Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia Probe Inspector General Report Due Out Soon; Rudy Giuliani's Legal Jeopardy?. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired November 27, 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]

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The investigation was started in good faith using the right methods, and that none of these conspiracy theories about wiretapping, putting spies in his camp have any merit in the first place.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: And then, Josh, what about the second piece here, that the I.G. report also finds that there were no political motivations behind wiretapping Carter Page, which then, again, undercuts the main argument behind Trump and his allies behind the origins of the Mueller investigation?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No, exactly.

There are a couple different pieces here. As you mentioned, this whole idea of whether this investigation was politically motivated from the get-go, this appears to undercut that from the very beginning.

But, that said, as we look at this reporting, and what we expect is now going to be coming in this inspector general's report, this isn't necessarily a clean bill of health for the FBI. We expect, according to this "New York Times" reporting, that the inspector general will be critical of the way in which the FISA was handled, specifically, what we just reported last week about an FBI lawyer who is no longer there who was involved in allegedly altering something type of document.

Now, there's no indication that that actually would have swayed the judge or the court or the actual substance of that document. But, nevertheless, this will be fodder, obviously, for the president.

And then there's also this issue of one of the people that the president and his allies have been slamming for quite some time. And that is Bruce Ohr, this DOJ lawyer, this "New York Times" reporting saying that he's expected to be criticized for operating without the knowledge of his superiors.

But in the main, as I look at this latest reporting, it appears as though this is going to really undercut some of the main criticisms from the president, that there was this deep cabal, deep state, so to speak, inside the FBI that was working against him.

BALDWIN: Yes. All right, Josh and Jennifer, stand by for me.

Let me get some more news in, because also from "The New York Times," today, the paper is breaking a story on the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his dealings in Ukraine, which is at the heart of this impeachment inquiry.

So "The New York Times" is reporting this afternoon that, as Giuliani was pressuring the Ukrainian government to conduct an investigation on Joe Biden and the 2016 presidential election, that Giuliani was, meantime, also seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in business from Ukraine's government officials.

So let's go straight to one of the reporters who broke this story. Michael Rothfeld is on the investigative team over at "The New York Times."

So, Michael, thank you so much for jumping on with me. And you tell me what you're learning about what Giuliani was doing, sounds like without an employment contract. What was in the works for him with Mr. Lutsenko?

MICHAEL ROTHFELD, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, we reviewed drafts and, in fact, a retainer agreement that Mr. Giuliani signed with various Ukrainian officials.

One of them was a draft agreement unsigned with Yuriy Lutsenko, who was the top prosecutor in Ukraine at the time, and was helping Giuliani with the dirt-digging campaign on Joe Biden.

And Giuliani proposed in this draft agreement a $200,000 contract to do asset recovery for the government of Ukraine to try to get money that was allegedly stolen and had gone overseas.

We also reviewed another contract that he did sign for $300,000 with the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice. That one was not -- none of them were executed. But there were various incarnations of these contracts that Giuliani was trying to do business with various Ukrainian officials while he was also serving as the president's personal attorney and doing this dirt-digging campaign.

BALDWIN: So, again, just on the timeline, because I was going back and trying to remember.

Biden jumped in the race officially in April. And so, according to you and your reporting, did these talks -- when did it originate? Was it way back wintertime?

ROTHFELD: The first agreement that we saw proposed was in February of this year.

And he had met with -- I mean, Biden was known to be a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. And this discussion about alleged corruption involving Joe Biden's son Hunter and Burisma Holdings, Ukrainian company he was on the board of, had been going on for sometime. So, Lutsenko, the Ukrainian prosecutor met with Giuliani in January in

New York. And the first agreement we see comes a few weeks after that. Mr. Giuliani has told us that Lutsenko approached him actually with -- requesting that he represent -- Giuliani represent him in two capacities, one personal, to bring corruption information to the U.S. government, and the other one to do this asset recovery.

And Giuliani said he rejected the first one as a conflict of interest, but he considered the second one with Lutsenko to represent the Ukrainian government for asset recovery for a few weeks, and then ultimately decided not to do it.

But we then see this other contract that he signed, and he sent wire instructions for the Ministry of Justice, and also two other attorneys, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, for several months through April, and they worked very closely with Giuliani on the dirt- digging effort and are also allied with President Trump.

They proposed various other kinds contracts, also never executed, with other Ukrainian government officials.

[15:05:03]

So there was this kind of dueling relationship, where they're on the one hand doing this dirt-digging to help the president, and on the other hand, they're trying to get paid by the Ukrainians who are helping them with that.

BALDWIN: I got it.

Michael Rothfeld, thank you very much for breaking this and coming on from "The New York Times."

ROTHFELD: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Let's dig a little deeper.

In addition to that "New York Times" reporting, "The Washington Post" just broke some news, that Rudy Giuliani was specifically pursuing a $200,000 contract to represent Yuriy Lutsenko, the then top prosecutor in Ukraine.

As Michael was just explaining, Lutsenko was central to the campaign also to smear former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, which eventually got her fired.

And just a refresher. This is what Marie Yovanovitch said under oath about Lutsenko.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL GOLDMAN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL: Who else was involved in this concerted campaign against you?

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: There were some members of the press and others in Mayor Giuliani's circle. GOLDMAN: And who from Ukraine?

YOVANOVITCH: In Ukraine, I think, well, Mr. Lutsenko, the prosecutor general, Mr. Shokin, his predecessor, certainly.

GOLDMAN: And I believe you testified earlier that Mr. Lutsenko had a reputation for being corrupt. Is that right?

YOVANOVITCH: That's correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Jennifer Rodgers is back.

And so, Jennifer, just big-picture this for me. Why does this bit about Giuliani going to try to work with Lutsenko, make a couple hundred thousand dollars, get some information on the Bidens, get some information Ukraine, not Russia, interfering in the 2016 election, and then obviously working with his own private interests with the president, why does this matter, big picture?

RODGERS: Well, just the very way that you listed all of those things that he was doing kind of answers the question.

I mean, you can't do things that will conflict with each other if you're a lawyer. He represents the president. He's now talking about representing Lutsenko. He's conflicting with U.S. national security foreign policy.

I mean, you can't run around and have ethical conflicts, if you're a lawyer. And the key to me here -- and we don't know yet exactly what the facts are -- I think more information will come out. But if there is to be criminal liability here, it is likely to be part of this Marie Yovanovitch scheme, where they were trying to remove her.

And the real question is, why? Why were they trying to remove her? And does it have more to do with business interests that were being pursued by Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman, and maybe others, including Lutsenko, and less to do with trying to institute the president's scheme of extortion and bribery?

And if so, is that a criminal matter? A fraud case is what it would be. So there are all sorts of issues here. We just don't really know enough to try to pinpoint what it is that might be a violation of criminal law here, but there's certainly -- almost certainly legal ethical violations here.

And it certainly doesn't say good things about what Giuliani was doing over there.

BALDWIN: OK, let me fold in another big story of the day. So, Jennifer, stay with me.

The president may call the impeachment inquiry a hoax, but, once again, it is his defense that's being defined by the facts. Citing two sources, "The New York Times" reports that the president

knew about the whistle-blower complaint condemning his pressuring Ukraine when he released the millions in military aid that he was withholding from the country, which is at war with Russia.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is near Mar-a-Lago following the president.

And so, Jeremy, explain what we have learned and how this really does kill the main defense, the president's defense in this impeachment.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, one of the main questions throughout these public impeachment hearings that we have had over the last two weeks has been, to what extent did this whistle-blower complaint, the knowledge of that whistle-blower complaint, influence the president's decision to ultimately release that security aid to Ukraine?

And now, according to "The New York Times," we have learned that the president was briefed in late August about that whistle-blower complaint. And that comes, of course, two weeks before the president ultimately did agreed to release that security aid to Ukraine. That was on September 11, when the president's agreed to do that.

And two days before that, Brooke, there's also another key event that is important in this context of this new revelation, which was the president's phone call with Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European union.

Sondland, during that call, recounted that the president told him there was no quid pro quo. But it was strange, of course, Brooke, because it was unprompted. Gordon Sondland had not raised the notion of a quid pro quo. But now we know that perhaps it was the president's understanding that was what the whistle-blower had alleged, that there was indeed some kind of a quid pro quo involving the security aid that influenced the president's conversation then.

Also, on September 9, Brooke, is when the inspector general informed the Intelligence Committee that they had an urgent concern. And that was as it related to the whistle-blower complaints.

[15:10:03]

Now, Democrats have previously tried to draw a connection between that September 9 information from the inspector general of the intelligence community and the president's decision on September 11.

But now that you also have the fact that the president was aware of that whistle-blower complaint, had been briefed on it by White House lawyers, that really helps to explain so much more.

And so, Brooke, as we are nearing the phase where we are -- the House Intelligence Committee is drafting this report following two weeks of public impeachment hearings, we're moving forward, but still a lot to try and unpack here, a lot more to understand about what exactly the president knew and when. Of course, we know that the president is continuing to prevent many of his closest advisers, including the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney and other advisers at the White House, from actually participating in these impeachment hearings.

Next week, though, there is a Judiciary Committee hearing. And the House Judiciary Committee has invited the White House to participate. The White House, despite those complaints, though, about the process and not being involved, as of now, we're learning, Brooke, that the White House is unlikely to actually send a lawyer to participate in those hearings, despite the invitation from House Democrats -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Wow.

Jeremy, thank you from West Palm Beach.

Let's open up this conversation.

Jennifer is back with me. Also with me, Michael Bopp. He was associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, from 2006 to 2008. He is now a law partner at Gibson Dunn specializing in white-collar defense and congressional investigations.

So, Michael, welcome to you.

And let me just stay on what Jeremy was first reporting out, Jen, back to you just on the president reportedly knowing about this whistle- blower complaint when he then released the aid to Ukraine.

And I was talking to Elie Honig last hour, and he gave me this great metaphor. It was basically like, it's like you're caught speeding by the cops, and you try to slip the police officer 20 bucks to get out of the ticket. And then you say to the police officer, whoa -- because the police officer says, well, are you trying to bribe me? I don't accept bribes.

And it's like you saying well, no, I wouldn't never try to bribe you. No, I wasn't trying to do anything wrong. But that -- in the case here with no quid pro quo from the president, that doesn't clear him, correct?

RODGERS: That's right.

And what's happening now is that, if the White House had not blocked the testimony of people like Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Bolton, all of this would have come out in a much more organized fashion. But because they have stonewalled with those witnesses and key documents as well, it's coming out so much more piecemeal, right, one piece at a time.

But, still, when you put the picture together, there's no question that the president -- that everything he did was deliberate, right? The withholding of the aid was for the purpose that he wanted. It all was part of one big scheme. It's just that you get the case one drip and drab at a time, instead of in a more coherent fashion that you would if those witnesses had testified properly. BALDWIN: Right, and the quid pro quo wasn't even really in our lexicon in terms of the news and covering the story until the president said no quid pro to Gordon Sondland.

And, well, we know what happened next.

Michael, what do you think of all this?

MICHAEL BOPP, FORMER ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: Look, I think that the testimony that was released this week by the House Judiciary Committee is interesting and adds pieces to the overall impeachment inquiry.

I don't think -- and I do think it's significant that Mark Sandy testified, an OMB official, career OMB official, testified about the mechanics of how money was withheld, the aid to Ukraine was withheld.

I will say, though, that the president does have the authority to withhold aid. And so you have to separate two different things or two different pieces of the impeachment inquiry out. One is, did the president have the authority to withhold the aid? The answer is yes under the Impoundment Control Act.

But the second question is, what was the motivation behind him withholding the aid? And that's the subject of all the other depositions and all the other inquiry.

BALDWIN: Let's go back to Mark Sandy, who you brought up. And that deposition transcript was released.

For him, he was a career White House budget staffer. Sandy said two staffers who left their jobs at OMB had both expressed frustration over this money being withheld.

The OMB denies that. And it's my understanding you know Mark Sandy, Michael. Can you tell me about him?

BOPP: Sure.

Yes, I mean, Mark, I have worked -- we didn't overlap at OMB. But he came right after. And I have worked with Mark. Mark is a dedicated career official. He's one of the highest-level career officials at OMB. You got to understand OMB is about 92, 93 percent career.

And, look, I mean, he was trying to do the right thing. I think it's -- there are questions about -- it's odd that he was asked to execute this apportion or this hold on the Ukraine aid, but not given any explanation of why.

And, look, I mean, I think that is -- it raises questions about the whole process.

BALDWIN: Sure. Sure.

And looking at your resume, you have crazy extensive experience when it comes to congressional investigations. [15:15:05]

The White House is weighing, not -- as Jeremy was just reporting, weighing not participating in the first impeachment hearing with the Judiciary Committee next week. Would you advise that?

BOPP: Yes, look, I think that the American people and Congress want to hear from the president's team and want to hear their perspective.

I don't think that the hearing next week is necessarily the forum to do that. Next week is going to be a hearing about the constitutional framework for impeachment. And if the president participated, it would be one of his lawyers basically asking questions of witnesses about the constitutional framework.

I'm not sure that's really what the American people and Congress, that's what they're sort of dying to hear from the president. I think that the better forum may end up being in the Senate.

BALDWIN: Got it.

Michael, thank you. Nice to have you on.

Jen, thank you very much, Jennifer Rodgers.

BOPP: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Still ahead, in the other wrinkle in the rapidly developing news about Rudy Giuliani today, we will discuss President Trump's apparent efforts to distance himself from his personal attorney.

And, later, new 2020 polls putting Joe Biden squarely on top in the 2020 pack. I will talk to the author of an opinion piece who says former President Barack Obama is wrong, that being a moderate is not a winning strategy for Democrats.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:17]

BALDWIN: As we learn new details about Rudy Giuliani's business ties to Ukraine, it also seems President Trump is starting to distance himself from his loyal attorney.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, you have to ask that to Rudy.

But Rudy, I don't even know -- I know he was going to go to Ukraine, and I think he canceled a trip. But Rudy has other clients other than me.

No, I didn't direct him. But he is a warrior. Rudy is a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw some -- but you have to understand, Rudy has other people.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CNN political commentator Mark McKinnon is with me now.

Mark, so nice to have you on. Welcome.

All right, he's a warrior. So this all sounds familiar. Right? We remember how it went down for President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, right? Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

TRUMP: No. No. What else?

QUESTION: Then why did Michael -- why did Michael Cohen make this, if there was no truth to her allegations?

TRUMP: Well, you have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. And you will have to ask Michael Cohen.

QUESTION: And do you know where he got the money to make that payment?

TRUMP: No, I don't know. No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So, we hear him say, ask Michael Cohen. Remember that?

And then, of course, just last night, he said, ask Rudy Giuliani.

Does it sound to you, Mark, like Rudy Giuliani's days are numbered?

MARK MCKINNON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Brooke, I have last sound here in Denver, but I think I can anticipate your question, which, is Rudy Giuliani the next guy under the bus?

And, as you look at the president's former attorney who's now in prison and the long line of people and the long trail of people behind the president's bus, it's pretty clear that Rudy Giuliani could be next in line, because what we do know about the president is that his bus has no brakes. OK?

(LAUGHTER)

MCKINNON: So when he starts talking about the fact that Rudy Giuliani had other clients, that's the first tell, right? That's the first tell.

BALDWIN: Yes.

MCKINNON: So, just keep your eye on this one. But there's a long line of people under that bus.

BALDWIN: I just want to make sure, Mark, can you hear me? Can we keep going?

MCKINNON: I got you. We're good.

BALDWIN: Cool. Cool.

OK, so, yes, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

So, at this point, could Giuliani be used as a scapegoat? Could he take the fall? Or do you think we already know too much about the president's involvement to let him off the hook?

MCKINNON: I think there's too much history. There's too much evidence now.

I think the greater problem in the bigger picture, Brooke, is this, that all the word learning is really not a surprise to most people. I think most people say, yes, this -- there was a quid pro quo. Yes, Giuliani was over there doing deals for Trump and probably had side deals of his own going on.

He may have some criminal liability. He may end up with -- in a criminal situation down the line, along with others.

What's happening now, though, and I -- but I still don't think that's going to affect impeachment ultimately. I think the Senate will not vote to convict in the Senate. And so they -- which is good, ultimately, politically, because I think the president would be martyred if he were impeached, and it could be even better for Republicans if that happened.

But, for the election, the bigger problem, I think, is, we're seeing a rise in the public's perceptions about corruption related to this government, to the Trump administration.

And you start looking at the long line of people that have been either -- or that are under investigation or been convicted, that starts to add up to be a much bigger problem politically for the president long term.

BALDWIN: But Giuliani has claimed he has insurance, although he later walked that back, saying he meant information on the Bidens. But the implication remains.

Does he know enough about Trump to be a danger?

[15:25:03]

MCKINNON: Well, I think, absolutely, he does. And I think, absolutely, he could be.

The remark that you're mentioning, he said that he had an insurance policy. And given how much time he spent with the president, he probably does. But it was interesting, when he said, that his lawyer made Giuliani call the president up to tell him he was just joking and that -- and his lawyer said, you're not a funny guy, Rudy Giuliani, cut it with the jokes.

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: Let me ask you about this anonymous book that's coming out, right? Everyone's talking about this author of this book, "A Warning," saying that he or she will reveal their name before the election.

And I just wanted -- I was curious how you feel about it, because, on the one hand, this person has been criticized for being cowardly, not coming forward, not owning who he or she is. On the other hand, this person says, by remaining unnamed, it means that Trump will actually have to, like, listen to the substance of the book, right, attack the message and not the messenger.

Where do you fall, Mark, in the debate? Should this person stay unnamed, reveal who they are?

MCKINNON: I think they should reveal who they are.

I find it a little bit problematic that somebody who apparently in principle has huge problems with this administration, with this president, with the way policy is being conducted, that they wouldn't stand up and declare it publicly and say that they could no longer tolerate that kind of activity or work under that kind of administration.

The fact that they do and they continue to sort of profit off it is troublesome to me.

BALDWIN: And then, finally, last night, speaking at that rally, the president touted his three military pardons and standing up to the Pentagon.

Here he was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I stuck up for three great warriors against the deep state.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: People can sit there in air-conditioned offices and complain, but you know what? Doesn't matter to me whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Doesn't matter.

So you have the commander in chief calling the Pentagon the deep state and attacking his own Defense Department. What do you say?

MCKINNON: Pretty incredible, right, Brooke? Pretty incredible.

BALDWIN: It's incredible.

MCKINNON: Yes, to take on the military in this way.

And I -- listen, Trump supporters voted for him because they wanted him to go break stuff. And he's broken a lot of stuff. But when you start screwing around with the American military, man, that's poking a big bull in the eyes.

So I say to the president, beware where you're sticking your nose now, because the military will fight back.

BALDWIN: All right, Mark McKinnon, enjoy the snow in Denver. Have a safe Thanksgiving. Thank you so much.

(CROSSTALK)

MCKINNON: ... Brooke. Thank you.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

MCKINNON: Thanks.

BALDWIN: Coming up next, it is the divide at the center of the Democratic Party. Go big with plans like Medicare for all or stay moderate, in the hopes of attracting independents?

Former President Obama has advocated for more -- advocated for more of a centrist route, but my next guest says he has it wrong.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:30:00]