Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Crucial Week As Eight Witnesses Gear Up To Testify In Public; Interview With Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL). Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 18, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. It is the top of the hour. A good Monday morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

It is a major week ahead on Capitol Hill for the country. Eight witnesses set to publicly testify in the ongoing impeachment investigation. The political stakes here for both parties, frankly, are high, even higher U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland. He will testify on Wednesday after other witnesses have described his direct talks with President Trump about efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

HARLOW: And as more witnesses prepare to take the oath and face lawmakers, another witness is facing attacks from the president, this time, an aide to the vice president, Mike Pence.

Career foreign service officer Jennifer Williams said she found the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky, quote, unusual and inappropriate. Well, now the president is labeling her a never-Trumper. Pence defending her? No.

Let's go to Manu Raju. He joins us on Capitol Hill with more.

Good morning, Manu. There's that and then there is all that is ahead. Walk us through what is in store this week.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's a very significant week of public hearings, potentially the last phase of public hearings before we start moving into those articles of impeachment that could start happening, moving in the House as early as next month.

Now, what we're expecting for tomorrow is to hear from three witnesses who actually were on that July phone call. Eight total this week, three tomorrow who were on that July phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, in which Trump, of course, urged Zelensky to open up investigations including into the Bidens.

Now, in those witnesses who are coming forward tomorrow, all of them had concerns, different levels of concerns, and we'll hear about exactly how they responded and dealt with it. Alexander Vindman, for one, reported those concerns up the food chain to the National Security Council attorney who didn't act on that. And he was worried that the call could have undercut national security efforts.

But, later in the day, Tim Morrison, who's also scheduled to testify, who serves on the National Security Council, he did not have the same level of concerns. His concerns, instead, were that they would leak, and that the transcript would leak, and then that would be perceived negatively in this polarized environment in Washington. And he was involved in some of those discussions about how to ensure that that transcript were not to leak.

Then the big witness coming on Wednesday, Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union, someone who's under enormous scrutiny because of his conversations with the president, because of what other witness have testified about, what we'll hear about tomorrow, about how he was told that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens, before everything was released. That's not what Sondland had previously testified to. So does he clarify his testimony in any way on Wednesday or does he continue to say, he does not recall some of those key episodes? That's a big question.

And then watch for, of course, on Thursday, significant hearing with Fiona Hill, the former top Russia adviser at the White House, someone who had major concerns about what she was witnessing, including the efforts by Rudy Giuliani, something that she pushed back about and push back on Gordon Sondland over as well. So, we should hear really riveting testimony over the next several days that will shed new light about these efforts on Ukraine behind the scenes, guys.

HARLOW: Manu, thank you very, very much. A big week ahead, for sure.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now to discuss, Elizabeth Holtzman, former Democratic congresswoman from New York. We should note, she has experience on this. She sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, CNN Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein, CNN Legal Analyst Renato Mariotti.

Congresswoman Holtzman, so good to have you hear. A lot of folks talking about this. They don't have firsthand experience of this kind of moment in history, you have. So we want to take advantage of that.

Watergate moved more slowly than I think people realized, right?

FMR. REP. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN (D-NY): Correct.

SCIUTTO: This is moving slowly though and we're at a uniquely partisan time in this country. Do you see the evidence that has been accumulated here changing the partisan divide on this essential question? Is this an impeachable behavior?

HOLTZMAN: Well, I think my opinion is that it does rise to an impeachable offense. That's because we had to spend a lot of time during the Nixon impeachment process studying the Constitution, reading ancient British legal parliamentary history, pretty boring stuff. So I've been through it. High crime and misdemeanor, possibly even bribery here means an egregious abuse of power that attacks the democracy or threatens the democracy. Not just any abuse. It's a really serious abuse.

Okay. I think the evidence generally shows that. But the question is, there's still some facts to come out. And the president's denying that anything wrong happened and the Republicans are denying anything wrong happened. Well, that's what happened in Watergate. Of course, they said nothing wrong happened. We know that. But, ultimately, the facts, if they're presented in a clear and reasonable fashion, I think -- and the process seems to be fair, that's going to be very persuasive to the American people.

I'm not sure even in Watergate they understood all the nuances.

[10:05:01]

Remember, we had a whole slew of charges. It wasn't just the cover- up. It was illegal wiretapping, it was trying to get the IRS to audit political enemies. Okay, so -- and a lot of other things. I'm not sure they got it all. But they saw that it was a proper, fair process.

So I think -- I don't think you can make predictions about it. I think the Democrats are doing it in a fair and reasonable fashion. What will happen in the end? I believe the American people will be persuaded.

I mean, one thing that strikes me very oddly, given Watergate, is the argument that, well, since the aid was turned over and there were no investigations, there's no impeachable offense.

HARLOW: I'm glad you bring that point up, because I don't think enough people fully understand the timeline here. We were talking about it last week. It was just two days, Ron Brownstein -- the aid was turned over starting on September 11th, and tranches thereafter. The whistleblower case, all of this coming to lawmakers was on September 9th. So it was only after that that the aid was turned over.

But if Sondland does not become the witness the Democrats are hoping he's going to be, Ron, and say, yes, all of these called happened, as everyone else has testified, including the July 26th call, and I remember that, the President told me to do this and we're going to hold aid until it happens, then what happens to the Democrats' case, because that's their first-person account?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I mean, as I've said before, the alternative that the Republicans are spinning just kind of collapses upon contact, because it would require you to believe that Sondland and Giuliani and Volker cooked this up on their own since there's no question that the demands were communicated to the Ukrainians.

The idea that they cooked this up on their own and insisted on these investigations as the price not only for a White House meeting, but for lethal aid that was needed to defend the country against Russian aggression, it just kind of defies logic that they would have either the leverage or the ability to force the government to withhold aid without the president's approval.

Sondland, he faces really consequential choices this week. I mean, it is an exquisite kind of coincidence of history that immediately before he goes to testify, possibly for the third time, revising his story. Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress, you know, just days ago. So he faces a -- I think, a very consequential choice.

But the idea that the entire case hangs on him saying, yes, the president told me to do it, I think just is not right, because the evidence is overwhelming that it was done, and the alternative idea that Republicans have put out that it was really Sondland and Giuliani who did this on their own, I mean, is that really plausible to anyone?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

Renato Mariotti, we have a witness here who already changed his written testimony, amended to remember things that he didn't put in the original. I just wonder, as Ron says, he's under enormous pressure here, does he have any choice but to sort of open it all up and say, this is exactly what happened? I mean, can he be clever by half here and try to please the president or just the legal pressures are too clear?

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think he can be a little clever here. I suspect what Mr. Sondland is going to say is either, I don't recall that conversation. In other words, I understand that these other people are saying this. I'm not saying they're wrong. I just don't remember it, at this point. Or he could say, you know, do what he did before, saying his memory has been refreshed.

And I understand that's hard to believe and we're all wondering why he has this selective memory. But I don't think he has a serious risk of being prosecuted. The question for someone like Mr. Sondland who's very wealthy and, you know, obviously, a person who has a reputation he cares about is whether he's willing to take any risk at all.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: I just remember, I'm picturing the Iran-Contra hearings, and how many times that phrase, I do not recall, was uttered. And in the end, no big legal consequence.

HARLOW: Yes, that's a very good point.

So in terms of the law here, Elizabeth, I was asking one of our guests last hour, can the White House be legally compelled to turn over apparently these emails that The Wall Street Journal got showing correspondence between Sondland and Mulvaney and Rick Perry, keeping them abreast of whether these investigations were actually going anywhere. And our guests brought up Nixon, and U.S. v. Nixon in the Supreme Court ultimately saying, yes, those tapes have to be turned over. But wasn't it a little bit different, because that was in the defense of someone else? Is it different this time around.

HOLTZMAN: That was in the context of a criminal case.

HARLOW: Right, and defending someone else.

HOLTZMAN: Correct. So the Supreme Court said the criminal process takes precedence over the president's claim of executive privilege. Could the Supreme Court say, the impeachment process takes precedence? I believe they would have to. But the problem is, going to the Supreme Court would take many, many, many months.

And I think the Congress can infer and the American people can infer that if the president is not turning over the documents, if he's telling his top aides, you can't talk to anybody, what the inference is, he's covering up and hiding.

[10:10:12]

And that's -- everybody understands that. So I think he's got a risk from that.

I mean, we're not asking people to do something that's crazy, the American people. Just infer with the president, you have information. Your top aides know you have documents. Show them. Nancy Pelosi said that. Come and testify. The refusal to do that and blocking people sends a big message.

SCIUTTO: But, Ron Brownstein, the fact is this is a president who -- that's not -- that's a feature, not a bug of his approach to a whole host of things, whether it's his tax returns or even the details of a health appointment this weekend, right, that the American people have a right to know about. And if you -- you know, he's got a firewall among Republicans. CNN's latest polling shows his approval going up among Republicans, at least, since the impeachment hearing began. I mean, it seems like, politically, at least from his perspective, it's a strategy that's working.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, it's a strategy -- look, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The president's response to every challenge is to kind of double down on mobilizing his base. And that -- you know, that has produced a kind of rock solid wall of support among his core constituencies of evangelical, non-college and non-urban white voters, which, in turn, has made it very hard for Republicans to break from him. But he does face the reality that there is kind of a broader public that is also hearing this.

And don't forget, even in Watergate, we did not reach majority support for Nixon's impeachment and removal until the very final poll until he left office in August 1974 in Gallup. We're up to about 50 percent now in public opinion and about 60 percent consistently saying that what the president did in Ukraine was wrong.

So there are advantages for him in the approach that he's taken in terms of solidifying the Republican Party. But as we saw in 2018, Jim, and again, in the election in Louisiana and Kentucky and Virginia, there are other voters out there, including previously Republican-leaning voters in white-collar suburbs that are moving away from the party pretty substantially, largely around their views of the way he's comporting himself in office.

SCIUTTO: See how that converts in those swing states? But we've got a long way to go. Elizabeth Holtzman, Renato Mariotti, Ron Brownstein, we know we'll have you back. There's a lot going on.

HARLOW: Thanks, guys, very, very much.

Still to come, days away from the latest Democratic presidential debate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg climbing to the lead in Iowa in a new poll. Could he, though, have a bigger target on his back for his competitors on that debate stage?

SCIUTTO: Plus, just two months ago, you may remember President Trump vowed publicly to ban flavored e-cigarettes, now, changing his mind.

And watch these pictures here. Standoff in Hong Kong, it's getting more violent, more dangerous. Police and anti-government protesters locked in violent clashes. Our Anna Coren is on the ground there, live.

ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. We have been in the middle of these running street battles here in Hong Kong between protesters and police. Thousands of protesters have turned out in support of the hundreds trapped inside Polytechnic University that is currently under siege. Much more on this story, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:18]

HARLOW: All right. We're just a day away from the start of week two of public testimony on Capitol Hill in the impeachment inquiry this week. Eight witnesses set to testify. You see them right there.

Up until now, Republicans have argued that the witnesses so far have offered up second or third-hand information. But that could all change on Wednesday, when U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, testifies.

Let's talk about this with a member of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. Thank you for being with me. Of course --

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Good morning.

HARLOW: -- building up to Wednesday's testimony is "The Wall Street Journal" reporting this morning that there were apparently these e- mails keeping Mulvaney and Rick Perry abreast of this request for Ukraine to do this investigation of the Bidens.

Given all of that, what is the first thing you plan to ask Ambassador Sondland on Wednesday?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, gosh, you know, Ambassador Sondland was at the center of this alleged scheme to condition military aid and a White House meeting on investigations of Trump's political rivals here. I think that we'll be asking him a lot about the events leading up to

the July 25th call, as well as the day of the call and events subsequent to that. He was intricately involved with all of those events, and so he will be a very, very important witness.

HARLOW: And, apparently, he's the one who took the phone call from the president on -- the day after, July 26th, asking for an update.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Right.

HARLOW: My question to you on that though is twofold. What if he says, I don't recall that call, because he didn't bring it up in his two prior testimonies? What do you do then? And do you think he's a reliable witness at this point, given that he had to amend his previous testimony?

[10:20:00]

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, it's true that in his deposition testimony, he didn't seem to remember a lot of things -- a lot of events, a lot of conversations, meetings and telephone calls.

But that subsequently, when he learned about what others said, specifically, you know, Ambassador Taylor, who was a party to many of these phone calls, he then amended his testimony and put forth a declaration, a four page declaration with what he's since remembered.

Perhaps at this hearing on Wednesday, he might even further remember events. We don't really know.

HARLOW: Right.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: But that's why we, you know, have the hearing and have a chance to actually question him live.

HARLOW: So something that happened late on Thursday, I would like your take on, and that is that Ukraine's foreign minister said, and I quote, "Ambassador Sondland did not tell us and certainly did not tell me about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance."

Does that harm the Democrats' case here?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think that the important fact here is that it was never alleged that the foreign minister was part of these conversations or meetings, in which some of these very troubling events occurred.

And so I think that one of the most important things that we'll learn this week is who is a party to the calls in which, you know, even Ambassador Sondland admits in his declaration and his addendum to his testimony, that there was military assistance conditioned on the public announcement in investigations by the Ukrainians of Donald Trump's political rivals. HARLOW: So even though you have President Zelensky saying, you know, in public, I felt no pressure, and Ukraine's foreign minister saying this, you do not think it's an impediment to the case that the Democrats are building now.

One final thing on this and I would like to move on, and that is on Hunter Biden. We heard in Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony in her exchange with Republican Congresswoman Elaine (sic) Stefanik about how the Obama administration and the Obama State Department prepared her for her Senate confirmation hearing, and prepared her by telling her a question may come up about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, then the vice president's son, being on the board of Burisma. And, you know, here's how you -- you know, telling her, that may come up, be prepared for that question. And she confirmed under oath on Friday, yes, that is the case.

Given that, do you believe there is any reason to call Hunter Biden as a witness? Do you believe there are any questions he should answer? Because, of course, he's on the Republicans' list of eight witnesses they would like called.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't think so. And I think the fact that she talked about that is just indicating that these allegations have been kicking around for years, mainly in right-wing circles and so forth.

HARLOW: Well --

KRISHNAMOORTHI: But the main point -- the main point here is that --

HARLOW: But it was the Obama State Department that thought it was worthwhile for her to know that it would potentially come up in a Senate confirmation hearing.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Absolutely, because she was obviously going to be questioned by various senators from various parties.

So I think that that in and of itself doesn't signify that Hunter Biden engaged in any kind of nefarious wrongdoing.

I think the most important thing that we know about the Hunter Biden episode is that witness after witness with knowledge of what was going on in Ukraine, said that the Ukrainian prosecutor's general who looked at it dropped all of these investigations, because they thought that this was a debunked argument against Hunter Biden.

And, in fact, what we learned on Friday was that despite the fact that the Trump administration maintained that they were trying to fight corruption in Ukraine, they decided to fired the corruption fighter. That was namely Ambassador Yovanovitch.

HARLOW: And, again, I would just note before we move on, no evidence of wrongdoing has been put forward about Joe Biden -

KRISHNAMOORTHI: That's exactly right.

HARLOW: -- or Hunter Biden in this scenario. KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes.

HARLOW: Before we go, I have the letter here that you sent to the FDA about what has happened to the potential ban on flavors of e- cigarettes. "The New York Times" has reported overnight the president may be backing away from his call to ban those flavors, something that you called not long ago incredibly encouraging from the president.

The White House says they're just in an ongoing rule making process.

What answers are you hoping for from the White House and the FDA on this?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Just to kind of level set what's going on for your viewers, we have a youth vaping epidemic right now. Almost 28 percent of high schoolers are vaping and 5 percent of middle schoolers.

And one of the prime reasons why youth get hooked onto vaping is because of the flavors available for e-cigarettes, whether it's mint or tutti-frutti or creme or mango or what have you.

[10:20:04]

The Trump administration, in a welcome sign, proposed banning it. That was two months ago. We have not heard anything since. And we just sent this letter to the Trump administration, namely the Office of Management and Budget in the White House, as well as the FDA, basically saying, where is the -- where are the rules that will promulgate this ban?

You know, we are hearing, especially from "The New York Times" story, that lobbyists and special interests are trying to stop this ban. And I just have to say, our kids are not for sale. We cannot have them subject to marketing by the e-cigarette industry because, quite frankly, it's so dangerous for youth that they should have no part in it whatsoever.

HARLOW: Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, we appreciate your time on all of these issues this morning.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Absolutely. Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: Thanks very much. You got it.

SCIUTTO: Overseas pro-democracy protesters are battling with Hong Kong police amid an increasingly violent standoff at a university. Will the U.S. weigh in? We'll have a live report from the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]