Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Plans To Release Transcript Of First Call With Ukraine; Bloomberg Gears Up For Potential Presidential Run; Sessions Praises Trump In Announcing Run For His Old Senate Seat; Conservative Media Says Democrats' Impeachment Inquiry Not "Sexy" Enough; Celebrities & Lawmakers Fight To Save Death Row Inmate; Graham's Head-Spinning Defenses Of Trump; Trump To Release April Call Transcript "Probably" Tuesday. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired November 09, 2019 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:09]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Again, thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

The impeachment inquiry is about to enter a new phase with public testimony starting Wednesday. But the White House is fighting back like never before. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is now attempting to join a lawsuit, which asks the federal judge to determine if he should testify in the probe.

And newly released transcripts of witnesses who testified before House committees behind closed doors put Mulvaney right at the center of the Ukraine scandal. This as another key figure, former national security adviser John Bolton is teasing that he may have information crucial to impeachment investigators. He is also awaiting a court ruling on whether he should testify.

Just moments ago, President Trump had this to say about the inquiry speaking from the South Lawn.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, no. I don't care public, they should be public. What I said, it was misreported as usual. What I said is very simple. There shouldn't be anything, there shouldn't be impeachment hearings is what I said. So, maybe they've been concerted.

But what I say is read the transcript. It's all about the transcript, they're having people, I never even heard of some of these people, I don't know who they are. And, by the way, it's all third-hand knowledge.

But regardless of what anyone says, read the transcript. Now, they want to have a transcript of the other call, the second call. And I'm willing to provide that, we'll probably give it to you on Tuesday. Monday being a holiday? We'll probably give it to you on Tuesday, but we have another transcript coming out which is very important. They asked for it, and I gladly give it. There's never been a president who's been so transparent. This is a witch-hunt at the highest level, and it's so bad for our country. But here's the deal, read the transcript, you'll see the call.

Now, I'll give you a second transcript because I actually had two calls with the president of Ukraine. So, you'll read the second and you'll tell me if you think there's anything wrong with it.

But never in history has anybody gone through this, it's a witch hunt, and it should never happen to another president. Thank you. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, CNN's Kristen Holmes, joining us now from the White House. So, Kristen, the president -- you know, talking about the -- a second transcript that there's nothing wrong with -- you know the conversations. Can you tell us anything more about -- you know, the transcript, the fashion of such since the other was -- you know, believed to be kind of paraphrased, it's a lot of dot, dot, dots. A lot of -- you know, blanks. What about this second call -- second transcript now?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: Well, Fred, that's an interesting question. We're going to have to wait and see how exactly they deliver. And I want to make one thing clear, this is actually the first call that President Trump had with President Zelensky.

That is what he is talking about here, transcript was never released. And again, the whistleblower came forward on the second call. But when it comes to releasing these transcripts. Essentially, someone told me that it goes like this that while these calls come in, there are people who are experts in the country for the leader, and then there are specialists that sit in the Situation Room and listen to the calls.

They then transcribe this. So, it is not a direct transcription, they're not recording these calls. These calls are not recorded as far as we have learned from our extensive research into how this is done.

They are not recorded but they compare all of the transcripts at the end of the process and put it together to make a final transcript. That is why even when President Trump says this is a verbatim Transcript, it is not a verbatim transcript, because you are taking people who are taking notes, who are doing the best they can to transcribe, writing down key thoughts, and then, you're putting it all together. So, obviously, there again, not a verbatim transcript.

But we're going to wait and see what exactly is in this. And I want to note here, you know, this is coming after a pretty rough day yesterday. You had the release of two testimonies. One of them from Vindman -- Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. He is a National Security Council, Ukrainian expert, still works for the White House. And here's why he is so important, he was on that call. So, no matter how many times President Trump repeats that line that it's only third-hand knowledge, he doesn't even know these people, maybe he has not met Vindman, maybe he does not remember him, but that does not make the he -- it true that he was not on that call and he is not a first-hand information source about that call,

So, that's just one thing we want to make clear. And the other thing is when this testimony came out, the other being from the former White House specialist on Russia Fiona Hill, they essentially mirrored each other, and they pointed out one clear fact. They believed that there was a blatant quid pro quo, and the second key fact is that Mick Mulvaney was at the center of this entire Russia campaign -- this pressure campaign here.

And that's interesting because, of course, as we know, Mick Mulvaney is the acting chief of staff, he's also the acting chief of staff who stood in front at a press conference and said that there was a quid pro quo, so get over it before, of course, then backpedaling it.

[13:05:06]

HOLMES: So, this is kind of a change in the dynamic here essentially if Mick Mulvaney was directing this what happens next when it comes to the president.

WHITFIELD: All right. Kristen Holmes, thank you so much still unanswered questions. All right, with me now, Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, and a CNN legal analyst. Good to see -- oh, he's also the author of this book, "Impeachment: What Everyone Needs To Know. Good to see you, Michael.

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: So, well, let's talk about this announcement from the president just moments ago saying that they're thinking about releasing a transcript, a new transcript of a different call. It would be the first of the two calls, our Kristen was just describing there. And it may come as early as Tuesday.

What are your expectations about this transcript of a call? Again, it's a combination of notes taken by several people who would be in on the call.

GERHARDT: Well, it's hard to speculate what's in the second call. We've got the first call and we got a transcript for that. And one of the things we got to worry about here --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: How about a why now?

GERHARDT: Or -- is why now? And the only thing we've got to worry about is has it been edited?

WHITFIELD: Right.

GERHARDT: We don't know if it is a full transcript or not.

WHITFIELD: Right, because a Kristen was describing the first transcript was really more like a combination of note taking from several people on the call, so it's not a verbatim.

GERHARDT: Right.

WHITFIELD: And that this may come in the same kind of fashion. I mean, it really does speak to perhaps a strategy from the White House as to why they would want to make this available. The clarity that it is hoping this second transcription might bring or if it would further -- you know, promote more questions.

GERHARDT: It's likely to promote more questions, but it's also could possibly be a distraction. The first call is fairly well reported on at this point with a number of credible witnesses testifying about it.

And their testimony is pretty consistent with each other and that's -- and it's all consistent with what the whistleblower said.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

GERHARDT: The fact that the president want -- doesn't want to acknowledge what's in the transcript is almost beside the point. People actually have read the transcript and they've become disturbed by it. People that didn't know the president personally who were on the call, and they're disturbed by what they heard.

And the picture that's emerging here is that it's very similar to sort of a bank robbery that people may have seen. They didn't know the bank robbers, but they're saying, oh, my gosh, there's something illegal going on here and they've reported it to authorities. And that's what we're experiencing right now.

WHITFIELD: So, all of this coming as House Republicans -- you know, have submitted their list of -- you know, witnesses that they would like to see testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

What more do we know about whether this request will be entertained and whether Democrats would -- you know, pick and choose -- you know, whether they think any of those witnesses suggested by the Republicans is appropriate?

GERHARDT: It's -- I think, the GOP witness list right now seems to be really an effort at distraction from the core issues. The whistle --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Because one of the people on that list would be Hunter Biden.

GERHARDT: Yes, and that's going to perpetuate the concern that the president has, that there's something corrupt in Hunter Biden's background. And what we're also experiencing right now is how the strategy that went into the call, and so far as the president was concerned, is now dominating much of the public discussion. As the more we talked about it, the more he gets to talk about Joseph Biden and Hunter Biden, which was his goal all along.

WHITFIELD: Right. OK, so, now, you've got attorneys for the president's former national security adviser John Bolton, who were weighing in and saying, you know, Bolton has relevant information that he wants to share but only under certain conditions.

And you know, at first, there was going to be a subpoena, but then, the House didn't issue the subpoena. I mean, how, how do you ascertain what's going on now about Bolton and whether he sounds like he's willing to testify or if this is an obstacle being presented for his testimony.

GERHARDT: I mean my best guess about Mr. Bolton is he is trying to have it both ways. So, he's trying to allow for some cover for himself through the subpoena, but at the same time, he doesn't want to appear to be somebody who's betraying the president.

So, he wants to appear to be forced into talking to the committee, at the same time, he doesn't want to lose his political.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Even though it was clear.

GERHARDT: Exactly.

WHITFIELD: Yes, even though it's been -- even though it's been pretty clear that Bolton and Trump did not necessarily see eye to eye.

GERHARDT: Right.

WHITFIELD: And I guess it's confusing if a message is being sent about some sort of allegiance or worried that he might be -- his testimony might cross the president. But then, you know, so many have already testified that Bolton was upset -- you know, and clearly felt very uncomfortable about withholding U.S. military aid in exchange for -- you know, digging up dirt on a political rival, for the president.

[13:10:15]

GERHARDT: Yes, and by the way, Fiona Hill worked really closely with Mr. Bolton. He's basically given us a sense of what he would talk about.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

GERHARDT: I think, Mr. Bolton's situation is like that of a lot of other people involved in this situation. They're not just concerned about what they can talk about now, but that -- I think there's some extent they are concerned about their futures. And they want to be able to come out of this politically viable and, at the same time, hopefully, tell the truth.

WHITFIELD: Michael Gerhardt, all great points. Thank you so much.

GERHARDT: Thank you. WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead, from Mayor Bloomberg to President Bloomberg? The New York City billionaire is taking new steps toward a potential Democratic run. How the leading candidates are reacting.

Plus, Jeff Sessions, remember that name? The former attorney general entering the race for Alabama Senate again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF SESSIONS (R), SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, ALABAMA: Have I said a crossword about our president? Not one time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: But will the fired A.G. get the president's support?

And President Trump is headed to Alabama to see the big game between Bama and LSU. But after being booed at other sporting events, how will the crowd receive him this time around? We're live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:05]

WHITFIELD: All right, the 2020 race could soon get to be a bit more crowded. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is one step closer to running for president. The 77-year-old has filed the necessary paperwork in Alabama to get on the state's Democratic primary ballot. And he's planning to do the same in Arkansas by Tuesday.

However, we are told Bloomberg does not plan on competing in any of the first four early contests. Here to discuss, former Republican congressman and CNN political commentator Charlie Dent, along with Aisha Moodie-Mills, who is also a CNN political commentator and a Democratic strategist. Good to see you both.

AISHA MOODIE-MILLS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Aisha, you first, you know, so, if Bloomberg is going to be skipping the first, you know, early state primaries, what's he doing?

MOODIE-MILLS: That is the -- that is a brilliant question.

WHITFIELD: Just wondering.

MOODIE-MILLS: You just got to sum it up. I'm not quite sure what he's doing and I -- and what constantly comes up for me as I think about all the campaigns that I've worked on in the path to victory in a presidential, is that you actually have to amass delegates in order to get the nomination.

In order to amass delegates, you actually have to have people vote for you, and then based on how many voters come out and vote for you is how many delegates you'll be assigned. And I just don't see how if you are skipping the first major contests that you are on your way to a delegate count that gets you a nomination. So, you have to wonder, what is this run really about?

WHITFIELD: Yes.

MOODIE-MILLS: Because strategically, it just doesn't feel like it's actually about landing the nomination, it's got to be about something else.

WHITFIELD: Charlie, how do you see it? What's behind it?

CHARLES DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I tend to agree. This is a very unusual in Orthodox approach he's taking. Skipping the first four primaries, I think, he feels he can compete on Super Tuesday.

But we've seen this happen before, Remember, the Republican side in '08, I think, when Rudy Giuliani skipped the early primaries is hoping to bank at all in Florida, it just didn't work out. Whoever comes out of New Hampshire and Iowa is going to have some momentum.

It seems to me that maybe Biden -- I mean, excuse me -- that Bloomberg is going to cut into the Biden a bit. Probably, Pete Buttigieg, upscale white voters. But Bloomberg like Buttigieg has a problem with African-American voters.

So, I'm not sure I see the path forward but he's got a lot of money and that can take you pretty far. Yes.

WHITFIELD: He's kind of money counts for something. But then, you know, like you said, you got to have some support, you got to have (INAUDIBLE) behind me.

DENT: Yes.

MOODIE-MILLS: I can't roll my eyes enough at this idea of having the money though, and the billionaire's boys club who thinks that they can buy their vanity projects into -- you know, making Americans love them.

And that to me is super problematic and quite frankly contrary to where the base of Democratic Party is right now.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

MOODIE-MILLS: And not wanting people to throw around their money and think that that should get them power.

WHITFIELD: All right, let's shift gears. Let's talk about the former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and what's going on there. He says he plans to run for his old Senate seat in Alabama. Just take a listen to his announcement video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SESSIONS: When I left President Trump's Cabinet, did I write a tell- all book? No. Did I go on CNN and attack the president? Nope. Have I said a crossword about our president? Not one time. And I'll tell you why.

First, that would be dishonorable. I was there to serve his agenda, not mine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Oh, wow. OK, this was really underscoring the loyalty and that this is a great asset, Charlie. But this clearly, I mean, he, he knows his audience, he knows his district, he was there before. I mean, is this what it takes, you know, to really resonate with voters there to get him back in the U.S. Senate?

DENT: Boy that was a painful announcement. I mean, the president more or less called Jeff Sessions' stupid. And then, for the -- for Jeff Sessions to be so obsequious is really just stunning to me.

Look, the good news for Sessions that it appears that Trump may not play in the primary, and you've got a crowded field. You've got that crazy guy Roy Moore, you've got the Auburn coach Tuberville, Bradley Byrne, a House member. So that might be enough that help Sessions secure that nomination.

So, I think he's probably in good position to win as long as Trump doesn't try to invade the primary too much.

WHITFIELD: But Aisha, I think, I mean, very few people can forget, I mean all the words that the president used -- you know, and here now Sessions is -- you know, being so incredibly polite, you know. But look, I mean the president called him an idiot, you know, he said he was very disappointed in him, that he did a terrible thing, disgraceful, all of that. All of that forgiven?

MOODIE-MILLS: I mean, look, he's being polite, he's being a punk. And I don't understand how people who so love Donald Trump, because he is a bullish and brash and kind of poke out your chest, I'm going to fight --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: I mean, I guess Sessions is saying he --

MOODIE-MILLS: Why would they like Sessions?

WHITFIELD: I guess Sessions presumes that --

MOODIE-MILLS: Is Sessions --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Sessions is presuming, you know, is he not in that video that you know, that audience loves Trump more than he -- then they probably like Sessions, but as long as Sessions, you know, has loyalties to Trump, and that's going to bode well for him.

[13:20:05] MOODIE-MILLS: He's proving he has zero to offer, he has no backbone, and he certainly has like no outlook on the state that he can then say, this is what I'm going to do for you. And that's just really sad, which is why Doug Jones is coming back to United States Senate.

WHITFIELD: Last word, Charlie.

DENT: Let's see is -- let's see if Sessions -- let's see if Sessions is that the -- Senator Sessions is at the Alabama-LSU game today with the president. And I like to see who seated with him along with a Senator Shelby.

That will be interesting to see who's sitting with the president. Let's watch.

WHITFIELD: All right, kick-off what? 3:00 I think today, we'll be watching. All right.

DENT: 3:30. 3:30. OK.

WHITFIELD: Oh, 3:30. There you go. All right, Charlie Dent, Aisha Moodie-Mills thank you.

MOODIE-MILLS: Thank you.

DENT: OK.

WHITFIELD: All right, ahead, Tide, Tigers, and Trump. Kickoff is soon to begin and there will be politics at play when LSU takes the field against Alabama today. The president, of course, will be watching. And we'll see what Charlie has to say about that if Jeff Sessions indeed shows up too. Can that happen? We're live there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:24:55]

WHITFIELD: Right now, President Trump and the first lady are on Air Force One, heading to the biggest college football game of the day as the Alabama Crimson Tide take on Louisiana State University, in a battle of the unbeaten.

CNN White House correspondent Sarah Westwood is Tuscaloosa for us. So, Sarah, you're getting kind of the pulse of the fan base there and how politics is really not far from their minds?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right, Fred. We've been speaking to a lot of folks who are tailgating here ahead of the game that is set to start in just a couple of hours. President Trump is on his way here.

Most of the folks were talking to are excited that the president is going to be here, and they're supportive of him. We've been asking them about impeachment. Many of them think the president is being treated unfairly. Today, the president might be seeking the kind of warm reception that has been elusive in the past few sporting events that he's attended. This will be the third major sporting event that he's attended in just two weeks. He hadn't been attending a lot of them before, but now all of a sudden, he's going to a lot of them with the Game Five of the World Series in Washington, he went to the UFC championship at Madison Square Garden. And at both of those events, he got a mixed reaction. There were people booing him as well as cheering him.

But here is Trump country. In 2016, the president won this state by nearly 30 points in Alabama. His approval rating is as high basically as any other state. So, these are people who are likely to be friendly to President Trump.

Now, the University of Alabama student government sent out guidance to students instructing them not to cause any disruptions during this game. And that received a bit of a backlash so the student government has since clarified that they're not trying to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights here at the game.

So, it will be interesting, Fred, to see what kind of reaction the president gets when he arrives.

WHITFIELD: Oh, it will begin interesting indeed. All right, thank you so much. Our Sarah Westwood, appreciate it.

All right, still ahead as the White House fends off impeachment, conservative media have a new line of attack. The Ukraine scandal they say isn't sexy enough. More on that straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:09]

WHITFIELD: All right, this week, we learned that the White House will be beefing up personnel, adding two aids to handle its impeachment defense with testimony set to go public this Wednesday.

At the same time, conservative media is homing in on a new message that the Democrats inquiry is too boring and too complicated for the average American to understand. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that needs to be a pretty simple message. And if you're trying to explain a big conspiracy theory, even if it is actually a conspiracy, it just makes it a lot harder, just from a communications perspective. You want to keep it simple. And this is getting really tough.

UNIDENTIFIED FOX HOST: So is that part of the reason that you think, Alex, we heard words like "bribery" in the last few days?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is possible. I think it's more of --

UNIDENTIFIED FOX HOST: Is that more of the vernacular, if you will, than quid pro quo?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The deeper you get into it, the more everyone's eyes glaze over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CNN chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, is joining me now.

Brian, this is a very interesting approach. They say they don't need to care about this, it is difficult to explain or interpret. And this is certainly what the White House wants to happen.

(CROSSTALK)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: It really does link right up to the president's interests.

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: It really does. It links right up the president's messaging about a coup, which is a bunch of crap. The president is being supported by his pro-Trump media allies at every step of the way here.

This new message, I've been noticing, for the last couple of days is that this scandal is too complicated. It is kind of boring to the public. Jesse Waters was on "The Five" saying Americans can't even find Ukraine on a map. If that is true, put a map on the screen and help people understand.

He was bordering on insulting the viewers at home saying this is not a sexy scandal. This is too complicated.

I think the only glimmer of truth to that is that journalists and news outlets need to help people understand the history and the background and all the players involved.

WHITFIELD: To keep up with it --

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: Yes. That's why there's podcasts, newsletters and app alerts and all that. And I think the media is doing a good job trying to explain.

They shouldn't short - they should give short shrift to the public attention span. I think many people are going into this with eyes wide open, very curious about what the Democrats will present on day one.

WHITFIELD: So how potentially influential might this be for a network audience to tell people, you know, that it's probably not of interest to you because it's not really interesting to us either?

STELTER: Yes. It is like the old saying, there's nothing to see here, but sometimes when you say that, even for a kid, that can make you more curious about what's going on. We'll see how effective the Democrat's messaging is at the beginning of the hearings.

Certainly, Trump's loyalists made their minds up, but not everyone watching conservative media or listening to talk radio has made up their mind about this scandal. I think some have and some has not. Language will be really important.

When Democrats talk about an intent to extort a foreign leader for a reelection campaign, that is clear cut. That's an obvious problem. Democrats have to prove and provide evidence for that. But even some commentators on FOX News may not be able to ignore all of the evidence in the days ahead.

WHITFIELD: Brian Stelter, thank you so much.

STELTER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: We'll be watching it tomorrow as well.

STELTER: Thank you.

[13:34:34]

WHITFIELD: Still ahead, just weeks before a death row inmate is set to be executed, several celebrities and lawmakers are jumping into the fight to keep him alive. His attorney says new evidence prove he's innocent. The legal battle, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: In less than two weeks, a Texas man is scheduled to be put to death for the murder of a young woman in 1996. But millions of people have signed a petition urging the governor to stop the execution of Rodney Reed. Saying he is an innocent man who was framed by the victim's fiancee.

Ed Lavandera looked at the evidence in the case as the clock ticks down toward Reed's execution date.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In 1996, 19- year-old Stacey Stites was found dead on the side of the road in Bastrop, Texas. She was partially dressed, bruised, and strangled with a belt. Investigators say she was raped and murdered just after 3:00 in the morning on her way to work at a grocery store.

For months, the prime suspect was her fiancee, a police officer named Jimmy Fennell, until DNA evidence pointed to another man she knew. A year later, tests confirmed Rodney Reed's semen was found inside Stites. A jury convicted Reed and sent him to death row.

But the saga was just beginning.

BRYCE BENJET, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, INNOCENCE PROJECT: It almost reads like a book. Hopefully, we don't execute the wrong man for this murder. LAVANDERA: Reed's attorney says the evidence points to Jimmy Fennell as the killer. They say Reed and Stites were engaged in a consensual affair and Fennell found out about it.

[13:40:09]

Reed talked about this in an interview.

RODNEY REED, DEATH ROW INMATE: Prior to her death, there were times we were together, and she said if Jimmy found out that we were together, that he would kill me. I just took it as a figure of speech. I didn't take it literally.

BENJET: And that is clear motive for him to have killed Stacey and ultimately having Rodney Reed take the fall for that murder.

LAVANDERA: Reed's case has garnered celebrity attention. Kim Kardashian, Rihanna and others are pushing to stop Reed's execution scheduled for November 20th.

Reed's lawyers say the murder investigation is full of holes. They say the time of death is inaccurate and that police never searched the apartment where Fennell and Stites lived together, and that DNA tests were never conducted on the belt used as the murder weapon.

But Fennell's lawyer says the push to exonerate Reed is a circus that has been rejected by appeals courts and that Reed is a monster.

ROBERT PHILLIPS, ATTORNEY FOR JIMMY FENNELL: Rodney Reed is a garden- variety sociopath who has convinced his lawyers and lots of other people that he's just a poor, unfairly charged black man being railroaded to the death chamber.

LAVANDERA (on camera): Prosecutors here in Bastrop, Texas, maintain Rodney Reed is guilty and deserves the death penalty. They have also pointed out in court documents that Reed was suspected of sexually assaulting and raping six other women. He was acquitted in just one of those cases.

BENJET: These are allegations. They're not convictions. And they have nothing to do with whether or not Rodney Reed committed the murder for which they're trying to execute him.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): There is also this. Jimmy Fennell spent 10 years in prison for kidnapping and raping a woman in 2007 while he was on duty as a police officer.

In a court affidavit, an Aryan Brotherhood inmate claims that when they were in prison, Fennell said to him, "I had to kill my N-word- loving fiancee."

PHILLIPS: The next surprise witness will be Mother Theresa appearing via epiphany. Each one of the stories is laughably lacking in credibility.

LAVANDERA: Rodney Reed also has one advocate that once lived by him on death row.

(on camera): Anthony Graves, you spent 18 and a half years on Texas death row. You were fully exonerated, released. You were wrongly convicted. Why do you relate to Rodney Reed?

ANTHONY GRAVES, DEATH ROW EXONEREE: I relate to Rodney because I know for a fact that those same players didn't give a damn about whether I was innocent or not.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Anthony Graves was wrongly accused of murdering a family of six people in 1992. The same judge, medical examiner, and court-appointed defense attorneys that worked his case also worked Rodney Reed's murder trial.

GRAVES: I was in his seat. I know his story. It just sent chills up my spine when I read and know what Rodney is going through.

LAVANDERA: Graves has been free almost 10 years and now works as a criminal justice reform advocate.

GRAVES: A young white woman was murdered and a black man was convicted of it. That is their case. They're not listening to anything else. Rodney Reed was definitely framed. And they're taking it all the way to the execution table.

LAVANDERA: While prosecutors, who worked the case, say the thought of Rodney Reed getting out of prison is absolutely terrifying.

Ed Lavandera, CNN, Bastrop, Texas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right, for more on this intense legal debate surrounding this case, our best legal minds are here. Let's bring in Avery Friedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor, and Richard Herman, a criminal defense attorney and law professor.

Good to see you both.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: All right, so, Richard, you first.

Do you think Rodney Reed's attorneys have come up with enough evidence to warrant putting his execution on hold?

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You said it, Fred, it is an intense legal debate. The conviction was 23 years ago. Since that time, 23 judges have looked for reversible error and found nothing. A lot of these arguments the government and prosecution are saying is just recycled and have presented as recently as 2015 and rejected by the courts.

I am seeing everything and I'm not sure of the timing of all of these events, if it was the admission in prison, the Aryan Brotherhood bunk mate, the acknowledgement by the pathologist that the DNA was faulty, concerning the timing of when the incident took place. Prosecution said all within two hours. And if the DNA is different, then it's impossible to be within two hours.

There's a lot of evidence that was put forward, Fred. I'm not sure if it is just all recycled or if it is really new.

If it's new, it would seem to me, Fred, that to stay this execution for 30 days and give him one more hearing to just flesh this out, to ensure that everything has been on the record in this case, and again 23 years, appellate judges have looked at this and found nothing, it could not hurt to do that, Fred, considering his life is on the line.

[13:45:08]

So I'm from New York. I think they should do it. This is Texas. That is where they execute more people than anybody. And this governor, in five years, has only commuted one execution.

(CROSSTALK)

HERMAN: It will be tough here.

WHITFIELD: All right, Avery, how do you see it.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I'm glad Richard is from New York, which has a lot to do with this, of course.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is that you do have new evidence. And it was 12 days ago that the prison mate, bunk mate came out with the statement, the admission.

Let me tell you something. I'm in agreement with Richard that with respect to the DNA, you have four forensic experts. Even though it's been examined, when you look at the totality, I think it is right. There's no rush to judgment after 21 years on death row.

At the end of the day, there's no harm if we examine the new evidence to see -- look at the alternative, lethal injection is finality. Let's look at the evidence. In that respect, Fredricka, I think we're in agreement.

WHITFIELD: And included in that evidence is new testimony or accounts as to what they believe they heard from the fiancee, Fennell, Richard.

FRIEDMAN: Yes, yes.

HERMAN: That's right.

And the government and the state's saying, listen, we put on a strong case. We gave DNA evidence. Six different women came in and testified that Reed had molested and attacked them. It shows a pattern and practice of him. There were no convictions but at least they came in and said that.

It was a strong case. It was 23 years. There will be finality. But for 30 more days, Fred, it just seems common sense to have one

more hearing, have a judgment make a ruling, if any of this is credible, if the testimony is credible, holding for cross-examination.

(CROSSTALK)

HERMAN: Give him 30 days and then, if not, it is what it is. It is not a moral debate on the death penalty here.

(CROSSTALK)

HERMAN: It is the rules of Texas.

WHITFIELD: Also, a bipartisan group of 26 Texas lawmakers are urging Texas Governor Abbott to delay the execution.

FRIEDMAN: Right.

WHITFIELD: And the online petition to stop it has a more than two million signatures.

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

WHITFIELD: The list of celebrities speaking out is growing.

Here's Oprah Winfrey making her own plea this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OPRAH WINFREY, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: I think at least the governor has to pause and look at the two million people that signed a petition. That is two million voices saying listen to us, something is off here and something needs to be done.

(CROSSTALK)

WINFREY: If the governor is watching, hello, I think this is a sign, you're supposed to, at least not execute.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Avery, how influential is this celebrity factor?

FRIEDMAN: To the Texas law enforcement people? A great big bowl of nothing.

To be honest, no one cares about Kim Kardashian or Oprah Winfrey.

While it is very important to consider it in the court of public opinion on the top legal issues here -- and you talk about this intense legal debate -- let's look at the new evidence, take the time and make that decision based on evidence, instead of rushing to judgment. That is justice and truth. And that is what should be done here. (CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Richard?

HERMAN: Avery is wrong. The governor has to run for election. The citizens vote for him. The fact that all of these celebrities are reaching out, they may hit voters. You don't know. It puts a lot of pressure on the governor. We saw that --

(CROSSTALK)

HERMAN: We saw that --

(CROSSTALK)

HERMAN: -- with the officer and the choke (ph) case. It puts a lot of pressure. So it is effective, Fred.

I think, ultimately, cooler heads will prevail here. I think they'll give him one more hearing.

FRIEDMAN: I hope that is right. I hope that's right.

HERMAN: That's reasonable to do that.

WHITFIELD: We shall see.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Avery, Richard, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

FRIEDMAN: Good to see you, too, Fred.

HERMAN: Thanks, Fred.

[13:49:26]

WHITFIELD: Still ahead, Senator Lindsey Graham has gone from one of President Trump's toughest critics to be one of his best friends. Coming up, Jeanne Moos looks at Graham's head-spinning defenses of President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: He is one of the president's fiercest defenders now, but Senator Lindsey Graham wasn't always so keen to defend Trump.

Here's Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham pretty much on the same page, but when Graham said he's not reading the pages of impeachment transcripts --

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm not going to read these transcripts. The whole process is a joke.

MOOS: -- the jokes flew.

"La, la, la." It was compared to sticking fingers in your ears.

Especially since last month, the Senator said --

GRAHAM: If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.

MOOS: Hard to be disturbed if you won't read the transcripts.

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT: I will just summarize the transcripts in three little words, OK? Lindsay, don't look away, Lindsey. Don't look away. Don't look away. Lindsey, don't look away. Don't look away. Lindsey.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

MOOS: Lindsey Graham these days was portrayed as off the rails.

GRAHAM: What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent. They seemed to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.

SETH MEYERS, HOST, NBC'S "LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS": Yes, the old, "he couldn't have created these crimes, he's too stupid" defense.

(LAUGHTER)

MOOS: On offense, an anti-Trump PAC put up a billboard in South Carolina, showcasing something Graham once said about Trump.

GRAHAM: I think he's a kook. I think he's unfit for office.

MOOS: Graham's anti-Trump zingers linger.

GRAHAM: He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.

He's becoming a jackass.

MOOS: But now Graham jokes about their rocky past.

[13:55:00]

GRAHAM: And he says, I don't have your phone number. And I said, there's a reason for that.

MOOS: The reason being Candidate Trump gave our Graham's number.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let's try it: 202 --

(LAUGHTER) MOOS: Graham responded with a cell phone-destroying video.

(MUSIC)

MOOS: These days they often talk on the phone, and now Graham has joined Trump in his reluctance to read.

The president wouldn't like reading those old quotes.

GRAHAM: And you know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.

MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN --

GRAHAM: This is kook-land.

MOOS: -- New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead, Republican House lawmakers know exactly who they want to testify in the president's Ukraine scandal, Hunter Biden and the whistleblower. The Democrat leading the inquiry has just responded. A live report, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Hello, again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

A new line of attack from President Trump as the impeachment battle enters a fresh phase on Capitol Hill. Just a short time ago, the president said he would release a second transcript, this time from a call he had with the Ukrainian President Zelensky in April.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[13:59:50]

TRUMP: Read the transcript. Now they want to have a transcript of the other call, the second call and I'm willing to provide that. We'll probably give it to you on Tuesday, Monday being a holiday. We'll probably give it to you on a Tuesday. But we have another transcript coming out, which is very important. They asked for it and I gladly give it. There's never been a president who has been so transparent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)