Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Resignation Letters in Trump Era; Impeachment Inquiry Report Due After Thanksgiving. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He's leaning in very, very close to the accepting the notion that they will impeach this president. He doesn't say it outright, but he hints.

He says all but -- makes it all but certain that they're going to move forward on impeachment. He says they uncovered a months-long effort in which Trump sought foreign interference in the -- in our elections for personal and political benefit.

He says that the administration took an unprecedented campaign of obstruction in order to prevent Congress from getting this information. And he says that they will not allow the president and the White House to drag this on for months on end by fighting to get certain witnesses to come forward.

He said they're not going to go that route.

(CROSSTALK)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Let me jump in there, Manu.

What can I jump in? Because we are waiting for this judge to rule on this Don McGahn, you know, bit which has to do with the Russia investigation. But it would determine perhaps if a John Bolton or a Mick Mulvaney testified in this case.

So you're telling me Adam Schiff is not going to be slowing his roll, for a better phrase, in terms of getting this thing rolling?

RAJU: Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like. He says very clearly right here:"We will not allow the president or others to drag this out for months on end in the courts," because if the Democrats were to win that case today involving Don McGahn, presumably, the thinking could be they could get some of these other people who have stonewalled them.

But the administration will almost certainly appeal that case. And that could lead to this prolonged court fight that Adam Schiff wants to avoid. And he makes clear here: "What is left up to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the presidency and whether the constitutional process of impeachment is warranted." So he makes clear what they're looking at articles of impeachment that could include the president's conduct, abuse of power, as well as obstruction of Congress, which, of course, was part of the Nixon proceedings as well.

So, very clear here they are moving forward. They're moving quickly, and we could see action beginning in December that could ultimately lead to the president being impeached before the year's end -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Got it. That is quite significant, this timeline you're now getting from Adam Schiff.

Manu Raju, thank you very much for jumping on TV for us on Capitol Hill.

Meantime, we are also learning this afternoon more details about what the White House knew regarding that nearly $400 million in military aid that Congress had approved for Ukraine.

"The Washington Post" is reporting that a confidential White House review uncovered hundreds of documents showing an effort to come up with a -- quote, unquote -- "after-the-fact justification" for why President Trump chose to keep the money from Ukraine.

After this review -- I should mention, the review came out after the White House learned of the whistle-blower complaint.

So let's go to CNN's Sarah Westwood on this for us.

And so, Sarah, the president said today he still has confidence in his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who is all over this reporting from "The Washington Post." So talk to us more about Mulvaney's role in this.

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Brooke, the White House Counsel's Office undertook this review of e-mails within the administration, within the White House.

And that review fast, according to "The Washington Post," that acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was corresponding with budget officials in early August to try to create some sort of retroactive legal justification for the president's decision to withhold that military assistance from Ukraine.

But I want to walk through the timeline a little bit here, because it's very important. In mid-July, before the president had that now infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, he made the decision, CNN has reported, to suspend the aid to Ukraine.

Then, in early August -- that's weeks after the decision had been made -- Mulvaney, according to these e-mails, was asking budget officials for an update on the legal rationale for why that happened.

And that, crucially, occurred a few days after the White House Counsel's Office in August had been made aware that concerns were being raised about the president's conduct on that July 25 phone call. So they already knew that there were officials in the intelligence

community at that time who were flagging their concerns about that phone call. Only after that did Mulvaney seek a justification for the suspension of the aid.

Now, a senior administration official tells CNN that Mulvaney and his team were not briefed on the findings of the White House counsel's review before that story popped up yesterday in "The Washington Post." Mulvaney did not get a chance to see the e-mails that he apparently wrote to budget officials.

So this is sure to exacerbate those tensions between Mulvaney and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

BALDWIN: Yes.

WESTWOOD: And, Brooke, the reason why this revelation about the timeline is so important is because it suggests President Trump forged ahead with that decision to suspend the aid to Ukraine without at that time having any sort of documented legal reason for doing so.

BALDWIN: Want to analyze all of this. Sarah, thank you very much at the White House for us this afternoon.

Let's open up the conversation.

Francesca Chambers is the White House correspondent for McClatchy D.C. And Kim Wehle served as associate independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. She also wrote the book "How to Read the Constitution and Why."

So, ladies.

Francesca, let me just start with.

How do these e-mails impact the impeachment case against this president?

[15:05:04]

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, MCCLATCHY D.C.: Well, as Sarah was just saying, the question is how it looks. Some of it is just optics.

And I can tell you that, in the past, this has been a problem for the president as well and the White House. The president often says or does things on Twitter, and then the White House finds out about them, and then they have to go back and find not just a legal justification, but, other times, other justifications for doing those things.

They're often surprised and blindsided by the president's actions. And I think what you saw in the story that we were discussing just now is another example of what is routinely happening at the White House.

BALDWIN: Sources told "The Post," Kim, about this interagency argument over withholding military aid, right? So you have the State Department and National Security Council were protesting it, but OMB was pushing back, saying it was legal because they labeled it temporary, so that it was temporary aid. Why would that make it legal?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSOCIATE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, that's a question, I think, for lawyers to resolve.

And it looks like this money was actually appropriated back in September. And my understanding, in having looked at some analysis of this, not having done it myself, is that there is a basis for withholding it for purposes of ensuring it's properly spent, but not this unilateral power to hold up what Congress authorized.

So here we really have a separation of powers question. We have Congress saying, aid is good to go back in September. A year before, in May, internally, it was determined that Ukraine has met the metrics to justify it. So this is sort of a Monday-morning quarterbacking. We want to withhold it. We're not so sure how.

BALDWIN: Yes.

WEHLE: And, of course, it plays into the narrative that the quid pro quo wasn't justified on a basis that's consistent with what's best for America, that the withholding of aid was really about what's best for President Trump.

And if that's the question, then we're -- then the issue is, is this an abuse of power that's impeachable?

BALDWIN: What do you think the likelihood of House investigators, Democrats, getting their hands on these e-mails?

WEHLE: I think it's highly likely at this point.

BALDWIN: Highly likely?

WEHLE: Yes. At this point, it's been -- it's out there in the public sector, in the public sphere. They're going to want it. It's obviously highly relevant.

And the Republicans -- Republicans have been arguing, listen, we don't have a complete record. Listen, we don't have direct evidence.

And, of course, the White House has been withholding compliance with subpoenas. But if what they really want to do is get to the facts, get to the bottom of it, it seems like everyone involved should want these documents to go out -- come out.

BALDWIN: Let me move off of this.

And, Francesca, to you. We're hearing more and more Republicans. So, in addition to the president, United States, we're hearing from Republicans peddling this conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 elections and not Russia. So let me play this clip. This is Senator John Kennedy, Republican

from Louisiana. You will hear him, and then you also hear Fiona Hill, who was the White House's top expert on Russia who testified under oath just last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY": 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.

WALLACE: The entire intelligence community says it was Russia.

KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine.

FIONA HILL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: 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 has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: I mean, Francesca, it's so clear from Dr. Hill testifying. It's been debunked a gazillion times.

Yet you have this sitting U.S. senator continuing to give this conspiracy theory air. Why is this happening?

CHAMBERS: And Tom Bossert, by the way, he's also said that that's absolutely not true.

And Kellyanne Conway was also on television this weekend and was asked something about these lines, and she had said, well, there could have been a lot of different people who interfered in the election.

And we have heard that from President Trump too. The White House continues to claim that they do believe that Russia interfered in the election, the president does believe the intelligence community, while leaving room for this idea that perhaps Ukraine or other countries, China, whoever else, may have also interfered in the election, despite the fact that the intelligence community has not found evidence to support those theories.

BALDWIN: OK. Francesca, thank you.

And, Kim, let me just get you to react to the news we just heard from Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill just talking about the timeline of this impeachment inquiry. And so what he was saying is that the chairman of House Intel, Adam Schiff, was saying that they will likely have a report just after Thanksgiving, and the impeachment vote will likely then happen by Christmas.

And he is rolling on down this -- they're not going to slow down for you -- depending on how this judge rules on Don McGahn would tell us perhaps what may happen with a John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or Mike Pompeo.

Not waiting for that.

[15:10:00]

WEHLE: Yes, I think that's a strategic decision -- I'm not sure where I come down on it -- to basically keep the narrative very tight.

Like I said, the story is out there, the facts of the quid pro quo. There isn't a legitimate, I think, coherent response to it in terms of the facts.

BALDWIN: Yes.

WEHLE: The Democrats, I think, could expand this investigation, could expand the bases for impeachment. But then you get in the possibility of going down rabbit holes, so to speak, diverting from the central narrative.

BALDWIN: Keep it tight.

WEHLE: And then -- exactly. And then we're going to go into the Senate, of course. The Republicans will control that.

But I think the wild card there is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We will have a sheriff in town. We will have someone calling balls and strikes. I know there's some legal ambiguity as to whether a vote from the Senate would override what the chief justice does.

But I think having him in the room will hopefully, I should say, keep things in a measured, thoughtful, professional way that we did see the Democrats really did achieve in terms of what we have seen so far. This hasn't become a circus, notwithstanding some of the rhetoric we have heard from the other side of those who are actually prosecuting the impeachment.

BALDWIN: Yes. Welcome to a sneak peek of what we will all be witnessing January 2020.

Kim...

WEHLE: Yes, it's going to be something.

BALDWIN: Kim Wehle, thank you. Francesca Chambers, thank you very much.

Coming up next, the Navy secretary slamming President Trump as he is forced out of his job, but now multiple stories are emerging about the real reason why he had to resign.

And former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg officially in the race for 2020. I will be joined by one man whose says Bloomberg is the perfect person to beat Trump and another who could not disagree more. We will have them have a big conversation.

And also ahead, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from the hospital after her fifth health scare just in this past year -- details today on how she's doing now.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:37]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

A power struggle at the Pentagon is leading to questions over why the secretary of the Navy was fired over the weekend. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper says he fired Richard Spencer for going outside of his chain of command while handling the punishment of a Navy SEAL.

More on that in just a second. But in this scathing resignation letter, former Navy Chief Richard Spencer wrote -- 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."

That is certainly not the only resignation letter we have seen delivered to the president's desk over the last couple of years. And according to "A Warning," the book that has been written by an anonymous senior White House official -- quote -- "We all have draft resignation letters in our desks or on our laptops. You may need it at a moment's notice or less."

CNN's Chris Cillizza is here to remind us of some of the administration's more memorable resignations.

So, Chris, take us down resignation memory lane.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Brooke, the good thing -- or a bad thing, if you're a Trump administration official -- is, there's lots to work with here.

This administration has seen more turnover at the senior level, including the Cabinet level, than some people in four and sometimes even in eight years. So let's go through some of them.

OK, the glowing resignation letter. That's Nikki Haley.

"It has been an immense honor to serve our country in your administration. Cannot thank you enough for giving me this opportunity." Remember, Donald Trump had a had a press conference in the Oval Office with Nikki Haley to talk about how great she is. She's got her eye on future things in the Republican Party. That's why she went with the glowing resignation letter.

Let's go to the next one. We're getting progressively less time. The fine line. OK, that's Jim Mattis. As you can see, we know he disagreed with the president's decision as it relates to American troops in Syria.

"My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by four decades of immersion in these issues. You have the right to a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours."

You kind of get that there's a disagreement there, but he doesn't bring it out into the open.

Let's keep going, because, like I said, we got lots of examples. OK.

This one, John Bolton, who just continues to pop up on Twitter and hint that he knows more and has more to say. This is when he left as national security adviser.

"Dear Mr. President, I hereby resign, effective immediately," his title. "Thank you for having afforded me this opportunity to serve our country."

I like that, brief. Don't get into anything, leaving an opportunity, because, remember, Bolton is selling a book and trying to drive people to his super PAC in his Twitter feed.

OK, let's keep going. As I said, these gets progressively less good for Donald Trump.

Betsy Southerland, she was the director of science and technology at EPA. This is the less kind version.

"Today, the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth. No war on coal. No economic crisis. And climate change is caused by man's activities."

We know that Donald Trump, by the way, once described climate change as a Chinese hoax.

OK, now we will go to the last one. OK?

This is by Daniel Kammen, who is a science envoy. This is right -- so you see. You say, that is kind of interesting. Like, it's a long letter. He lays out his -- the first word in every paragraph spells out impeach.

BALDWIN: How about that?

CILLIZZA: That's some serious stuff, Daniel Kammen. Time went into that bad boy.

[15:20:03]

So, we have seen there's all -- basically, how you resign, how you phrase your resignation letter is based on where you are in your career and where you want to go.

Someone like Mattis doesn't really have anything to lose. So he's a little more open. Others like Haley want Trump's approval, so they're kinder -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: OK, so the letters of the past, but let's talk about the now.

Let's put this context -- put all this into context, the controversy here over this resignation.

So we have former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer says he was forced to resign. This all centers around a scandal involving a Navy SEAL, Eddie Gallagher. He was accused of war crimes, was acquitted of murder, but convicted of posing with the corpse of a 12-year-old ISIS fighter.

As a result of that, he was demoted in rank. But when President Trump learned about the demotion, he intervened and ordered Gallagher's rank to be restored. The Navy also began a review of whether to expel Gallagher from the Navy SEALs, and the president intervened again.

And now the secretary of the Navy has been forced out.

So with me now is Lawrence Korb. He is the former U.S. assistant secretary of state. He now works for the Center for American Progress.

So, Larry, thank you so much for joining me. Nice to have you on.

LAWRENCE KORB, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Nice to be with you.

BALDWIN: So, we -- I have three reasons that we're hearing for Secretary Spencer's exit.

So, let me just run through the three of these here. Number one comes from the president, that it had to do with the cost overruns and the way Eddie Gallagher had been treated by the Navy. The second is from the secretary of defense, saying it is because he sidestepped DOD.

And the third is from now former Secretary Spencer himself saying that it's because he didn't obey the president.

You know Spencer. I understand you had breakfast with him just last month. Which of these reasons is most believable?

KORB: I think the third one is.

There's no doubt that he may have probably gone to the White House. Remember, he had been acting secretary of defense for a while, so I'm sure he had contacts. He's been around this town a long time. I first met him when he was on the Defense Business Board -- to basically say, this is getting out of hand.

But the fact of the matter is that when Esper wanted him out -- because Esper wants to go along with the president -- that's when he wrote the letter, I think, putting out his true feelings.

BALDWIN: We just heard from the president a bit ago. He spoke on this decision to revoke the punishment of Eddie Gallagher. Listen to this with me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What I'm doing is sticking up for our armed forces. And there's never been a president that's going to stick up for them and has like I have, including the fact that we spent $2.5 trillion on rebuilding our armed forces.

And some very unfair things were happening. You let Sergeant Bergdahl go. You let others go, including a young gentleman, now a person who President Obama let go who stole tremendous amounts of classified information. And you let that person go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Larry, what do you make of that, that comparison that...

KORB: Well, basically, when he said let them go, no, they didn't.

I mean, if -- for example, he was talking about Chelsea Manning in the end there. What President Obama did was commuted his sentence. He had already served seven years.

What Trump has done is said, you're not guilty. I mean, when Obama did that, he said, you're guilty, but given the circumstances, I am not going to have you serve any sentence.

And this is what's different. And one of the things that's important -- I was very privileged to be a Naval flight officer. And the best day of my life was when they pinned that -- the wings on me on my Navy flight thing.

And so the idea that you're still worthy to be a SEAL, no. If you have done that, you shouldn't be a SEAL. Even if they don't want to punish you, you shouldn't belong to that group.

BALDWIN: I know the trident for the SEALs means everything. And I'm just curious.

You had breakfast with then Secretary Spencer a month ago. I mean, this was before a lot of this was percolating and the president inserted himself. But did you have any inkling that this was to come?

KORB: No. In fact, what we talked about is how well he had been managing and he had gotten rid of the cost overruns. Trump just made that up. Actually, he was doing a very good job in that.

So, I mean, this whole thing just doesn't make sense. And Secretary Esper has not stood up to the president. You may remember the cloud computing contract that Trump tried to overturn because he didn't like Amazon, and Esper didn't fight him -- fight him on that.

Esper has given two reasons. He said basically, well, I can't let Gallagher lose his trident pin, because there has been so much commotion, he can't have a fair hearing. And then he said, no, I got a direct order from Trump.

[15:25:00]

Well, which is it?

BALDWIN: It's a great question.

Larry Korb, thank you so much for coming on. Thank you so much for your service to this country. We appreciate you.

KORB: Thank you for having me.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

Just in to CNN, the head of "The National Enquirer," who happens to be a close friend of President Trump's, is talking. He's talking to New York prosecutors. And what we're learning is all part of the investigation into those hush money payments made to those women with alleged affairs with Trump.

We have new details just coming in on this next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:30:00]