Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Washington Post Reports, White House Review Shows Extensive Effort To Justify Trump's Decision To Block Ukraine Aid; Republicans Push Debunked Ukraine Conspiracy Theory. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: I hear you. When it happens, I'll bet we will give you a phone call. So stay where you are. Thanks very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: A very good Monday morning to you. It is Thanksgiving week. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York. Poppy Harlow has the day off.

It is all about the timeline now. The Washington Post is reporting fresh new details about an after-the-fact effort by the White House to justify the president's decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine. According to The Post, White House lawyers conducted a confidential review that turned up hundreds of emails and documents showing conversations that attempted to rationalize the Ukraine freeze after notably that whistleblower came forward.

Why did they do that? A key question.

Also today, an important ruling is expected that will likely have major implications on whether key impeachment inquiry witnesses will be forced to come forward in the future. A federal judge, any moment now, set to decide whether the House can compel former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify about his former boss, of course, President Trump.

What does that mean for members of the president's inner circle, such as John Bolton, who have refused so far to go in front of Congress in the impeachment inquiry. A lot hangs in the balance in that court decision.

Joining me now is CNN's Phil Mattingly on Capitol Hill. Of course, lawmakers, they're home for Thanksgiving but the impeachment wheel is still churning on Capitol Hill. Do you sense any delay in this plan we've heard about to around mid-December have a vote possible on impeaching the president?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. At this point, it seems like the answer is no. Obviously, lawmakers are back in their districts this week, but staff very much at work, working through that report, the House Intelligence Committee is planning to produce, to send over to the Judiciary Committee to really kind of kick-start the actual impeachment and articles of impeachment process into gear.

Now, Adam Schiff over the weekend on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper did note that there is a possibility that other hearings or other evidence or other witnesses could come to the forefront. As it currently stands, that is not the plan. There are no future House Intelligence Committee hearings that are scheduled at this point in time. The focus now is on drafting that report and getting it over to the Judiciary Committee.

Now, mentioned some things happening this week that are kind of outside the scope of what's happening inside the Intelligence Committee but are still super important, obviously, everybody with a very, very keen eye on what happens with Don McGahn's case.

Again, that was a subpoena that was issued in April. But the real reason people care is because it's the first real test in the courts of the White House's absolute immunity theory that they've tagged on to pretty much every close official.

Now, if the court rules that McGahn does have to come talk to Capitol Hill, that doesn't mean that the floodgates are going to open for people like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or others, but it will give people something to think about and at least the first court ruling against the White House on this rather interesting legal theory that they've put forward. So that's one issue that I think you need to keep an eye.

The other one too is there's still some transcripts out there that need to be released that, have been gone over. One of them is from a career OMB official, you mentioned that Washington Post story, who could give some insight into the inner workings of OMB. Jim, you know well, OMB officials, by and large, have avoided coming in, have avoided listening to the subpoena requests. This individual, Mark Sandy did not. What he says in that transcript is going to be very interesting to read as we continue to try and piece together what exactly happened inside the White House with the hold on aid. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Phil Mattingly on the Hill, thanks very much.

Joining me now to discuss this, a lot, Lis Wiehl, former federal prosecutor and legal counsel to the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment.

What a court activity today to watch. But let's talk about the one that's likely most relevant to the impeachment inquiry, although it started before, and this is Don McGahn's testimony. I guess this big question of can the White House claim absolute immunity as it were or can they, in your view, how do you think this judge is going to --

LIS WIEHL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: There is no founding in the Constitution for absolute immunity. That's something that the White House has sort of invented.

Now, you think of the White House Counsel and you think of privilege. We think of a lawyer and privilege and privileged communication. First of all, White House Counsel is the counsel for the president, the office holder of the president. The president has his own counsel. Rudy Giuliani is his private -- you might have heard of him. That's his private counsel. All right, so there is no absolute immunity for this person.

Also if there was immunity, the president has waived that immunity. He let McGahn testify many times to Mueller. So if there was privilege, he waived that privilege. I think that is what the judge is going to rule in this case.

Why that's important for the Judiciary Committee is they want McGahn to testify about what he told a colleague, a friend, about what Trump told him, what he said. I want you to fire Mueller. He said -- McGahn said to this colleague, I felt like it was going to be a Saturday Night Massacre, recalling Nixonian times when, of course, that's what happened in the Nixon times.

The Judiciary Committee wants that language, that Saturday Night Massacre language in front of the American public to set the table for the intent behind President Trump -- I'm sorry to the justice.

[10:05:05]

SCIUTTO: Could that become its own article of impeachment?

WIEHL: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: Even though it's related not to Ukraine specifically?

WIEHL: Because what the committee would want to do, and you're setting it up sort of as a trial for the Senate is intent is so important in obstruction of justice articles. You want to show a pattern of behavior. It wasn't just that one July call. It's a pattern of behavior. This sets it up like that.

SCIUTTO: Okay. So Judge Ketanji Brown, say, makes the decision today, compels him to testify. There are other obstacles that Republicans can throw in the works, appeals, et cetera, it takes a while.

WIEHL: Of course.

SCIUTTO: How quickly does this move to when the final word is delivered, you've got to testify?

WIEHL: All right. What could happen here is an emergency appeal, obviously, would be put in place and the judge herself could say no to that right away, because the judge can see here what's happening. I mean, judges are people too, believe it or not, beneath the robes. And they can see, look, if we don't allow this to go forward, it's not going to happen in time and obfuscation is what's going on, that's the name of the game.

SCIUTTO: Well, Brown may be thinking that way, but we know Judge Leon, who's hearing the other challenges to the witnesses called for impeachment. He's been taking due time.

I guess just from a practical perspective, you know the courts well.

WIEHL: Right.

SCIUTTO: Does this practically force one of these witnesses to come forward before the Democrats' current timeline?

WIEHL: It may force McGahn. And then the other thing is the other witnesses like John Bolton are looking at this. Does president hold the other witnesses absolutely to be able to testify and say this is what I can stand on? No, it doesn't for sure, but it may open not a flood gate but a trickle gate.

SCIUTTO: Right, okay. The new gate?

WIEHL: The new gate.

SCIUTTO: The trickle gate?

Let's talk about these emails that The Washington Post is reporting on that after a decision was made to hold back this Ukraine aid, there was concern in the White House, they did a little review and they were looking for basically a retroactive justification.

WIEHL: They were looking for cover. They were looking for legal cover.

SCIUTTO: So that clearly blows up a GOP defense that this sort of came out of nowhere, this policy. But, legally, can Democrats get their hands on those emails for the impeachment inquiry?

WIEHL: Well, they're certainly going to try to. I mean, again, they're going to have this obfuscation that White House has already said you're not going to get hold of them. But what's more important even than that now that they're out in the public is go back, roll the tape back, as I'm sure the Democrats will do during the trial, and look at all the questioning that was already done.

They don't even have to get the tape -- the emails. Look at all the questioning that was already done during the hearings about when the diplomats were peppered with these questions about this was the normal course of business. This was just all normal, this holding back of the aid. Well, clearly, it wasn't. So as you can see from the emails that we now know.

So there goes that defense. Already it was already seen to be a farce.

SCIUTTO: Well, lots to watch in the course these next few hours. Lis Wiehl, thanks very much, as always.

Joining me now to discuss the politics of this, well, of course, there are a lot of politics, Lisa Lerer, National Political Reporter for The Times, Jeff Mason, White House Correspodent for Reuters.

I just wonder, Lisa, maybe I could begin with you. You have court cases that could go the Democrats way, or not, but let's say they do, that might add to the argument that, hey, let's put the brakes on here because we might still get witnesses that could attest to the president's involvement, direct involvement here, whether it's Don McGahn or eventually John Bolton. Do you see Democrats wavering at all on the very aggressive timeline they have?

LISA LERER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: No. I mean, I think for Democrats, the best impeachment is a quick impeachment, and that's really the sense that there is in the House, in part because there's a pretty strong feeling that this is going to be a party line vote, that it's unlikely any Republicans will break ranks and that this process is already -- then, of course, the process will move into the Senate where it's likely to run into the the Iowa caucuses, to run into the beginning of the Democratic Presidential Primary.

And I think a lot of people in Washington expect that the final verdict will be delivered not in the Senate on President Trump but next fall when voters actually go to the polls. So, you know, Democrats don't really want to do anything that could mess up their ability to win that election. And they're worried if this draws out, it could do that.

SCIUTTO: But, Jeff, I suppose, a straight party line vote, and it does look, we all watched the hearings and you heard the comments, and even moderates like Will Hurd coming out saying, yes, inappropriate but not impeachable, which seems to be something a lot of folks are holding (ph) on to here.

Politically, that's not the best result for Democrats either, a straight-up party line vote. And Kevin McCarthy seems to think maybe some Democrats will vote with Republicans here.

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: It's also exactly what Nancy Pelosi wanted to avoid. I mean, one of the things that we were all watching in the run-up to this was the speaker in the months before these actual hearings began, saying you need to have bipartisan support for impeachment, there needs to be clear evidence.

[10:10:05]

And Republicans right now are sort of taking those words and throwing them back at her, throwing them at the Democrats, saying, look, in these two weeks of public impeachment hearings, you have not moved the needle and you have not found a smoking gun.

So those -- that will certainly add to the partisan climate over this issue here in Washington and on the campaign trail.

SCIUTTO: Lisa Lerer, I've heard a lot of interesting things on television through the years. But this interview with Rick Perry in the last 24 hours was pretty remarkable in the way that he spoke about the president to a friendly audience. I want to play it and get your thoughts. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: God used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn't perfect. Saul wasn't perfect. Solomon wasn't perfect. And I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings about a month ago. And I shared it with him. I said, Mr. President, I know there are people that say -- you said you were the chosen one, and I said you were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: You are the chosen one. I mean, is that a demonstration of just how far the Republican Party has come to be a party of Trump?

LERER: Well, I don't think that's exactly what the founders intended when they talked about separation of church and state and concerns of how a monarchy, but I do think Rick Perry's comments reflect a lot of sentiment in the Evangelical community, which is very strongly in support of President Trump and sees him as this imperfect messenger. His personal life isn't exactly where they would like it to be, but he's delivered on many of their top priorities, particularly when it comes to things like abortion rights and other social issues.

I do think that Rick Perry is expressing a sentiment. That's fairly common among some of the president's strongest supporters in his base.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Mason, another moment this weekend, again, it gets to GOP being the party of Trump, John Kennedy defending a baseless conspiracy theory regarding 2016 campaign interference. Let me play that and then I want to ask you question about it. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton computers, their emails? 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: There's nothing to back that up.

Jeff Mason, in the simplest terms, why are senators, smart ones seemingly willing to proffer what we know is Russian propaganda?

MASON: Well, it's a great question, Jim, and it's hard to answer. I mean, it's clear that they're willing to dismiss the intelligence. Chris Wallace was spot on when he responded to the senator saying that all of the U.S. intelligence agencies believe it was Russia that tried to interfere or did interfere rather in the 2016 election. So they're willing to put that aside. They want, in many ways, to, I think, stick with the theory that President Trump has clearly raised and clearly believes, which has led very much so to this impeachment process because he was seeking investigations and seeking or listening to Rudy Giuliani when he raised these issues about Ukraine.

Politically, will that eventually hurt them? That's also a TBD question. Right now, it doesn't seem to be. And right now, it's in line with President Trump's strategy of sticking with the base.

SCIUTTO: Yes, until Russia interferes again in less than a year's time. Lisa Lerer, Jeff Mason, thanks very much to both of you.

Escalating turmoil between the White House and the Defense Department, a top official fired over what the Pentagon says was a secret proposal on a case of war crimes.

And a daring heist at one of the oldest museums in the world, police say, treasures of, quote, incalculable value were stolen there. Suspects are on the run. We're going to have the latest. it sounds like Hollywood.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Note this. This weekend, a sitting United States senator defended a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine, as well as Russia, interfered in the 2016 campaign. And somehow Senator John Kennedy said, we don't know what is true. That's patently false. The U.S. Intelligence Community knows it. They assessed in confidence in 2017 that, quote, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. The U.S. Senate, of which John Kennedy, of course, is a member, knows it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by a Republican and with a majority of Republican members found that Russian troll farms, quote, sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.

And as Fiona Hill, the president's own former top Russia adviser, testified under oath last week, the Ukraine conspiracy theory itself is Russian propaganda.

[10:20:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIONA HILL, FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: That's right, Russian propaganda. I wrote a book about Russian election interference and other aggression, The Shadow War. And what struck me is just how many digital fingerprints tied the hacking to Russia. In fact, two Russian hacking groups well-known to U.S. intelligence, as a former top NSA official told me, the Russians didn't even try to hide.

Nicole Perlroth reports on cyber security for The New York Times. She had a very personal encounter with the cyber security firm, CrowdStrike, which helped trace that Russian hack and she joins me now.

Great to have you on, Nicole. You cover these stories, this issue very closely. Tell us about CrowdStrike and what they told you about Russian interference.

NICOLE PERLROTH, COVERS CYBERSECURITY, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, back in 2016, it was pretty clear from the forensics, as you said, Jim, that Russian actors were to blame. Two groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, that were really well-known to the cyber community have left their digital fingerprints all over the hack at the DNC.

Now, CrowdStrike was familiar to me, and many who cover the industry, because the founders who Trump has said the company is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian, there is no truth to that, okay? The company was founded by three American citizens, all who came from McAfee. One of them was born in Moscow and now lives in Washington and is an American citizen. The other two are American citizens as well.

And one of the things that a lot of people don't know about CrowdStrike is that while these guys were at McAfee, they wrote one of the seminal reports on Chinese cyber espionage. It was a big report they did. There was, I think, a series of three or four reports where they wrote about in quite a lot of detail about just how invasive Chinese cyber espionage had become in the United States.

And at the time -- and CrowdStrike won't say this, but I know this from my own reporting. At the time, the guys who wrote this, they had named China in the report, and Intel that owns McAfee was very uncomfortable with the naming of China for business reasons.

And I think part of the reason they left to go start their own company was to focus intensely on the Chinese cyber espionage problem. That's the origin story.

SCIUTTO: And China and Russia do very similar things, election interference, a whole host of maligned cyber activities here.

You, in your reporting, I know, must challenge lawmakers who are propagating a baseless conspiracy that we know is Russian propaganda. What answer would they have as to why they're going down this path? Beyond CrowdStrike, the U.S. Intelligence Community, the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Republicans concluded with confidence that it was Russia and Russia alone. What excuse do they have for this? PERLROTH: They have not offered a very good excuse. And, you know, let me also point out that the idea that CrowdStrike sent a server, the DNC server to Ukraine, is just a dumb theory, to be honest, because there were 100 something servers at the DNC that were compromised. It was not just one server, okay? So the idea that CrowdStrike sent one server to Ukraine is just a preposterous idea.

And Trump has said over and over again that they never gave the servers to the FBI. Well, that's just not how it works. The FBI will come in and they'll take an image of those servers, which is basically a forensic copy. They rarely come in and actually remove the hardware itself. They don't need to. As long as they get a copy of what's on those servers, they're good to go.

So I don't know why the Republicans keep propagating this Russian propaganda other than it fits with this idea that Trump does not want to recognize that Russia may have helped his election victory in 2016.

SCIUTTO: And Republican lawmakers appear willing to back that kind of psychosis, almost, for political reasons here.

I want to ask you again, because you know how much Russia is up to this sort of thing. By the way, we have an election less than a year away. How does it help Russia to have an American president but also American lawmakers help spread and defend a conspiracy theory?

PERLROTH: Well, it just helps -- it does not address the fact that we're now heading in to one of the consequential elections in the past decade. And if we can't agree on the basic facts that Russia and Russian hackers interfered in the 2016 election, then we're not going to be any better off this time than we were four years ago.

[10:25:11]

And, you know, we also should point out that Mitch McConnell refuses to bring any election security bill to the Senate floor. And through our reporting, and I'm sure you've heard the same, a lot of it is because of the fact that any kind of election security bill is seen by this administration as yet another reminder that Russia did intervene in the 2016 election.

And what's horrible is that, from all the reporting, we also know that it's very unlikely that Russia is going to run the same play book that they ran in the last election, and we're still playing catch-up to 2016, where we can't even agree on the basic facts that Russia did interfere.

SCIUTTO: Well, it raise the question, who is defending the next election and the term negligence comes to mind.

Nicole Perlroth, great to have you on. It's a conversation we're going to keep up as we get closer to election day.

PERLROTH: Thank you so much, Jim.

SCIUTTO: It might be Thanksgiving break, but something tells me Democrats relaxing after high-stakes hearings on the Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]