Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With Former U.S. Navy Secretary Richard Danzig; Rudy Giuliani Under Federal Investigation; Impeachment Process Moves Forward. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired November 26, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:02]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: And these Judiciary members could use a new court ruling in their favor. That is because a federal judge just reminded Donald Trump that -- quote -- "Presidents are not kings."

Those words coming straight from this pivotal decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. She ordered that President Trump's former White House counsel Don McGahn must go before Congress to testify. The White House has been blocking McGahn's appearance based on absolute immunity, a legal concept White House lawyers have also cited for several impeachment inquiry witnesses.

But this judge disagrees. This is what Judge Jackson said: "To make the point as plain as possible, with respect to senior level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. Indeed, absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction."

But while the law is on Congress' side, time is not. There is no telling when McGahn will testify. He is a appealing this. So is the Department of Justice. And the House has even agreed to wait for a week as appeals are filed.

So we start at the White House with our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, with me.

And so, Jim, what's the president's reaction to this judge's ruling?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You know, so far, Brooke, I think the president is trying to have it both ways.

We are seeing the president's tweets from earlier this morning where he says that he would like people like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo to testify, but he's also trying to protect the rights of the presidency and the constitutional separation of powers.

I mean, that is essentially what the White House is arguing over here, what the Justice Department is arguing in response to this ruling from Judge Jackson. But Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, was just as cryptic when he was asked by reporters about this earlier today.

And here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: The president tweeted just a short while ago that he would encourage you, essentially, to testify in the impeachment investigation. Is that something you're considering?

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: When the time is right, all good things happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And we're waiting to hear if the White House has a response to Chairman Nadler's letter about this hearing, setting the date for December 4 for their hearings to begin over in the Judiciary Committee.

And so it seems like America has just about a week to enjoy Thanksgiving, before the table is set for the impeachment inquiry to get ramped up all over again.

But, Brooke, getting back to whether or not these officials are going to testify, it seems what we're seeing right now is that the White House, the administration is essentially trying to run out the clock on Democrats when it comes to these top officials and their testimony. At this point, there's just no indication from the White House that they're going to let any of that happen.

BALDWIN: Well, speaking of officials who I know Democrats would love to have testify, John Bolton, right?

So we just got another teaser tweet from John Bolton. Let me read it for everyone.

He says: "It probably goes without saying that our country's commitment to our national security priorities is under attack from within. America is distracted. Our enemies are not. We need to make U.S. national security a priority."

I mean, man, sure seems like he has something to say.

ACOSTA: It sounds like he has something to say. But what he is saying there is not too far from what the president has been saying.

And remember, over the weekend, the president retweeted one of John Bolton's tweets. And so I think you could read that tweet from John Bolton a couple of different ways. One is that, yes, he does seem to be eager to testify, but a lot of his critics right now are saying, enough with the tweeting. How about some testifying?

And the other thing, Brooke, is, at this point, what does John Bolton gain inside the Republican Party if he goes up to Capitol Hill and testifies? He is going to be going against just about 99 percent of the GOP if he goes up there and offers damaging testimony against the president, even though there are national security officials who worked under John Bolton who cooperated in this impeachment inquiry, people like Fiona Hill, people like Alexander Vindman and so on. But it seems that a precedent is being set here. I think, when we

look back at this period, Brooke, I think a precedent is going to be set that administrations can in the future stonewall their way out of these kinds of messes, that they can resist sending their top officials up to the Hill to testify.

And because of the nature of our court system, and the appeals process, these things can be dragged out so long that whichever party wants to impeach a president can just throw up their hands and say, you know what? We just can't get everybody in here to testify that we need to.

And I think that is what we're at risk of seeing at the end of all of this, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Sure, running down the clock.

Jim Acosta, thank you.

ACOSTA: Absolutely. You bet.

BALDWIN: but I spoke with a man earlier, Ken Ballen. He would disagree.

He was staff counsel to the House Iran-Contra committee that investigated President Ronald Reagan. And Ballen argues that former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify before Democrats hold an impeachment vote.

You remember Bolton described a Ukraine pressure campaign to some of his colleagues as a -- quote -- "drug deal."

So here's my conversation with Ken.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: So let's talk John Bolton.

And I know you say this is the Democrats big' chance to bring him in, that they should subpoena him immediately.

[15:05:01]

Make your case.

KEN BALLEN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely, they should.

He is the decisive, most important witness who can appear before the committee. He held the rank of national security adviser. His lawyer has said he has testimony he can offer on all of the events involved in this Ukraine matter, including some that have not become public.

Plus, let me say this. He is head and shoulders above any other witness who has been called or could be called in terms of his respect and standing among Republicans and conservatives. This is a chance the Democrats should not miss. BALDWIN: Let me add to your point.

We know that his lawyers told lawmakers that Bolton -- here's the quote -- "was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, conversations in the House impeachment inquiry, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not been covered in testimony so far."

Do you think that that would have help or hurt the Democrats' case? And, also, why do you think that Bolton keeps throwing out these teases, whether they're through his lawyers or on Twitter? What's that about?

BALLEN: Yes, I'm not sure whether or not it would help or hurt the Democrats' case.

And as you mentioned in the lead-up, I was on the Iran-Contra committee, and we had our Oliver North come in. And before Oliver North, the country was behind these proceedings. After Oliver North, the whole thing changed and the Democrats dropped their investigation of President Reagan at the time, and any impeachment talk was off the table.

So I think the Democrats fear perhaps John Bolton could be the Oliver North of 2019. But I would say this, having lived through that experience. It does not matter, because his testimony is so important, so critical, and, as I mentioned before, his standing among Republicans is so high, that so many of these witnesses have been dismissed by the president and his supporters.

John Bolton's testimony could not be dismissed. And the Democrats should pursue it, no matter how the testimony goes.

BALDWIN: You bring up Oliver North, just to refresh our viewers' memories. That was Iran-Contra affair sort of January 1987.

BALLEN: Correct.

BALDWIN: This investigation of, as you mentioned, Ronald Reagan, this Republican president, by a Democratic Congress. The House and the Senate launched a joint investigation.

How did everything change when Oliver North testified?

BALLEN: Well, this was the last time -- people often refer now and during this current inquiry to Watergate as a precedent.

But Iran-Contra is also a precedent. It was the last time that a Democratic Congress investigated a Republican president of a scope like this, where foreign policy was implicated and the president was implicated.

And leading up to Colonel North's testimony, there was a growing consensus that this might lead to the impeachment of the president, President Reagan at the time. All of that changed with Oliver North, and it was very dramatic, because he gave a very good performance on TV.

He wore his uniform. He talked about patriotism. He made himself more of the victim. So...

BALDWIN: Right.

So, you don't think that's a reason why Democrats are saying, hmm, let's just -- let's keep the ship a sailing and maybe we don't pull him in?

BALLEN: It's not a valid reason.

BALDWIN: OK.

BALLEN: Because the job of the Democrats is not to impeach and convict the president. It's to find all the relevant facts, present all the relevant facts, and then the Senate can have a trial as appropriate.

I'm a former prosecutor, a federal prosecutor. I would bring cases before the grand jury, and I wouldn't want an indictment returned until every piece of evidence possible was uncovered, and then we proceeded. This should be handled in the exact same way.

And if Bolton's testimony results in the impeachment and then a conviction of the president, fine. If it makes the House rethink whether or not impeachment should be proceed, better to know that now, before the president is actually impeached, than find out later in a trial in the Senate.

BALDWIN: Here's how Americans are feeling about impeachment, Ken.

This is my last question. We have got these new numbers into CNN today on impeachment. Polling shows the public is really unchanged, indicating Democrats have not won them over in some huge way that they were obviously hoping.

And by waiting for Bolton, is there not a risk of fatigue, of the public turning on Democrats for just dragging this thing out way too long?

BALLEN: Well, I would argue just the opposite. Because the poll numbers haven't moved among Republicans, even after all these very compelling hearings of the last several weeks by the House Intelligence Committee, among Republicans and independents, all the more reason you need to call John Bolton, who is uniquely situated.

He has a tremendous amount of respect among Republicans. He's -- was a FOX News commentator for many years, one of their senior commentators on national security. And before that, he served President Bush.

[15:10:07]

He is uniquely in a position to change some people's minds. And because the polling has remained so static, because everyone's locked into these partisan camps, we need John Bolton to testify. We absolutely need him.

And a delay of a month or two in an inquiry that's an important as this should not be the reason not to call him. I think the Democrats would make a mistake if he's not called.

BALDWIN: Ken Ballen, thank you so much for your insight. Good to have you on.

BALLEN: Thank you so much, Brooke. I appreciate it.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Coming up next, new details of the legal hot water that Rudy Giuliani may be finding himself in -- the feds now looking at his business and considering potential charges that range from money laundering to wire fraud.

Plus, a former Navy secretary joins me live. He will explain why he says President Trump does not share the values of the U.S. military.

And, later, this incredible story -- three men freed from prison after spending 36 years behind bars for a crime they did not commit. They will be home for Thanksgiving -- their incredible story ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:05]

BALDWIN: Just in, the U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as mid-December whether it will take up the case involving the president's taxes. He is hoping to block a New York prosecutor's subpoena for his returns.

The subpoena has been on hold until the justices rule. This is different than the court's decision last night to put a temporary hold on a separate subpoena from the House for the president's financial documents.

So we're watching for that come next month.

Rudy Giuliani, he is still operating as President Trump's personal attorney, even as prosecutors are scrutinizing his business dealings in a widening federal investigation.

A grand jury subpoena seen by CNN describes a range of potential charges for his associates, and it suggests that prosecutors are looking at their relationship with Giuliani's consulting firm.

Last month, his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were arrested as they were trying to leave the country and later indicted on charges of using a shell company to funnel campaign donations to a pro-Trump super PAC.

Kara Scannell here at CNN has been following this, the twists and the turns in Rudy Giuliani's story. Also with me, Chris Smith. He's back. He's profiled Rudy Giuliani for "Vanity Fair."

So great to have both of you on.

And let's just start with the reporting. Tell me more about what this means, what they're looking at, and just that all these roads seem to point to him.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right.

So this subpoena is requesting information about any communications and business dealings that the person who received had done with Lev and Igor. But it also asked for any communications with Rudy Giuliani and his security consulting business, Giuliani Partners.

And it goes further. It also asks for any documents or agreements that relate to the actual or potential payments to Giuliani and his firm, which then tells you that the prosecutors are really examining the money flow, what kind of business relationships exist with a number of people.

I mean, this is one subpoena we have seen. We know that dozens more have gone out, that the FBI agents have knocked on people's doors. So this is one glimpse into it, and it gives us a sense that they're really trying to understand the financial connections between these people and Rudy Giuliani.

BALDWIN: How -- Chris, we were talking in commercial break about how he was America's mayor here in New York City some years ago. How did he...

CHRIS SMITH, "VANITY FAIR": How much time do we have?

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: How did he eventually end up with all these foreign lobbying business deals? Like, how did that come about?

SMITH: Well, the short version is that in the immediate aftermath of September 11, and him leaving office as mayor of New York City, Rudy was a hero, and for good short-term reasons in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

And he very quickly cashed that in, capitalized on that to set up a security consulting firm that did business in the United States on things like radios for firefighters, but also sold itself around the world as, he's the leading expert on fighting terrorism.

And that's been one through line in his overseas businesses, but it's really spiraled in a lot of other directions. We need actually a whiteboard to chart all the investigations touching on the ex-mayor.

He's down in Venezuela with a magnate who's been accused -- well, who's tied to an investigation of natural gas corruption. And Rudy is representing him before the Department of Justice. At the same time, he's the president's free lawyer.

So he's using these connections in a wide variety of opportunistic situations.

BALDWIN: I got you.

And the subpoenas, Kara, listed more than half-a-dozen potential charges. I will run through some, everything from obstruction, to serving as an agent of a foreign government. We will -- you see them all on your screen. I'm not even going to read them all here.

But is -- I was listening to Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor. And he was like, when I used to prosecute, I would just list one charge. I wouldn't tip my hand, right?

[15:20:03]

And the fact that he sees this as a warning that they're listing all of this. How do you see it?

SCANNELL: I mean, I think I'm -- I think you could look at it both ways.

I think he's right that this is a warning shot. It's saying, these are a lot of serious charges. It's not campaign finance, which is a serious charge, but it's one that the courts have -- there hasn't been a lot of success when you have got counterfactors that might exist in this case.

But when you have money laundering, wire fraud, those charges carry 20 years with them as a maximum prison sentence. So it shows both the breadth of what they're looking at and also the seriousness of it.

On the other hand, I have also had prosecutor -- former prosecutors say, you want to cover the landscape, so you don't not include something that might ultimately be the case.

BALDWIN: Yes.

SCANNELL: So they could just be doing like a big catch-all also.

BALDWIN: Yes.

SMITH: One thing to watch for in these next few days is, as good reporters get closer to these subpoenas, as they eventually become public, we will see whether this is a cover the landscape, explore all avenues kind of...

BALDWIN: Investigation?

SMITH: ... series of subpoenas, or whether Parnas and Fruman are telling prosecutors, these are documents you want to look for, these are companies you want to pursue.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: And one clue to that I think is really interesting is, they're talking about these two Trump-related super PACs, whose names I'm spacing out on at the moment. BALDWIN: It's OK.

SCANNELL: America First Action.

SMITH: Thank you, yes, and America First, First America, first something, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Kara Scannell, ladies and gentlemen.

(LAUGHTER)

SMITH: There you go.

BALDWIN: Yes.

SMITH: So the fact that these particular entities are now being explored is an indication that their witnesses are talking to them about potentially vulnerable areas for the mayor.

BALDWIN: So, we will look for that in the coming days.

What about -- just last quick question. Rudy Giuliani, again, he says, I have done nothing wrong.

SMITH: Sure.

BALDWIN: Prosecutors haven't even come to talk to me.

Is that, to either of you, a good sign for him or is that one of those circling the wagons for the big fish bad sign?

SCANNELL: I think it's more of the latter. I mean, it's still kind of early in this investigation, as we're seeing. I mean, the FBI and the prosecutors are really fanning out and talking to a lot of people.

But it's not necessarily a good sign that you're one of the last people to get a subpoena, because it could indicate they might view you as a target. And so a lot of former prosecutors I have spoken to have really honed in on that and said, let's wait and see, when does Rudy get a subpoena, or does he not at all?

SMITH: Sure.

And the mayor's -- or -- excuse me -- the president's personal lawyer is not just any target. I mean, the SDNY, Southern District, Manhattan district attorney's office always very careful with politically involved figures, and they're going to be extremely cautious here.

Nobody knows where the line is with William Barr, the attorney general, who has his reasons to be annoyed with Giuliani involving himself in all these matters, but also has been extraordinarily loyal in protecting President Trump.

So at some point does he draw a line in the pursuit of Giuliani?

BALDWIN: Got it.

Chris and Kara, thank you both.

Homes destroyed, little food and water, these are the conditions CNN discovered inside Syria after President Trump withdrew troops. CNN's Clarissa Ward is live inside Syria.

But, first, we will talk with the former secretary of the U.S. Navy -- why he says the president and the military do not share the same values. He joins me live coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:22]

BALDWIN: Former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer is speaking out in the wake of his firing and defending his actions in the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher.

Gallagher was demoted after being acquitted of murder, but convicted of posing for a photo with a dead teenage ISIS fighter.

But President Trump repeatedly intervened in this case, ultimately reversing the Navy's decision to demote Gallagher's rank. Spencer says the president's intervention presents a grave problem for this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD SPENCER, FORMER U.S. NAVY SECRETARY: What message does that send to the troops?

QUESTION: Well, what message does it send?

SPENCER: That you can get away with things. We have to have good order and discipline. It's the backbone of what we do. I don't think he really understands the full definition of a war fighter.

A war fighter is a profession of arms. And a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to and they hold themselves to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: With me now, Richard Danzig. He served as Navy secretary under President Clinton. He also co-wrote an opinion piece for "The New York Times" with another Navy secretary under President George H.W. Bush.

The headline was this: "We Led the Navy. Trump does not share the military's values."

So, Mr. Secretary, a pleasure, sir. Welcome.

RICHARD DANZIG, FORMER U.S. NAVY SECRETARY: Thank you.

BALDWIN: The president tweeted today.

And he said: "I will always protect our great war fighters. I have got your backs."

Does he? And what do you make of the president's role in all of this?

DANZIG: Well, I think the president, in his zealous desire to determine a particular case, has lost sight of the whole military system and the concepts of honor and order and discipline that are fundamental.

The idea of good order and discipline in the military depends on notions of procedure that are well-established of respect for a --

[15:30:00]