Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Refuses To Participate In First Judiciary Impeachment Hearing?; New Doubts Emerging Over The Phone Call That Has Been Pivotal In The President's Defense; One Of The President's Favorite Punching Bags Speaks Out For The First Time. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 02, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: It's a consequential week for a presidency in peril. Why the White House is refusing to participate in a key impeachment hearing.

And it's the phone call that President Trump says vindicates him in the scandal. But did it actually happen or is it all made up?

Plus, one of the President's favorite punching bags speaks out for the first time? Why former F.B.I. lawyer Lisa Page says her breaking point was the President's quote, "fake orgasm" stunt at his rally.

And the Trump official who wants floated the idea of nuking Afghanistan is now a senior adviser at the State Department.

President Trump and his attorneys have House Democrats asking a question today, will the White House participate in the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Hearings or not? And when it comes to Wednesday, the first day of those hearings, the answer is a resounding no. But Wednesday is just one day in a very critical week.

Today, House Intelligence Committee members are expected to review their findings on President Trump's dealings in Ukraine before voting tomorrow to send it to their colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and the White House has to decide by Friday, is it going to take part in the hearings at all? All of it leading up to a Christmas day deadline to hold a vote.

CNN's Pamela Brown is here with us, and the President is actually supposed to be dealing with other things. He is on his way to NATO as we speak, to London. Before he left, though, he did take aim at the Impeachment Inquiry from the South Lawn. Tell us about that.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, and he is tweeting about it as well. There have been several tweets as he heads to London for NATO meetings, and he is really griping about the Judiciary Committee hearings this week saying that they shouldn't be holding the first hearing while he will be in London.

But at the same time that has given the President ammunition to sort of seize on the fact that from his point of view, his argument that the hearing is -- that the probe is a illegitimate because look, they're holding it while he is in London for these NATO meetings. He didn't even have a say on the scheduling. Here's what the President had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Democrats, the radical left Democrats, the do-nothing Democrats decided when I'm going to NATO -- this was set up a year ago -- that when I'm going to NATO, that was the exact time. This is of the most important journeys that we make as President and for them to be doing this and saying this and putting an impeachment on the table, which is a hoax to start off with.

All you have to do is look at the words of the Ukrainian President that he just issued, and you know it is a hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And so much of what you just heard the President say was echoed in this letter from Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel that was released last night saying that the White House will not be participating in this first round of hearings starting this week calling that the proceeding, you know, partisan, illegitimate.

They're griping that they don't even know who the witnesses are that Nadler hasn't announced who is going to be there. The question is though, Brianna, what will the White House do moving forward? Because this is just one of several hearings the Judiciary Committee will have.

I'm told by source familiar that the White House plans on providing another letter this Friday basically saying, look, if you provide us a list of fact witnesses, if you let us cross examine, we may participate. So they're trying to sort of leave the door open.

But the White House has this quandary because one of its main arguments is that this isn't a legitimate inquiry. That's what they keep arguing that it's not following past precedent. And so if it does participate, will it lend legitimacy to it?

KEILAR: Yes, it seems like it would right now. We had a Democrat, Gerry Connolly on the show who said that he thinks it would as well. Pamela Brown, thank you so much for that report.

BROWN: Yes.

KEILAR: So what are the pros and cons of the White House declining to participate in the upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings? Our CNN Legal Analyst, Laura Coates is here to walk us through all of this. And Laura, how does the White House stand to benefit from not participating?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a great question, Brianna because of course the President of the United States was invited in by that resolution passed by the House and now it seems, they are no longer interested in doing so.

There's a couple of pros to be involved here. First of all, the first one is, it allows for the White House to claim it is, in fact a partisan process. If they don't engage in it, the talking point is still able to stand. If they're not challenged on it and having that transparency requirement, they can still hold true to that particular narrative.

The second point here, of course, that the White House, the legal team won't have to make any legal defense. They can now rely on others doing it for them in Congress. People who have to this point in time been very, very supportive of the President's decision not to be a part of it and to call this a witch hunt.

KEILAR: Tell us about the cons.

COATES: Well, the cons are actually probably outweighing the actual pros in this case. The number one thing first, it validates the Dems probe and essentially calling out the President and calling out the bluff that Pelosi probably set up during the resolution process in the first point, which will have the White House and the G.O.P., they've been calling it illegal up to this point because the very reason they cannot participate.

Now, if they've been invited and choose not to, how can they still have that talking point?

The second point here, Brianna is if the White House participates, it actually would give attention to the hearing. And that's actually a con for the Democrats. And the White House truly knows, the more they legitimize the process, the more the Democrats look as though they're having a legitimate process -- kind of a double-edged sword for them.

[14:05:12]

COATES: And finally, and actually for the President, it's a missed opportunity to kind of chip away at the Democrats' case. If they're not there to actually have a lobbying and advocacy role, then they cannot attack in real time the arguments being raised after line, after the fact, frankly, after the American people have turned the television off.

KEILAR: All right, Laura, thank you for walking us through all of that, Laura Coates.

COATES: Thank you.

KEILAR: There are new doubts emerging over the phone call that has been pivotal in the President's defense. At issue is whether it even happened.

You'll remember the President standing on the White House lawn recounting this alleged call with the E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a conversation that has emerged as a major focus for Democrats and Republicans in the Impeachment Inquiry.

Sondland was pressed about the details of this conversation when he testified before House lawmakers.

((BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: I still cannot find a record of the call because the State Department and the White House cannot locate it. But I'm pretty sure I had the call that day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether it was the 9th or the 8th, you had this call and it was extremely memorable, right?

SONDLAND: It was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th, you recall it vividly, right?

SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because it was keyed by the sort of frantic e-mails from Ambassador Taylor. So I made the call and asked, as I said, the open-ended question, what do you want from Ukraine? That's when I got the answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: But today, no other witness testimony has corroborated Sondland's description of the call, and according to "The Washington Post," the White House has not located a record of this call between Trump and Sondland on that day.

We have Susan Simpson with us. She is a white collar criminal defense attorney and she laid all of this out in a great piece called "Here's the proof that Trump's no quid pro quo call never happened." Susan, this is I mean -- this is great because it's long, but it walked you through exactly, well, really every piece of evidence that you need.

And it was interesting to me that Republican lawyer said on the 9th or the 8th, you point out in your piece that actually Sondland testified in his deposition that it was sometime between the sixth and the ninth.

So they seem to want to emphasize sort of later on the ninth, this call that maybe sort of exonerates the President, what -- layout for us -- explain why you think it didn't happen?

SUSAN SIMPSON, WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think a call did happen. It is not that the President and Sondland never talked. What didn't happen was this call on September 9th, where supposedly Sondland calls up Trump at like 5:00 a.m. and says, what do you want from Ukraine? Or, as he put it, he added a four letter word to it. So what something do you want to Ukraine?

And then apparently, the President tells him. I want nothing. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.

And in fact, as you lay out, there's a phone call that definitely happened right on September 7th that multiple witnesses testified to or deposed, discussed in their depositions, and so you are making the case here, based on descriptions that actually match sort of what even Sondland was saying happened in this call that actually this may just all be the same call. Why is that significant?

SIMPSON: Well, Sondland says just the no quid pro quo part and House Republicans seized on that as evidence that the President didn't want to quid pro quo.

But we have testimony from both the N.S.C.'s Tim Morrison and also from Ambassador Bill Taylor, who were told about this call the day it happened.

So right after, on the 7th of September, you have Trump talking to Sondland, and then Sondland calls Morrison and says, hey, I just talked to the President. The President said he wants no quid pro quo, but he wants President Zelensky to go in front of the microphone and announce the investigations.

And then we have the same thing recall between Sondland and Taylor and he once again says I talked to the President, the President wants Zelensky to go in front of the microphone and say that investigations are happening.

And then he also tells Taylor, I talked to Zelensky, and Zelensky told me, he'll do it. He'll go in front of a CNN interview and announce what he said he would.

KEILAR: You're really -- it's amazing, because you're really looking at it like through the eyes of a lawyer and just parsing all of this information.

And so, what you described in your piece is a phone call where even as the President, I think this is very important to note, even if the President says no quid pro quo, he is describing a quid pro quo.

SIMPSON: Yes.

KEILAR: So he is trying to say like, I'm not saying that, but what I'm saying is, yes.

SIMPSON: You can't commit a crime and say, by the way, this is not a crime. It's not a get-all free card. What he described was, in fact, a quid pro quo. In fact, there's Sondland calling it preconditions. We have Morrison saying it was requirements.

In fact, Morrison was so alarmed by what he heard from Sondland that he immediately goes to the N.S.C. lawyers -- well, first to Bolton, and then to the lawyers.

KEILAR: Bolton tells him to go to the lawyers, right?

SIMPSON: Yes. And his explanation for why he goes is interesting. He says that he was concerned that what Sondland was saying could potentially be criminal. And because the N.S.C. does not give criminal advice to the President, they wanted to make sure it was documented. [14:10:14]

SIMPSON: This advice was not coming from them, not from the N.S.C.

KEILAR: Wow.

SIMPSON: And he also said that he wanted to protect the President. Well, protect the President in the event that Sondland was lying about Trump asking for this. Of course, as Morrison said at the hearing, if in fact, Sondland was telling the truth about what Trump wanted. Well, it wouldn't be protection for Trump, it would be incrimination for Trump.

KEILAR: Yes, it's a very good point. Susan, thank you so much for coming on. This is -- it's great that you're walking us through all of this. We appreciate it.

SIMPSON: Thank you.

KEILAR: The former F.B.I. lawyer who has been a target of the President for two years is done being quiet. Hear what Lisa Page's breaking point was.

Plus, it's what anonymous warned was going on behind the scenes at the White House, but now one of the President's former top advisers is going on the record saying there's no one left who will stand up to him. Hear the interview.

And the Trump official who once suggested nuking Afghanistan has a new job at the State Department.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:56]

KEILAR: For two years, the President has berated Lisa Page online and on camera. Now, the former F.B.I. lawyer is quote "done being quiet" and she is responding to Trump's allegations in a new interview, rebuffing his claim that she is a criminal member of the Deep State.

In late 2017, Page's texts with F.B.I. agent, Peter Strzok with whom she was having an affair were made public. Trump and his followers held them up as proof that an anti-Trump bias had triggered the Russia investigation.

But an upcoming Inspector General's report is expected to clear the F.B.I. including Lisa Page of that claim. Page told "The Daily Beast" that the President's insults have been like a punch in the gut, quote, "... My heart drops to my stomach when I realized he has tweeted about me again. The President of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He is demeaning me and my career. It's sickening."

We have CNN Political Correspondent, Sara Murray who is joining us now and tell us why now? She has been putting up with a lot of his rhetoric for some time. Why did she decide to say yes, I'm coming on now. SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I know. It feels like

forever, doesn't it ...

KEILAR: Yes.

MURRAY: ... that the President has been bashing Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, but I will let her speak for herself in how she described it to "The Daily Beast." She said, "Honestly, his (meaning Trump's) demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel's back." That's what made her feel like she couldn't stay silent any longer.

And let's take a look at the President and how he decided to take aim at Lisa Page at a rally in Minnesota.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I love you, Peter. I love you, too, Lisa. Lisa, I love you. Lisa, Lisa. Oh God, I love you, Lisa. And if she doesn't win, Lisa, we've got an insurance policy, Lisa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: So there's the President reenacting what he thinks life must have been like between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and recounting a small fraction of some of their text messages. And obviously, Lisa Page decided she wasn't just going to sit around and listen to it and not try to defend herself any longer.

KEILAR: Okay, so the President actually tweeted a short time ago. He said this, "When Lisa Page, the lover of Peter Strzok talks about being crushed and how innocent she is, ask her to read Peter's insurance policy text to her, just in case Hillary loses. Also, why were the lovers text messages scrubbed after he left Mueller? Why are they, Lisa?"

I mean, there's a lot, but let's debunk this.

MURRAY: There is a lot. I mean, the text messages -- there's not an indication they were scrubbed and a number of them are were ...

KEILAR: It is a conspiracy theory. Right?

MURRAY: ... covered. Right. And they were obviously able to go through these text messages and actually, you know, some of them became public and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have faced a lot of flak for this and you know, some of it rightfully so.

They got a lot of grief because they, you know, we're having a private conversation about their own political feelings. And in this article, Lisa Page is insistent, and she says the I.G. report will affirm this that whatever her private personal beliefs are, she did her job without any kind of political bias.

But, you know, she goes on to say that it was -- it was crushing to have the Justice Department not defend her after she had been an employee there. She said she sort of feels like it is no longer this independent voice that speaks truth to power.

And certainly, I think that's how a lot of people have felt, as they've watched the dynamic between Bill Barr and Donald Trump, but she has certainly faced a lot of flak from the President. This is not someone who is entirely blameless, who has done nothing wrong. But again, she has faced her fair share of criticism and some of it just not at all based in fact.

KEILAR: You really get the sense that she is -- she feels sort of cast out, you know, from her tribe, right, with the F.B.I. that she feels abandoned.

MURRAY: Right. Absolutely. And she talks about, you know, what it's like having gone through this -- realizing that these messages are going to become public, and then realizing the fact that she has had this affair is going to become public and how horrifying it is to know that this, you know, this thing that she acknowledges was a terrible thing that she has done. That this affair is now going to become public fodder.

And again, she sat in silence for a long time, as the President has really used this as a political attack against her and she talks about how she was essentially this obscure government worker until all of this came out and President Trump really put this megaphone behind it.

[14:20:07]

KEILAR: Yes, and her face is out there. You know, she even said that. Do people recognize me? She wonders, so Sara, thank you so much. Sara Murray.

And we just mentioned, conspiracy theories. Well, a Republican senator will not stop pushing a made up story about Ukraine in the 2016 election and today, he got a big thank you from the President for it. We will talk to David Axelrod next.

[14:25:07]

KEILAR: This just in. Court document show that a California Congressman accused of misusing his campaign funds is expected to change his plea and not fight the accusations.

It's not clear if Republican, Duncan Hunter will plead guilty or if he will plead no contest, but a Federal prosecutor confirms Hunter will no longer plead not guilty at a hearing tomorrow.

Hunter was accused of using his campaign funds to pay for vacations, video games, and for extramarital affairs.

The Impeachment Inquiry has brought President Trump's belief in a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and not Russia into full view.

Now Republican lawmakers seem to be picking up on it, peddling this conspiracy theory despite multiple U.S. Intelligence Agencies concluding it was Russia that interfered in the election and there's one senator in particular, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, who continues to muddy the waters on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. Russia was very aggressive, and they're much more sophisticated. But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively work for Secretary Clinton.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: You've done exactly what the Russian operation is trying to get American politicians to do. Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?

KENNEDY: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEAILER: And now the President is thanking Senator Kennedy for quote, "the job he did and representing the Republican Party" by pushing this debunked conspiracy theory.

We have David Axelrod with us. He is our CNN senior political commentator. He's also the host of CNN's "THE AXE FILES," so I mean, David, it seems like almost every segment we had been debunking conspiracy theories. We've been discussing conspiracy theories. It's one after another. How concerned are you, as you watch some of these take hold in a very real way?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, we saw it all on display during the hearings before the Intelligence Committee. This was a line that many -- several of the Republican members there were pushing. I think Fiona Hill, knocked it down rather forcefully during that hearing.

And I think, you know, we haven't heard it as much from senators and that's what made Kennedy's remarks most notable. He picked up the House Republican theme on this, but there is no evidence of it.

I think it is going to be an article of faith for the President's supporters, particularly in his Republican base. But in the fact- based world, there's no support for it.

The other guy you mentioned Trump gave him a big thumbs up for this, the other person is very happy with it is Vladimir Putin, of course, who would love to see the blame for what happened here in 2016 shift to the Ukrainians.

KEILAR: Do you think I mean, you know, Senator Kennedy is a very smart person. It's hard to believe that having taken a look at the evidence out there, I mean, there's an entire report from the Intelligence Community, the entire Intelligence Community that details, how Russia hacked or how Russia meddled in the election. And, you know, you take a cursory glance at the lack of evidence when

it comes to this Ukraine theory. I mean, surely he knows that. Do you think -- do you think he does know that and he is just putting out bunk knowingly?

AXELROD: Yes. I mean, I think he picked up on Republican talking points and picked up on the President's talking points. And he got out, you know, way over his skis.

I think in a parlance that Senator Kennedy would appreciate that dog just won't hunt when you look at the facts, and in fact, he seemed to have pulled back a little bit from it. But there's no doubt that he was recycling, you know, Trump talking points as a misdirection from what actually happened in 2016.

KEILAR: Yes, he seemed to add that, you know, Russia as well to this. He didn't fully pull back on the Ukraine thing, but he softened it for sure.

I want to talk about your podcast because on "AXE FILES" this week, you actually sat down with former Chief Economic Adviser to President Trump, Gary Cohn, and this is what he told you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY COHN, FORMER TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISER: We had an interesting nucleus of people when I was in the White House, in the initial team, we were not bashful. That was a group that was willing to tell the President what he needed to know whether he wanted to hear it or not. None of us are there anymore.

So I am concerned that the atmosphere in the White House is no longer conducive, or no one has the personality to stand up and tell the President what he doesn't want to hear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: What did you think of that David?

[14:30:09]