Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Fallout After White House Admits Then Denis Quid Pro Quo; New Questions Today About The So-Called Ceasefire In Northern Syria And Whether It Is Holding. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired October 18, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:16]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Ana Cabrera, in for Brooke Baldwin. Thanks for being here on this Friday.

New fall out today for the White House after Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo in this ever expanding Ukraine scandal. Today, Mick Mulvaney is walking his admission back. But the damage has been done. His comments undo what has been the President's defense now for weeks that there was no exchange of favors when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden's and Mulvaney's bombshell caps a whole week full of them.

Let's just pause a moment and take in just how bad it has been for President Trump since the week began.

On Monday, in testimony that's part of Impeachment Inquiry, President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is called a hand grenade for his shadow foreign policy in Ukraine.

The same day longtime, U.S. ally the Kurds worked with America's adversary, Syria after Trump failed to stop Turkey's advance into the war-torn nation.

Now on Tuesday, grieving parents from the U.K. say President Trump ambushed them at the White House with the American woman who ran over and killed their son.

On Wednesday, Trump has a reported meltdown at a meeting over Syria with his effort to smear Nancy Pelosi backfiring, she ends up using his photo of her on her Twitter page.

Then Thursday, just yesterday comes this admission from the President's right hand man that the US withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to push Ukraine to conduct specific investigations.

Admitting quid pro quo was far from the only controversial comment Mick Mulvaney made, so let's fact check some of his other statements.

CNN's Daniel Dale is joining us now to do just that. First, Daniel, there's a lot to go through. Let's begin with Mick Mulvaney being so emphatic that withholding Ukraine's aid had nothing to do with Joe Biden. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: On the call, the President did ask about investigating the Biden's. Are you saying that the money that was held up that had nothing to do with the Biden's?

MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: No, yes, the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Okay, Daniel, what are the facts?

DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: The facts are that on this July phone call with the President of Ukraine, President Trump pressured the President of Ukraine to do two things. One was investigate this debunk server conspiracy. The other was to investigate the Biden's.

Mick Mulvaney's line is that the first thing, investigating the server conspiracy was a trade, was essentially a quid pro quo. While the other request to investigate the Biden's had nothing to do with President Trump's decision to withhold the military aid.

And so we don't have a smoking gun hard piece of proof that shows that the Biden stuff was the reason the aid was withheld. But I think at very least, this is a dubious claim by the acting Chief of Staff.

CABRERA: Let's break it down even further, touching on with something you mentioned, which was how Mick Mulvaney tried to defend withholding aid saying this is really why that aid was withheld referring to the current investigation when that's happening at the Justice Department. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULVANEY: I was -- I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for that: The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of Ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice. That's completely legitimate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Cooperating in an ongoing investigation with the Justice Department. Fact check that for us.

DALE: So in this phone call with Zelensky, the President did not mention any ongoing investigation. What Mick Mulvaney is talking about is an investigation by a U.S. attorney, a Federal prosecutor to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation into President Trump's campaign.

Now, we do know that that investigation by prosecutor John Durham is looking at something related to Ukraine. However, senior Department of Justice officials say that it is quote, "news to them," that the withholding a military aid wasn't any way linked to that prosecutor's investigation.

So again, this claim is at least lacking in evidence.

CABRERA: Nick Mulvaney brings up a server hacked in 2016 when talking about Ukraine. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULVANEY: Did he also mention to me in past that the corruption related to the D.N.C. server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Daniel, you say?

DALE: I say that this is a debunked conspiracy theory. Listen to what a former Trump administration official, Tom Bossert said just a little while ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BOSSERT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER: The D.N.C. server and that conspiracy theory has got to go. It's not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DALE: So this is completely baseless. President Trump seems to think that Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democrat server, he thinks the cofounder was born in Ukraine.

[14:05:12]

DALE: He was not born in Ukraine. He was born in Russia. President Trump also seems to think that Crowdstrike somehow took -- physically took -- the server back to Ukraine and is storing it somewhere there.

That server still exists in Washington. It has not been taken to Ukraine at all. So this is complete utter nonsense.

CABRERA: All right. Utter nonsense. A conspiracy theory. It's been debunked. Daniel Dale, thank you for being our fact check today.

Let's open up this conversation now with CNN Senior Political Commentator, John Kasich, the former Republican Governor of Ohio and a former presidential candidate. His new book, by the way, "It's Up to Us: Ten Little Ways We Can Bring about Big Change" and that just released.

Governor, great to have you with us today. You just heard Mick Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff. Where does this put you? JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Ana, this has been a

very difficult 24 hours for me. The issue of impeachment is really big to me. And when I heard what Mulvaney said, the Chief of Staff to the President, it pushed me really across the Rubicon. And I'll tell you why.

Withholding military aid, vital military aid to a nation like Ukraine, which has Russian troops inside its territory that's threatened all the time, that withholding it so that a political operation can take place, investigate this thing around the server, and we're going to withhold the aid until you do that.

To me, it's totally inappropriate. It's an abuse of power. Now, I know that there are Presidents that will withhold aid because they have policy differences. But this is not a policy difference.

And so my view is that -- look, I fought with people on the air about is there a quid pro quo and does this rise to the level of impeachment? I now believe that it does.

CABRERA: Okay.

KASICH: And I say it with -- I say it with great sadness. This is not something I really wanted to do. I mean, I voted to impeach Bill Clinton and that was really hard and this has been excruciatingly hard.

CABRERA: I hear you.

KASICH: But this kind of behavior -- this behavior, in my opinion cannot be tolerated. An action is going to have to be taken.

CABRERA: Let me get some clarification from you, though when you say you believe this behavior rises to the level of impeachment, are you saying yes, this President should be impeached based on what we know now and does that also mean that you believe he should be tried in the Senate and removed from office?

KASICH: First of all I want to see what the Articles of Impeachment are that the Democrats put together. And secondly, I don't like the way they've conducted this without having a vote on an Impeachment Inquiry.

But if you're asking me if I was sitting in the House of Representatives today and you were to ask me, how do I feel? Do I think impeachment should move forward and should go for a full examination and a trial in the United States Senate? My vote would be yes.

And I don't say it lightly. This is extremely difficult for me, but it's what I feel I have to do. It is what my conscience tells me. You can't operate like this and withhold vital military aid for somebody because you're involved in some sort of political examination or pressure on a foreign government to do this. It's inappropriate.

CABRERA: Do you believe he should be removed from office then? Do you believe the Senate should convict and remove him from office?

KASICH: Let's go -- I want to see what the Articles of Impeachment are and I want to see exactly how they can bring the American people along. Let's just slow down, but this is a very big step for me.

We'll see how those articles are. We'll see how they bring the American people around. Then we'll get into the Senate. I'm now speaking as if I were a member of the House like I was when I voted to impeach Bill Clinton, and obviously I consider it to be really, really a big deal.

And if I didn't think that represented a notion that he should be removed, I wouldn't tell you that it should move forward. I think it should.

CABRERA: Okay. Let me also ask you, then, you know, what we've been hearing out of this White House just pushing the conversation forward. It seems like the White House can't keep its story straight about what really happened with the President and this administration's interaction with Ukraine when it comes to these investigations. What do you make of their changing story?

KASICH: Well, I think they're trying to figure it out. And when you have this guy, Gordon Sondland, and these text messages between him, and the man in charge of the Embassy, Taylor and Volker, who was the Special Envoy, and you had one of them saying, was this a quid pro quo? And then there was five hours of delay before anybody got back to say, no, no, no, the President told me there wasn't one. That was curious in and of itself.

But the continued development of a story that shows that we almost had a shadow government, we had a shadow -- a shadow State Department operating also of course leaves me uneasy.

[14:10:09]

KASICH: But it was the admission yesterday by Mulvaney, who said clearly just said, look, of course we withheld it for that reason. That to me was the final straw as far as I'm concerned about this, and Republicans should be at least calling for an inquiry. There's no reason for them not to do it.

And Democrats have to conduct this in such a way that is open, that it is clear and that the American people can be brought along. You're not going to have everybody in the Republican Party saying it, but growing numbers of people that say this is wrong.

If Barack Obama had been doing something like this, the Republicans would be going crazy. Okay. But now, it's their own guy doing it. What's fair is fair.

I don't like to have to say this, Ana. I don't like it at all. But I have to say it because that's what my conscience tells me. That's why I'm on today to tell you how I'm proceeding.

CABRERA: You've now said you would vote for impeachment of this President, if you were still in the House. And yet we've really heard very little other Republicans who are currently in the House say those same words. We know -- in fact, I don't think there's a sitting --

KASICH: Ana, there's not many Republicans.

CABRERA: I don't think there's a sitting senator at this point who said they, you know, Republican Senator, specifically who has said they believe this President should be removed from office.

What advice do you have to your fellow Republicans, specifically in the Senate, who would be the ultimate jury in this?

KASICH: Yes, well, they don't want my advice, believe me, and this will aggravate many of them that I'm saying this, but I think you have to look at yourself and say, what do we expect out of a President? How do we expect the President to conduct foreign policy? Do we -- are there some lines that simply cannot be crossed?

And look, I'm very alone on this. I don't know many Republicans that have said what I've said and I don't say it lightly. This was very difficult -- look, the last 24 hours has really forced me to review all of this.

And it was not long ago that I was in a debate with one of our hosts about the fact that I wasn't ready to say anything like this.

But when I look at all the information that's coming to us and all the craziness that's surrounding the operation of the White House, now the resignation, sometime this year of Secretary Perry and his involvement, and it just goes on and on and on. And at this point, there's a big cloud, and I think it has to be cleared.

CABRERA: What do you make of the fact that most Republicans have been more angry about what the President did in Syria over these actions involving Ukraine and everything else?

KASICH: Well, that was easy for them because there was strength in numbers. It's very difficult for a Republican to come out and say anything like this, because they're going to get attacked at home.

You know, I have no doubt in my mind that there's going to be people who are going to be really angry with me for saying this.

You've got to be willing to take the heat, frankly. But I don't want to just spend my time -- let me tell you this. Why won't the Democrats vote on an Impeachment Inquiry in the in the House of Representatives? Politics.

And this is not about politics. When you're talking about the potential of removing somebody from public office who was elected a President, there isn't any time for politics.

And I was reading yesterday in the newspaper, well, these members, Democratic members came back to Washington. And they were like, oh, no, please don't make me vote. This is really going to upset things for me in the future. Well, that's why you're there. And so I would encourage the Democrats to have a vote on the

Impeachment Inquiry to get all the facts out there so that people can understand what's at risk.

But the bottom line on this is for the women who would watch this or people considering this, is it right for a President of the United States to withhold vital military aid on a country that is in deep trouble, that's trying to -- trying to tilt towards the west and not be gobbled up by Russia? Is it right for that military aid to be withheld? Because you want to conduct an investigation that is not even related to public policy. That is the question.

And that's what you've got to ask yourself. And that's what I've done and that's why I've concluded what I have. The answer is no, wrong.

CABRERA: Quickly if you will. Are you hearing that from Republicans in private, and they just aren't saying it in public?

KASICH: Well, you know, look, a lot of people aren't really focused on this, Ana, across the country. This is not where their focus is, but it's growing. There's now support for a full investigation.

So people, you know, outside of the bubble in which we exist, don't sit around at night and just say, Okay, what do we think about impeachment? They're worried about their kids going to school. They're worried about their health care bills. They're worried about their jobs. They're not -- but this will grow over time, I suspect.

And, you know, I don't know where the people will end up on this. But you know, I saw this happen with Clinton. I was aware of what happened with Nixon. You know, I just wish it wasn't happening. I don't like any of this. This is not what I do best, but I have to just tell you how I feel.

CABRERA: Well, let me just put a button on all of this in terms of where the public fact, we know the latest poll from Gallup is showing the majority of voters out there right now believe the President should be impeached and removed, 52 percent say that, 46 percent who say no.

Governor Kasich, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and for joining us today.

KASICH: Okay, Ana, thank you.

CABRERA: Create a crisis, attempt to clean it up. Repeat. President Trump claims his so-called ceasefire in Northern Syria is working despite reports of violence, and the fact that this all started after he pulled U.S. troops.

Plus a clear conflict of interest without much explanation and no apologies. Why won't the White House be completely transparent in how it's selected one of the Presidents resorts to host the next G7 Summit?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [14:20:54]

CABRERA: There are new questions today about the so-called ceasefire in Northern Syria and whether it is holding it.

In the 24 hours since this supposed deal was reached, smoke could be seen rising above the town of Ras al-Ain but President Trump is praising the deal today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just spoke to President Erdogan of Turkey. We're doing very, very well with Turkey. There's a ceasefire or pause or whatever you want to call it. There was some sniper fire this morning. There was mortar fire this morning that was eliminated quickly, and they're back to the full pause.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: But Turkey says the only thing they agreed to is a five-day pause to allow any remaining Kurdish fighters to leave the region.

Joshua Geltzer is the former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council and is with us now. Joshua, I first have to get your reaction to the President's comments and this tweet today where he retweeted the Turkish President and then reiterates Erdogan's mission to quote, "defeat terrorism."

JOSHUA GELTZER, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Look, I'm all for defeating terrorism but that does not appear to be what Trump is really setting us up to do here. The terrorist threat that Americans have feared most for the past years have been ISIS.

And of course, what Trump has done here is to abandon our main ground partner against ISIS, the Syrian Kurds, and forced the Syrian Kurds to instead fend off the Turks. So this does not seem to be a policy really geared towards defeating terrorists.

CABRERA: Why do you think the President has so much faith in Erdogan's intentions here?

GELTZER: It's hard to know. It seems to me that one explanation is that he, Erdogan, is the sort of strong man whom Trump seems to have a natural affinity for. It's in the Putin category that if the President can do something of a favor for that type of world leader, and here it's a favor that Erdogan strongly wanted, that Trump is almost instinctively drawn towards doing that.

CABRERA: Now the President explained that the conflict to a rally of supporters in Texas like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Sometimes you have to let them fight a little while, then people find out how tough the fighting is, these guys know right up here, these guys here. Right? Sometimes you have to let them fight like two kids in a lot, you've got to let them fight and then you pull them apart.

President Erdogan was a gentleman. He understood it, but without a little tough love. You know what tough love is, right? Without a little tough love, they would have never made this deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Just a reminder to our viewers, Turkey has approximately 750,000 soldiers while the Kurds have 20,000. What do you make of the President's analogy?

GELTZER: Well, first of all, I'm a bit skeptical of his theory of running a good school or school yard, it is not the way I hope my kids get treated on the playground at their schools, but it's just an appalling way to talk about what the Syrian Kurds have been through.

They have lost thousands and thousands of fighters in a campaign against ISIS that has left Americans safer here in the United States. And frankly left a lot of people say for all around the world from the ISIS threat.

So to suggest as Trump did that somehow some fighting, some violence would be helpful in resolving anything at this point for people that has suffered incredible violence as our partners, just appalling to hear.

CABRERA: Joshua Geltzer, great to have your perspective on all of this. Thank you.

No details. No apologies. The White House awarding the massive G7 Summit to one of Trump's own resorts, and it's refusing to answer key questions about why they couldn't pick from the thousands of other non-Trump locations.

Plus President Trump's empathy gap. Whether it's the Kurds, hurricane survivors, or the parents of a young man killed by a U.S. diplomat. Why is it so hard for the President to show compassion?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:29:26]

CABRERA: Unprecedented, uncharted and unapologetic. President Trump is using his public office to award himself a huge government contract by picking his own Miami area resort to host next year's G7 Summit.

World leaders will converge at the Trump National in Doral, Florida next June. At the center of criticism here is the question of whether this violates the Constitution and we just learned Doral wasn't even on the original list of possible locations. The reason -- ethics concerns.

Yet acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is dismissing any conflict of interest and insists that the Trump resort was the best location.