Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Attacks New Impeachment Witnesses; Hong Kong Protesters Set University Main Entrance on Fire; Michael Bloomberg Apologizes for Stop-and-Frisk Policy; Pete Buttigieg is Iowa Frontrunner; Trump's Unannounced Visit to Walter Reed; Ambassador Sondland's Call to Trump a National Security Threat. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 17, 2019 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York and we're entering week two of historic impeachment hearings and President Trump is again attacking witness today. A tactic the man in charge of those hearings, Congressman Adam Schiff, has called witness intimidation, all while the evidence stacks up against the president.

Just this weekend, another witness testifying supporting the sworn account of several other top officials, that the freezing of military aid to Ukraine was not normal and he was concerned about the way it happened.

Also this weekend, transcripts came out from two other closed door testimonies. One from a former National Security official, another from a current aide to the vice president and they both personally listened to that July phone call between the President Trump and the president of Ukraine and both said under oath that what they heard on the call gave them concerns.

A Republican lawmaker tells CNN today he agrees what happened on the call was wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): All of that is alarming and as I've said from the beginning, I think this is not okay. The president of the United States shouldn't even in the original phone call, be on the phone with the president of another country and raise his political opponent. So, this is -- it's not okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: No testimonies today or tomorrow, but this is what's ahead witness wise. One key appearance will happen on Wednesday when the current U.S. ambassador to the European Union takes the stand on live television.

Witnesses, a number of them had already testified that Gordon Sondland spoke often with President Trump about investigating Joe Biden and his son and that Sondland was clearly operating at the president's personal direction. And yet what is the president doing today? Tweeting, a lot. Mostly

forwarding clips from Fox News, but he did take time to single out one of the impeachment witnesses to testify so far, a woman who works currently for the vice president.

The president writes this, "Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released statement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other never Trumpers, who I don't know and mostly never even heard of, and work out a better presidential attack."

With us now, our political analyst and White House reporter for the "Washington Post," Josh Dawsey. Josh, this makes four witnesses now that the president has hit with the label, never Trumpers and this is just into CNN, Vice President Pence's office is declining to say anything in Jennifer Williams' defense.

JOSH DAWSEY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well they're saying that she's a State Department employee which is true. She's technically an employee of Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State.

However, she's detailed to the Vice President's Office and she was working in the vice president's office in that capacity when she listened to the phone call and then testified. It's clearly that they're in a difficult spot.

The vice president is very careful about never frustrating the president, always making sure that the president's happy with him. And with the president attacking someone who works for him, you can be clear that he eventually will side with the president.

CABRERA: Let's focus for just a moment on David Holmes. He is the U.S. official in Ukraine who said he heard Ambassador Sondland say tell President Trump that the president of Ukraine would do anything he was asked to do.

And he said that conversation was so loud he actually heard it through the ear piece of the cell phone. He could hear the president talking on the other hand. What was Sondland exactly doing in Ukraine at the time of that call?

DAWSEY: Well the time of that call was the day after the July 25th call between the president and Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. And President Trump was getting updated by Gordon Sondland and the president said so he's going to do the investigations according to his account and he said that he would, that he would do whatever the president wanted.

And then they digressed into a long conversation about the ASAP Rocky, the rapper who the president was trying to get freed from Sweden. What was (inaudible) about this call was that it was outdoors at a restaurant.

The president was talking loudly. Sondland was apparently holding up the phone and so other folks could hear some of what was being said, or it holding it away from his ear and it wasn't exactly a secure line of communication.

There were two other witnesses there. And then Sondland this week will be asked certainly about the contents of that call.

CABRERA: You know, I want to ask you more about the upcoming testimony this week. But first, prior to that call, is it your understanding that Sondland had been in touch with Ukrainian officials before he told the president they would do anything?

DAWSEY: Yes, that's why he was there. He was there to meet with senior Ukrainian officials. That's why he was in Kiev. He had been there on the ground for about 36 hours.

CABRERA: What do you know about those contacts as well as some text messages that in your reporting you say he was exchanging with some of these officials?

DAWSEY: He was talking to Yermak who was a top aide to Ukraine's president and apparently had met with other Ukrainian officials on the ground and the president wanted the status report. Remember the day before, the president in this conversation brings up crowd strike, brings up the server, brings up Hunter Biden since he wants these things investigated.

And if you read the transcript, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, essentially says he would be willing to do it and the president's following up there to say hey, is he actually going to do it. What did you learn in your meetings?

[17:05:02]

CABRERA: Okay, Josh Dawsey, we'll be watching this weekend. Thank you.

DAWSEY: Thank you.

CABRERA: And as always, we appreciate it. With us now, "New York Times" politics editor, Patrick Healy, former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart, and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton.

Let me ask you first Joe, just your reaction to this reporting about what we're learning from David Holmes' testimony which happened behind closed doors Friday night and now, you know, the new details the Josh was providing us.

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I think the Democrats have been methodical in building this brick by brick and first establishing what the facts were from Taylor and Kent. And then going right at the Republican's talking point that none of this is firsthand information.

We now have David Holmes provides Sondland and Trump's phone call where, you know, he heard it and some others heard it and Sondland, you know, obviously has firsthand information. So they are, you know, each witness sets up the next witness as they

try to build this case. And you know, it's the proverbial noose keeps getting tighter and tighter.

CABRERA: Patrick, Sondland already had to go back and revise initial testimony behind closed doors. Now we're learning of this phone call that he never disclosed in either of the testimonies, you know, the original and then the revised testimony. I just wonder about his credibility.

PATRICK HEALY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. He never disclosed it and he had multiple people heard it and are now saying that, you know, saying publicly or saying it in their testimony. The problem for Gordon Sondland is that he is, you know, essential to both Democrats and Republicans strategy in different ways.

For Democrats, he is sort the key person who overlaps constantly with President Trump, with Rudy Giuliani, with the issue of quid pro quo that has been pretty clearly laid out and the Democrats need him to be credible. They need him to be the man who is essentially connecting so many dots.

And Republicans very much want to be tearing into him but the problem is that they're going to be sort of questioning and attacking his credibility, raising him, elevating him as sort of that much more of a central character in this.

But that just puts more of a spotlight on the fact that President Trump was talking to him, you know, on a regular basis about quid pro quo. He is sort of the center of that. So, the Republicans can and President Trump can't dismiss Gordon Sondland as sort of this minor figure. I don't know who he is. Who is that person? You know, he's such at the center of this.

CABRERA: In fact, Sondland came up again in new testimony that was just released. We saw the transcripts this weekend from former NSC official Tim Morrison who testified that the president told Gordon Sondland that the Ukrainian president must announce he was opening investigations to receive the aid. Here's how Republican Congressman Mike Turner reacted to that this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TURNER: Oh, that is alarming. And as I've said from the beginning, I think this is not okay. The president of the United States shouldn't even in the original phone call, be on the phone with the president of another country and raise his political opponent. So no, this is -- it's not okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Shermichael, if this is not okay why are we seeing so many Republicans spend so much time attacking the investigation?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Because I think that's the only line of defense they have. I mean it's really difficult to actually attack the details here. It has been very cheer by many of the individuals that have testified publicly as it is.

Just for example, Yovanovitch. I think her testimony was very, very convincing, the former ambassador. I think a lot of Americans watching that found her to be very believable.

And what makes it difficult is as you saw it during that testimony, the president was live tweeting and essentially attacking her which permitted Adam Schiff to bring up and ask her, did she feel intimidated.

And so I think for a lot of Republicans, it's very difficult to try to coalesce around a single or a direct message in strategy because it's very difficult to predict what the president will or would not do.

And I think secondly, the president and the White House, they haven't put together any type of coherent messages that would aid Republicans and guide them throughout this process. So in many ways, Ana, they're throwing things out there, trying to figure out what will stick and I'm just not certain it's going to work.

CABRERA: In fact, another one of the Republicans defenses has been that all the testimony thus far has been here say. I mean, defense no longer holds, right? At what point do Republicans start taking this investigation seriously?

SINGLETON: I mean, look, I personally think Sondland's, you know, testimony is questionable. I think for a lot of people, it depends on how he comes across. He's already made some changes and alterations to some of his previous statements.

Now, I do think, Ana, you could see some things change if Bolton has to testify. If the court does mandate that he has to testify publicly, then I think it becomes very, very difficult for Republicans to attack the process here because Bolton, as we know from reports, has been someone who tried to get ahead of this.

[17:10:02]

He tried to sit down and intervene and tell the president please do not do this. It's not lawful. It's unethical. And so that's the type of testimony that I think not only will have resonance with voters including independent voters, but it would also I think resonate with some Republicans who are a bit concerned privately, but publicly don't want to get before this president.

CABRERA: Well, that would be a big delay to the investigation if they had to wait for the courts to rule on whether Bolton would, you know, be forced to testify. We should hear from Fiona Hill, however, this week a lot about what Bolton was telling her behind the scenes.

Guys, hang tight with me because we have so much more to discuss. Overseas though, we have breaking news now right now out of Hong Kong where we are seeing some of the most dramatic scenes yet in those ongoing protests that have just besieged the city.

Demonstrators have been hurling gasoline bombs, bricks and shooting arrows at police officers we're learning --the officers responding with tear gas and water cannons. This frightening scene playing out around a university where the main entrance has been set on fire. We got a live update from Hong Kong coming up later this hour.

He is still not running officially but Michael Bloomberg is also apologizing. Why the former New York City mayor says he was wrong about a controversial NYPD policy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Possible 2020 candidate Michael Bloomberg is apologizing today. He told an African-American church congregation he was wrong to pursue that controversial stop and frisk policy as mayor of New York City.

[17:15:03]

It is a critical step if Bloomberg hopes to garner minority support for a Democratic presidential bid. CNN's Cristina Alesci has more.

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN POLITICS AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Ana, a surprising about face for the former mayor of New York apologizing for a policing tactic that he's defended for years, even as recently as this year.

So the timing of this apology on the eve of potentially announcing a presidential run does open him up to criticism that it's too little too late. Now opponents are already questioning whether the apology is genuine.

Let me put some context around stop and frisk. It was a major NYPD tactic while Bloomberg was mayor, empowering police officers to detain, question and frisk people. And at its peek, police stopped more than 200,000 people during the first three months of 2012.

Now, the New York Civil Liberties Union estimated that Blacks and Latinos accounted for more than 50 percent of the stops in 70 out of 76 New York precincts and more than 90 percent in 32 precincts. Activists, no surprise, called the measure racist.

Now, Bloomberg has denied that accusation and touted the rereduction in crime and incarceration rates. Still, after intense and sustained backlash at the time, the stops started to decline until they were ultimately reduced by 95 percent by the end of Bloomberg's administration.

Now Bloomberg, however, continued to defend the tactic as recently as January. Now, it's hard to tell whether an apology will help Bloomberg win over Democratic primary voters but we'll have to wait and see, Ana.

CABRERA: All right, Cristina Alesci reporting. Thanks. Back with us now, Patrick Healey, Joe Lockhart and Shermichael Singleton. Guys, let me play for you what Bloomberg actually said today. Okay, we're working to get that sound so stand by for that. We just summed it up though. I'll actually just read it to you. He says, "I was wrong and I'm sorry" -- and now we have the sound. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I got something important really wrong. I didn't understand back then the full impact that stops we're having on the Black and Latino communities. Now hindsight is 20/20, but as crime continued to come down as we reduced stops and as it continued to come down during the next administration to its credit, I now see that we could and should have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops. I wish we had. I'm sorry that we didn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Patrick, this apology on stop and frisk, is this maybe the most important trial balloon for Bloomberg should we decide to run?

HEALY: I think that's a good way putting it, Ana. He's been taking several steps over the last 10 days leading up to an announcement which I think is pretty imminent at this point.

The reality is that Black voters are, you know, the backbone of the Democratic presidential primary process. And for Mike Bloomberg to go into that process and to have really any kind of chance, he had to address stop and frisk.

Now, the problem here, Ana, is that Mike Bloomberg is data guy. The data has shown for years that stop and frisk disproportionally targeted Black men, Latinos. The data was always there.

You had judges. You had a key judge ruling against the program. And time and again, Mike Bloomberg has defended it. Not necessarily by citing empirical data that he could sort of argue about, but making that case that he, you know, wanted to reduce violence, look out for public safety. Those were goals of his administration clearly.

CABRERA: And crime did drop --

HEALY: And crime did drop.

CABRERA: -- but it's also dropped when stop and frisk left.

HEALY: Exactly, continued to drop afterwards. So this is very much something that he -- to have any sort of a chance in the presidential primary process, he really needed to do. His aides said that he look, they realize he's 77. The notion that Mike Bloomberg would just suddenly flip on stop and frisk simply to go from zero percent in the polls to maybe 2 percent in the poll, that doesn't make sense. I think the regret was genuine. The question is why didn't it come real soon.

CABRERA: And now Joe, is it smart for him to be starting a campaign with that apology?

LOCKHART: Well, I think he had to. I think once we get out of Iowa and New Hampshire, the real Democratic base emerges. You have Blacks and Latinos, nonwhites and going into South Carolina or Nevada, you know, he would talk about stop and frisk.

So, I think doing it at the outset and I think trial balloon is right. I agree with both of you. He wants to see how these things play out before he gets in. And he wants to make sure that this, you know, doesn't blow up in his face. It doesn't appear.

[17:20:00]

I mean, I agree that it seemed genuine in his speech at the church, but this was something he had to do and it actually is not surprising at all.

CABRERA: Shermichael, though, is this apology enough to make stop and frisk a nonissue for minority voters? Should he jump into the race?

SINGLETON: I mean, I don't think so. I mean -- and we've talked about how Bloomberg defended this as recently as January. There was an article that was actually posted and published on CNN.com where Bloomberg stated and I quote, "We certainly did not pick somebody by race" despite all of the facts and data and even court cases that suggested that.

And so this notion and idea that African-Americans are somehow foolish people and are merely going to take this apology at face value without asking further questions is a bit naive I would argue.

And I think for Bloomberg, someone who has been very philanthropic in the past. He has contributed a lot of things to our society. I would argue and urge him instead of running for president, use some of your money to figure out better ways to improve policing in communities of color.

Use your money to figure out better ways to give opportunities for some of those very young Black and Hispanic men that were targeted during his administration as mayor so that they have opportunities instead of being targeted by police. That's something that I think would have a far more positive or net positive impact on society at- lager versus Bloomberg jumping in this presidential contest.

CABRERA: Okay, I want to get to a couple of other issues so kind of tight answers if you will guys. But let's talk about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his surge to the top in Iowa. In the last four presidential elections when no Democratic incumbent was running, the winner of the Iowa Democratic caucuses went on to become the nominee. So Patrick, do you think he can sustain this trend?

HEALY: I think he can. He's got a very good playbook that he's working right now in Iowa. He's spending a lot of time there. He delivers the kind of -- I think sort of direct thoughtful answers that John Kerry did in '04, Barack Obama did in '08, and Hillary Clinton did in '16.

They all won in Iowa and that was key. So right now, the question is, you know, I think we'll see at Wednesday's debate -- does Elizabeth Warren, does Joe Biden, you know, does Bernie Sanders, are they concerned enough that they start going after Buttigieg and question things like experience.

CABRERA: And the fact there's almost a 10-point gap and we saw Joe Biden in particular go down. Elizabeth Warren is going down too. But when it comes to Joe Biden, he and Buttigieg seem to be a little more in the sort of that same moderate bubble. So should he be worried here?

LOCKHART: Well, I mean, I think one of the things that we've seen is as someone emerges as, you know, Biden started on top and everybody went after him and he came down a little bit. Elizabeth Warren, you know, raced to the top in Iowa and she was attacked and came down.

So I think he'll get a lot of attacks. I think Buttigieg has the opportunity to kind of transcend these labels of lanes. He's got -- he reminds me a little bit of early Obama in the campaign where he goes in and people like him but they're not -- they don't like him because they consider themselves a moderate or they consider themselves as progressive.

They like him because what he's saying makes sense. The question -- he's got two questions. One is how will he take, how will he handle when everyone comes after him? And two, what does he do after New Hampshire, because again, he does not have a connection with the Black community in this country.

And they're going to play an essential role in picking the next nominee, which is why, you know, Joe Biden is sitting there thinking, you know, let this all play out but let's get through the first two and then I go to my strength.

CABRERA: Quick final thoughts Shermichael.

SINGLETON: I mean, quickly I think a few variables that could determine this thing. It depends on where Joe Biden ultimately finds himself after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

I also think Mayor Pete has to figure out a way as Joe just pointed out, a way to connect with African-American voters. And I would finally add that despite the poll numbers, Joe Biden remains who Democratic voters believe as the best individual to defeat Donald Trump in November of next year.

CABRERA: All right, Shermichael Singleton, Patrick Healy and Joe Lockhart, tank you all. And just a quick note, New York mayor and former presidential candidate Bill de Blasio will join us live at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

We are also following breaking news back to Hong Kong now with more pictures from a university there where students are barricading themselves, shooting Molotov cocktails and arrows at heavily armed police we are told. We'll take you live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Back to our breaking news out of Hong Kong. These are live pictures from a university in the city where it is all out chaos, where protestors have set the main entrance on fire to keep officers from entering.

They've also been hurling gasoline bombs, bricks and shooting arrows. The police, responding with tear gas and water cannons, and now threatening the use of live rounds. I want to go live to CNN's Paula Hancocks who just arrived on scene. She is outside the university where all of this is happening. Paula, what is the latest you're hearing?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, we know that protestors have now started setting fires to try and keep the police out, as you say, we believe it is at the main entrance. But certainly the police have managed to gain some ground.

They have taken the main roads outside the Polytechnic University which effectively took about 20 hours for them to take just that small area. It has been an incredibly bitter battle between the two.

We've had petrol bombs from the violent protestors and you've also had one person using, at least one person, using a bow and arrow. We saw one police liaison officer who had an arrow stuck in his leg.

And we've heard from the police, they have said that now if the protestors are going to start using lethal weapons, then they will resort to using live fire.

Now, we haven't had reports at this point of them using that, but they've used an incredible amount of CS gas, of tear gas. Now, well you can see probably just in the distance since it's gone down a little bit now, but there was black smoke billowing from there, from one of those fires.

[17:29:58]

We just saw a fire engine go past. They're trying to put these fires out as the protesters are starting them. We understand from our team that was inside just earlier, that there were hundreds of protestors that were still hold up inside there.

Now, within this university, Ana, I've been in there over the past few days. It's very self-sustained. They have enough food, water, medical supplies, tear gas masks and helmets to stay in there for many days, but police do not want them to do that. They say -- the police -- that they're worried about going in because they're not sure exactly what they're going to find.

They know that the protestors have explosives. They know they have corrosives. So they're certainly concerned about going inside, but they believe that it is important that they do so.

Now, when we were inside there over the past couple of days, we saw crates of petrol bombs everywhere you looked, they have been preparing for what they believe is the last battle against the police, Ana.

CABRERA: Wow. It looks like a volatile situation right now. Paula Hancocks, thank you for that reporting. As the 2020 race is heating up back here at home, new questions about

President Trump's unexpected and unscheduled medical visit to Walter Reed Medical Center this weekend. We have details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:00]

CABRERA: There are indications that President Trump's visit to Walter Reed yesterday may not have been routine. A source tells CNN that the visit did not follow the protocol of a usual presidential medical exam.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham says it was a routine check up and that the president underwent a quick exam and labs and Trump tweeted, "everything very good, great."

But as CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta explains, there are indications that this visit may have been scheduled at the last minute.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ana, no question this sounds a bit unusual. I mean, typically even with this White House, we've gotten plenty of notice in the past that the president was going to be getting a physical exam. That it was going to take place at Walter Reed, which it has in the past.

Everyone, institution-wide at Walter Reed would receive notices and doesn't seem like that happened in this case. There may have been some of the doctors at Walter Reed who knew about this, but the institution as a whole did not know that the president was coming.

Also, they talk about the fact, Ana, that basic labs and a physical exam was done. That was what was done at Walter Reed. Having visited the White House, the facilities at the White House themselves, those are things that can typically be done within the White House.

So, the question really becomes what was done at Walter Reed that couldn't have been done at the White House? Why was this split up? Why didn't they just basically do the entire physical exam in one setting as they have in the past?

We don't know the answers to these questions. One thing I will say that Spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham has been very clear about and she said this many times, that there were no symptoms or any kind of medical problem that sort of inspired this visit.

Of course, that's the first thing I think any medical professional would be asking if someone makes a surprise visit to the hospital. Was there something that sort of prompted that? Again, no suggestion of that.

We do have some data from his physical exam which was done in February just 10 months ago. You can see his height. You can see his weight there. We know that he was taking a cholesterol lowering medication. He has a common form of heart disease. These are all things that would be followed up upon with this new

exam, maybe even doing some sophisticated testing on the heart, any scans that might need to be done. Those would all be part probably of his physical exam.

We're not likely, we're told, to get any results until the entire exam is been done and it sounds like the rest of the exam may not be done even until the beginning of 2020. So, if we get more information, Ana, we'll certainly bring it to you.

CABRERA: Dr. Gupta, thank you. During the 2016 campaign, Trump boasted that he'd make the best deals as president. But now as his deal making comes under the microscope, should we be surprised by the deals made by the guy behind the art of the deal? A former vice president of the Trump organization joins us live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:00]

CABRERA: President Trump campaigned on his ability to make deals. But his alleged attempt to make a deal with Ukraine has now landed him in the cross hairs of an impeachment inquiry. Still, should we be surprised that deal making is how he's approached this presidency.

"Politico" quotes a former White House official who puts it this way. "He does nothing without a quid pro quo. Nothing. Whatever deal has got to be to his advantage."

And Barbara Res is a former vice president for the Trump organization joins us now. Barbara, do you think the president is surprised that the way he's always done deals in the past as, you know, a business man in real estate, isn't working for him to be able to do those types of deals as president?

BARBARA RES, FORMER ENGINEER FOR TRUMP CONSTRUCTION PRJECTS: Yes, it's not completely not working. He's gotten away with a lot of stuff, his typical deal stuff, but I think in this case with Ukraine, I think he didn't realize the severity of what he was doing. He's just so used to doing that. Oh, by the way, give me this because, you know, I have this feel, you know, that kind of thing. It was (inaudible) kind of thing. I don't think he knew what he was doing something so severe.

CABRERA: Can you think of any parallels in his history in which he's been in this kind of trouble that his quid pro quo style has led to, you know, this kind of potential jeopardy?

RES: Not really because he's always been in a position where he's had something to do. Here, he -- he had nothing to give. That was already committed and he's not, you know, it's not his to give anyway, it's the country. So, that made it very, very different.

He was asking for something for nothing, typically with a quid pro quo -- I have something you want and you have something I want, which is really not bad. So with him, the quid pro quo was often things like, you know, I'll pay you to a contractor if you cut your bill, you know, that kind of thing, which is not good.

CABRERA: Do you see him deploying this quid pro quo strategy and this mentality in terms of dealing with GOP lawmakers?

RES: You know its interesting dealing with the GOP lawmakers. He has some kind of hold on them, which is amazing to me. I can't figure it out. So he doesn't have to do that so much.

He tried to do that with Nancy Pelosi and it didn't work. But you know, with the GOP people, he thinks, you know, superior and he's like up in the stratosphere and he's getting away with that.

CABRERA: But does he have the same kind of power. I mean, just look what happened yesterday in Louisiana and --

RES: I know.

CABRERA: -- you know, in the last couple of weeks, also happening in Kentucky where you have two big red states and the governors who end up elected are Democrats. Even after the president went there and campaigned for them. I just wonder if, you know, Republican lawmakers are going to say maybe he doesn't have so much power after all.

RES: You know, it's kind of like I think the Democrats are hoping that they'll come around. I mean, they've slowly shown that they're willing to say, well, what he did when Ukraine wasn't quite a good thing and I think eventually, they will maybe desert him. That's I think the possibility.

[17:45:09]

CABRERA: When it comes to Ukraine, can you can you think of any scenario in which Donald Trump and you know, would have allowed, you know, $400 million of Ukraine aid to be held up without being the person who knows exactly what's happening with that, without signing off on it?

RES: You know, he's done things that were not absolutely right or legal or whatever on a whim and he will continue to do that. So it's, you know, he thought that that's something that I can hold up on them and just went ahead and did it and --

CABRERA: But do you think that -- so you think that he definitely knew about it, like he wouldn't have -- this wouldn't have happened without his knowledge.

RES: Oh, no, no. Otherwise, why -- who would have held (ph) after? There was no reason for it. I mean, that was completely him as far as I can see.

CABRERA: Barbara Res, always good to get your insight. Thank you for being here.

RES: My pleasure.

CABRERA: Nice to see you. As we gear up for another round of impeachment hearings this week, we'll take a look at some of the details from the testimony by one witness that's raising a lot of national security concerns. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: As Congress gears up for more impeachment hearings this week, an incident described in Friday's closed-door testimony has raised national security concerns.

[17:49:58]

David Holmes, an aid to Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, called President Trump on a personal cellphone at a restaurant in Kiev. He says this was July 26th, the day after that now infamous phone call.

Remember this, Ukraine is known for being the target of Russian cyber hacking efforts. And the volume of this call was apparently so loud that Holmes, who was sitting at Sondland's table, was able to hear clearly what the president was saying. I asked retired CIA chief of Russia operation, Steve Hall, about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE HALL, RETIRED CIA CHIEF OF RUSSIA OPERATIONS: There's no doubt that the Russians, who have a very extensive intelligence network that are already in place in Ukraine to do things such as not just pick up telephone calls and listen to them, you know, but also sort of the same thing they were doing here in 2016, affect influence operations, drive public opinion. But in my mind, there's no doubt that they have that phone call.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I want to bring in former of chair of the House Intelligence Committee and CNN national security commentator, Mike Rogers. Congressman, do you agree with Steve Hall that there is no doubt that Russia wasn't just listening into that call, but perhaps has a recording of that call?

MIKE ROGERS, FORMER CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Oh, absolutely. And Ukraine has been penetrated for years and is thoroughly soaked in Russian intelligence officers and their agents sprinkled all across Ukraine.

So, any high profile person like Sondland who were traveling through, who was using his personal cell phone, I mean, every red blinking light should go off with every security operation official saying, whoops, this was a bad idea.

And not only were you talking to the president of the United States on your personal cell phone, which presumably is not encrypted, but you're also talking about another head of state in Ukraine.

I mean, you can imagine the intelligence value of that phone call for those intelligence officers. And that's what worries me most, is just about the sheer disregard for security operations.

CABRERA: And why aren't more Republicans then alarmed and seeking to learn more about what exactly transpired?

ROGERS: You know, listen, I think they're right in the middle of what they believe is an unjust impeachment inquiry and I think things like this that I think are important probably get lost, you know, with all of the detail and all of the power of those hearings. I think things like this get lost.

I hope when this settles down and they get back to the real work of the intelligence committee, that these kinds of things would be addressed. My guess is that that's not the first time that he's done that in the first country he's done that.

And I'd like to know what else have we maybe exposed. And my recommendation would be if he's going to remain as ambassador, he gets taught and trained about what those security protocols are, number one, and what the risks are.

Clearly he didn't understand the risks if he pulled out a personal cellphone and made a call in Ukraine back to the United States to the president of the United States.

CABRERA: I would be, I guess, maybe wrong to assume that he would have had some kind of training ahead of, you know, his appointment to that position or at least after he was appointed to that position.

But I want to move onto your special tonight so we have time to talk about this as well because it's a focus also on cyber security, this new episode of "Declassified" that airs tonight at 11:00 eastern. Let's take a look at a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an eBay for cyber crime. The scale, the breadth, the depth, the speed at which it moved just completely wiped out any type of case that you would have in the physical world in a traditional investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some of the things you could buy were stolen identity documents, stolen credit card information, a health care card, a driver's license, maybe a passport. Another item was the fullz, which a full wallet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What they refer to as full info where not only did you have the card number, but you had everything about the victim's identity, where they lived, their social security number.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But it wasn't just a one-stop shop for identity theft. There were tutorials, for instance, about what countries to go to that don't have extradition treaties, how to hack with anonymity. But what's shocking to me is the criminals had no shame in posting about their criminal activity fairly openly.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: So this case started when the Secret Service tracked a man stealing money from an ATM, right. How did that lead them to this underground online criminal empire known as the ShadowCrew?

ROGERS: Yes. What happened was in that particular case, he had purchased the ability to take money out of an ATM on someone else's account. So he was stealing money out of an ATM. Secret Service got on to that and then realized and followed it back to that particular person's engagement in this larger enterprise.

[17:54:56]

So, he was going to these websites and learning exactly how to steal. And he was getting and purchasing all of the information he would need, everything from health care information to credit cards, driver's license. They even had passports for sale.

And so when you combine all of that information that is an identity thief and a cyber criminal's dream come true. And what worried the secret service at that time, Ana, is that this was so international, Belarus, Poland, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and other places. This whole crew was working in a concerted effort that was costing millions and millions of dollars across the globe.

CABRERA: Wow. And so our viewers will tune in to see how they dismantled this criminal network. Congressman Mike Rogers, thank you very much. Good to see you.

ROGERS: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Brand new episode of "Declassified: Untold Stories of American Spies" premiers tonight at 11:00 eastern right here on CNN.

Ahead of what is being seen as the most consequential week of his presidency as the public impeachment hearings enter a second week, the president has resorted to an old tactic, personally attacking the witnesses testifying against him. We're live in Washington, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: You're live in the "CNN Newsroom." Thank you for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. An important week ahead in President Trump's impeachment inquiry.

[17:59:56]

In just a short time ago, the president himself went after another of the House investigating committee's witnesses. He has now attacked four of the people who have testified in what they were concerned about, what they saw happening with Ukraine.