Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Eight Witnesses Gear Up To Testify In Public Impeachment Hearings; House Investigating Whether Trump Lied To Mueller; The U.S. Supreme Court Is Blocking The Release Of The President's Taxes To The U.S. House of Representatives. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 18, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Hi there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for being with me. You're watching CNN. They're the top aides, ambassadors and National Security officials and several are currently on the job in the Trump administration.

But this week, eight men and women will be heading out of their respective offices and over to Capitol Hill to testify publicly as part of this Impeachment Inquiry into the President of the United States.

It all kicks off tomorrow with Jennifer Williams. She is an aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Also Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert who sat in on that July 25th phone call between President Trump and his counterpart in Ukraine, President Zelensky.

Then it all wraps up Thursday with the President's former top Russia adviser, Fiona Hill.

But smack dab there in between is a hearing that will likely have lawmakers and pundits and even the President himself glued to their screens and that is because on Wednesday, we will hear from Gordon Sondland, that's the Trump donor and E.U. Ambassador who recently revised his closed door testimony to admit that there was a quid pro quo after being contradicted by multiple officials.

Sondland who has been in conversations with everyone from President Trump and other top diplomats to aides to Ukraine's President is emerging as a key player in the inquiry. So again, he is Wednesday.

We will dive into all of that in just a moment, but first, as the President says he would consider testifying before Congress in this impeachment hearing. It turns out his answers in the Russia investigation, remember, led by Robert Mueller are drawing new scrutiny today.

CNN has learned that the House is now investigating whether the President lied to the Special Counsel. So for that, we go to Pamela Brown. She is covering this angle of the story for us today.

And so Pamela, the Russia probe ended eight months ago. Robert Mueller testified four months ago. Why is this coming up now? PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell

you why, because the House Democrats, they want to see the grand jury information in the Mueller probe as part of their oversight investigations that are ongoing along with this impeachment probe.

And so the House lawyer basically told the judges today that it needs to see that underlying information from the grand jury because it believes that there's reason to believe that the President lied.

This is what the counsel said, "Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?" The House general counsel is talking about those written answers that the President provided to Robert Mueller, because there have been new questions raised about the truthfulness in the wake of the Roger Stone trial.

As you know, Brooke, Rick Gates, a former campaign official testified that he was there when the President got off the phone with Roger Stone and said more WikiLeaks information would be coming.

BALDWIN: Right.

BROWN: In the Mueller report, it said that Manafort was giving information about President Trump and where he believed the WikiLeaks situation was going, and even Rick Gates also said that Manafort was updating the President, yet in the President's written answers, he said he didn't recall anything about Roger Stone communicating with campaign officials about WikiLeaks. He didn't know about WikiLeaks coming out anything to that regard.

He said, I think I don't recall more than two dozen times, Brooke. And so basically, this is just adding more urgency to the Democrats' argument that they believe the President lied in his written answers.

As you know, the President, his legal team, they have denied that. Jay Sekulow, the President's personal outside attorney had said, basically the written answer speak for themselves and defended the President.

BALDWIN: OK. Everyone hold the socks, we're going to come back to that in just a second. Let me add another layer of the stories today. Pamela, thank you very much.

This is breaking for us now. The U.S. Supreme Court is blocking the release of the President's taxes to the U.S. House of Representatives at least for now. The President's lawyers asked the court to step in ahead of Wednesday's deadline.

Trump's longtime accounting firm had been ordered to turn over the financial records to the House Oversight Committee. So CNN Supreme Court Reporter, Ariane de Vogue is with me now and so what exactly did the Supreme Court do today? And is there any indication which way it will ultimately go?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right. Well, the Supreme Court said today that it stopped Donald Trump's financial records from going to the House by Wednesday.

You'll remember that there was a Federal Appeals Court last week that ruled against the President, said that a subpoena could be enforced and it could be enforced on Wednesday. The Supreme Court stepped in today, and it said, look until further notice, these documents won't go to the House, and it's asking for further briefs in the case.

Remember that this case arises from this House investigation into the President's finances, and they sent a subpoena to his third party long time accounting firm and the Trump's personal lawyers' raced to court to block that. They said that that could not go forward, but they lost in the lower court, then they came to the Supreme Court.

[14:05:00]

DE VOGUE: They asked the Supreme Court to step in and block it. And right now, things are on hold. But keep in mind, this case is really interesting because it does trigger significant separation of powers dispute. There is another similar case in front of the Supreme Court, but this one is brought by the House so the Justices could very well be interested in stepping in here down the road to decide this important question.

BALDWIN: That's where we're going to start my next discussion. Ariane, thank you very much. Danya Perry is here. She is a former Federal prosecutor. Nick Akerman was a special prosecutor during Watergate. He is also a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

So good to see both of you.

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Good to be here.

BALDWIN: Let's dive in on all things SCOTUS first, Nick. Nick, to you, on the Supreme Court temporarily blocking the release of Trump's taxes. Trump's lawyer says if the Oversight Committee gets the record, such intrusions, he says will become the quote-unquote "new normal," no matter which party is in power. Is that true?

AKERMAN: That's totally absurd. There is a statute in place that allows congressional committees, the House Ways and Means Committee to get any tax record of any taxpayer in the United States. It's by statute.

There's nothing unusual about this issue. The other case relating to Trump's taxes with respect to his accounting firm, all of that is related to a third-party and not the Donald Trump.

So the odds of the Supreme Court actually granting certiorari, which means they would actually consider the merits of the case, I don't think are that great. This is not as big an issue as U.S. v. Nixon was in terms of turning over the tapes that he had. This is completely different.

Every President since Nixon has turned over his tax returns. BALDWIN: That's right.

AKERMAN: So this is not a major issue that I think the Supreme Court is necessarily going to want to deal with.

BALDWIN: So quick follow up, in translation, do you think eventually they will have to come out?

AKERMAN: I think so, and I think this is really a sleeping giant in the sense that this is something that could absolutely bring down the President. I think that once you see that, you're going to see that he has committed multiple years of tax fraud, which is absolutely going to blow him out of the water.

BALDWIN: Wow. That's taxes. Danya, let's talk, you know, a lot of people are like, why are we talking about the Mueller investigation? And you know, the President's answers from months ago, but it all may be germane to potential Articles of Impeachment is my interpretation of this.

So tell me why this is relevant from a legal perspective?

DANYA PERRY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it has taken on a new sense of urgency and recency given the testimony in the Roger Stone trial. Certainly, the facts of the Mueller report have been out there for many months, as you point out. We had Manafort's testimony. We had other testimony. Right now, Rick Gates has testified in the Roger Stone trial.

BALDWIN: Correct.

PERRY: And he gave a new piece of information that I think brings to the front the questions that came up with the Mueller report and that is specifically, what did Donald Trump know? When did he know it?

BALDWIN: But how would they ever -- just to jump in -- how would they ever prove because it sounds like Donald Trump said in his written answers, you know, I don't recall yada, yada, yada? And so it's -- how do you prove that that's a lie? Especially given that it's Rick Gates's word versus anyone else.

PERRY: That's a fair point and that will be a serious obstacle. It's an old trick. And it's -- you know, it's a tactic to say, I don't know, I don't remember. That's a hedge for sure.

The question will be the plausibility or the implausibility of that complete failure of President Trump's memory. So is it possible? Is it plausible that he actually could have forgotten that he personally had heard this information about WikiLeaks and that he had heard any of the buzz that has now been well-documented amongst his campaign staffers?

BALDWIN: Okay, Nick, let's move on to Wednesday.

AKERMAN: Sure.

BALDWIN: It's Gordon Sondland, right?

AKERMAN: Right.

BALDWIN: This is a biggie as we outlined a second ago. The Republicans' defense last week was hearsay. Well, they can't -- they can't go there this week and especially with him because he has direct knowledge, direct information with regard to Trump's involvement in all of this.

AKERMAN: Correct.

BALDWIN: So what does he do? Does he show up? Does he plead the fifth? Does he toss the President under the bus? Does he say, I don't remember. Let's remember that he said one thing and then other people testified and he had to come back and refresh his testimony.

AKERMAN: I think he's got no choice here. He's got to come clean.

BALDWIN: You really think so?

AKERMAN: Otherwise, he is going to wind up like Roger Stone in Federal prison with Roger Stone as his roommate. I mean, he does not want that to happen.

His lawyer is going to prevail upon him. I mean, I'm sure he has got his cell phone records. You probably see lots and lots of calls between him and President Trump. You probably have that one call that David Holmes testified to that he had heard.

BALDWIN: The day after the call in the Kiev restaurant.

AKERMAN: And I am sure that there is a phone record of that that's going to corroborate him. You've got bill Taylor's testimony. I mean, I don't think he's got much of a choice. It just seems like that and those text messages. I mean, the evidence here is overwhelming.

I mean, if he wants to avoid winding up in prison like Roger Stone, he has got to come clean. Otherwise, he is going to be charged with obstructing Congress. He is going to be charged with perjury.

[14:10:18]

AKERMAN: And if I were his lawyer, I would be sitting on it a pretty hard and making sure that he told everything he knew, every truthful bit of evidence just to make sure that he doesn't go down for Donald Trump.

BALDWIN: Danya, the same question to you. What does Ambassador Sondland do?

PERRY: I agree with Nick, I think he's likely to come clean. I think there's a reasonable debate that could be had as to whether or not he could claim his Fifth Amendment privilege. There's an argument that he has waived it by providing testimony earlier in the proceedings. But there's an argument that these will be expanded areas for testimony that he could in fact, claim it.

But it doesn't seem likely that he will, but he is going to be subject to all kinds of crossfire. It's not clear who is going to be doing the direct examination, who's going to be doing the cross examination.

But if he would be well-advised, I think by his attorneys to come clean, to give a truthful account of what he knows, given, as Nick said, all the corroboration that we've heard, all of the witness testimony, phone call records, and the like and contemporaneous notes.

So I think he is likely to come clean and I think it will be explosive as everyone is anticipating.

BALDWIN: Let me just add to this and then I want your two cents.

AKERMAN: Sure.

BALDWIN: So today, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that he has the receipts so to speak, right? So the e-mails where he kept Mulvaney and Perry in the loop on all things Ukraine in the run up to that July 25th Zelensky-Trump call including that Zelensky was prepared to open an investigation into the Biden.

So in addition to direct testimony, we now have a paper trail. Does that force Sondland's hand?

AKERMAN: Oh, absolutely. I mean, if they've got a paper trail like that. It's going to corroborate everybody right across the board. I mean, there's no way he can take the Fifth. And if he takes the Fifth, according to Donald Trump, he is guilty. So that's going to just backfire on Donald Trump.

Either way, Donald Trump is toast. Sondland is going to come out and tell the whole story. He is going to detail it. He is going to have documents to detail it. You've got lots of witnesses corroborating it?

I mean, there is no question, but -- that they were trying to get the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into Joe Biden, so that Donald Trump and using by the way, moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress to do that, I mean, pure bribery, so that throughout the campaign, you could do the same thing he did to Hillary Clinton. Ooh, Donald Trump must be guilty of something because there's an investigation by the Ukrainian government.

BALDWIN: You say he is toast, we will see if Congress says he is toast, but this is a massive week to be watching all of this testimony.

AKERMAN: Of course.

BALDWIN: Danya and Nick, thank you so much.

AKERMAN: Thank you.

BALDWIN: For all of that and it does not add up. President Trump makes a sudden trip to Walter Reed for a medical exam over the weekend and the explanation from Trump and the White House just doesn't make much sense. So let's talk about it.

And Republican Congressman Mike Turner calls new impeachment revelations quote unquote, "alarming" and "not okay." Is the Republican Party losing patience with this President?

And President Trump mocks Joe Biden to North Korea's Kim Jong-un and says he will see the dictator soon. But guess what? North Korea says there won't be any more Summits. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:23]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Let's talk about the President's unscheduled hospital visit over the weekend. The White House says it was a trip of convenience, but those who know protocol sees something else.

The President went to Walter Reed with no notification to the staff of the facility according to a source. There Trump underwent, quote, "quick exam and labs." But the source also says usually, all medical staff at Walter Reed do get a heads up. That is how it went the last two times the President had a checkup and another source described Trump's visit as quote-unquote "abnormal," but added that Trump who is 73 looked to be in good health late Friday.

But when it comes to this President's health, Trump has a track record of inaccuracy. As a candidate, his personal doctor, Harold Bornstein proclaimed candidate Trump, quote-unquote, "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." And then later, Bornstein revealed that Trump quote, "dictated that whole letter."

And then there was this from "The Washington Post" that, "Then there was the miraculous growth spurt that occurred between the issuing of his driver's license in 2012 and his physical in 2018, which reportedly added an inch to his height."

Let's discuss with Dr. Jonathan Reiner. He is a leading cardiologist at the George Washington University Hospital. He also treats former Vice President Dick Cheney and is credited with saving his life.

So Dr. Reiner a pleasure. Welcome, sir.

JONATHAN REINER, CARDIOLOGIST, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: Good to be here, Brooke.

BALDWIN: So given your obvious connections to the White House over the years, you have spoken with folks inside, what are you hearing?

REINER: Yes, I reached out to some contacts inside the White House a little bit earlier. I want to let them know that I was actually going to come on the air today and talk a little bit about how unusual the Saturday visit to Walter Reed was. And they, they were eager to share just a little bit of data with me. [14:20:21]

BALDWIN: And what can you share with us?

REINER: A person at the White House authorized to talk about the President's medical condition told me that this had been something that they had been thinking about doing for a while, that the President had some downtime on Saturday afternoon, so they decided to go over to Walter Reed to get some of this done.

And, you know, according to this source, you know, there was really no sophisticated testing done. It's a little bit unusual. Almost everything that is usually done in a presidential physical like this can be done in the White House at the White House medical unit. So there -- it doesn't really make a lot of sense why the President would travel up to Walter Reed on a Saturday afternoon for this kind of testing.

BALDWIN: Yes, why doctor? Why wouldn't he just -- if these are tests that could have been performed at the White House, why not just -- he is the President have them done at the White House?

REINER: Yes, I've been involved in planning a lot of these for the former Vice President and these kinds of days are planned out over weeks and often, multiple consultants are brought in. The day is highly choreographed, you know, really planned for weeks, really down to the minute.

So a spontaneous trip for a medical exam is distinctly uncommon, raising the question as to whether there was something specifically at issue that required an evaluation on Saturday. My source at the White House says no.

BALDWIN: Historically speaking, Dr. Reiner what would reasons be not to follow protocol and if they're telling you that this had been planned for a while, then why show up unannounced?

REINER: Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The White House medical unit on the grounds of the White House compound located in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, as well as in the Executive Mansion has really very extensive capability. So a routine yearly annual physical exam can certainly be handled there.

You go to a hospital like Walter Reed for testing that is not available in the White House, and that would include things like CAT scans, tests like a stress test. Those kinds of very sophisticated and detailed procedures would often need to be done in a place like Walter Reed. So that would be a reason to go to Walter Reed.

BALDWIN: I understand.

REINER: A routine exam to draw some blood and to just sort of check the President's height and weight, you know, can obviously easily be done on the ground floor of the White House.

BALDWIN: Would there be anything other -- could there be advanced testing that would require the President to go to Walter Reed? Did the White House mention anything like that?

REINER: The source at the White House told me that they had drawn quite a bit of blood. They shared a little bit of data with me. Last year, when the President had his physical exam in February, the President's cholesterol was significantly high and the President's physicians appropriately increased his statin medication and the lipid panel that was described to me a little while ago shows what you would expect, a significant improvement in the numbers.

They also expressed to me that the President is vitamin D deficient and they were planning on starting him and vitamin D therapy. But it was, I think, a lot of attention played to trying to downplay the events of Saturday afternoon.

BALDWIN: Are you at all suspicious that perhaps there wasn't something that led to this other than normal procedure?

REINER: I'm skeptical. I think skeptical is the right word.

BALDWIN: Skeptical.

REINER: Think of it this way, the President of the United States who has access to multiple physicians on site, on Saturday afternoon, goes unannounced to a medical center. It's worrisome. It's worrisome.

BALDWIN: Given the fact that you have never treated the President, but of course your incredible expertise, given the fact that as you mentioned, you know, what we know about the President's health, that he has had high cholesterol, he is clinically obese going by his weight and height from the last time, would this lead you to believe that this could be something serious?

[14:25:16]

REINER: Yes. The question is -- in some ways, the question is less, you know, what did they do on Saturday afternoon? What kind of testing they did? The more important question, Brooke is, why was it done?

BALDWIN: Yes.

REINER: Why did the President and his staff feel at 2:30 on Saturday afternoon, it was necessary to travel up to Walter Reed for an evaluation? So it's concerning to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense, you know, to do that kind of testing at Walter Reed without -- really without provocation.

BALDWIN: And Dr. Reiner, last question, you know, this is the most powerful person in the world, do you think the American public deserves the truth? Transparency?

REINER: Yes, you know, we -- it's not just -- now, it's not just understanding the health of the President, it's also understanding the health of a candidate.

And as you know, we look towards the next election, I think it is important for the American public to understand the health of candidates on both sides. So this is important data. It's concerning that there really hasn't been any transparency in what occurred on Saturday, and hopefully over the next few days, we'll have a little bit more data to inform our understanding of the events of Saturday.

BALDWIN: Hopefully so, I appreciate your keyword, skeptical. Dr. Jonathan Reiner, thank you very much.

REINER: My pleasure.

BALDWIN: Thank you. The President is at it again, attacking another impeachment witness. This time, it is Jennifer Williams. She is an aide to Vice President Mike Pence ahead of her public testimony tomorrow and now, Pence's office is refusing to defend her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]