Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Lawmakers Question DOJ Inspector General on Russia Probe; Whistleblower's Team Preparing for Possible Call to Testify in Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial; Barbara Jordan's Stirring Address Against Nixon in 1974; Saudi Shooter's Tweets Show Anti-American Sentiment. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired December 11, 2019 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): -- that we the change the law would you support that?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL: Yes, absolutely. In fact there's legislation Senator Lee has sponsored, several members have cosponsored, the House has passed this unanimously.

HARRIS: And you would support it?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely, 100 percent.

HARRIS: So it was recently reported that the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, asked Ukrainians to help search for dirt of the political rivals of the President in exchange for the help Giuliani offered to help fix criminal cases against them at DOJ. Giuliani and his associates, two of whom have been indicted and are now in federal custody, allegedly reached out to a Ukrainian energy tycoon who faced legal problems in America.

In exchange for helping find dirt on the President's political rivals Giuliani's associates reportedly connected the Ukrainian with lawyers who could get a top-level meeting at the United States Department of Justice. In essence, Giuliani's scheme was an attempt to trade, get out of jail free cards for political favors.

As part of Giuliani's plan, Attorney General Barr met with the Ukrainian's lawyers who asked that he Department of Justice withdraw evidence in the tycoon's bribery prosecution. Earlier today you said you are not investigating matters related to ongoing Ukraine issues, does that mean that you have decided not to investigate these incidents?

HOROWITZ: No. As I think mentioned in a recent letter, and I've been in touch with fellow IGs who've been asked by members to look at knows issues, we've been in communication with each other. I think as Mr. Fein, the Defense Department IG, wrote to several members of Congress, he was forgoing at the time undertaking any work while the House investigation proceeded and any matters here in the Senate. And as I mentioned, we will look accordingly at any action that we have the jurisdiction to review getting back to the Section 80 discussion. No other IG has that limitation, by the way. So they can investigate their secretary, deputy secretary, administrator, whomever. I just point that out because that's important to keep in mind as we get requests and why are we different than the State Department IG? The EPA IG?

HARRIS: Couldn't agree with you more. Couldn't agree with you more. Do you agree that if true, Giuliani's scheme is alarming?

HOROWITZ: I think anything like that would be very concerning.

HARRIS: And Mr. Giuliani recently returned to Ukraine in search of dirt on the President's political rivals apparently in order to cook up a dossier of his own. Yesterday, he told reporters that President Trump asked him to brief the Justice Department and Senate Republicans on what, if anything, he finds.

Do you and are you concerned that the Justice Department would coordinate with the President's personal lawyer on a scheme clearly designed to benefit the President's political campaign?

HOROWITZ: I'm going to look at the evidence myself and facts I've learned to -- before taking any action to not just rely on news reports or other allegations, but to actually spend the time to look at them. So I'd ask to take a look at that and, again, happy to come in and meet and talk with you.

HARRIS: Please do. I'd Appreciate that. Is it appropriate for the Attorney General or anyone at the Department of Justice to take actions that are slowly -- or solely designed to benefit the President politically?

HOROWITZ: I think that would create questions about, on various rules of the department and practices of the department.

HARRIS: During Attorney General's Barr last appearance before this committee I asked him has the President or anyone at the White House ever suggested you open an investigation of anyone? After pondering the word "suggest" the Attorney General declined to answer. The Attorney General's non-response suggested to many that he has opened politically motivated investigations.

Indeed we know that during a call with the President of Ukraine, President Trump said that Attorney General Barr would follow up regarding the quote/unquote favor that the President demanded. Did the Attorney General or anyone at justice follow-up with the President's call?

HOROWITZ: I don't know the answer to that question. And again --

HARRIS: Does anyone in your office know the answer to that question?

HOROWITZ: I don't believe anyone in my office would know it and frankly then it gets to the question of a decision by the Attorney General whether to open an investigation or not, which in most instances I won't foreclose it completely, but in most instances would fall squarely within the prohibition on my jurisdiction.

HARRIS: President Trump's phone conversation was an apparent effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and the call involved officials at multiple agencies including Department of Justice, the State Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the others. Are you working with the Inspectors General of these various agencies on that issue?

[15:35:00]

HOROWITZ: As I mentioned on -- you know allegations have come in. We'll talk with our fellow IGs.

HARRIS: On that specific one, are working with other IGs?

HOROWITZ: I'd don't have any ongoing work at this point. Again, I'm not sure what my legal, if I have statutory authority to look at actions by lawyers at the department related to misconduct.

HARRIS: Have you been approached by any other IGs to work with them on an investigation that related to that phone call?

HOROWITZ: I'll say we've had discussions generally. I don't know what -- whether other IGs at this point have or do not have ongoing investigations.

HARRIS: You've had conversations generally about this phone call?

HOROWITZ: About -- about generally Ukraine-related matters and discussions generally.

HARRIS: How about specifically about this phone call?

HOROWITZ: I don't recall as I sit here discussions about it, but again I have to -- I have to --

HARRIS: You have to refresh your memory?

HOROWITZ: Refresh my recollection on this issue. I've been spending a fair amount of time preparing to deal with the 400-plus page report that we're talking about today.

HARRIS: Involving Ukraine.

HOROWITZ: Yes. No. I'm sorry, right. This report.

HARRIS: OK. The American system of justice was founded on the principle of equal justice under the law and that principle obviously mean that there cannot be one system of justice for one group of people and a different system of justice for others. And I have spent my career fighting for equal justice and I'll tell you that everybody in a Department of Justice obviously has a duty to make sure people get a fair shot. Unfortunately recent reports suggest the actions taken by the Justice

Department leaders fall far short of their obligation to pursue equal and evenhanded justice. For example in 2011, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that paved the way for states to legalize online gambling. This

opinion was opposed by Sheldon Adelson who is a major donor who spent millions of dollars to support President Trump.

And his lobbyists also sent a memo to top DOJ officials asking that the opinion be reversed and of course then the OLC reversed the 2011 opinion in January 2019. Has your office investigated whether political considerations motivated the Department of Justice's abrupt reversal of online gambling?

HOROWITZ: I'm fairly confident that we would be barred from doing that by the statutory prohibition. I don't think we would have legal authority to look at why the Office of Legal Counsel made a decision one way or another unless there was a criminal allegation connected to it.

HARRIS: My time is up. Thank you.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R -SC): Senator Cramer.

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R - ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with everybody else, Mr. Horowitz, thanking you --

BALDWIN: So I've got with me now, we've been listening to Senator Harris questioning the IG of the DOJ. CNN legal analyst Anne Milgram once served at New Jersey's Attorney General she's been sitting here listening with me. And you know we were just sitting here chatting about the two points that really jumped out at you. One, her questions about Giuliani. And as we well know as all this has been swirling and the reason why this impeachment proceeding is under way and here he is over in Ukraine stirring it up.

And number two, your point about, why don't you make your second point.

ANNE MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So a lot of the back and forth, it seems a little wonky. Their talking about the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.

BALDWIN: Yes.

MILGRAM: But what Senator Harris was going to was sort of who polices the actions of Attorney General Barr and also U.S. attorney John Durham, who Barr has personally appointed to do his sort of private Ukraine investigation.

BALDWIN: Separate investigation.

MILGRAM: And so like who's policing them? And it's a really interesting point, because what the Inspector General is saying, is that he doesn't legally have jurisdiction, which is true. That something called the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ would but that directly reports to Attorney General Barr.

And if you and I sit here and think about within the last week, Barr's statements and John Durham's statements about the Inspector General's report they directly talk about an ongoing investigation.

BALDWIN: Which is totally against policy.

MILGRAM: And I'm also a DOJ alum and I can tell you, if any lawyer there did it, they would potentially lose their bar license. It's a very, very serious thing to do. They would be reprimanded at least.

BALDWIN: Let m come back to you. I've got more. Let me pivot now to some breaking news we're getting in the impeachment of President Trump. We're learning now that the whistleblower's team is preparing for the possibility of having to testify before the Senate.

So for that let's go to White House reporter Sarah Westwood. And so, Sarah, I mean, this is a very real possibility, this has been something that's been floated by the President, Republicans on the Senate side. How are they preparing?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right, Brooke. The whistleblower's legal team is preparing for what they call a serious possibility, and that's appearing before lawmakers in the Senate impeachment trial. Not in person but perhaps in written answers. That was an offer that the legal team had made to House Democrats, but Democrats felt that they had enough evidence gathered independent of the whistleblower, enough corroborating evidence that they did not need to subject the whistleblower to whatever kind of testimony was offered.

[15:40:00]

But now the whistleblower's legal team is looking at precedence specifically the Clinton impeachment trial, to see if there is any kind of mechanism that they could use to block testimony from the whistleblower if for example a subpoena was issued to try to compel the whistleblower to testify. An in-person interview is really off the table. Obviously, they want to protect the whistleblower's identity.

But answering written questions that is a possibility. Even though Senate Republicans are signaling they may not acquiesce to all the President's demands for witnesses which does include the whistleblower, does include Adam Schiff for example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Bidens.

But there is this possibility that Republicans could call the whistleblower. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, for example, has consistently expressed the desire to interview the whistleblower as part of the Intelligence Committee's probe of the events surrounding the handling of the whistleblower complaints. So this is something that we could see as the structure of the Senate trial is hashed out in the days ahead between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer -- Brooke. BALDWIN: All right, Sara. Thank you for that. And so, Anne, you heard her reporting. So this whistleblower is preparing for this possibility. What's your read? Could this person submit written answers? Would that be sufficient?

MILGRAM: So I mean I think the first thing to say, it's so hard to know what the rules of evidence are going to be at the trial because essentially the Senate Republicans who are in the majority will decide what witnesses are called. Who has to come testify. Who can submit written information. So I think it's right that the whistleblower is preparing for this, because even though the whistleblower should not have to testify, should be protected by the law. It's very possible that they will say the whistleblower has to come forward. Then I would expect that to be litigated in court if they wanted it to be in person.

But remember, the other piece of this. It's a little bit of a smoke screen, too. Because the whistleblower comes forward, has some firsthand information, but much of it is secondhand, and all of those individuals who provided that information to the whistleblower, it appears that they've already testified or given evidence or refused to come forward potentially. So it's sort of irrelevant right now in my view to have the whistleblower.

BALDWIN: But again certain people may not see it that way.

MILGRAM: Absolutely, absolutely.

BALDWIN: Getting another piece of information. So hang with me Anne Milgram, Phil Mattingly and Lauren Fox are reporting that Senate Republicans are coming around to the idea not having witnesses in the Senate trail. That is significant since it is exactly the opposite of what the President wants. We know the President wants a spectacle, he wants a show.

MILGRAM: Yes. What's interesting when you think about the hearing, the committee hearing, the Judiciary Committee hearing this week. It was a mess. Right? It was everybody screaming and yelling, and interrupting each other, and arguing about --

BALDWIN: Partisan --

MILGRAM: Yes. It's very partisan. And frankly I don't think it furthers the interests of the country. And so it's an interesting thing about the people who've already testified and who have a record. Where I think it become as question, though, what about all the witnesses who didn't testify?

I mean obviously the majority can control and say, no, we're not going to subpoena John Bolton but there are definitely witnesses who we haven't heard from yet who could absolutely have relevant information and that would mean none of those folks come. So it would mean no John Bolton but also no whistleblower, no Hunter Biden.

BALDWIN: Just when you think, you know, you hear from the President, you hear from Republicans and I know a lot of them really respect the decorum in the Senate what they would and actually wouldn't want to do. But you hear there's just two very different ways how they could go about on the Senate side. So we have just to watch and wait to see which way they go. Anne Milgram, thank you very much for that.

Also just into us here at CNN, a second federal judge ruling that the way President Trump has tried to pay for his border wall is against the law. We have those details, ahead.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: So in July of 1974, 45 plus years ago, impeachment proceeding against President Richard Nixon were under way in the House Judiciary Committee. And months of hearings that had already taken place, there had been high profile resignations and an even higher profile batch of firings known at the Saturday Night Massacre. And as things pushed forward toward an impeachment vote, a critical moment.

It was July 24, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court issued this unanimous ruling ordering Nixon to release his tape recordings. Not transcripts. The actual tapes. And the very next day July 25, 1974, it was Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan who delivered a piercing justification for moving forward with impeachment.

She summed it up with a quote from founding father James Madison from the Constitutional Convention.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-REP. BARBARA JORDAN (D-TX): A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution. If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. As the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate.

That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason and not passion which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate and guide our decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Wanted to talk about that moment with CNN Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic. And Joan, just the historical analysis on Barbara Jordan's speech. Talk to me about that, where the country was when she gave it. Was there widespread support for impeaching Nixon in July 1974?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT BIOGRAPHER: By that point, Brooke, there was. This moment was so framed in so many ways, as you said, it was the day after the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that President Nixon had to turn over the Watergate tapes. Tapes that would incriminate him in the coverup of the break-in at the Democratic National headquarters.

And here was Barbara Jordan. She was only 37 at the time. And you could tell just now listening to her voice, it was deep, it was lyrical, the cadences caught your attention. And she opened by touching on the constitutional powers of both chambers of Congress, and also just how important this moment was for the country.

She detailed some of President Nixon's wrongdoing but she mostly talked about the responsibility that members had.

[15:50:00]

And her voice was especially important because here she was, as I said, only 37, the first African American elected from Texas to Congress since Reconstruction. She even noted at the beginning that we the people had not included her as a black woman when the Constitution was first drafted. But over the years, through amendments and reinterpretation she was part of it and she talked about it in very lofty terms that resonate 45 years later today.

BALDWIN: So powerful. And then in the days after Barbara Jordan's speech the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Nixon as we know and it never came to a full House vote because he resigned on August 8th, 1974.

And Joan, flash forward 45 years later, no one expects President Trump to resign the presidency, right? But you tell me, what is the biggest difference between then and now.

BISKUPIC: OK. So many differences but I'll tell you that's very fundamental that will probably play out in upcoming weeks. That Supreme Court ruling was written by a Richard Nixon appointee, Warren Burger and several other Nixon appointees and Republican members of the Supreme Court signed that opinion.

So we weren't as split and polarized along partisan lines and then more crucially in Congress, Republican members were leaning on President Nixon to just give it up. Barry Goldwater, a high-level Senator from Arizona who of course had run for the presidency himself went and talked to President Nixon and said, you know, you don't have the votes. You're going to lose.

And the handwriting was on the wall at that point. It was so clear that Richard Nixon had only one thing to do and that's why on the evening of August 8th he gave this national address saying he would resign and on August 9th he made it official -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Joan Biskupic, thank you very much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Our special coverage here continues. New information about the vote coming very soon.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: There is new evidence that the Saudi aviation student who killed three U.S. sailors in Pensacola, Florida, may have embraced radical ideology several years ago. CNN's Nic Robertson is in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, there seems to be a growing appreciation and understanding of Mohammad Al-Shamrani and what he was thinking about over the past months and years and that is come from studying what appears to be his Twitter account. Certainly that's the way investigators are looking at it at the moment. And it really does reveal that not just in the last couple of minutes where he wrote about an anti-American sentiment. He didn't say that he was shooting these people because of that sentiment. But that is what he posted.

And I think that gives you the sense that although this is being investigated by the FBI as potential terrorism, no one is yet prepared to say this was an act of terrorism. That understanding seems to be quite broad.

But what is also very clear from this Twitter account is that this man was posting things that were anti-Saudi. He was supporting people -- one of them an author who'd been put in jail in Saudi Arabia a few years ago. Another one, a cleric in the region who Saudi officials considered to be a radical. But that wasn't picked up. Again there seems to be this broad appreciation that he somehow managed to slip under the radar, perhaps because his Twitter account and the name on it wasn't spelled precisely as his own name and that gave therefore anyone trying to sort of vet him and look out for that kind of behavior, that kind of attitude among people undergoing military training in the United States. For that reason, perhaps he was missed.

But the understanding is all of that has to change to a degree. That is something clearly the United States is going to want. All of the current Saudis in training in this Air Force training in the United States, they're all grounded for the time being. So there is a broad understanding, it appears at this time, that there will be to be change.

The King here said that Saudi Arabia will support the United States. So it does seem to me that is coming. I don't think you get a sense here that people feel that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is going to change. And that at some point the training schedule when these vetting things are sorted out, ultimately that is all back on track as well.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Nic, thank you. And just into CNN, a federal judge in California has ruled that the

Trump administration's efforts to use military construction money to build for that border wall is not lawful. This adds to a separate judge's ruling just yesterday that also prevents the administration from using those funds. Earlier this year the Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to use another source of funding and that case is ongoing.

I'm Brooke Baldwin here at CNN. Thank you so much for being with me the last two hours. Let's go Washington. "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.

[16:00:00]