Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Michael Bloomberg Officially Announces 2020 Dem Presidential Run; Schiff: More Hearings Possible, Investigative Work Will Continue; Attorney: Giuliani Associate Willing To Talk About Nunes' Involvement In Attempt To Dig Up Dirt On Bidens; Ginsburg "Home And Doing Well" After Hospitalization; Sanders: Billionaires Don't Have The Right To Buy Elections; Official: White House Won't Intervene In Navy SEAL Review; WAPO: W.H. Review Turns Up E-mail Showing Extensive Effort To Justify Trump's Decision To Block Ukraine Military Aid; One Group Remembers Injustices Against Native Americans. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired November 24, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:02]

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Hello there, thanks for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge in for Fredricka Whitfield. We're going to begin this hour with breaking news in the 2020 race for president.

Today, former New York City Mayor and Businessman Michael Bloomberg is making it official. He is announcing that he is running for president. A late entry in the crowded field of Democratic candidates that now numbers 18. In his campaign announcing his candidacy, his campaign ad, I should say, Bloomberg highlights his business and political background. He's been flirting with a run for several weeks now.

Just last week he apologized for supporting New York City stop and frisk policy during his time as mayor. The controversial policing tactic had a disproportionate effect on Black and Latino communities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: I got something important really wrong. I didn't understand that back then, the full impact that stops were having on the Black and are Latino communities. Now, hindsight is 2020, 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)

SAVIDGE: CNN Politics and Business Correspondent, Cristina Alesci following Bloomberg's announcement for us. And Christina, what more are we learning about his decision to run?

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN POLITICS & BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, the former Mayor of New York Mike Bloomberg is really trying to beat the odds at this point making a late entry into an already packed race for the Democratic nomination.

He hopes that his personal life story, his track record as Mayor of New York, as a philanthropist supporting liberal causes and his role as a leading Democratic political donor will help him win. In a letter on his website, Bloomberg describes himself as a doer and a problem solver, not a talker. His letter frames the 2020 election as an existential crisis for the country and suggests he's the only candidate with the capability to meet the challenge.

Here's what he has to say about why he's entering the race. "I'm running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America. We cannot afford four more years of President Trump's reckless and unethical actions. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage. The stakes could not be higher. We must win this election."

Look, Michael Bloomberg has many accomplishments to talk about, but he does face some serious head winds. Tactically, it's very late in the primary cycle to launch a campaign. And political analysts say no one who's entered the presidential race this late has ever clenched the nomination in modern U.S. history.

And then there are more substantive hurdles to clear. For one, he's a billionaire at a time when the term is almost being used as an insult. Rising income inequality is a source of anger and frustration for many voters, and progressive candidates, we've hear them, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are trying to capitalize off of those frustrations, suggesting that billionaires and their wealth should essentially disqualify them from running.

Now, Bloomberg will also struggle to your point, potentially to win support among Black voters. Blacks and Latinos were the primary targets of a police tactic called stop and frisk which the New York City Police Department employed while Michael Bloomberg was mayor. And it was only last week that he apologized for not stopping the use of that tactic sooner. But it's unclear whether voters believe it's a sincere apology, Martin.

SAVIDGE: And even though we touched on this, you know, Bloomberg does have this vast fortune. And that really can cut both ways with Democrats. Do you believe it's going to help him more than hurt?

ALESCI: It's a blessing and a curse. Look, he is worth an estimated $50 billion according to Forbes. And it's hard to overstate that kind of advantage. He is self-funding his campaign, and the sources close to him have told me that there's no budget. He'll spend whatever it takes to beat President Trump, and Bloomberg himself will spin this as a positive. That he can't be bought by special interests and will make decisions based on whether he thinks they are the right thing to do free of outside influence. Martin.

SAVIDGE: All right. We will see. Cristina Alesci, thank you very much.

ALESCI: Absolutely. SAVIDGE: The impeachment inquiry is moving forward. House Democratic aides are spending this holiday week preparing a report, spelling out the case for impeachment. That report is expected to be a guide to further proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee. This after two weeks of public hearings in the Intelligence Committee featuring a dozen witnesses.

This morning CNN's Jake Tapper spoke with the Chairman of that committee, Congressman Adam Schiff who said he sees overwhelming evidence against the President and did not rule out the possibility of having more hearings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We don't foreclose the possibility of more depositions, more hearings. We are in the process of getting more documents all the time. So that investigative work is going to go on.

[15:05:01]

What we're not prepared to do is wait months and months while the administration plays a game of rope-a-dope in an effort to try to stall. We're not willing to go down that road. And what's more -- the evidence is already overwhelming. The remarkable thing about this, and we've done this with almost -- literally no documentary production for the administration is the facts are really not contested. It's really not contested what the President did. What is open to question is whether Members of Congress are going to do their duty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: And here with me now, Investigative Correspondent for "The New York Times" and a CNN National Security Analyst, Matthew Rosenberg and Olivia Beavers is a Congressional Reporter for "The Hill." Welcome.

OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE HILL: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Matthew, what do you make of what Congressman Schiff said right there, you know, leaving the door open for the possibility of further testimony and investigation? We know that there are several key players we haven't heard from and then also the Republicans, I believe, had a few folks they want to hear from. Do you think we're going to get anymore open public testimony?

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I mean, I suspect that the Republicans want to hear from namely Hunter Biden, people like that, that they're not going to get that. The Democrats have decided that's going down the rabbit whole of a conspiracy theory and that they're not going to allow it.

Now, look, there are a lot of other people I think that Democrats would absolutely love to hear from. Top of the list would be John Bolton, who's the National Security Adviser until recently. He clearly knows a lot potentially was in on a lot and doesn't seem particularly inclined to be favorable to the White House.

That said, he's waiting for the outcome of another lawsuit to find out if the White House came of immunity covers him of kind of absolute presidential immunity. His deputy is currently in court trying to weigh a congressional subpoena versus this White House claim of immunity.

They probably would like to hear from Bolton's deputy. I mean I imagine they already get Mick Mulvaney up there, the Acting Chief Of Staff and perhaps maybe even other people involved. There's just a lot of characters inside this White House and outside in the Trump circle who potentially do have information and I think in an ideal world they would already be lining up. It's just a question of can they get them.

SAVIDGE: Right. And one of the reasons the Democrats said that they didn't want to go to court to try to get some of these people was they didn't want to interrupt their timeline. So Olivia --

ROSENBERG: Exactly.

SAVIDGE: -- House Democrats said that, you know, they hope to get this all finished up I think before Christmas. Do you think that's realistic or given that Chairman Schiff's statement today, could that stretch into 2020?

BEAVERS: Well certainly, as you said Martin, there's a lot of effort for them to charge into getting the impeachment wrapped up. So you saw about a week and a half, there were 12 public hearings and as we speak, there's probably some staffers in this SCIF (ph) where they're doing the closed door preparations for what they're going to pass from the Intelligence to the Judiciary Committee. But Schiff doesn't want to box himself in.

And as Matthew mention, there's another court case with Don McGahn that might help them in their efforts to get Kupperman and Bolton to come testify. So are they going to give up an on opportunity for have Bolton come in? I don't see that happening. And if that pushes back the timeline, well then maybe they are going a little bit into the New Year.

But the one thing they do not want to do is look like they are trying to impeach a President going into 2020, the optics look bad, and it would hurt them with Republicans saying well, you're going after the President at a time when, you know, we're also running for 2020.

SAVIDGE: Right. Yes. No, I understand the complications that come with all of this. Let's turn to another issue. That's involving the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, and that's Congressman Devin Nunes. The attorney for Lev Parnas said that his client could testify about an alleged meeting between Nunes and a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor.

Matthew, how are these concerns and allegations coming up? I mean, how worry some are they -- would they before Republicans and for Nunes? ROSENBERG: I mean, look, it does raise questions about Nunes's disclosure of veracity here. He's been busy accusing Adam Schiff of somehow, you know, doing something underhanded, meeting with the whistleblower which Schiff says never happened. The whistleblower met with a member of Schiff's staff before this whole process started.

So for him to come out and it turns out he is -- he's been talking to the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of all this, who Joe Biden allegedly, according to this idea. had removed to help his son out to stop an investigation, would be a huge kind of potentially troubling development.

You know, there's also talk that Nunes was part of some kind of group that would meet with Giuliani and others to talk about the Bidens going back a while. You know, they're supposed to be holding a hearing on this. And he's looking very, very partisan like a big part of the push to kind of make a decision and get the theory spread.

SAVIDGE: Yes, there's no question that he was talking a lot about the Bidens when he had his opportunity during the open hearings there. Olivia, Congressman Schiff today seemed to echo support for an ethics investigation into Nunes. Do you think that could happen? And if so, you know, what would be the result of that?

[15:10:05]

BEAVERS: Well, the Ethics Committee would have to certainly investigate whether there were any violations of him going a meeting with Shokin as Parnas is claiming. But, you know, I reached out to several sources on both sides of the aisle. One Republican source told me that they believed it was more than likely that an investigation would take place, but it doesn't touch on whether he would be found guilty of doing something inappropriate with the Ethics Committee.

But Democrats are saying they want answers, and at the moment, the Ranking Member does not appear to be giving them. So that's something that you could definitely see as developing as we move along.

And as you might remember, Martin, there was a investigation, Ethics investigation that happened back in 2017 when Nunes did a White House visit and then made claims about surveillance of Trump transition officials. And so that is something that when there is an Ethics investigation into you, members will tell you that that being included in every news story and every television segment, that hurts them. So this could also just have a huge impact on Ranking Member Nunes going forward.

SAVIDGE: Yes. Well -- just go ahead real quick, Matthew.

ROSENBERG: I think it's worth pointing out that Nunes had to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation because of that prior Ethics investigation. Also I need to thank Olivia for getting my -- I got my lawsuits confuse there and it's McGahn not Kupperman, so thank you Olivia for correcting that. SAVIDGE: It's actually to be understood given it is a bit complicated here. And then if you were to add an Ethics investigation on top of an impeachment inquiry --

ROSENBERG: Yes.

SAVIDGE: -- well, keeping everything straight would be extremely difficult. Matthew Rosenberg and Olivia Beavers, thank you very much.

ROSENBERG: Thank you.

BEAVERS: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: And be sure to join Anderson Cooper for a look at The Impeachment Inquiry in the Words of the Witnesses. That will be tonight at 8:00 and it's only on CNN.

Some good news about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back home from the hospital and doing well. But her latest health battle isn't over yet.

Plus reaction from Democrats on the campaign trail about Bloomberg's latest entry. What team Sanders has to say about another billionaire in the race.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:03]

SAVIDGE: Right now, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is recovering at home, following yet another healthcare scare. The 86- year old was admitted at Johns Hopkins Hospital after she experienced chills and fever on Friday. It is just about a year since Ginsburg had been hospitalized at least four times in that year including having two cancerous nodules removed from lung last December.

For more on the implications of all of this, I'm joined now by CNN Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. And Joan, as we just noted, it's been a challenging year for the justice and her health. And I'm wondering how concerned are Democrats about her ability to continue to serve in the court?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, you know, yes, Democrats are nervous. You know, first of all, I have to say, Martin, she's a hero to them. So they want her to stay alive and well. She's the senior liberal on the bench. If she were to fill the need to step down, it would transform this Supreme Court. But, you know, they've been anxious about it.

She took a chance, a bit of a chance when she declined to step down during President Obama's tenure which would have given him an opportunity to appoint someone younger while, you know, he was in office. But she has felt a mission in her work, and Democrats have just had to live with that.

And what she's said is that back in the -- even in the Obama era, that he was never going to be able to get someone through the Senate who was as liberal as she was, and right now she's essentially living for her work. She says that that energizes her. It helps her get better after these health scares. So she's hanging in there. She will not go -- she will not leave without a fight.

SAVIDGE: And we wish her well in that, of course. But just on the possibility that she would need to step down, I mean, as you alluded to, the legal and political ramifications are huge here.

BISKUPIC: They really are, and, you know, I have to say we always talk, you know, about these confirmation battles as if they're, you know, they're epic, but this one would be unprecedented for modern times. Just consider this, Martin, that we would have, as I said, you know, this liberal bulwark on the court succeeded by a Trump appointee. You'd have to go back to essentially 1991 when Clarence Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall to have that kind of swap.

So this third appointment by President Trump would be the most significant. And it would play out, I am certain, on issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action, gay rights, and then let's just add one other piece to where we're at right now in our country.

You know, obviously we've got all the turmoil over the impeachment inquiry, but we're also headed into this election year. And back in 2016, the last time we had, you know, an election year change at the court and again, I'm just speaking hypothetically here, because we hope we don't have a new change --

SAVIDGE: Right.

BISKUPIC: -- but that was when Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly, and President Obama named Merrick Garland, Chief Judge here on the D.C. Circuit, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked all action on that nomination for more than a year. So, you know, that's what happened then.

But let me tell you that Mitch McConnell has said that if it comes to it this time around and President Trump names a third appointment for the Supreme Court, that he will help that person get through and get through even if we're right there in an election year.

SAVIDGE: It would be epic. All right.

BISKUPIC: It would be.

SAVIDGE: Joan Biskupic, thank you very much for joining us.

BISKUPIC: Thanks, Martin.

SAVIDGE: House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is talking about the next step in the impeachment inquiry. Is he willing to go to court to force John Bolton to testify? We'll talk about how the investigation moves forward.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:55]

SAVIDGE: The already crowded Democratic field for president just added a new member. Today former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he is running for the Democratic nomination. Bloomberg is now one of 18 Democratic candidates in the race and the multibillionaire is already getting a pretty rough welcome from Senator Bernie Sanders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections. And that is why we are going to overturn citizens united. That is why multibillionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: CNN's Ryan Nobles is in New Hampshire where Bernie Sanders just made those comments. And Ryan, how seriously is the campaign taking Bloomberg's addition of this 2020 race?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, honestly, Martin, in terms of whether or not they think Michael Bloomberg can win the Democratic nomination, they're not taking him very seriously at all.

[15:25:03]

In fact, the Sanders campaign doesn't really believe that Bloomberg has a constituency from which to draw enough support to win the nomination. But, instead, they're attacking what they believe he represents. And that is the corporate influence and politics and how that still a big problem.

And I got the chance to sit down one on one today with the Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir and he kind of crystallized that belief of the Sanders campaign. They don't think that Bloomberg can win, but they want to make sure people understand what his entry into the race means.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FAIZ SHAKIR, BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Everyone who wants to run, come on in, the water's warm. Go ahead. Throw your hat in the ring. And if you can demonstrate you have grass roots support, good, let's see.

Let's get out there and hustle for some votes. See how much you're committed to actually being president of United States. Don't sit in a chair over there in some Manhattan sky rise and decide that you're going to be a president because you just put a bunch of TV ads out. That's not the way to win the support American public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: And what you see there from Shakir is going to be a common theme with the Sanders campaign, this demonstration about what their campaign is about, building a big grass roots army, a number of volunteers on the ground here in New Hampshire and in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, California, all these early states.

And a huge base of donors. The Sanders campaign has more individual donors than any other campaign. And that means that Sanders like Bloomberg does have a lot of money to use, but they believe the way they've raised their money symbolizes the type of presidency that Bernie Sanders will undertake if he enters the White House.

Martin, they welcome this distinction, and even though they're hammering Michael Bloomberg, you can tell by the way the campaigners are responding, they don't mind at all that he's got into this race because it helps them drive home the key issues of economic inequality and money in politics that they think are ultimately things that Democratic primary voters care about. Martin?

SAVIDGE: All right. I get it. They see him as an opportunity rather than as real opportunity. Ryan Nobles, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

New developments in the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. President Trump is now backing down from his threat to get involved. What we've just heard from the Navy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:31:26]

SAVIDGE: Navy official is confirming to CNN that they've been told the White House will not intervene in the review of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. On Thursday, President Trump tweeted a warning not to expel Gallagher from the SEALs after he was convicted opposing with a buddy of an ISIS detainee. Top Navy officials said they didn't consider the tweet a direct order and would move ahead with the review. Gallagher told Fox News today he didn't buy the Navy's argument that his review was about discipline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDDIE GALLAGHER, NAVY SEAL: This is all about ego and retaliation. This has nothing to do with good order and discipline. They could have taken my trident at any time they wanted. Now they're trying to take it after the President restored my rank.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Jeremy Diamond is at the White House. And Jeremy, officials told CNN that the Pentagon was advising the President not to interfere, what do we know about that?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, what we're learning is according to a Navy official and a military official that the Navy has been informed that the White House will not intervene to stop the process from moving forward. That could see Eddie Gallagher kicked out from the Navy SEALs.

That is despite, of course, as you mentioned, Martin, the President's tweet that he would block such an effort, block an effort to kick Eddie Gallagher out of the SEALs, remove his trident pin which symbolizes his membership in that elite commando unit.

Top military and Pentagon officials have been urging the President not to intervene in this case. In fact, yesterday an administration official told me and my colleague Barbara Starr, that the Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Joint -- Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Mark Milley had warned the White House, expressed serious concerns to the White House about the potential by the President to intervene in this case.

There have also been, of course, rumors that the Secretary of the Navy might have threatened to resign over this case. He has denied that. But listen to what he said just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD SPENCER, NAVY SECRETARY: There seems to be rumors out there that I threatened to resign. I have not threatened to resign. I am here. I work at the pleasure of the President. The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. He is involved in every aspect of government. And he can make decisions and do things and give orders as he deems appropriate.

If the President requests to stop the process, the process stops. Good order and discipline is also obeying orders from the President of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And Richard Spencer, the Navy Secretary made very clear that he would need a direct order from the President, not just some kind of a tweet, signaling a potential order, but an actual order from the President in order to stop any proceedings against Gallagher. But it seems that those tensions have been diffused at least for the moment.

Again, the guidance that the Navy got from the White House is that it should go ahead and proceed with the process for potentially ejecting Gallagher from the Navy SEALs. But the question, of course, is if indeed they do go that far and they do eject Gallagher from the SEALs, what will we then see from the President? Martin?

SAVIDGE: Right. Very interesting the way this starting to play out. Jeremy Diamond, thank you very at the White House.

I want to bring in now Juliette Kayyem, she is here to talk things over. She's a former Homeland Security Official in the Obama administration, now a CNN National Security Analyst. Let me ask you, you know, the showdown between President Trump and the Navy leadership has been escalating. And I'm wondering, are you surprised that it appears the President essentially backed down?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. For now until this hearing goes on. But I'm not surprised only because he really did have no options. It was clear -- whether the Navy Secretary was going to resign or not, it was clear that he was hearing from the Navy and military possibly, you know, civilians within the military that this was going to be a disaster. [15:35:00]

And I just -- I want to remind the viewers what Gallagher was found guilty of because we talk about him being pardoned without remembering what a monster he was. I mean, he shot into, you know, civilian neighborhoods. He boasted himself of killing 200 people. He shot four women. He killed an ISIS prisoner who was wounded. He killed him with a knife. Gallagher is a monster. I mean, I think -- in uniform or not. And the President tends to sort of applaud this sadistic behavior.

We've seen it -- you know, he tells urban police officers to bang the heads of suspects in police vans. He tells border patrol agents, you know, to shoot at the legs of immigrants crossing the borders and he'll pardon them. The President likes that sadism that exists, you know, exists at the underbelly of some these law enforcement and military agencies rather than condemning it.

And I think he bumped up against a Navy that said if we like Gallagher go, if we let him come back, we only lose discipline, we are applauding his behavior. And you can't run a military with that kind of person with a gun.

SAVIDGE: And I believe that it was interesting. Members of Gallagher's own unit that testified against him. This is more --

KAYYEM: That's right. I mean, and that's --

SAVIDGE: Go ahead.

KAYYEM: -- that's really rare. You know, just to remind people, so the SEALs are the most elite but also the most insular group. They thrive on the insularity. We don't even know who is in them for the most part. And so for them -- I think close to eight of them testified against Gallagher. That never happens. And so they themselves testified to having to distract Gallagher so that he wouldn't shoot into unarmed civilian groups.

So that takes away from their mission, right, that they are worried about this crazy guy over here. So you have to remember when the SEALs turn against someone, we should probably take notice of that.

SAVIDGE: This is more than just -- I mean, one case. The admiral overseeing the Navy here, he's got broader disciplinary issues to worry about.

KAYYEM: Yes. That's absolutely right. So the discipline issue is clear here that when a group of Navy SEALs turned against Gallagher, rightfully and testified against him, they basically are saying we cannot sustain unit cohesion or focus if someone like Gallagher is in that. But then it also gets to what are we -- what -- how are we sort of -- I don't even know what the right words, sort of training or teaching people who are in the military, right? This is a sophisticated group of smart men and women who are out there trying to protect U.S. interests. When a sadist like Gallagher, a monster, comes in, he undermines their effectiveness but also overall undermines United States sort of authority as a military that can behave by the rules of engagement. And once we applaud people who go outside those rules of engagement, our men and women abroad are of course susceptible to the same sort of behavior by enemy forces.

SAVIDGE: Juliette Kayyem, really appreciate you giving us the perspective. Thank you.

KAYYEM: Thank you. Thank you.

SAVIDGE: After two weeks of dramatic public testimony in the impeachment inquiry, the action this week is behind the scenes. We'll break down the next steps for possible impeachment by the end of the year.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:42:12]

SAVIDGE: We've got breaking news. A Washington Post report uncovers hundreds of documents showing the White House developing an after the fact justification for why President Trump decided to withhold military aid to Ukraine. The White House Counsel's review of documents was triggered by the ongoing House impeachment inquiry.

According to The Post, the documents include early August e-mail exchanges between Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House Budget officials after Trump already ordered the hold in mid July. The report also says, "White House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the President".

I want to bring in Shane Harris, an Intelligence and National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post and CNN National Security Analyst and Guy Smith who advised President Clinton during his impeachment in the late 1990s. OK, Shane, first let me ask you to give us a bit more about what The Washington Post is reporting.

SHANE HARRIS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: What we're finding here from my colleagues' reporting is that we know when President Trump made this decision in early July to freeze this aid, there was no clear rationale in place for doing so. And it looks like what the documents are now telling us is this fairly frantic effort, frankly, led by the White House Chief of Staff and the OMB Director Mick Mulvaney to try and come up after the fact with some sort of legal rationale and justification for freezing the aid.

It's important to emphasize that the e-mails seem to indicate that everyone felt that they had a legal basis for doing so. But it's just not clear that there was no stated rationale at the time that the decision was made. So sort of having to kind of come in and do a legal cleanup after the President had frozen that aid to Ukraine.

SAVIDGE: All right Guy, so the question then is -- well, first, let me ask your reaction, and then second to that, you know, is this going to change anything regarding the impeachment inquiry?

GUY SMITH, SPECIAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON DURING IMPEACHMENT: Well, look at it like this. Back at the end of August, nobody had even heard of Ukraine. And now all of a sudden six, seven weeks later, every day there's another revelation. Yesterday we learned Pompeo was implicated. Today, change story, it's showing that they really did hold this money up, and now they're trying to justify it which demonstrates that it was really held up.

What are we going to know tomorrow? I mean, it's more and more, and to your specific question, will it change the inquiry? I think we're liable to have more hearings, another hearing on this.

SAVIDGE: And Shane, I guess, you know, it would seem that this bolsters the argument from Democrats that the information has not been forthcoming from the White House. That they've actually, you know, not only been holding back but they're trying to, you know, re- orchestrate the narrative.

HARRIS: Yes, this will definitely help Democrats' case. And of course they have a long standing complaint as well that some of these key individuals who do have firsthand information to provide including Mick Mulvaney or Ambassador John Bolton, the former National Security Adviser, the White House is blocking them from testifying.

[15:45:09]

So it's not going to help the White House's case here, I think at least maybe in the public opinion war when they are seen as having held back e-mails that clearly have material information that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

SAVIDGE: Guy, today the Counselor to the President, Ms. Kellyanne Conway, as you know, said that it is still not clear if the House will vote to impeach President Trump. But added that the White House is still preparing a defense if the Senate holds an impeachment trial. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: I think defense will go on offense if there is a Senate trial, and we'll be able to call witnesses, we'll be able to challenge their witnesses, produce other evidence. And those witnesses may include the whistleblower, and I would say his attorney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: So the strategy, obviously, has to change, because the Senate is a whole different kind of animal in this proceeding, right?

SMITH: That's exactly right. The Senate, there will be whole lot less bombast. The 100 senators sit as jurors. They have to sit. They can't talk. They have to be quiet. They have to listen.

Rules of the Senate trial are set by the Senate. The constitution says the Senate will hold a trial and it leaves to the Senate to set the rules. There may or may not be witnesses. I don't think this report about the Chief Justice being able to rule on the bench during the trial, there's no -- I don't think that will come to pass.

But I think what we're going to see is suddenly Kellyanne who generally lives in an alternative reality, they're talking about -- she's saying, well, maybe they won't vote. But what she's also saying is they're preparing a defense.

They haven't been preparing a defense for months and months and I think now they're starting to see oh my god, what are we going to do? And they still can't do anything about the President's twitter feed. And until they do something about that, it continues to pile up damaging statements and damaging witness intimidation. I mean it's just on an on.

SAVIDGE: Yes. Well, just like the stuff that's coming out right now for The Washington Post. Shane, this coming holiday while many of us are going to be sitting down with our families and enjoying a meal, I can see Democratic aides in the House Intelligence Committee are going to be, you know, writing a report, making the case for impeachment. And then it heads to, you know, the House Judiciary Committee. What do you think that report needs to say?

HARRIS: Well, it's interesting. I wonder if the report will try and make the case in a concise manner that the President committed impeachable offenses. And I say concise because we saw days of hearing, hours of testimony. There are literally thousands of pages of deposition.

It's not clear to me whether the Democrats think that it's best to sort of write a very thick maybe hundreds of pages of report, or whether they'll take frankly a lesson from the Mueller report which was 400 plus pages than it came out and I think it seems that very few people actually read it in the entirety.

So I would imagine they'll try to make the case as concisely but as thoroughly as they can and then leave a lot of the maybe the details and a lot of the evidence as well for the drafting of those articles of impeachment. But this report, very importantly has a public education and persuasion component to it and people have a fairly limited attention span for this.

SAVIDGE: Well, and-- yes, we kind of a reset after everybody has been away for the holiday, and they're going to be reminded, oh, yes, an impeachment inquiry has been going on.

Shane Harris, Guy Smith, good to see you both. Thank you.

SMITH: Thanks for having us.

SAVIDGE: For a lot of Americans, Thanksgiving is a time of celebration, family, and feast, and yes, football. But for many Native Americans, it's a day of mourning. Look at the holiday from a very different perspective next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:52:07]

SAVIDGE: Millions of us across the country will gather with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving this week, but many Native Americans will be observing the holiday in a much more somber way. CNN's Victor Blackwell explains.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Well for most Americans, Thanksgiving is a day to count blessings, spend time with family. But for many Native Americans, the day has a different connotation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL (voice-over): Most of American history depict a hospitable first Thanksgiving, 1621 grateful pilgrims in a new world offer a warm invitation to Ousamequin and members of his Wampanoag tribe. But the chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoags calls that depiction a myth.

CEDRIC CROMWELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE: You know, we sent 90 men over to the first settlers to see why they were shooting guns and practicing arms to say, hey, what are you preparing for? And they were preparing for some kind of war to take our people down. And so we sat down with them to have a discussion, and there led a feast

BLACKWELL (voice-over): Some elders say the so-called first Thanksgiving is not worth celebrating.

TALL OAK, CO-FOUNDER, NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING: It's the one day out of the year when all of America bows their heads and gives thanks for everything that was taken from us.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): Eighty-three-year-old Tall Oak's Rhode Island home is an archive of Native American history. Amongst the books, and pictures, and relics is a copy of a 1970 speech, written by his late friend, Wamsutta. He'd been invited to a celebration of the arrival of the Mayflower.

OAK: When he had to give the speech, he put it all together. And when they presented it to them, they said that well we can't allow you to read that cause 90 percent of the people would walk out.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): "We, the Wampanoag," Wamsutta wrote. "Welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end."

OAK: He said he wasn't going to change it. And so he withdrew from that.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): And Wamsutta told Oak and other activists of the American Indian movement created their own event for the following Thanksgiving Day.

OAK: We decided that we would declare it a National Day of Mourning for Native people. BLACKWELL (voice-over): And every fourth Thursday of November since, Native Americans have gathered at the statue of Massasoit on Cole's Hill, in Plymouth to tell the truth that Wamsutta could not.

MAHTOWIN MUNRO, CO-LEADER, NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING: We still have to retell the story.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): Mahtowin Munro is the co-leader of the National Day of Mourning, now in its 50th year.

MUNRO: Many more non-Native people are interested in listening to contemporary indigenous voices and the messages that we bring that are important to everyone.

BLACKWELL (on-camera): There's a monument every few feet here on Cole's Hill. So the Pilgrim first burial ground. The Plymouth Rock, the statue of Massasoit. But this stone commemorating the National Day of Mourning honors as the plaque reads, the struggles of native peoples to survive today. Not just a statement of history but an acknowledgment of the present.

CROMWELL: We're still fighting with our very own trustee who we had treaties with, that we agreed to have a relationship back in the 1700s. And we're still fighting that fight today to have our lands.

[15:55:08]

BLACKWELL (voice-over): This Thanksgiving, Tall Oak, the only surviving co-creator of the National Day of Mourning, hopes that you think less about the natives' contribution to a meal nearly 400 years ago. And more about, as the plaque on the monument reads, the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their land and the relentless assault on their culture.

OAK: It was a terrible way to show your gratitude after you've been given everything to make it possible for you to survive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: Now in the fight over land, the Trump administration's Bureau of Indian Affairs reversed an Obama era recognition of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal land trust. And on the eve of the House vote in May, to reaffirm the recognition of those tribal lands, President Trump tweeted that Republicans should vote against that bill because it was supported by Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren. The bill passed with bipartisan support. It has not yet been taken up by the Senate.

SAVIDGE: Victor Blackwell, thank you very much.

Our breaking news coverage continues with more on The Washington Post report that the White House was developing an after the fact justification for withholding military aid to Ukraine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Hello, thank you for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge.