Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pentagon Chief Fires Navy Secretary Over SEAL Controversy; Dow to Rise as Investors Watch U.S.-China Trade War; U.S. Lawmakers Face Constituents After High-Stakes Hearings; White House Review Shows Extensive Effort to Justify Blocking of Ukraine Military; House Could Vote to Impeach Trump by Christmas. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- was legal. White House lawyers are reportedly concerned that internal exchanges could, quote, "at minimum embarrass the president." We're going to dig into that.

Also today, a major ruling in the ongoing power struggle between the White House and Congress over allowing executive branch witnesses to testify before Congress. Federal judges is to decide whether the House can compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about his former boss, President Trump. McGahn's testimony was key to Robert Mueller's Russia investigation providing some of the most scathing details of alleged obstruction by the president. It is a ruling that would have major implications. It could also give cover for impeachment witnesses who have not cooperated yet such as former National Security adviser John Bolton, cover or perhaps motivation to testify.

Joining me now is CNN's Joe Johns. He's at the White House.

Joe, let's begin with this "Washington Post" reporting because this really gets to the heart of the case here. You heard GOP lawmakers, the president's defenders, saying, well, they couldn't connect the aid delay to the president. How do you know it came from him? Now you have a whole e-mail trail it seems.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes. That's certainly very important, and look, just to sort of set the stage, right after the House of Representatives decided it was going to embark on this impeachment inquiry, the White House Counsel's Office, Pat Cipollone and others, decided they were going to do some research, dig up the documents and try to figure out the timeline for the president's decision to hold up that $400 million in aid to Ukraine, critical military aid, by the way.

And what the "Washington Post" reporting has determined and some of the follow-on reporting from CNN is that the timeline is very interesting, interesting because the White House apparently decided to act first on delaying the aid and then dig up the justification for it at a later time. So there was also certainly degree, if you will, of intrigue here at the White House, intrigue between the National Security Council, which didn't think it was such a good idea, and the Office of Management and Budget, which is run, by the way, by the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. They thought it was perfectly OK.

What's the White House saying right now? Well, they say routine practices and procedures were followed and that there was legal consensus every step of the way, the Office of Management and Budget says. Of course there is a law that controls all this and says the president has to spend money that Congress appropriates for certain measures -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: And ultimately that's what forced their hand. It was as simple as that.

Joe Jones at the White House, thanks very much.

Let's get to Suzanne Malveaux on Capitol Hill with more on where the Democrats' investigation stands -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, as you know, the House and Senate on recess for Thanksgiving break, but we heard from House Intel Chief, the chair, Adam Schiff, on "STATE OF THE UNION" talking about that he is willing to open up more hearings and he is willing to listen to additional testimony from witnesses if they become available. He's not ruling it out.

And as you have mentioned before, taking a very close look at that court case, that judge's ruling today, whether or not there is such a thing as absolute privilege or immunity to keep some people from testifying but Schiff says over the weekend he is still open to the possibility of the former National Security adviser John Bolton to go and testify. It has to be voluntarily because if subpoenaed, his attorney has said that they will fight it in court. Schiff says that they are not willing to do that. They're not going to take the time to do that.

That they can move ahead with the impeachment inquiry process and at the same time, Jim, of course, the Intel Committee staff, they are working diligently on this report that they're going to be handing over to Judiciary shortly after the Thanksgiving break -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Let's talk about Devin Nunes, of course the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, new information that he traveled to Europe to meet with the disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor to dig up dirt on Biden. Does that lead to an investigation in the House?

MALVEAUX: It makes it very messy and complicated, as you can imagine. This was Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas, his attorney, saying that he's got some documentation that he can prove that Nunes was in Vienna last year and that he was meeting with a former Ukrainian official to try to dig up dirt on the Bidens. So we heard from Schiff this weekend saying well, it's not in his district or his jurisdiction. This would be for the House Ethics Committee to handle.

There are some Democrats who are calling for a probe for just that because they say if this was a taxpayer trip and it was paid by the American people that it would be an ethics violation and they should, in fact, go and investigate. Nunes so far denying that -- saying much of this is not true, but this only makes this a much more multilayered and complicated situation after the break as they try to deal with his role in all of this as well -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: All right. Suzanne Malveaux on the Hill, thanks very much.

Joining me now to discuss, Seung Min Kim, she's White House reporter for the "Washington Post," Joseph Moreno as well, former prosecutor for the Department of Justice.

[09:05:04]

Seung Min, if I could begin with you just because, of course, the "Post" has the story about these documents, these e-mails, et cetera, does that then buttress further the Democrats' claim that this was the president's decision there? I mean, if you have the decision made to withhold aid and then the White House kind of scrambles to back- justify it, what does this tell us about who made that decision?

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it certainly could. I mean, there are a lot of documents that we disclose the existence of in the story from my colleagues over the weekend, and I do want to make this clear, there is not -- there's concern definitely that there's information in there that could be politically embarrassing to the president, but what's not clear at this point is if there's anything that could really trouble him legally. But clearly these are documents, part of the many sort of documents that Democrats have been trying to get from the administration, that have been withheld from them.

And going back to the larger issue here, it looks like it really does look like Democrats are going to forge ahead. I mean, we'll look at the decision from -- look at the decision involving former White House counsel Don McGahn later today, but anything that kind of slows down this investigation I think Democrats have made it adamantly clear that they are not going to entertain. I think Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments last week were pretty telling when she said we will not be at the mercy of the courts.

SCIUTTO: So, Joseph, on these e-mails, of course the White House has blocked a whole host of documents, e-mails, not just from the White House but the State Department, but also officials from testifying who could answer very key questions here as to who made the decision on Ukraine, et cetera. Can Democrats -- do they have a path to getting access to these e-mails and communications now?

JOSEPH MORENO, FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROSECUTOR: Sure, Jim. They had a path, but it's a long one. Right? I mean, and unfortunately that's the story with all these kinds of legal proceedings.

Look, as a lawyer, I would love to see a very methodical case built. And as well as the Democrats did in their hearings in the last few weeks, there's still a bit of a gap as to what exactly came from the president with respect to why the aid was held and why it was ultimately released. I'd love to hear from these people who know firsthand or I'd love to see these documents if they provide some further light on it.

But that legal need for a methodical case runs up against a political reality which is the calendar. And it will take time. So while in a perfect world we would get this information, I understand the Democrats' hesitance to push this months into next year because that's how long it will take realistically.

SCIUTTO: With an uncertain outcome, right, I mean, depending on the courts, how high they go. I mean, should folks at home take away -- should their takeaway be, Joseph, obstruction works? Right? I mean, it certainly has impeded the investigation.

MORENO: I would hate for that to be anyone's conclusion because it's really not the American way and it's not the way our justice system works. Right? But I can see people could take from it that look, if I drag my feet long enough I can effectively kind of grind the wheels of justice and prevent it from happening. That's why the courts step in and they almost always step in on the side of transparency.

So there is a good argument that even though the calendar is tight, the Democrats really might want to go to the courts and let the courts weigh in because ultimately they will prevail and transparency will be the final word here.

SCIUTTO: All right, Seung Min Kim, just an alarming exchange over the weekend, sitting U.S. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana defending, in effect, a baseless conspiracy theory placing doubt on whether it was Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.

I just want to play it in case folks at home missed it and get your reaction. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and the 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.

WALLACE: The entire intelligence community says it was Russia.

KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine.

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS): She's correct that Russia tried to interfere in 2016. Also, Ukrainians themselves tried to interfere also.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, John Kennedy in particular there, as you know, Seung Min Kim, it's a false statement because it's not just the intelligence community, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is by the way chaired by Republicans with a majority of Republican members, also found the same. What's the game here? Why are Senator Kennedy and others clearly running defense for the president? What could they possibly gain from chasing down what is also we know from Fiona Hill's testimony and others the result of Russian propaganda here, right, to create exactly that doubt?

KIM: Well, I think there are certainly -- I mean, to be clear, most Senate Republicans will agree with the assessments of the Senate Intelligence Committee and intelligence community knew that it was Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.

SCIUTTO: And yet, and yet, he's sitting there on national television on FOX News stating a falsehood.

KIM: Exactly. I think a lot of it is kind of trying to distort a reality here, particularly as the impeachment process almost inevitably moves over to the Senate side and while like I just said most Republican senators have long accepted the conclusions of the intelligence community, you have a growing kind of push from powerful committee chairmen to investigate kind of this whole -- the debunked Ukraine issue. You have a lot of powerful committee chairmen looking for documents from the DNC trying to establish that link and that just shows how --

SCIUTTO: Why? What's the point?

KIM: I think --

SCIUTTO: I mean, is it trying to give the president ammunition? What is the point? We have an election less than a year away where intel -- the intel community has also warned Russia will and has started to interfere again. What do they have to gain from this?

KIM: I think a lot of it is trying to make that case that debunked case that president has been pushing and that's why there is obviously -- obviously they are -- politically they're at a disadvantage in the Democratic led House, but there are a lot of, again, when they push -- when this gets pushed to the Senate, the president and Republicans feel they are on a little bit more favorable terrain here. Obviously --

SCIUTTO: Favorable but not factual terrain sadly.

Joseph, on the issue of McGahn, so we have a judge, a federal judge, this of course judge making a decision today really to Don McGahn's testimony before the House. This is not directly related to the impeachment inquiry, came before that, but relevant because it challenges this question of absolute immunity from the White House.

Let's say the judge rules in favor of the House here, what difference does that make and can things move quickly enough to allow some of these witnesses who still refuse like a John Bolton, could have been quickly enough to force them to testify?

MORENO: Possibly, Jim. I think it does two things. One, if the -- if the Democrats want to reach back to the Russia obstruction of justice issue, I think Don McGahn is a central witness. So if Judge Jackson finds that he has to respond to this subpoena and effectively he complies with that and doesn't drag out the appeals process, you could have a very essential witness if the Democrats want to go there.

But two, it blows a hole in the absolute immunity claim. I mean, look, judges are receptive to executive privilege or attorney-client privilege, or a Fifth Amendment assertions, right. There are certain reasons you can get away with not testifying, but this absolute immunity, basically saying I don't even have to show up, Judge Jackson was really incredulous at the argument last month. So I don't see her being very receptive to this one bit and I think to your point, the other witnesses who are relevant to the Ukraine impeachment issue will really think twice before hiding behind this kind of curtain of absolute immunity, which is really, really tenuous.

SCIUTTO: I suppose unless they decide to wait it out.

Seung Min Kim, Joseph Moreno, thanks to both of you.

MORENO: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still to come this hour, shocking twists and turns in the case of a Navy SEAL, facing accusations of war crimes. The secretary of the Navy now out after the president intervenes to allow Eddie Gallagher to keep his status as a Navy SEAL. Plus, a Bloomberg blitz. The former New York City mayor, officially jumps into the 2020 race wasting no time spending millions on TV ads. His rivals wasting no time taking aim at him.

Also, Hong Kong sends leaders a clear message, a record turnout delivers a huge victory for Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Party. How will Beijing respond?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: This morning, President Trump says that he is now tapping the U.S. Ambassador to Norway Kenneth Braithwaite to replace Richard Spencer as Secretary of the Navy. The president's announcement coming hours after Spencer was summarily fired by the Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

On his way out, Spencer directed withering criticism at the president, accusing him of undermining military discipline, and in effect demanding that the Navy Secretary violate his own oath. In a letter to Trump, he writes, quote, "I no longer share the same understanding with the commander-in-chief who appointed me in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took."

Those are remarkable words. Spencer's forced departure stems from the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. Gallagher was convicted of a crime by military courts, specifically posing with a corpse of an ISIS fighter, though, he was accused and acquitted of others. In a rare move that sparked alarm throughout Navy leadership, the president reversed that decision, later prevented the Navy from exercising disciplinary action against Gallagher as well.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN military and diplomatic analyst, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, he was the former Press Secretary for both the Navy and the Pentagon. Admiral, great to have you on today.

JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY & DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: I wonder if you can explain to our viewers how unusual it is, and perhaps in your view, I wonder troubling for the president to directly intervene in a case that has been decided by a military court, and then intervene again, in effect, when the Navy --

KIRBY: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Seeks disciplinary action?

KIRBY: Yes, he's been very much involved with this particular case from almost the very beginning, Jim. Look, the Navy did not exactly crown itself in glory with the case on the murder court-martial for Gallagher. They had prosecutorial issues that ended up in the acquittal for that charge. But he was convicted of posing with war dead, and the president just keeps getting involved in this case for almost from the very beginning.

What's different now, Jim, though, is he's getting involved in essentially an administrative qualification review process. It's one thing for the commander-in-chief to pardon or to get involved in actual court cases in the military justice system, even President Obama did that on rare occasion.

[09:20:00]

But what Trump has done here is getting himself right involved in the qualification process. It would be akin, Jim, to the president deciding in a particular case that a pilot who had had, you know, several mishaps and was up for a review board about whether he or she could keep his or her wings, the president saying, yes, you can, it's at that level, it's a very low level usually reserved for unit level commanders.

SCIUTTO: This disciplinary step that the Navy was considering taking, which is to take away his Trident, which is a valued symbol of having passed what are arguably the most difficult admissions procedures to become a Navy SEAL of --

KIRBY: Right --

SCIUTTO: That service. I've spoken to Navy officers who said they -- this happens all the time for far lesser issues. One brought up the case of someone lying on a test.

KIRBY: Right.

SCIUTTO: So, how concerning is it that the Navy wasn't even allowed the discretion to make a decision on that relatively small disciplinary step?

KIRBY: Yes, very deeply concerning, Jim. And again, we're talking about an administrative review process. The Navy SEALs do this as you rightly said all the time, and people get their Trident Pins revoked for much less than what Gallagher has not only been alleged to have done, but actually convicted of doing.

And here's the other thing, Jim, there are three other SEALs that are going through the same review process on their Trident Pins as Gallagher was. Those three other SEALs that were in those same photos. So, now, what does the Navy do about those guys? They don't have high-paid lawyers, they don't have the president or commander-in- chief weighing in on their behalf.

But if they're going to exonerate Gallagher for this same offense, and let him retire with his Trident Pin, what do they do about those other --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KIRBY: Three? And then more, you know, writ large -- what message does this send to the whole SEAL --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KIRBY: Community?

SCIUTTO: I want to get to that question because this speaks to a broad range of behaviors here, and again, I've spoken to military commanders and others who worry because they take the law seriously, right?

KIRBY: Yes --

SCIUTTO: They want soldiers on the battle field -- yes, it is difficult, but they want them to follow the law. This goes to chain of command and discipline, and also goes to how U.S. allies see U.S. forces deployed abroad. You've dealt with these issues for years. Just describe to people how, you know, the sort of odd fact that Gallagher stays and Spencer is gone now, how does the rank-and-file read that?

KIRBY: I think -- I think there's some worrisome conclusions that some in the rank-and-file might take away from this. That if you have a high paid lawyer, if the commander-in-chief is on your side, you know, you can flout discipline. I mean, yesterday, Gallagher was on "Fox and Friends" openly disparaging Rear Admiral Green, the commanders of the SEAL forces. I mean --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KIRBY: That itself was an incredible moment. So, I think there's going to be real concern by commanders across the force about what this says for their ability to execute good order and discipline inside their ranks. Also, and you brought it up just briefly in what you said, Jim, there's a message here to allies and partners, that if we exonerate this kind of behavior, if we're able to whistle past that graveyard, then how can they trust when they have American boots on their ground conducting operations in their countries that we have the ability and the forthrightness to hold our troops accountable --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KIRBY: For what is essentially war crimes.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, listen, I remember the deep concern after the Abu Ghraib scandal. This was about --

KIRBY: Right --

SCIUTTO: How U.S. forces operate on the battlefield, and part of a soft power, of course, is that U.S. forces follow the law where others may not --

KIRBY: Follow the law and stand for values that are --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KIRBY: Greater than just ourselves.

SCIUTTO: Absolutely, well said. Rear Admiral John Kirby, thanks very much.

KIRBY: You bet.

SCIUTTO: Congress is on break for Thanksgiving as Democrats press forward with their impeachment plans and time frame. Straight ahead, I'll speak to one lawmaker about his party's next steps. And we're also moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street. Dow expected to rise at the start of the shortened holiday trading week. There is optimism now again over the U.S. trying to trade war after both presidents talked about it over the past several days.

We're going to see how investors react as well to two big mergers coming out this morning. The French luxury group LVMH says it will buy New York jeweler Tiffany and Company for just over $16 billion, an online brokerage giant Charles Schwab will purchase its rival Ameritrade -- TD Ameritrade in a $26 billion deal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Right now, after two historic weeks of impeachment hearings, lawmakers are back home facing their constituents. So, how could this Thanksgiving recess shape the investigation? The timeline moving forward. With me now, Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat of New York. Congressman, we always appreciate when you take the time --

REP. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT (D-NY): Thank you, thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: So, the chair of the Intel Committee is going to be running things, Adam Schiff would not go as far as to say that he supports impeachment at this point. You have been on the record saying there are still loose ends out there. Is there any doubt at this point that the house votes to impeach the president?

ESPAILLAT: Look, I think there are still loose ends. We would love to hear from McGahn or Bolton, of course. I think they have evidence to share with us. But at the end of the day, I think we'll package the entire body of evidence and we'll send it to Jerry Nadler.

END