Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN: House Democrats Are Moving To Fast Track Their Investigation With The Goal To Complete This Entire Process By Christmas; Aide To Vice President Mike Pence Is Testifying Behind Closed Doors Before House Investigators; Trump Denies Asking Barr To Publicly Clear Him Of Wrongdoing. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 07, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: And that's it for me. "NEWSROOM" with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

[14:00:11]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: All right, here we go on this Thursday afternoon. I'm Brooke Baldwin, thank you for being with me. You are watching CNN. As we wait for more transcripts to drop, to be released in this whole Impeachment Inquiry, we have just learned that House Democrats are moving to fast track their investigation with the goal to complete this entire process by Christmas. But Republicans are signaling they will not make that very easy.

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has just announced that his caucus will request the whistleblower testify publicly and they have until Saturday to make that request. So with that, we begin with Manu Raju, our go-to guy on Capitol Hill and so expedited timeline -- Christmas. How are they going to pull this off?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is within the realm of possibility because of steps that have been taken this week showing that Democrats are moving forward in a vote to impeach this President could certainly happen next month, it could happen in the week running up to Christmas.

And the steps that have been taken are these. First, Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman announced that they would have public hearings next week - three witnesses would come forward. Also, Adam Schiff put out a letter today saying that they would not bring back everybody who testified behind closed doors, more than a dozen or so people have come behind closed doors.

He said it is not their intention to bring back all of those individuals, but also they are signaling that they're not going to go through these prolonged court battles to get other witnesses to come forward.

They already announced they are withdrawing the subpoena for one individual who defied that subpoenas Charles Kupperman, a former White House official because they don't want to delay the process. That could have pushed it back until December and also today, announcing that they would not subpoena John Bolton, the former National Security adviser because of that same reason.

They were concerned, in the words of one top official that this would be a game of quote, "rope-a-dope" that would drag this proceeding out longer. All which points to this, Brooke, we expect one, probably two weeks of public hearings that followed by Thanksgiving recess week, and in which the committees would draft the reports or recommendations about some of the next steps and what should be happening.

And then they come back for the first week of December when the House Judiciary Committee will start taking up the proceedings. That could be one or two weeks of either public hearings, followed by a vote in that committee for Articles of Impeachment.

And after that Committee votes, Brooke, that's when the full House would vote to impeach the President. That being probably the week running up to Christmas.

Now, I should add the speaker Nancy Pelosi has not specified exactly how she wants to do this. She has declined to put a timeframe on this, but at the moment what Democrats are saying that these recent steps show very clearly that they're moving on a fast track that could ultimately lead to the impeachment, this historic vote could happen by Christmas time potentially putting that trial in the Senate into the New Year -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: All right, Manu, thank you. Also, right now, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence is testifying behind closed doors before House investigators. We are told Jennifer Williams was subpoenaed after the White House actually tried to block her appearance today.

Here she was this morning. She was on that infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart. And a source tells CNN she was concerned about what she heard.

As for former National Security adviser John Bolton, he was a no-show today as Manu was just alluding to. House Democrats did not even bother to subpoena him after his attorney threatened a court fights.

Let's go to CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox there on Capitol Hill and we know the Vice President has claimed to be in the dark about any of these discussions regarding Ukraine. What are the key questions Williams is being asked today?

LAUREN FOX, CNN POLITICS U.S. CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Jennifer Williams just left the skiff after hours behind closed doors with lawmakers. Just a few minutes ago, she walked right around the corner here and appears to have left for the day.

One thing I will tell you is that lawmakers wanted to know more about that July 25th phone call. They also wanted to know, of course, what the Vice President knew, and when he knew it. Those are the key details.

This is the first aide to the Vice President who has come before lawmakers as part of this impeachment probe. She was not the only aide to Vice President Mike Pence on that July 25th call, but the first one called to testify behind closed doors. Of course, Williams is a key witness. They also may want to know more about what the Vice President knew about Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer and his involvement abroad -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: All right, Lauren, thank you so much. Let's analyze all of this. I have with me CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers and Michael Gerhardt. Jennifer is also a former Federal prosecutor, and Michael is a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

So welcome, welcome. A new day, new headlines starting with you, sir, we've counted 48 days between now and Christmas. Manu was just reporting on the expedited timeline. Realistic?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: It's probably realistic. It's going to be really intense. I think that that's a lot of investigations to try and wrap up quickly.

[14:05:08]

GERHARDT: And we can imagine that it's going to be even more difficult because as the Democrats try and put on facts or fact witnesses or testimony, every step of the way the Republicans will be trying to delay to obstruct that.

BALDWIN: What do you think, Jen?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's realistic, too. I mean, if this were an actual trial, it would happen in much less than that time, actually if you sit all day, you know, they haven't had the time that you would have in a criminal case to meet with their witnesses multiple times and explore all the leads they want to explore, but they have had these depositions.

And so I think that they'll be able to focus in on the key points for public testimony and go from there in fairly short order.

BALDWIN: Let's fast forward to the whistleblower, and we also mentioned a moment ago how Republican Congressman Jim Jordan is saying that he would call this whistleblower to testify, and obviously it is ultimately up to the Democrats. They have the majority in the House to say yay or nay. How do you see this playing out with a whistleblower?

GERHARDT: I think it'll be hard to get the whistleblower to show up. Democrats are probably somewhat reluctant to do that, because asking that person to go public basically defeats the point of the whistleblower protections which are designed to protect that person's privacy.

And we are in some respects well past what the whistleblower has already told us. We've had numerous very credible witnesses conferring ...

BALDWIN: Corroborating.

GERHARDT: ... what the whistleblower said, so it's not entirely clear what the whistleblower would show up to do other than to become a punching bag for the Republican members.

BALDWIN: Beyond being a punching bag, is there anything, I mean, to his point he or she has been so corroborated by so many witnesses speaking on Capitol Hill, what could that person -- I don't know if it's symbolic or on fact -- what could that person provide?

RODGERS: Really not a whole heck of a lot to be honest with you? I mean, he or she could certainly say, here's what I was hearing. This is why it concerned me. This is what I did about it.

But now we already know all of those things from the witnesses who actually knew what was going on. So it really doesn't give any substance, it's just you know -- it is just as Mike said, it's a punching bag for the Republicans and I think they know that the whistleblower will not show up.

So then it becomes this Boogeyman of you know, where is he? Where is he? This is all a farce, you know that this person isn't showing up and that something, you know, a problem for the Democrats.

BALDWIN: Bill Barr. Let's talk about the other big headline today. So a source -- a CNN source now confirms that President Trump asked Bill Barr to hold this news conference to clear him of any crimes as it pertains to Ukraine and this phone call.

President Trump, by the way vehemently denies any of this reporting. Bill Barr did release a statement that prosecutors had found no wrongdoing by the President. He also said that the Inspector General was not required to turn over a whistleblower complaint to Congress.

Either way, to you, do you feel like Bill Barr has been doing some legal maneuvering on behalf of the President of the United States?

RODGERS: I think so. But I think he went as far as he could here. I think he realized, you know, clearing the President of something that the D.O.J. didn't even want to investigate, didn't even think was worth investigating isn't something that the Department of Justice does, you know.

So I think he felt like by doing what he did about saying the whistleblower complaint shouldn't have gone over, and by saying there was nothing to investigate on the campaign finance side that was as far as he could go.

BALDWIN: That's as much as he could do.

RODGERS: And that was more -- you know, he would have gotten so much blowback had he taken that final say.

BALDWIN: To jog everyone's memory, just a couple months ago, President Trump said, quote, "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want," as President harkening back to Richard Nixon's statement, which was, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

So on Bill Barr, right? Fast forward, I mean, the man could really be at a crossroads between protecting the United States Constitution and protecting Donald Trump. What does he do?

GERHARDT: Well, his record up until now has been to protect Donald Trump, and it's not entirely clear how much the Constitution really matters to Attorney General Barr or for that matter to the President.

I think that if anybody were to read Article 2 of the Constitution, it doesn't say what the President just said it said. Every official in this government is limited in his or her powers. That's how our Constitution is designed. Nobody is all powerful. So that's what we call a nonstarter, insofar -- with respect to what the President said.

BALDWIN: Okay. Mike Gerhardt, and Jen Rodgers, thank you both very much.

New today, what we are learning regarding discussions about Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and claims by the anonymous administration official who is writing that book.

Plus, just how close President Zelensky came to doing a massive favor for this White House and this President. The backstory on a canceled interview and a new argument from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, why he now says the Trump team is too disorganized to even pull off a quid pro quo.

You are watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:14:47]

BALDWIN: We're back, you're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We are getting a peek into that highly anticipated book written by an anonymous senior White House official.

Jake Tapper says a source close to the publication process confirms the summary of an excerpt from the book, an excerpt that has been published now by "The Huffington Post" and in it, it claims that White House aides were certain that Vice President Mike Pence would support the use of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

[14:15:16]

BALDWIN: So let me just refresh everyone's memory. Article 4 of the 25th Amendment is as follows, "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President," quote.

Adding to that, today in New Hampshire, the Vice President was asked about this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, when those rumors came out a few years ago, I dismissed them then. I never heard any discussion in my entire tenure as Vice President about the 25th Amendment. And why would I?

I have to tell you this. The very notion of this anonymous who wrote an editorial now, it's reported that they've written a book is just appalling to me.

Someone in our administration or serving our administration that doesn't support this President, doesn't support his agenda, they should do the honorable thing and resign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Former acting F.B.I. Director Andy McCabe says Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raised the prospect of using the 25th Amendment. This is how McCabe related those events on "60 Minutes."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: A discussion of the 25th Amendment was simply -- Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other Cabinet officials might support such an effort.

I didn't have much to contribute, to be perfectly honest in that conversation, so I listened to what he had to say. But to be fair, it was an unbelievably stressful time. I can't even describe for you how many things must have been coursing through the Deputy Attorney General's mind at that point.

So it was really something that he kind of threw out in a very frenzied, chaotic conversation about where we were and what we needed to do next.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: And Andy McCabe is now a CNN contributor. And so thank you, as always, of course, for being with me. In terms of Jake's reporting, let me just get this out that the summary of that anonymous book says the following that that highly placed White House officials did a back of the envelope tally of which Cabinet members would be prepared to sign a letter invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

So my question to you, sir, is what conversations were you privy to?

MCCABE: Yes, so there are very few, Brooke. My only conversations were ones that I had with then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The 25th Amendment was something that Rod brought up in our very wide ranging and somewhat chaotic conversation about all the different things we needed to do during that very trying time.

BALDWIN: Yes.

MCCABE: So Rod kind of brought it up off the top of his head and mentioned it in the context of like, who else he thought might support such an effort?

I, of course, you know, there is no role for the F.B.I. Director and certainly not the Acting F.B.I. Director in the 25th Amendment. So it was not something that I was focused on really in any way.

BALDWIN: Did you ever hear about this list on the back of an envelope of which Cabinet officials they thought would have gone along with it?

MCCABE: I didn't, and that's why this kind of revelation is particularly interesting to me because I had assumed that the discussion that Mr. Rosenstein and I had was simply Rod kind of gaming things out in his head. I never thought that he would act --

BALDWIN: They were out in discussions.

MCCABE: He never indicated to me. That's right. He never indicated to me that he talked about it with anyone else, or that the people he was thinking about, that he'd had any conversations with them is really like, you know, he thought this person and that person might go along with it.

But he never, you know, indicated that he had actually discussed it with them.

BALDWIN: Why do you think these, you know, White House officials were so certain that the Vice President would even sign on to this, right? So you have to have the majority of the Cabinet, Vice President's approval, and then it goes to Congress.

And we should also note that the Vice President did not say this directly that this was the belief among White House staff. Why do you think?

MCCABE: Well, I don't know. I can only say, Brooke, that the fact that, you know, it was something that was on the Deputy Attorney General's mind and now the possibility that it might have been a topic on the minds of other White House staffers or aides, I think shows you just how tumultuous and kind of unnerving that whole period was.

The President had, without really any warning or indication or any kind of deliberation with his advisers struck out and fired the Director of the F.B.I.

I know, I and my staff were in a great quandary trying to figure out exactly why he had done that and what this meant, not just for our investigation, but for the F.B.I. in general and the country in general.

And I think that these sorts of conversations are helpful, and they show just the kind of almost panic that people in and around the administration were in as a direct result of the President's decision to fire the Director.

BALDWIN: Last question, Andy, and that is do you think it's fair to this President? Is it fair to this administration that this person is writing this book anonymously?

MCCABE: Well, you know -- I -- it's obviously not something I would do. I wrote my own book and I very proudly stand by the things I asserted in that book. So obviously, the way that I would approach this situation if I were that person, I think it's -- I think it's admirable that when people want to bring their concerns to the forefront and share what they understand with the American people to put people in a position to make a better decision, but I think it's better to do that.

Clearly, you know, indicating who you are, it gives the reader and the public an ability to assess what you're asserting and to assess like, how could you possibly know the things that you're including in your statement or your book, so I think it's really challenging to do something like this anonymously, it raises all kinds of other issues that get in the way of the message.

BALDWIN: Andy McCabe. Thank you very much.

MCCABE: Sure thing, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Good to see you.

MCCABE: Good to see you.

BALDWIN: We now know just how close Ukraine's President came to publicly announcing an investigation into the Biden's. Fareed Zakaria joins me next with the backstory.

And controversy over President Trump's plans to attend a college football game this Saturday in Alabama. Why students were actually given a warning about any potential behavior at the stadium.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:22]

BALDWIN: Well, they say timing is everything, just ask the Ukrainian President because according to "The New York Times" today, just days before President Zelensky was ready to publicly announce an investigation into President Trump's political rival on CNN, news leaked that security aid to Ukraine was frozen. With lawmakers asking questions, the Trump administration released the assistance.

"Nearly all Mr. Zelensky's top advisers favored his making the public statement, said one of the officials who participated in the debate, United States military aid, they agreed as well as diplomatic backing for impending peace talks to end the war outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics."

"Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky's staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on September 13 with Fareed Zakaria."

Fareed, host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" is here with me. I mean --

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: Brooke, I've got to make sure people understand one thing. The White House did not request that he make the -- that he do the thing on my show. I think they just said it should be on a TV interview.

BALDWIN: And it was eventually going to be you.

ZAKARIA: Well, we had been negotiating with President Zelensky and his office for a while for months to try to get an interview with him anyway, ever since he ...

BALDWIN: Was elected.

ZAKARIA: ... was elected president. In fact, I was in Kiev the weekend before all this leaked and met with him to solidify the commitment that we were going to get the interview, and we did.

I think "The Time's" story is accurate that we did get a commitment that we would get an interview and then once all this came to light, once the transcript of the call, as I recall, once that became public, or maybe once the whistleblower complaint -- I can't remember exactly when -- it became clear to us the interview was off.

BALDWIN: Did you -- when it was ago, did you have any idea that he was going to announce with you that Ukraine would be investigating the Biden's?

ZAKARIA: No, of course not. And you know, politicians have often do interviews because they have some message they want to get across.

BALDWIN: Right. They agree to X, Y, and Z.

ZAKARIA: Right. And I would have asked -- I would have definitely asked a supplementary about it because I knew -- we did know about -- because of Giuliani and his activities, we knew that this had been a Trump campaign, if you will, talking point that they had been pushing it,.

BALDWIN: Yes.

ZAKARIA: But I think nobody knew the extent to which there had been a many month long effort to pressure this poor incoming President on this issue, and so that's part I think none of us knew.

BALDWIN: When you found out that it would have been -- it would have been with you, what did you first think?

ZAKARIA: Well, you know, you win some, you lose some. I would have loved to have it. He is a fascinating guy.

[14:30:09]