Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Confidential White House Probe Unearths E-mails Between Officials On Legality Of Blocking Ukrainian Military Aid; Ukraine Salvaging U.S. Relationship; Navy Secretary Asked To Resign By Defense Secretary; It's Official, Michael Bloomberg Joins The 2020 Race; Elie Honig Answers Legal Question On "Cross-Exam"; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Released From Hospital After Health Scare. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 24, 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: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York and we have this breaking news this hour. A confidential White House review has turned up hundreds of e-mails showing extensive efforts to justify President Trump's decision to freeze military aid to Ukraine after the fact.

This is new reporting from the "Washington Post," and of course that delay of aid is at the center of the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Now, according to the "Post," the documents include early August e-mail exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials.

Trump ordered this hold in mid July over a call. While the report 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.

The White House counsel's review of documents was triggered by the ongoing House Impeachment Inquiry. Now, earlier today House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff talked about the importance of linking the president's decision to freeze Ukrainian aid to his efforts to dig up dirt about the Bidens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Yes, the president's own chief of staff, the person who meets with the president every day on live camera admitted exactly that, vis-a-vis the most serious and that is the military aid.

But look, what Ambassador Sondland did say is everyone was in the loop on the preconditioning of the meeting that Ukraine desperately sought for its recognition that the United States had its back. That everyone was in the loop on this. There was a clear quid pro quo.

And with respect to the military aid, in the absence of any other explanation and in light of the president's own record of pressing for these investigations, two plus two equals four.

What every judge tells every jury and it's no different here is you don't leave your common sense at the door. Everyone understood this was merely pressure to get the president's investigations, and even more and I thought this was notable about Ambassador Sondland's testimony.

He wasn't even as interested in the investigations as he was the announcement of the investigations. That gives the lie to the whole idea that this was ever about corruption. It wasn't. It was about the re-election campaign of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I want to bring in CNN Contributor, John Dean. He was the former White House counsel to Richard Nixon who testified before Congress about what Nixon knew and when he knew it as important to figure as there is during Watergate.

And John, we just have learned of a possible smoking gun here according to the "Washington Post" reporting at least. Instead of tapes you've got e-mails. How big of a deal is this new reporting? Is it a smoking gun?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not sure it's a smoking gun because I think we already have seen the smoking gun in the memorandum of conversation that Trump had with Zelensky, asking him to do him a favor and clearly mentioning Biden and 2016.

So that's to me, always been -- we started with a smoking gun and this is just further corroboration. Now, Ana, one of the problems with what he was doing with military aid and the uncertainty about it is that it's illegal post Watergate to withhold spending.

This was an issue that came up during Nixon's impeachment. He impounded funds. He reached back to Thomas Jefferson, Warren Harding and FDR to justify his actions so Congress kind of just put it aside. But after Nixon was gone, they did adopt new laws that make it very clear you can't do anything to withhold spending once Congress appropriates the money.

CABRERA: And in fact --

DEAN: So, this is what, I'm sure, these memos reflect.

CABRERA: In fact, according to the "Washington Post," there were e- mail exchanges asking just that, whether this was legal to withhold the aid and they came to the conclusion, guided by some of the legal counsel in all of these e-mail exchanges that it was okay and legal to do it as long as the hold was temporary. Does that I guess give them cover?

DEAN: It sounds like lawyer talk giving them cover for temporarily withholding the aid when they didn't even know why he was withholding it at the time, just what it was doing.

And it was buzzing throughout the system that this aid was being withheld and they had to do something before the end of the fiscal year when the aid would expire. That was one of the other problems they had to confront.

These would be enlightening. I don't think we'll ever see them, Ana, because it sounds like lawyer to lawyer material, the lawyer in the office of management and budget and the White House Counsel's office.

[17:04:59]

This is purely work product and protected by most courts so, I don't think we'll ever see these documents unless they leak.

CABRERA: Can you speak to the timing here? How relevant is it that it was after the fact that the White House was trying to justify the reason for withholding the aid. Is this proof the White House knew the president did something wrong?

DEAN: I think it's highly suggestive of that problem, that the president -- I'm reading the book "Anonymous" and this president doesn't think through anything, he just goes and does things and his staff is the last to learn, often by reading his twitter account. I'm sure this is what happened here.

My god, does the man know that he's breaking the law if he's trying to put a freeze on this money that he can't do. And so I'm sure that was part of the after the fact look at this. So, there's just no doubt in my mind what happened and I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind as Ambassador Sondland said, two plus two does equal four and everybody knew it.

CABRERA: However, Republicans say there is reason to doubt because nobody has said under oath, yes, the president told me you are holding up this aid until Ukraine investigates the Bidens or until Ukraine investigates any, you know, potential meddling in the U.S. election in 2016 which has been debunked of course. There is the conspiracy theory there, but there hasn't been somebody to say the president told me this.

DEAN: Ana, in the current Republican Party, two plus two does not equal four. It doesn't equal anything. I'm not even sure they can do the math anymore. It's pretty striking the way they analyze problems and jump onto conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. They'll get three plus six equaling four.

To me, it's just denying reality and that's what they choose to do and they're trying to look for an excuse to take their partisan action and not take the responsible course and look at what the president has done and why he's done it.

It's a very, very serious offense of what he's done, is to use his personal office to advantage his election, re-election, using a foreign country. We've never had a president pull a trick like this. Nixon, in his darkest thoughts, I don't think would envision doing this.

And that's why this is so serious. So, we'll see how this all plays out and I think it will get sharpened up in the coming weeks before we get to the sending articles of impeachment to the Senate. CABRERA: Let me play a little clip from the closing remarks of Adam

Schiff following the two weeks of public testimony in which he invoked a little Watergate history. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: The difference between then and now is not the difference between Nixon and Trump. It's the difference between that Congress and this one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: John, you said during the testimony even a week ago or so that Democrats had already had more than they had against Richard Nixon to impeach him and you've said something similar here this evening and yet we keep learning more.

It's like this bombshell "Washington Post" reporting. It doesn't feel like the investigation is complete. Is it too soon to vote and hand this over to Senate Republicans?

DEAN: I think it is. What's going to happen is the House Intelligence Committee is going to write up a report and send it to the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee can further investigate this before writing articles of impeachment. I hope they do. I think they should.

They also have to look at issues like was paying off Stormy Daniels something that should be included in an article of impeachment. Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer, is now serving time for it. Should the articles -- excuse me -- should the Mueller report obstruction of justice instances, ten of them, be part of the articles?

These all have to be examined and filtered and further witnesses might be called. This coming week we expect the decision to come down by the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia on McGahn's claim of privilege. He doesn't have to testify.

CABRERA: Right, the former White House counsel.

DEAN: Yes. A definitive opinion on that could well result in not only McGahn coming but other witnesses doing so because they'll realize it's so well drawn that nothing is going to happen in the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals might flip it around quickly and the Supreme Court won't take it. So, all those issues have to be confronted between now and when articles are drawn and sent to the Senate or voted on by the House.

[17:10:02]

CABRERA: And Congressman Schiff indicated that investigations would continue and they'll continue to let things play out in the courts but they aren't going to slow down the current track they're on necessarily, that he would be happening in tandem.

John Dean, before I go, I do want to remind people of your famous quote during Watergate. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: I began by telling the president that there was a cancer growing on the presidency and if the cancer was not removed, the president himself would be killed by it. I also told him that it was important that this cancer be removed immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: With the new explosive reporting in the "Washington Post" and what we have learned during the public impeachment inquiry, where are we in history as it pertains to the presidency of Donald Trump?

DEAN: You know, that's a very fair question, a very good question. He is facing re-election. He wants badly to be re-elected. We've never had a president be subject to an impeachment proceeding during their first term. It's always occurred in the second terms.

So, it will have an influence on the election. There have been a number of commentators who have said really the American people are going to have the final say on this regardless of what happens in the House and Senate because this president is going to have to deal with this issue before voters and I think that's correct.

CABRERA: All right, John Dean, I really appreciate your perspective and expertise. Thanks for joining us this evening.

DEAN: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Right now, Ukraine is in the middle of this impeachment inquiry connected to a quid pro quo and debunked conspiracy theories that President Trump has repeated. How damaged is Ukraine's relationship with the U.S.? We'll talk to a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

CABRERA: Amid the impeachment inquiry into President Trump's actions regarding military aid to Ukraine, the former Soviet Union bloc country is now strategizing how to reverse the president's negative perception of Ukraine and salvage its relationship with the administration.

This is according to sources who also say Ukrainians are not sure who they can trust now to make their case in a way that is compelling to President Trump.

A U.S. Diplomat testified on Capitol Hill this past week that although military aid was finally delivered to Ukraine after being held up for months, Ukrainian President Zelensky still has not received a much sought after White House meeting, although he and Trump did meet at the U.N. With me now is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer,

who served as ambassador during the Clinton administration and also served as an official in the George W. Bush administration.

Ambassador, I really appreciate you being here. You have extensive experience on this region. How important is the U.S. support of Ukraine there both monetarily and diplomatically, and what impact has President Trump's apparent hesitancy to deliver support have there?

STEVEN PIFER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, the Ukrainians consider it very important. Ukraine would like to become a normal European state, but in terms of the current conflict that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, Ukraine sees the United States as the geopolitical counter weight to Russia.

Germany can't play that role. The European Union can't play that role. France can't play that role. So it's very important and I was in Kiev about three weeks ago, which is playing out now in the United States has made the Ukrainians are very nervous about the degree of American support given how important it is in their standoff with Russia.

CABRERA: Right. I want to play something Republican Senator John Kennedy said this morning. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers, their e-mails? Was it Russia or Ukraine?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I don't know, nor do you, nor do any of us. Ms. Hill --

WALLACE: Well, I mean, let me just interrupt to say the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.

KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Ambassador, a sitting U.S. congressman is peddling what diplomats have said is a Russian conspiracy theory. What's your reaction to that?

PIFER: Well, it's very unfortunate. I mean, not only has the U.S. intelligence community but the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Mueller report all made very clear that it was Russia that interfered in the U.S. election and hacked into the DNC mail server.

And what we've seen is a Russian effort now going back to a couple of years to deflect that story and say, no, no, it was Ukraine.

CABRERA: Right.

PIFER: And it's unfortunate that we now have senior members on Capitol Hill saying that perhaps they believe that. It's wrong, it's unfortunate, and it's taking our attention off the Russia problem, which was big in 2016 and may come back in 2020.

CABRERA: Another Republican congressman made this argument on Ukraine aid this morning. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LEE ZELDIN (R-NY): The July 25th call, President Zelensky in his own words, he said there was no demand, no pressure, no quid pro quo. He didn't know about a hold on aid to Ukraine. The readout from Ukraine after that call, there's no reference to a quid pro quo or a hold on aid.

On July 26th, President Zelensky meets with Ambassador Sondland and Volker. He makes no reference to a quid pro quo and a hold on aid. It's not until after they read it in "Politico" on August 29th that President Zelensky and his team received confirmation that there's a hold on aid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: So, I just want to ask you about the front end of that when he's talking about, you know, Ukrainians never felt pressure, they didn't know the Ukraine aid was being held up. Do you buy that argument that they didn't feel pressure, that we should take their word for that?

PIFER: Well, let's make it clear. In July about the time of the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, what the White House was saying is we want investigations in return for a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House.

It was only later on in later -- in August and early September that the White House then began to say that we have to have those investigations if you, President Zelensky, want the meeting at the White House and military assistance. So that's point number one.

[17:20:00]

Point number two, it's wrong to say that Zelensky was not aware of this. When President Zelensky met with Vice President Pence in Warsaw on September 1st, it was the first issue he raised about military assistance. So I think there's a certain amount of deflection here and trying to throw a little bit of confusion about what exactly happened here.

Finally, one last point, if you're the Ukrainian president and you see American support as so important, particularly as you're getting ready to sit down in a couple of weeks with Vladimir Putin for the first time ever, you're not going to come out and contradict the president of the United States. You're not going to come out and say there was a quid pro quo, there was pressure.

There is no advantage for President Zelensky or for Ukraine and him saying that. So he's going to be silent on that question. But at the same time, when I was in Kiev a few weeks ago, I also don't see the Ukrainians doing any of the requested investigations. CABRERA: Ambassador Steven Pifer, your insight is much appreciated.

Thank you for being here.

PIFER: Thanks for having me.

CABRERA: Breaking news in the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. The Navy secretary is now being asked to resign over what he allegedly said to White House officials about the case. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

CABRERA: Breaking news in the controversial case of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher. We are learning Defense Secretary Mark Esper has now asked for Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer's resignation. Esper says he lost trust and confidence in him regarding his lack of candor over the conversations with the White House involving the handling of Gallagher's case.

That's according to a statement just released by the Pentagon. And Gallagher was convicted of posing with the body of an ISIS detainee. President Trump reinstated Gallagher's rank after he was demoted as punishment.

CNN White House Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond is following all of this for us. Jeremy, tell us more about why Secretary Esper is now asking for Spencer's resignation.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Ana, this is a truly remarkable and really extraordinary situation that we now find ourselves in.

Already you had the top Pentagon official, Mark Esper, and the top military leader, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, opposed to President Trump's desire essentially to prevent them from expelling Eddie Gallagher from the Navy SEALs.

And now you have Mark Esper, the head of the Pentagon, asking for Richard Spencer's resignation. Richard Spencer is the secretary of the Navy. Let me just read you the top of this statement from the DOD spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.

He writes, "Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper has asked for the resignation of Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer after losing trust and confidence in him regarding his lack of candor over conversations with the White House involving the handling of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher."

Hoffman goes on to say that essentially what Richard Spencer did here, according to the Pentagon, is that he went around the defense secretary, Mark Esper, spoke directly to the White House and proposed to them that they could restore Eddie Gallagher's rank, something that the president actually did unilaterally himself, and allow him to retire with his Trident pin, which again signals his membership in that elite Navy SEAL community.

Now, in case there's any question here, our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, spoke with a senior defense official who confirmed that Navy Secretary Richard Spencer has indeed been fired. That is what they mean by his resignation, by asking for his resignation.

We also have a statement in here from the Secretary -- excuse me -- from the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper. He writes, "I am deeply troubled by this conduct shown by a senior DOD official. And he writes that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position.

So, again, an issue that had already put the president of the United States at odds with his Pentagon chief, the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

This is now evolving further and leading to the firing of the Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, because Spencer essentially went around Esper, according to the Defense Department, to try and nullify the president's concerns.

And that senior defense official also said that Esper only learned on Friday of those efforts by Spencer to essentially go around him and go directly to the White House with this proposal, Ana.

CABRERA: Jeremy Diamond at the White House with that breaking news. Thank you.

And its official, Michael Bloomberg is running for president and Democratic rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, has something to say about his late entry into the race. We'll bring it to you next, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:00]

CABRERA: More breaking news right now on CNN. It's about the race for the White House and the crowd of men and women jostling for the Democratic nomination. We are now just 71 days away from the Iowa caucuses, and get ready because another candidate has entered the ring.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After building a business that created thousands of jobs, he took charge of a city still reeling from 9/11. A three- term mayor who helped bring it back from the ashes, bringing jobs and thousands of affordable housing units with it.

After witnessing the terrible toll of gun violence, he helped create a movement to protect families across America and stood up to the coal lobby and this administration to protect this planet from climate change, and now he's taking on him.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: Michael Bloomberg starting today is officially in even though he's done everything but announce his candidacy all this month, filing papers for various state primaries and just three days ago he told reporters he was still undecided.

CNN's Cristina Alesci is with us.

Cristina, least surprising announcement ever I think. Some Bloomberg ads start running on T.V. tomorrow but this is a super late entry, right, into the race for president, a strategy that has never once gone well for Democrats. What is his plan?

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN POLITICS AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: His plan is try to beat the odds at this point with this late entry, and to your point, an already packed race. He's betting that his personal life, his track record as mayor of New York and as a philanthropist supporting liberal causes, as well as his role as a leading Democratic political donor will help him win the nomination.

But let me give you some color on how he's positioning himself right now. Bloomberg describes himself as a doer and a problem solver and not a talker in a letter on his website today. This letter frames the 2020 election as an existential crisis for the country and suggests that he's the only candidate that can meet those challenges.

He says, "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, Mike Bloomberg has many accomplishments to tout but he does face some serious headwinds. Tactically, it's late in the primary cycle to launch a campaign, and political analysts say no one who has entered the presidential race this late has ever clinched the nomination in modern U.S. history and there are more substantive hurdles to clear.

[17:35:00]

For one, he's a billionaire at a time when the term is being used as an insult and rising income inequality is a source anger and frustration for many voters. Progressive candidates, no surprise, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are trying to capitalize on those emotions, suggesting that billionaires should be disqualified from running. Here's Bernie Sanders responding to Bloomberg's announcement today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections.

(APPLAUSE)

That is why we are going to overturn Citizens United.

(APPLAUSE)

That is why multi-billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.

(APPLAUSE)

That is why we're going to end voter suppression in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALESCI: -- face a number of other challenges as well. His stop and risk policy while he was mayor that the NYPD employed, that is hanging over him and possibly a challenge with black voters. We'll have to see if the apology that he gave on the eve of his announcement really sticks and resonates with the black community. That's just another challenge, Ana.

CABRERA: Indeed. Cristina Alesci, it's getting interesting, thanks.

ALESCI: Of course.

CABRERA: Again, can't overemphasize, it is an already very crowded field, still more than a dozen candidates in the race. So, is there a realistic path to victory for him? Let's bring in CNN's senior political writer and analyst Harry Enten who's looking at all of this for us. So where does Bloomberg stand, I guess, currently both nationally when you look at some of the key states?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER: Yes, I'm not sure I understand this path. I mean, take a look at the early states, right. Iowa, we had a poll there last week, where was he polling? Two percent said he was the first choice.

Look at South Carolina, where was he polling there, one percent. You're talking about a heavy African-American state, the majority of the electorate there, African-American. Or of course this idea I'm going to skip the early states and I'm going to run a national campaign.

Where is he polling nationally? There was an Ipsos poll taken a few weeks ago. Do you know where he was: He was at 4 percent, which I guess is better than he was doing in the early states.

But the fact is, 4 percent is not particularly high, and Joe Biden is running away from the pack in that poll at 26 percent. Michael Bloomberg has one, two, three, four, five, sixth place in that poll, not exactly a great place to start out.

CABRERA: Although he could argue I wasn't even in the race and I was already in sixth place, but do you think it has to do with name recognition? Is that his biggest hurdle at this point?

ENTEN: No, I don't really think it is. Democratic voters have a pretty good understanding of who Michael Bloomberg is. So we can take look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings, right. You want high favorable rating; you want a low unfavorable rating. Take a look at this. He has the highest unfavorable rating in the

field as measured by Ipsos at this point, 43 percent of Democratic primary voters say they have an unfavorable view of him. That is not a good place to start out and it's actually more than double where Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's unfavorable ratings are at this point. So, it's not about name recognition. Democratic voters simply don't like Bloomberg right now.

CABRERA: A lot of people have said that this is a sign that Bloomberg sees a path because he believes that Democratic voters aren't necessarily satisfied with the current field prior to his entry. Is there any evidence to back that up?

ENTEN: I don't really see it, right. You know, we've gone over these polls over and over again in which they have asked are you satisfied with the field or do you want more candidates running, and the vast majority of Democratic primary voters say they are satisfied with the field.

There was a Monmouth University poll that was taken just a few weeks ago, 74 percent said yes they are satisfied with the current field. Just 16 percent said no. And, you know, 16 percent, I guess, you know, that's -- you know, if you get 16 percent that might be better than I thought he was going to get in the primary but that's just not really helping --

CABRERA: That doesn't give you the nomination.

ENTEN: No, it doesn't give you the nominations. So, when you just take a look at the early state polling, the national polling, you just get deep down into what voters are actually saying about the field, I think it's more about donors and elite folks in New York who aren't satisfied with this field.

The Democratic primary voters though were satisfied with this field before Michael Bloomberg got in and that's why he's not polling highly at this point.

CABRERA: Right. Harry Enten, as always, good to have you here.

ENTEN: Thanks for having me.

CABRERA: Thank you. Thank you. What a crazy week we saw on Capitol Hill. Public impeachment hearings in the impeachment inquiry are now over at least for now. So, what are the next steps? "Cross-Exam" is next. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:00]

CABRERA: After two weeks of testimony taking center stage on Capitol Hill and on T.V. screens, public hearings in the impeachment hearings are done, at least for now. So what comes next? Our Jake Tapper put that question to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Is there -- you have no more public testimony scheduled that we know of. Your committee has begun running the report. So, is that it? Are there going to be anymore hearings, anymore witnesses or are you done?

SCHIFF: We don't foreclose the possibility of more depositions, more hearings. We are in a process of getting more documents all the time. So that investigative work is going to go on.

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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN Legal Analyst and former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig is here to answer your questions on impeachment in this week's "Cross-Exam." So Elie, several witnesses have said they believe there was a quid pro quo. The president continues to say there was not one. One viewer wants to know, how do we know who to believe?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that's the million dollar question, Ana. So quid pro quo means this for that in exchange and it's important to keep in mind. Quid pro quo is important but it is not necessary to impeach.

All Congress needs is an abuse of power. You do not need somebody saying magic words -- this is a quid pro quo. You do not need a federal crime. So, what do we do? My advice would be what judges tell juries to do in criminal trials.

Apply your common sense. You don't have to forget your common sense to the totality, all of the evidence. So when you do that, you look at the witness testimony. I think there are two things that are simply not disputable. One, Trump held up foreign aid and he held up a White House visit, and two, he asked Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.

[17:45:004]

Question is, are those two things connected? Trump says, no, I said no quid pro quo, I said I want nothing. But Congressman Adam Schiff said that's after he got caught, that's after the whistle-blower complaint came out, that's after Congress was already investigating.

On the other hand, virtually every witness we heard from said, of course they were connected, of course there was an exchange. So, use your common sense, look at all the evidence. I think the American public can draw its own conclusion.

CABRERA: This week we had witnesses testify and that President Trump and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, didn't care about an actual investigation of the Bidens or of the 2016 election meddling. That he really only wanted an announcement that there was going to be an investigation. So, a viewer asks, how does that affect the case for impeachment?

HONIG: It's such an important little detail. I think it's so telling. We heard various witnesses last week talk about the deliverable, meaning what they really wanted was Zelensky to go to the microphone and make a public announcement of these investigations and that tells me that the motive here was political impact.

Trump and Giuliani wanted to be able to say, see, they're investigating, and not really to fight corruption because real prosecutors, I was one, conduct real investigations in secret. The last thing you would ever do is go to a microphone and say, hey everybody, we're investigating you.

You tip off the target. You tip off your witnesses. So that's one of those details that came out last week that I think is really telling.

CABRERA: Trump's ally in the senate, Lindsey Graham, has said that he considers this impeachment inquiry invalid unless the whistle-blower testifies. One viewer asks, legally is the whistleblower obligated to testify?

HONIG: The short answer is no. So the Sixth Amendment of our constitution gives criminal defendants the right to be confronted by the witnesses against them. Now confront doesn't mean to angrily yell at it. We need to cross-examine in court. And that constitutional provision applies to all criminal prosecutions.

Now, this is not a criminal case but I think it's fair for the president to say I'm entitled to some of the constitutional protections that a defendant might be. But here's the thing. The whistle-blower is not necessarily a witness.

Quick example, let's say three people I know and trust say to me, hey, we were in the bank last week when it was robbed and the person who did it was Akaash, to use the name of our viewer who asked the question. I then call the cops and say I have information that Akaash robbed the bank.

OK, I'm not a witness. I didn't see it. The witnesses are the people who were there. So that Sixth Amendment right doesn't apply to the whistleblower here, the accuser. It applies to the actual witnesses.

CABRERA: And what are your final questions for this week?

HONIG: Well, the first one is exactly what Jake Tapper just asked Adam Schiff, are you done or are there going to be more hearings. Now, we're going to get a ruling tomorrow on the Don McGahn case, the D.C. district court said they're going to rule.

And the Judiciary Committee, not Schiff's committee, has said they intend to call him as a witness, but that's a strategic decision that House Democrats have to work out among themselves.

Number two, what is John Bolton doing? What is he trying to tell us? He's got a book. He is back on twitter. But he should be testifying. He has important testimony. He had a one-on-one conversation with Donald Trump trying to get Trump to release that foreign aid. We need to know what happened in that conversation.

And, third, are we going to see those articles of impeachment? I would hazard a safe guess they are being drafted as we speak and I think we will see draft articles of impeachment any day now.

CABRERA: Okay. And you will be back in a week --

HONIG: I'll be back.

CABRERA: -- and we will put those theories to the test to see if tha impeachment articles have happened. Thank you very much Elie Honig.

HONIG: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: As always, you can ask your own questions on "Cross-Exam" on cnn.com/opinion.

A health care for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week and she spent her weekend in the hospital. We'll have an update on her condition next. But first, this week's global energy challenge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR: This is the world's first commercial carbon capture machine. A porous vacuum built by Climeworks to siphon carbon dioxide from the Swiss valley's ambient air. The long-term plan is to store Co2 in underground basaltic rock formations.

But in the meantime, they've found another use from the captured carbon with Coca-Cola Switzerland.

PATRICK WITTWEILER, HEAD OF SUSTAINABILITY, COCA-COLA SWITZERLAND: There is actually no difference to a common standard Co2. So the bubbles, they are delivered from the Climeworks installation in a liquid form. The co2 goes then into the mixer unit and there the Co2 is dissolved in the product, in the mineral water.

And it's a technology which fights against climate change and therefore, yes, we strongly believe it makes sense. John Defterios, CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

CABRERA: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now out of the hospital and recovering at home following her latest health scare. The 86-year-old was admitted to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore on Friday night after she experienced chills and a fever.

The court says Ginsburg's symptoms improved after she was given I.V. antibiotics and fluids and that she is "doing well." Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue is with us now. Ariane, this is not Ginsburg's first health scare. It's not her second

or third. I mean, she has survived four bouts of cancer. What do we know about her condition at this point and when might she return to the bench?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right, Ana. Well, we know that she is back at home. Friday she was at the court in the morning. She started feeling ill in the afternoon and she went to a local hospital with that fever and chills.

Once she got to the local hospital, she was sent by ambulance to Baltimore. And that's because that's where some of her doctors, those doctors who have treated her over the years for those bouts of cancer. That's where they are.

They thought that they were treating her for a potential infection. And as they started treating her with fluids and antibiotics, she started to feel better. She came home today. But it's worth noting, she is tough.

Like we said, just before this term started, she had pancreatic cancer and in between the treatment for that and the start of the term, she went on a speaking tour. She went on multi-states speaking tour.

She was with President Clinton in Arkansas and she was asked about it and she said I don't want to sit at home and feel sorry for myself. I will do this job as long as I feel that I can do it properly. At my age, that might be a year by year evaluation. At another time she said that she would do it until she is 90. So, she is tough, Ana.

[17:55:03]

CABRERA: And this next week as we look ahead to what's on the docket, the court's considering a critical request from the president, right?

DE VOGUE: Right. Well the court is right now on a brief recess. They won't be on the bench, but behind the scenes they are looking at this petition from President Trump. He is trying to block a House subpoena for his financial records. That is before the Supreme Court. We could get an order as soon as tomorrow.

And then on top of that, on December 2nd, when the justices take the bench again, they're hearing a huge Second Amendment case. So, this is a momentous term and she has had these setbacks facing all these huge issues that she's going to have to decide.

CABRERA: And she keeps plowing forward. Ariane de Vogue, thank you for that reporting.

DE VOGUE: Thank you.

CABRERA: Good to hear she's back home and doing well according to the courts. More on our breaking news. The White House review turned up e- mails showing an extensive effort to generate an after the fact justification of President Trump's decision to block Ukraine military aid. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thank you for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York, and multiple breaking stories tonight. It is not the Watergate tapes, but could new revelations from "The Washington Post" about e-mails be the smoking gun in the impeachment inquiry? More on that in just a moment.

[17:59:57]

Also breaking this hour, the Navy secretary is out of a job tonight over his handling of a war crimes case. And a new candidate for 2020, a big name billionaire making it official and entering the race.