Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Nikki Haley Says Top Aides Tried to Recruit Her to Undermine Trump; Public Impeachment Hearings Begin Wednesday on Capitol Hill; Bolivian President Evo Morales Resigns; Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on DACA and Trump's Taxes. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired November 10, 2019 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: We're just now days away from the first public testimony in the House. Testimony featuring three officials who have already shared damning details about President Trump's alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine.

Bur ahead of the public hearings, we're getting a new account of resistance to President Trump from two of his former top aides, according to a new book. Those details coming from former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley in her book being released on Tuesday. And in the book she claims former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly attempted to recruit her to work around the president in an effort to, I'm quoting now, "save the country," end quote. Haley told CBS she thought, quote, "that would be a dangerous thing."

With me now, Peter Beinart, a contributing editor to the Atlantic and a CNN political commentator, Tim Mak, a political reporter for National Public Radio.

Good to see both of you. All right, so, Tim, let me begin with you because this new book from Nikki Haley, Trump's former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., who is making some very stunning claims just days before the public hearings in this impeachment inquiry. And in the book, she claims former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly attempted to recruit her to work around the president in an effort to save the country, writing, according to the "Washington Post" who has a copy of the book, "Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren't being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country. It was their decisions, not the president's, that were in the best interest of America, they said. The president didn't know what he was doing." Her book says.

So, Tim, how does this potentially impact the narrative, you know, surrounding the president as this impeachment inquiry is about to go public through this televised testimony?

TIM MAK, POLITICAL REPORTER, NPR: Well, let's unpack what she is kind of saying here. I mean, we only have these limited excerpts so far. We don't have the full book. But what does it mean when she says that these senior officials tried to undermine the president. Does it mean they did things contrary to what the president wanted? Do they ignore orders? Nikki Haley doesn't quite say that they did that.

In fact, what it seems like is that there are disagreements that senior officials disagreed with the president and told him so. So it's not clear to me that she has any specific examples, at least it's not public yet that there are any specific examples of where these officials actively worked or tried to undermine the president's actual orders. Right? That senior officials in all administrations would give candid advice and say, Mr. President, I disagree with you on X, Y and Z, and that happens in all administrations.

So where does this impact the impeachment inquiry that's underway? I mean, we see in case after case, in much of the testimony that has been provided, been done behind closed doors that diplomats or senior officials raised an alarm from time to time at what they saw going on in the White House. Is that undermining the president or is that saying hey, I think we have a concern here. I've got an issue. I'm going to try to address it.

WHITFIELD: Yes. So, Peter, this was Nikki Haley in an interview with CBS. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: It absolutely happened. And instead of saying that to me, they should have been saying that to the president. Not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should have been, go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you don't like what he's doing but to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing, and it goes against the Constitution. And it goes against what the American people want. It was offensive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And so Peter, that's interesting because she's talking about, you know, using the access that she had. That she challenged the president or would express to him directly, and she's saying other people should, but then parallel that to the witnesses who are about to testify and in their closed-door testimonies, they all talked about how they did raise concerns. They were uncomfortable with what was being asked or the policy that was being driven, but none of them talked about their direct contact with the president.

Instead, it's their direct contact with other subordinates, the secretary of State or, you know, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. Do you see any parallels to, you know, what Nikki Haley is saying and what other concerns have been brought?

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, the difference is that those other folks aren't running for president in 2024, and I think this is entirely about Nikki Haley positioning herself. Right? She's essentially buying in and kind of giving fuel to the deep state narrative that has become so prevalent among Trump supporters. Right? That Trump was just trying to do the will of the American people, but was being stopped by all these shady people.

[16:05:06]

She's attacking Tillerson and Kelly who have no political base and this is a way of ingratiating herself with Trump supporters and Nikki Haley is a chameleon. I mean, when she ran for president in 2016, she was nowhere near where Trump is on a lot of issues, but she can see the way the wind is blowing in the Republican Party and so she is positioning herself that way for the post-Trump era.

WHITFIELD: All right. Let me also bring in now Melissa Murray. She's a law professor at New York University's Law School. And let's, you know, zone in on the testimony this week, Melissa. You know, Democrats are, you know, in charge of the House hearings when they get underway this week. And today, one top Democrat California Congresswoman Jackie Speier went on the Sunday talk shows to argue that the evidence thus far shows that the president, you know, at least committed some impeachable offenses like this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): This is a very simple, straightforward act. The president broke the law. He went on a telephone call with the president of Ukraine and said, I have a favor, though, and then proceeded to ask for an investigation of his rival. And this is a very strong case of bribery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So then, Melissa, what is the difference now of calling it a quid pro quo versus a bribery? I mean, there's something very strategic about the use of that vernacular, that word, that possible crime now.

MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR, NYU SCHOOL OF LAW: So I think it is very strategic to begin shifting toward using an actual term that connotes a crime as opposed to something like a quid pro quo which honestly could be anything for value like you have me on your show, but in return, you allow me to take a car or you give me makeup. Like that's a quid pro quo.

I think by shifting to calling it bribery and in some cases I've heard them call it extortion as well, they are trying to focus the American people on the fact that this is not simply a this for that. It actually is something that exceeds the bounds of executive propriety. The president of the United States withholding congressionally appropriated funds from a foreign government in order to achieve something in the next election.

WHITFIELD: And Tim, you know, the Republicans say they want -- you know, they have a list of witnesses that they want called and Lindsey Graham himself said, you know, if Hunter Biden is not called then this whole process is a joke. Democratic House Intel chairman Adam Schiff has already, you know, pushed back saying, you know, that's not likely to happen. So what's this really about?

MAK: Well, this whole investigation is into whether or not U.S. foreign policy was leveraged to open investigations into the Bidens. So Democrats are saying, well, why would we then go and investigate Hunter Biden or bring him before us? It's going to be interesting to see whether Democrats approve any of the Republican witness requests, which also includes that anonymous whistleblower who has not yet been identified, by House rules which were passed recently by that chamber are pretty clear that no Republican requested witnesses will be brought forward unless Democrats approve of it.

WHITFIELD: Melissa, these witnesses have already testified behind closed doors in their depositions. You know, giving a general sense for these lawmakers coming up to know, you know, how to get to the crux of what it is they want to know from them. How will they maximize their five minutes or roughly five minutes with these witnesses?

MURRAY: Well, I think it will be very important to keep hammering away on the fact that each of these witnesses has independently corroborated the whistleblower's account. For all of the president's machinations, he keeps talking about how the whistleblower is merely repeating hearsay. He wasn't in on the conversation. All of these individuals have either heard the conversation firsthand or heard it directly from someone who did, and they can all testify to that and again, emphasizing and corroborating the whistleblower's testimony I think is really critical here for changing hearts and minds on the ground.

WHITFIELD: So, Peter, what's behind Republican strategy of now adding Congressman Jim Jordan, you know, to the Intelligence Committee, making sure that he is in the mix. He has a law degree. He's one of the president's most vocal and, you know, fiery, you know, ardent supporters. But he also may not necessarily ask questions, but really take the time in which to, you know, either demean or be critical of the witnesses.

BEINART: Yes. And I think you see the way that strategy has developed here. And it's really a reflection of Donald Trump, right, which is rather than actually answering the substance of the charges that -- in which the Republicans would be on defense and would have to say something along the lines of what Nikki Haley actually said in her book, which is well, this wasn't such a great thing to do to ask the Ukrainians to investigate a political rival in return for military aid, but it's not -- doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

It's basically to go on offense by essentially throwing off as much kind of chum in the water about the idea that the real corruption is the Bidens or the real scandal or the real corruption is the way the Democrats are running the hearings, and in a way, it's really just a kind of obfuscate and to change the conversation and to give conservatives something to hang their hat on so they can think, well, you know, President Trump is not perfect but these other guys are even worse.

[16:10:26]

WHITFIELD: All right. Peter Beinart, Tim Mak, Melissa Murray, thanks to all of you. Appreciate it.

MURRAY: Thank you.

MAK: Thanks.

BEINART: Thanks a lot.

WHITFIELD: So how might any of this impact the first week of the public impeachment hearings? CNN's Marshall Cohen is here to help us understand those first testimonies.

So, Marshall, let's kind of, you know, just dig in on three particular, you know, witnesses this week who really could bring, you know, some details that might be eye-opening to the American public. Top U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor is up first.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. He's going to bring this to life, right, because we can finally hear it for ourselves. We've heard Democrats, Republicans, everybody is fighting. We can now hear from the witnesses. Bill Taylor. So he's the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. He was actually the former ambassador there several years back. He will be telling the public on Wednesday if he does what he did behind closed doors, he will tell a story of a quid pro quo.

He said previously that it was his clear understanding that if Ukraine wanted everything that it wanted, anything that it wanted, a White House invitation, $400 million in military aid, they would need to make public announcements of investigations into Joe Biden and the Democrats. And as you can see on your screen, he testified that the person who came up with this big idea was Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney.

WHITFIELD: And then there's the deputy assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, George Kent. What do we know about his potential testimony?

COHEN: Yes, you know, reading through his transcript last week, there was one big revelation after the next. It was kind of overloading and we'll probably see that on Wednesday. So he testified that the investigations that Giuliani wanted into Joe Biden didn't look like real anticorruption but it resembled more of a selective prosecution, and that type of activity he said would go against the rule of law for Ukraine but also for the United States, which has been pushing Ukraine to clean up its act, get its judiciary independent, and stop doing these selective prosecutions. So essentially he's going to testify that it wasn't in the U.S. national interest to investigate Joe Biden.

WHITFIELD: And then finally on Friday, we'll hear from the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. What might she repeat?

COHEN: So she --

WHITFIELD: Or reveal.

COHEN: Yes, I mean, probably repeat and reveal her testimony behind closed doors, where she basically told the story of what it was like to be pulled out of Ukraine for no apparent reason. She was removed from Ukraine, from the capital Kiev in April or -- April or May of this year. And she testified that she had been told she did nothing wrong. But she had lost the confidence of the president and the president had been influenced by, again, his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who was spreading what she said were lies and smears about her reputation in order to sideline her.

WHITFIELD: All right. Marshall Cohen, we'll of course all be watching. CNN carrying it live. Thank you so much.

COHEN: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, breaking news now into CNN. The president of Bolivia resigns at the request of the commander of the armed forces? We're breaking details next.

[16:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, breaking international news. Bolivian president Evo Morales has resigned. The move follows a request by the country's military commander for Morales to step down. There have been weeks of violent protests following accusations of irregularities in last month's presidential election.

CNN's senior Latin Affairs editor Rafael Romo has been following the developments.

So, Rafael, do we know about the next step? What's the next takeover?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AFFAIRS EDITOR: Yes, it's anybody's guess at this point. This happened within the last half hour. President Morales saying that he resigned. And it became very clear to us Friday when police officers throughout the country started rebelling against his administration. That was the inflection point but this has been going on for three weeks. Three weeks ago today, Bolivia had elections. At about 8:00 p.m., the system that was in -- put out to count the votes failed.

And for about 23 hours, nobody knew where the vote was going. When the system failed, President Morales was ahead but not by very much of his next rival. When the system came back, there was a huge difference that meant that he was winning in the first round. And after that, some of the images that we're seeing, these are live image from La Paz, people celebrating, but it's been three weeks of nonstop violence. Three people have died, hundreds injured and in the last few hours, a number of ministers, cabinet members, members of the judiciary had all resigned. And so there was very little alternative left for President Morales than to resign.

WHITFIELD: So people didn't trust, didn't appreciate the outcome, the process of the elections. And during this time of protest, did it appear as though the military was on the side of, you know, protesters and demonstrators? Or what was the breaking point that the military commander would then come in and say, you know what, time's up?

ROMO: That was the thing. WHITFIELD: You need to go.

ROMO: It was not very clear at first. They were trying to contain the protest but then Friday, that was the breaking point. That was the inflection point when things started to turn. And we have to remind our viewers that may not be very familiar with Bolivia, Evo Morales has been in power or I should say now had been in power since 2006.

[16:20:00]

So it would have been 14 years in power and in order to stay in power in 2016, he called for a referendum that he lost, but then the Supreme Court that was in his pocket changed the rules and they said that it was constitutional for him to run for one more term which would have kept him in power until 2025. So people were fed up.

WHITFIELD: No mas now.

ROMO: And they said no mas.

WHITFIELD: No mas. All right. Rafael Romo, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

ROMO: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. It's expected to be one of the most closely watched cases of the term. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether President Trump can end the DACA program that protects the so-called Dreamers. What this case will ultimately come down to. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Right now, there's a line outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in anticipation for one of the biggest cases the justices hear this term. Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Trump's decision to end DACA. That's the Obama era program shielding hundreds of thousands of undocumented young adults from deportation.

CNN's Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue is joining us now.

[16:25:03]

So, Ariane, what is this, you know, ruling ultimately going to come down to? And why is it so many want to make sure they are there to witness it?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, the fate of some 700,000 DACA recipients are on the line here. Of course that is the Obama era program that gave these protections to young folks who were brought here as children. Said come out from the shadows, give us some information, you will have work protections. The Trump administration moved to phase it out, to terminate it. That was immediately challenged in the lower courts and the lower courts said no. This has to continue for now. Pending appeal.

The Trump administration raced to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, Fred, sat on it for months last term and finally decided to take it up and it's going to be heard on Tuesday. The Trump administration says look, this is a policy, we can rescind the policy. It says that the courts don't have a role to play here. But the Dreamers did something very interesting. They hired a conservative lawyer, Ted Olson, and he's basically going to look at Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservatives on the court and he's going to say look, this isn't about whether or not the entire program is illegal or unconstitutional.

What this case is about, he'll say, is how the Trump administration moved to terminate it. They didn't do it the right way. And he's hoping to target Chief Justice John Roberts and maybe other conservatives to say this isn't about executive power. It's about how this administration tried to terminate it. And it was in violation of federal law. And of course the justices will hear this on Tuesday. They'll deliberate it and the decision in this case, Fred, will probably come down next spring in the heart of the presidential election.

WHITFIELD: Wow. And so, Ariane, the president's lawyers are also expected to come to the court in the next couple of days with an impeachment related case. What's that all about?

DE VOGUE: Well, right. This term is such a big term. Even without the impeachment proceedings, they're looking at abortion. They're looking at immigration. On top of that now, we know that his personal lawyers are coming to the Supreme Court next week because they want the justices to take up a case that President Trump is fighting a subpoena for his income tax returns. Remember that has been central. It's something he's been fighting all along. And now his lawyers are coming to the Supreme Court with this broad theory of presidential immunity.

They say that the president is immune from criminal proceedings and this subpoena shouldn't go forward. So the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with that sometime next week, decide whether to take up that case. And as we've been reporting, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is going to a federal court, not the Supreme Court, but he's also asking a federal court to decide whether or not he has to testify. That issue could be another one that makes it to the Supreme Court.

And one more thing, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

DE VOGUE: So we've talked about the term, we've talked about these cases, but also if the impeachment moves to a Senate trial, it's Chief Justice John Roberts who's going to have to walk across the street and preside over that.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

DE VOGUE: So the Supreme Court doesn't like to be in the center of political fray.

WHITFIELD: Right.

DE VOGUE: It really is finding itself in the center right now.

WHITFIELD: Wow, that's a lot. And then isn't it the case, I thought I read -- and tell me if I read this correctly, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg who would actually make the decision about that tax related issue and whether the U.S. Supreme Court would actually tackle that, accept that case, that argument.

DE VOGUE: Well, no, in fact what will happen is that petition will come to the full court and it will come as a cert petition. So for sure Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal lioness of this court, will be a part of that decision, but her vote ultimately will be equal to all the other justices on the court there.

WHITFIELD: All right. Very good. Ariane de Vogue, that's why we have you. You're the expert on this stuff.

DE VOGUE: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Thank you so much.

All right. Billionaire Tom Steyer will face questions from voters tonight in -- at a CNN town hall. He is consistently polled at the bottom of the pack of Democratic candidates, but what can he say to sway voters tonight to perhaps increase the numbers? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:28]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: In just a few hours from now, CNN's town hall event with presidential candidate Tom Steyer will get underway. The cornerstone of the billionaire businessman's campaign has been impeaching President Trump.

And in a recent Quinnipiac poll from Iowa, Steyer is polling at 3%. Nationally, he is polling at just 1%. CNN political director David Chalian joining me now.

So David, good to see you. You got the stage set behind you. So, what message or messages, you know, do Steyer need to bring tonight get more traction?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, Fred, this is a great opportunity for Steyer to be more than just the guy on everyone's television screens throughout Iowa.

He spent nearly $60 million in advertising to date in his campaign. His ads are running constantly especially here in Iowa and other early states. And this is his opportunity to act with voters directly in a very public forum on CNN where he can be more than just the guy that has called for the president's impeachment and put a ton of resources into that. This is his opportunity as is an opportunity for every candidate that does a town hall like this to really engage one-on-one with voters, show a little empathy for their experience, put out your sort of commander-in-chief credentials, and have voters walk away being able to envision you in the oval office.

That is what this kind of forum allows candidates. And we'll see if he is able to seize that opportunity this evening.

[16:35:00]

WHITFIELD: So, Steyer, he faced some headwinds this week with two of his campaign officials resigning after allegations of improper campaign activities. So, how should he address that tonight?

CHALIAN: Yes, I mean, you saw his campaign acted pretty swiftly in getting to different circumstances. But in ridding the campaign of the aides that were involved; one dealing with using data collected by Kamala Harris' campaign in South Carolina and another dealing with an aide here in Iowa who allegedly was offering money to local legislators for endorsements of the Steyer campaign.

Neither one of those efforts are with the campaign anymore. They happened in pretty quick succession. So, this is a moment for him to assuage any concerns voters may have over his ability to run his campaign and what that means for his management style.

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk about Michael Bloomberg now because it seems like no one is holding back on the billionaire's White House dreams. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I have no problem with him getting in the race.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think he's going to hurt Biden actually but he doesn't have the magic to do well. Little Michael will fail.

BERNIE SANDERS: Oh my goodness. How important. How monumental that he's running for president.

ELIZABETH WARREN: It's not enough just to have somebody put a man -- anybody and say they could buy this election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, do you expect that Michael Bloomberg kind of expected, you know, this reaction, this vitriol from some?

CHALIAN: Well, I certainly think the last two there, Sanders and Warren, he probably expected that his entrance into the race or could possible entrance into the race might give them some talking points that fits their message.

So, I think he probably anticipated that. Listen, Michael Bloomberg hasn't fully decide yet if he is going to be a full-fledge candidate in this race. So, part of what is going on right now is a very public trial balloon...

WHIFIELD: Yes.

CHALIAN: ...and sort of testing the waters. And so, absorbing what the reaction is to a potential Bloomberg candidacy is no doubt part of the calculation here, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Right.

CHALIAN: You know, Michael Bloomberg is a data-obsessed guy. And so, if his aides are putting in front of him data points right now that suggest he has a path to the nomination, he has a path to the oval office, this is something he may pursue.

If this trial balloon ends up giving him data points that say, you know what, there's not actually a clear path here. Perhaps, he'll do what he's done in the past and decide to opt out.

WHITFIELD: Right. And surely, he cares less about the other candidates and their sentiments. Really, he wants to see what that data says from voters, you know. Does his candidacy actually (CROSSTALK) with them? Yes. All right. David Chalian...

CHALIAN: Yes, exactly. No doubt about that. And we'll wait to see.

WHITFIELD: OK. Thank you so much. And of course, we'll be watching tonight. Be sure to tune in tonight when billionaire, Tom Steyer, makes his case to the American people in a CNN democratic presidential town hall live from Iowa. That's tonight 7:00 Eastern here on CNN.

All right, next, a story of love and determination. After a sports writer for the "Capital Gazette" lost his life when a gunman attacked the newspaper's office last year. His widow decided to keep her husband's memory alive the best way she knew how by finishing and publishing the book he had started. She'll join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:23]

WHITFIELD: All right now, to a love story and a story of loss and determination. Andrea Chamblee's husband, John McNamara, was one of the "Capital Gazette" journalists whose lives was -- whose life was cut short when shot and killed by a gunman last year.

John McNamara was a sports writer. And he'd been working on a book called "The Capital of Basketball". It was his passion project which he worked on for 13 years.

Well, after his death, Andrea, McNamara's wife, set out on a mission to keep his memory alive, which meant finishing and publishing that book, all 300 pages of it.

Andrea Chamblee is joining me right now. Andrea, good to see you. First of all, you know, still so sorry for your loss. It's hard to believe that it's been a year.

ANDREA CHAMBLEE, WIDOW OF SLAIN CAPITAL GAZETTE SPORTS JOURNALIST JOHN MCNAMARA: I know.

WHITFIELD: What has this year been like for you and then for you to be able to dive into his passion project and finish this book?

CHAMBLEE: Well, every time I see the introduction to his death, it's a mix of feelings. I'm grateful for the chance to talk about the project that kept him going these last 13 years and the project that he wanted to be known for and not just for how he died.

This year has been a walking nightmare. And I want to make sure it doesn't happen to any family ever again.

WHITFIELD: I mean, what an incredible process. I mean, the shock that it would happen and cut down your husband's life. And then, you know, to grieve but then somehow you would channel your emotions of grieving into -- let me try and finish his passion project, his passion project.

How did you do that? I mean, how -- what were your steps in order to do that? Were you already familiar with his copy and you kind of knew, you know, in his mind where he was taking this book? This project?

CHAMBLEE: Well, he was a pen and paper writer. And he didn't want me to look at his work until it was finished. But he did need help backing up the files because he was a pen and paper guy. So, I reminded him every month or so to back them up. So, I knew where they were. But I didn't know what they said or how far along he was.

And finally, one day, I had to go into his den and disturb the quiet in there. And I saw these three file boxes of folders of the year and the school and the player that he wanted to write about.

And I found the copy. And he was on the brink of finishing it. So, I just knew, I knew I had to finish this for him. I knew he wanted to be remembered as a sports writer. He wouldn't want to be remembered as a victim.

[16:45:14]

WHITFIELD: You had to do some serious researching and finding people too, you know. And, I mean, this became very personal for you as well, didn't it?

CHAMBLEE: Well, it gave me some focus and a focus on John and to get a chance to read his writing. And there are some beautiful stories in here that I didn't know about.

If there were an anniversary of an event, he would post it on this blog. So, I saw these stories of these remarkable Washingtonians that made an impact on their community and the sport and the world. And I knew these stories had to be told.

But you're right. I came across a file of about 150 photographs and they had no captions.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

CHAMBLEE: Because John knew which game it was and which player it was and how many points the player scored in that game and whether he had any blocks. And one of my favorite photos is the first team from Howard University.

WHITFIELD: Wow. That's my alma mater.

CHAMBLEE: Yes. And I didn't know who they were. And you can see these formidable athletes from, you know, before they were personal trainers or nutrition, fitness, diets. And they're just formidable, wonderful athletes and citizens. And I wanted to tell their stories.

WHITFIELD: That's incredible, I mean, this commitment to really talk about Washingtonians and their contribution, you know, to sport, to basketball. And it -- among the people that he wanted to profile was this E.B. Henderson, right, who is being credited as really bringing basketball to Washington in 1907.

CHAMBLEE: Yes. People talk about Dr. Naismith inventing the game up in Springfield, Massachusetts. But what they don't know is he invented a game with no dribbling and nine players.

And E.B. Henderson wanted to stay in shape during the winter months. And he went up there to visit and analyze the game about the same time that a circus performer went up there for the same reason.

And between the two of them, they decided the game needed to have dribbling in it, needed to have fewer players on the court to give everybody a chance to exercise.

So, people talk about how basketball was born in Springfield, Massachusetts. But it was really raised in Washington, D.C. And Henderson went beyond this to struggle with the segregation in the games.

Unlike other sports where the adults controlled access to the football fields and the baseball diamonds, they couldn't stop kids from playing ball together on the street corner, whether they were black and white or not.

And he wanted to bring that desegregation everywhere. And he ended up being a prolific writer and activist and starting the first chapter of the NAACP.

WHITFIELD: Wow. That's extraordinary.

CHAMBLEE: And I just think his story is so remarkable and we don't know about it.

WHITFIELD: Right. Well, we do now thanks to you, Andrea Chamblee, and to your husband -- your late husband, John McNamara. And you're wearing his name tag, aren't you?

CHAMBLEE: I'm wearing his press pass, yes. I wear it a lot.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

CHAMBLEE: I ask him if he likes the book. But so far, he's being petty quiet. But I hopes he likes it.

WHITFIELD: Oh, you know, he does. That is beautiful. Andrea, thank you so much. And thank you for keeping his memory alive and his passion alive.

CHAMBLEE: Thank you for having me to tell John's story.

WHITFIELD: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:40]

WHITFIELD: Meet one of this year's top ten CNN "Heroes" who is giving abandoned and abused donkeys a second chance in life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK MEYERS, CNN HERO: Donkeys speak to my soul. Well, that lip will come right loose, won't it? Donkeys are like dogs. They're amazing animals that nobody gets. I understand what they're thinking. And there's so many donkeys in so many places that need so much help.

There's nothing cuter than a baby donkey. We're saving them. We're improving their lives. I want to see every donkey find its happiness, its happy place, its peaceful place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: To vote for your favorite top ten hero, go to cnnheroes.com.

All right, the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry begin this week. And while most Democrats support it, others think it's a mistake.

Minnesota Congress Collin Peterson is one of only two Democrats who voted against the impeachment resolution. Here's CNN's Kyung Lah speaking to voters in his district to find out how they feel about his vote.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

JIM FALK, FARMER AND DEMOCRAT: It's a tough district for him, you know. It's a more conservative district than it was in past.

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Minnesota's seventh congressional district, land of crops, cattle, and conservatives, but with democratic roots still showing signs of strength.

FALK: Well, I think I voted for him every time. You know, I'm kind of pretty loyal Democrat.

LAH: Farmer Jim Falk is talking about long-time Democratic Congressman Collin Peterson. Peterson is one of only two Democrats in the House to break ranks with their party and vote against an impeachment resolution.

FALK: I don't understand why we wouldn't vote to at least examine that.

LAH: Do you understand why he, in particular, would not support the inquiry?

FALK: I think it's a political decision on his part.

LAH: Peterson is in a unique position. He narrowly held on to a seat by four points in 2018, two years after Trump dominated this rural district by 30 points.

Organic beef farmer, Luverne Forbord.

LUVERNE FORBORD, FARMER AND DEMOCRAT: And this one is my pal.

LAH: Already unhappy about the trade wars impact on farmers. This Democrat believes Peterson is out to save his political hide.

What would you have liked to see him do?

FORBORD: Vote for impeachment for one thing. We need somebody that's good for country and not just for the Republicans or the Democrats.

[16:55:05]

LAH: So turned off that in 2020, Forbord says...

FORBORD: If it's a young Republican with progressive ideas, I'd be fine with that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I get you more coffee?

LAH: The voters happy with the Democrat? Trump voters.

JAMES DEHNE, FARMER AND REPUBLICAN: Very impressed. I'm happy he did it.

LAH: Are you more likely to support him in this upcoming election now?

DEHNE: Probably, yes. I think I would, you know, just for that -- probably for that reason.

LAH: Swift County, part of Minnesota's seventh district, voted for Barack Obama twice then flipped for Donald Trump. Those swing voters on their congressman.

GLORIA GIESE, MODERATE VOTER: Brave man. It takes guts to break away from your party.

LAH: How many years do you think you voted for him?

GIESE: How many years has he run?

LAH: A political gamble in rural America that Jim Falk says may pay off. Will you vote for him again?

FALK: I'll probably vote for him again just because of my association with the party.

LAH: Democrats we spoke with say they understand why Representative Peterson had to oppose the impeachment inquiry. And they also add this -- if he were somehow voted out of office, they're not sure if another Democrat could ever win in this Congressional district again. Kyung Lah, CNN, Benson, Minnesota.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right. Thank you so much for joining me this Sunday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The next hour of the "Newsroom" continues with Ana Cabrera after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)