust.

Soon, Syrian Kurds won't be able to drive down here at all and the west of their area cut off from its east. The city of Kobane again left to face a siege.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(on camera): Now importantly, what we heard from one U.S. official is they describe the Syrian rebels doing the fighting on behalf of Turkey, who cut off that road there at that check point, firing and making those civilians so scared.

They described them as mostly extremists. It is former ISIS, former al-Qaeda. They're the people on the ground kicking this (inaudible) Kurds back far from the moderate forces that Turkey have been saying would be assisting them from making a space here that Syrian refugees leaving in Turkey could return back to.

I can't stress how precarious the situation now is for the remaining U.S. troops here. There are only 50 of them just withdrew slightly from the border, have all stayed roughly in the country, but they're moving to consolidate position.

And now they see the Syrian regime potentially moving in with Russia at their back. They have Turkey whose ambitions in the territory here are so much larger than anybody originally expected and you have this (inaudible) working on behalf of the Turkish which is essentially extremists, causing a lot of horror and terror on the grounds here among Syrian-Kurdish civilians.

And the U.S. essentially with a commander-in-chief who's made it pretty clear he wants them out. And behind, they leave chaos and sadly as one person said to me, a second life for ISIS and the possibility that 100,000 recruits will join the jihadist movement again.

That four to five year fight to rid this area of the terror organization, looking like it's slipping backwards, possibly in a week. Back to you.

[17:09:58]

MARQUARDT: A hugely complex and dangerous situation there in northern Syria. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you very much to you and your team. You're doing terrific work. Stay safe. I want to take you to Altoona in Iowa where Joe Biden has been

speaking with reporters. Now, he came out swinging against President Trump's attacks on his son, Hunter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If any consequence that anything was done wrong or illegally by me or my son, every major national, international and local news operation has looked into it, has said it's a lie.

This is a president flat lying, number one. Number two, the statement my son put out today which I saw when he put it out, I was told there was one being put out. I did not consult with him about what was being put out. In fact, represents the kind of man of integrity he is and what in fact he has done and why he stepped down.

And I can tell you now, if I am your president, next president, I'm going to build on the squeaky clean transparent environment that we had in the Obama-Biden White House. And no one in my family or associated with me will be involved in any foreign operation whatsoever. Period. End of story.

Now, let's focus on the problem. The problem is we have a president who violated his oath. He's invited not just relating to me, on three occasions, he's gone to foreign governments and asked for their input in a domestic election -- the Russians, the Chinese and Ukrainians.

And there's not a single shred of evidence to suggest anything I did was wrong. I enforced the policy of the United States government backed up by the IMF, backed up by the E.U. and backed up by all our allies, to clean up the corruption and fire a prosecutor who was corrupt. Period.

I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever had a conversation my son about anything that I was doing. Everybody knows that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To be clear, did you tell Hunter that you have any conversation (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you reference in that statement that your son could (inaudible) to say that he would readily comply with any and all guidelines (inaudible).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: All right. I want to bring in Democratic Congressman John Garamendi of California. He serves on the Arms Services Committee and just returned from a trip to Ukraine.

Congressman, we'll be talking about Ukraine and Syria in just a second, but I want to get your reaction quickly to what you just heard the former vice president saying there about his son and his work in China and in Ukraine.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): He's absolutely correct. There is nothing untoward to any of that work. But let's look at the other side of this debate. Let's look at the president, the kind of conflicts that he has himself to say nothing of the conflicts that his children has.

It is absolutely clear that the president has violated the Constitution emolument clause, both the second -- Article Two emoluments in which the president can receive no money from any of any government in the United States and Article One, which is the foreign emoluments clause.

The president is in clear violation -- and what about his kids gallivanting around the world cutting deals, getting special deals from the Chinese government. It goes on and on and on. The pot is black. He shouldn't be calling the kettle so.

MARQUARDT: Congressman, you did just get back from Ukraine. I want to ask there -- I want to ask you about your trip there. One of the people you met on that trip was Bill Taylor. He's the charge d'affaires, which --

GARAMENDI: Right.

MARQUARDT: -- right now is the top U.S. diplomat in the country. He's also a former ambassador to Ukraine. Now, for those who don't know his name, he is absolutely pivotal in this impeachment inquiry, and that he was speaking with the president's point man on Ukraine including the E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

And in a text message, he wrote, "Are we now saying that security assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?" Now, those investigations would be those conspiracy theory investigations that the president wanted Ukraine to launch into the 2016 election and Joe Biden.

Now congressman as you know, Ambassador Sondland is expected to testify this week and he responded back, "Call me." So my question to you congressman is, did you speak with Bill Taylor about his thoughts because in this exchange and in another, he makes it quite clear that he felt a quid pro quo is going on. Military aid, $400 million worth in exchange for investigations.

GARAMENDI: Well, first, we didn't go there to do investigations. We went there to see if the Ukrainian government had the support they needed to conduct a very vicious war against Russia that's invaded their country. The morning that we visited with the minister of defense, we met Ambassador Taylor right outside the ministry.

[17:15:01]

And at that moment, our cell phones went off about this text that he had sent out. And so as we got out of the bus, greeted him, one of my colleagues wrapped his arm around him and said your text was right on. And he acknowledged that yes, he did send the text and that that was an issue.

We didn't go any further because at that very moment, a memorial had begun for the soldiers that were killed on that day over the previous five years so we ended that. But it was very, very clear that this is a man that was standing up for what was right, pushing back against what is obviously a deal that the president was trying to cut with Syria.

The money was absolutely withheld, some $400 million withheld, was not released until all of this thing broke open following the whistleblower's whistle account. In addition to that, there was five hours between that text message from Ambassador Taylor and the response from Sondland.

And it is now clear from the information that Sondland has made available about his testimony on Thursday that he had talked to the president in that intervening five hours and they apparently developed the response, which is what I would call the ultimate CYA response.

MARQUARDT: Well, congressman, let's show the audience what you're talking about. This was an exchange between Bill Taylor and the E.U. ambassador, Gordon Sondland.

Taylor writes, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help for a political campaign." Five hours later as you noted, Sondland responded saying, "Bill, that's Taylor, I believe you're incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind."

Now as you mentioned, we know that Sondland spoke directly with the president in those five hours. And now, according to the "Washington Post," he is going to say tomorrow in his testimony that this was the message from President Trump.

So congressman, do you believe now that Sondland is going to be testifying that he is going to turn against the president?

GARAMENDI: Well, he's going to tell the truth. He's going to be under oath. He'll know if he lies there are other people that are privy to much of what will be said.

Much of what those text messages and e-mails as well as the call itself between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine, all of that information is available so yes, I think Sondland's going to make sure that he is accurate.

And it's very increasingly clear that accuracy is that yes, there clearly was a strong arm, an extortion underway between -- that the president was attempting to extort the Ukrainian government to develop information on the 2016 election as well as the Bidens. The result of that extortion is the president will be impeached.

MARQUARDT: And there's another witness who may be causing -- raising the nerves for the White House tomorrow. That's Fiona Hill, the former adviser on Russia. She is expected to testify as well and she is no longer a part of the government so, I imagine you and all of is we'll be watching that very closely. Congressman John Garamendi, thank you so much for joining me.

GARAMENDI: Thank you. MARQUARDT: Despite the blockbuster week of congressional hearings and

deadlines looming over the White House, President Trump has instead chosen to send a message standing by his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who is reportedly under federal investigation. Hear what the president is now suggesting that he'll do. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

MARQUARDT: President Trump is standing by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, at least for now.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's a great gentleman. He was a great mayor, one of the greatest, maybe the greatest mayor in the history of New York. He was a fantastic prosecutor. I know nothing about him being under investigation. Somebody said I heard a report today. I can't imagine it. He's a man that looks for corruption and whatever he does, I really believe he's a totally, I mean, I know he's an honorable man.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: That was President Trump calling in to Fox News last night. His full endorsement that you heard there follows reports that Giuliani is under federal investigation for his involvement in Ukraine. That involvement, which some could argue landed Giuliani's most high profile client in the center of the impeachment inquiry that is ongoing.

CNN White House reporter Jeremy Diamond is live there at the White House for us. Jeremy, the president standing by Giuliani. We know that they had lunch together at the golf course this weekend, but there's a big week coming up in this impeachment inquiry which really could be troublesome for both these men.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right Alex. And while the president spent much of his weekend defending his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, attacking Democrats and their House impeachment inquiry as unconstitutional, House Democrats have spent the weekend preparing for what could be a blockbuster week of testimony from Trump current and former administration officials.

And it all begins tomorrow, Alex, where we have Fiona Hill, the president's former top adviser on Russia and European affairs at the National Security Council. She will be testifying tomorrow.

And then on Thursday, this could be perhaps the biggest testimony of all. And this is from Gordon Sondland, who is the president's ambassador to the European Union. Now, Sondland previously was supposed to testify last week. The State Department and White House blocked his testimony.

But now under subpoena, Sondland says that he will testify and he was the one of those ambassadors who was wrapped up in those text messages that show that there was some concern, particularly from the United States top diplomat in Ukraine who was a career diplomat, that there was some kind of quid pro quo afoot.

And Sondland, a political donor to the president and a businessman who was appointed ambassador to the European Union, dismissed those concerns. In one of these text messages, let me read it to you. "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." That's Bill Taylor.

Sondland replies, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear. No quid quos of any kind."

[17:25:00]

Now ,according to the "Washington Post," Sondland will testify that it was the president who spoke with him on the phone and told him directly that there was no quid pro quos. But get this, Alex, Sondland will say that he doesn't know if the president was telling the truth when he said that.

And in fact, Sondland, according to a person familiar with Sondland's thinking, told the "Washington Post" that it was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one. So that will certainly be interesting if that is the rationale that Sondland gives to House Democrats on Thursday.

MARQUARDT: Yes, potentially explosive testimony by Sondland on Thursday. And we also know that there has been requests by House Democrats made to ambassador Bill Taylor, who could also have a lot to say, that has not yet been scheduled. Jeremy Diamond at the White House. Thanks very much.

So if you're like any of us, it's understandable that you've got a lot of questions about the impeachment battle like what's next for the president and congressional Democrats. CNN legal analyst Elie Honing joins us live to answer your questions. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:29:58]

MARQUARDT: Democrats in the House are getting ready to accelerate their impeachment inquiry against President Trump as they return to Capitol Hill from recess this week. Tomorrow is a big day. Fiona hill, who served as the president's top Russia adviser until she left in August, she's expected to be interviewed by the three House panels who have been carrying out these interviews.

And all eyes then are going to be on Gordon Sondland on Thursday. He's the president's ambassador to the European Union and he's going to be deposed under subpoena after refusing to testify last week. Now, this brings us to our weekly segment "Cross-Exam" with CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor, Elie Honig.

He is here to answer your questions about all of this complicated legal news. Now Elie, first of all, thanks so much for joining me. The White House has been arguing that they don't need to comply as much because the House has not yet held a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry, so we have one viewer who's asking, is that legally correct?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's not legally correct. There is no requirement that the full House of Representatives vote in order to start an impeachment inquiry. The Constitution does not require it. There's no statute that requires it. And just Friday, two days ago, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. ruled that there is no such requirement.

Now, that said, historical precedent tells us there were full House votes before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries. I think what the White House is doing here is they're making a political play and a legal play.

Politically, they're trying to force a tough vote on Democrats from swing districts and I think legally, they're trying to extract concessions such as having their own subpoena power. Don't count on Nancy Pelosi to give them that.

But here's the thing to keep in mind. Nancy Pelosi has a very interesting decision to make. If she holds the vote and she's only going to hold the vote if she has the votes, then she'll essentially be calling out this objection from the White House.

On the other hand, even if they hold a vote and it passes, that will not end the White House objection. It's not as if the White House is suddenly going to say, here's all the witnesses and evidence you want. They're just going to raise executive privilege and other objections. So, this is round one. There are many more to come.

MARQUARDT: Many more to come indeed.

HONIG: Yes.

MARQUARDT: When it comes to Ukraine, Elie, the president has said that he has not done anything wrong. That he was not trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son. That he was simply trying to root out corruption in a country that frankly gets a lot of money, taxpayer money from the United States.

So the question to you is from this viewer, isn't the president entitled to root out corruption in foreign countries especially if we send them millions in foreign aid?

HONIG: In theory, yes. A president is entitled to try to root out corruption in foreign countries. The problem here is it an absolute fiction to suggest that that's what Donald Trump was trying to do in respect to Ukraine.

If you look at the phone call between Donald Trump and President Zelensky, if you look at the texts between the State Department advisers, it is crystal clear the only case Donald Trump cares about is the investigations that he wants launched of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton. When Trump was asked this week, well, what other cases have you been

interested in Mr. Corruption buster? He said, we would have to look. And I guess they're still looking. There are no other cases.

The thing is, Alex, there are proper channels if the United States wants to coordinate with a foreign government on a criminal investigation. It's called a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, MLAT, we used to call them.

I've done them as a federal prosecutor and there are established legal channels. And to me, the fact that the president went way outside those legal channels, I think says a lot about his state of mind.

MARQUARDT: Elie, one of the bigger twists, you know, in all of this was in the past week. Two associates working with Rudy Giuliani were arrested and indicted by the Southern District of New York for allegedly funneling money, foreign money into U.S. elections. So one viewer wants to know, could Giuliani, by association himself, face these same criminal charges?

HONIG: Rudy Giuliani is in legitimate trouble here. We now know he's under investigation by the Southern District of New York, the office that Rudy Giuliani himself used to lead in the '80s. I worked there a couple of decades later.

I'll tell you, as an alum of that office, it is jarring to think that the former U.S. attorney is now under investigation, but this is real. Yes, the Southern District indictment last week of Parnas and Fruman is a serious case. They were charged with funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars of foreign money into the election system through a shell company.

Rudy Giuliani has close connections to these two guys. They were his point people in Ukraine. They paid him. The best detail of all of course is the company they used to pay Rudy Giuliani is called Fraud Guarantee. They need a new marketing company or something. But look, Rudy is in legitimate trouble here. We got to watch the Southern District very closely.

MARQUARDT: Yes. And the president is sticking close to him at least this weekend. Those are the viewer questions. There are a lot of different strands that we're following. What are you looking at this week?

HONIG: First of all, are either of these guys who were just arrested, Parnas or Fruman, are either of them going to cooperate with the Southern District? If they do, that's going to be potentially very big trouble for Rudy Giuliani and for others.

Second, will the U.S. Supreme Court take the Trump tax returns case?

[17:35:00]

That Friday decision went against Trump so now it's up to the Supreme Court. They may not take it. And if they don't, it's over and those tax returns go to Congress. And then finally, will we see more federal employees testify despite White House efforts to block them? We saw the Ambassador Yovanovitch last week. She testified. And we have a whole lineup of important witnesses coming in this week.

I think the White House's stone ne wall is starting to crumble and I think we're going to learning more and more every day, Alex.

MARQUARDT: How often have we said big week ahead. This week really does feel like a monumental one in this impeachment inquiry.

HONIG: It's going to be big. No question, Alex.

MARQUARDT: Elie Honig, thanks so much.

HONIG: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Appreciate it. As President Trump threatens to sue top Democrats who are leading the impeachment inquiry, we'll be taking a look at what voters think of the probe and how that compares with past impeachment inquiries. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: President Trump is issuing a new threat against top House Democrats as the impeachment inquiry heats up on Capitol Hill.

[17:40:00]

Last night at the Values Voters Summit, the president threatened to sue House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff. And this comes as new polls shows were showing that there is more support for the impeachment inquiry.

But is it enough movement to get Republican lawmakers on board? So far, we haven't seen any calling for Trump's impeachment. And even if the House does vote to impeach him, in the Senate where Democrats are in the minority, they would need at least 20 Republicans to join them to remove Trump from office.

So, what, if anything do these polls tell us about what might come next? To answer that question and others, I want to bring in CNN's senior political writer and analyst, Harry Enten. Harry, we have seen that the majority of Republican voters still support President Trump.

His support has remained consistent throughout his presidency, somewhere between 80 and 90 percent. When you look historically at President Nixon for example during his impeachment inquiry, what similarities are you finding?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: Yes. So I think this is rather important, right Alex. So take a look at this. So Trump right now, impeach/remove him from the presidency. I took an average of basic polls and what we see is that about 11 percent of Americans right now, 11 percent of Republican Americans say that they want to impeach/remove Trump from office. Look, go back to Richard Nixon when the impeachment inquiry started

back then, December '73. That 12 percent looks a lot like that 11 percent, but we saw Nixon's numbers move up. And I think the question is for Donald Trump, will those numbers in fact move up, because if it's only 11 percent of Republicans supporting impeach/remove, he's not going anywhere, right?

MARQUARDT: Are you actually seeing any movement in that support among Republicans for impeaching and removing him?

ENTEN: Yes. So I think this is a rather interesting thing. So if we switch the slide here, take a look at this. So we see that in fact there has been some movement, right? So these are the Trump impeachment trend lines among Republicans.

On the inquiry, before the impeachment inquiry started, only 8 percent of Republicans thought that it was a good idea to start that impeachment inquiry. Now, that number is up to 16 percent. So we have seen some movement there.

Take a look at the impeach/remove question, a little less movement there, right? Seven percent before the inquiry supported impeach and removing Trump. Now, 11 percent do. So we have seen some movement on that, but not that much.

MARQUARDT: But key among this, correct me if I'm wrong, are going to be the independents, the moderates. So those voters, what are you seeing in terms of the movement in their views on this impeachment?

ENTEN: Right. So take a look at this. So, among Republican and Republican leaning independents, impeach/remove, I think this is rather key. Where has that movement been coming from, right?

We saw that in the last slide, a little bit more Republicans. So, among the moderate liberal Republicans, that's where the movement really has been from -- 12 point jump from 16 percent in May to 28 percent now support in impeaching and removing Trump from office.

It's that moderate to liberal wing versus among that very conservative wing of the Republican Party. That in fact has dropped a point from 2 percent in May to 1 percent now.

So what we really see is this break within the Republican party where those moderates to liberal Republicans are much more in favor of impeaching and removing Trump from office than that very conservative wing, while the somewhat conservatives are in the middle as you might expect.

MARQUARDT: And why don't we talk it back to the historical example of the Nixon years. How does this compare?

ENTEN: Yes. I think this is rather important, right? If we look back to 1974, what you saw then, part of the reason why you saw impeach/remove of Trump become much more popular then was because those moderate to liberals who were the most likely to want to impeach/reomove Trump made up the vast plurality of the party, 47 percent.

Take a look now at 2019. Those moderate to liberals, that portion of the party has dropped considerably down to 32 percent. While the very conservative part of the Republican Party back in '74, they only made up 9 percent of the Republican Party. Now they make up 33 percent.

So that part of the Republican Party, right, that really is in favor of keeping Trump in office, that makes up a much larger portion now in the party than it did in '74, which might be a reason to be skeptical that Republicans are going to want to move to impeach/remove Trump from office.

MARQUARDT: Some major shifts in those numbers and lots of movement. Harry Enten, as always, thanks for breaking it all down.

ENTEN: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Get ready for what could be the make or break moments in this race to 2020. The fourth Democratic presidential debate is coming to CNN live from the battleground state of Ohio. We ask ourselves will one candidate break away from that large pack of hopefuls. Find out on CNN and the "New York Times" at that Democratic presidential debate. That is Tuesday night, 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:00]

MARQUARDT: The House Intelligence Committee is discussing extraordinary measures to protect the identity of the whistleblower who first raised concerns about President Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son.

Among these possible measures are a possible off-site location for any congressional testimony, limits on the number of staffers who could attend and possibly disguising his or her voice.

One thing does remain clear though. An overwhelming majority of the whistleblower's allegations have already been corroborated by official government documents, Trump's own public statements as well as news reporting. Here's Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Even as Democrats talk about impeachment and Republicans talk about how this whistleblower cannot be trusted, many of the claims the whistleblower made are being fully supported by the facts.

(voice-over): Claim one, the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election, specifically asking Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who did business with the Ukrainians.

The facts, Trump not only encouraged a probe during that now infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president. He has since said China should do the same despite no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

TRUMP: If it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.

[17:49:57]

FOREMAN (voice-over): Claim two, the president pressured the Ukrainians to explore the possibility that any interference in the 2016 election was not launched by Russians trying to help Trump, but by Ukrainians trying to help Hillary Clinton.

The facts, Trump told the Ukrainian president, "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine." That may sound benign, but he also echoed themes from a popular conservative conspiracy theory that promotes this idea of Ukrainian interference. And for years, Trump has accepted evidence of Russian meddling only reluctantly.

TRUMP: Could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there.

FOREMAN (voice-over): Claim three, senior White House officials decided to lock down all records of the phone call, especially the official word for word transcript by moving it to a computer system for classified documents. The facts, the White House admits doing just that.

Claim four, U.S. Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to navigate the president's demands.

The facts, Volker's text messages show he communicated with the Ukrainians about how they should publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens, the very thing Trump requested.

And claim five, the order to suspend military aid to Ukraine right around this crucial period had come directly from the president. The facts, Trump has confirmed it, while giving conflicting reasons about why, saying it was about making sure the Ukrainians were dealing with corruption first, then saying he wanted Europe to chip in more.

TRUMP: We're putting up the bulk of the money and I'm asking why is that.

FOREMAN (on camera): Bottomline, while people can argue about the propriety or importance of the president's actions, the facts keep backing up the whistleblower's claims one after another. Tome Foreman, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: All right. Our thanks to Tom Foreman for taking us through all that. Another person in Texas has been shot and killed by police in their own home. How it happened, nest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:00]

MARQUARDT: Authorities in north Texas are investigating yet another case of a white police officer shooting and killing a black person inside their own home.

Police in Forth Worth say that 28-year-old Tatiana Jefferson was shot and killed by one of their officers early on Saturday morning after a neighbor had called to report that her front door was open in the middle of the night.

Police have released this heavily edited body camera footage of the incident. You can see there that officers are searching the outside of Jefferson's home.

According to a police statement, the officer saw someone in the window, perceived a threat and fired one shot. This comes days after former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing a man in his own apartment.

American gymnast Simone Biles has solidified her place as the greatest gymnast of all time today. She won the gold medal in five out of six events at the world championships in Germany this weekend, including the women's all around.

That gives her 25 medals overall at the world championships. The 22- year-old says that she is now preparing for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, which she says will be her last.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, he is hitting back at President Trump over criticism of his son Hunter's role in Ukraine. And the former vice president is making a promise about any role that his family could play if he's elected the next president. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:59]