Return to Transcripts main page

New Day Sunday

North Korea Says It Has Conducted A "Significant" Test At Missile Site; The Naval Base Gunman Watched Videos Of Mass Shootings The Night Before The Attack; Democrats Plan To Conduct Monday's Hearing "Like A Trial"; NYT: Gunman Watched Videos Of Mass Shootings The Night Before The Attack; Democratic Candidates Take Part In Teamsters Forum In Iowa; Trump Claims Giuliani Wants To Go Before Congress About Ukraine. Aired 6-7a ET

Aired December 08, 2019 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:15]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: North Korea or state media reporting that a very important test took place at the country's Sohae satellite launching ground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the most significant test that we have seen this year. We've seen now 14 weapons test from North Korea since late February when the summit talks in Hanoi collapsed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We continued to track Friday's deadly shooting at a U.S. naval base.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One of the big questions is, what was the motivation of this gunman?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Perhaps this attacker tweeted out some of his thinking or intentions in the minutes before the attack.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Speaker Pelosi has charged us with writing articles of impeachment. And we're in the process of exploring every possible dimension.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The impeachment thing is a total hoax.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning to you. I'm Victor Blackwell.

AMARA WALKER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Amara Walker in for Christi Paul.

BLACKWELL: All right. Let's start this morning in North Korea claims it's carrying out its significant test, a missile site there right after their ambassador accused the U.S. of time wasting and took denuclearization off the table. WALKER: There are disturbing claims about the alleged shooter at a naval base in Pensacola. "The New York Times" says, the gunman watched videos of mass shootings the night before the attack.

BLACKWELL: And the building -- they are building their case for impeachment against the president. Democrats say they plan to conduct tomorrow's hearing like a trial.

Let's start there with the breaking news on the Korean peninsula.

WALKER: Kristen Holmes is in Washington and Will Ripley in Hong Kong with the very latest.

Will, you know, you spent a lot of time in North Korea. You've spoken with North Korean officials especially during times of high tensions. You have a pretty good sense of how they think and operate. What is your sense of this claim that there was a significant or very important test at this satellite launch facility?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Unfortunately, Amara, the words that came to mind when we learned about this here we go again.

North Korea has been hinting now for weeks that they are increasingly frustrated with the United States, specifically the fact that sanctions have not been lifted after, you know, almost two years of this diplomatic detente and Kim Jong-un's self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests and nuclear test. Now it seems North Korea has been hinting as such that that moratorium may be on the verge of ending.

This was not a launch. This was not a long-range missile test but what it was according to analysts that I've been speaking with is most likely an engine test, the kind of engine that could potentially launch a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. And so even though this is the 14th weapons test that we have seen this year this is by far the most significant because of what it could be a precursor for which is a much more provocative, much more dangerous from the viewpoint of the United States test of an ICBM.

BLACKWELL: So let's talk about that because there was this deadline or still is this deadline that North Korea had placed for the U.S. to change their direction by the end of the year. Are we expecting that deadline still holds and this could be just the first of several provocative actions from the nation?

RIPLEY: This is a deadline that the North Korean set for the end of the year basically saying if there's not some sort of a breakthrough that they're going to drastically change their approach in 2020. We can trace this back to Hanoi, Vietnam back in February when the United States rejected North Korea's offer and President Trump walked out of talks leaving Kim Jong-un essentially blindsided. We have seen all these shorter range missile launches since then, 13 of them, that President Trump has sort of brushed off as not a big deal. But a bigger launch would be a big deal from the viewpoint of the United States because if North Korea is perfecting the kind of engine perhaps a solid fuel engine where they could roll one of these things out without much notice and launch towards the United States that is the kind of danger that President Trump said he wouldn't tolerate. And it could bring us right back to the fire and fury days when there were -- you know, they were trading barbs and tensions kept kind of being pushed almost to the brink of a military confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea.

We are not there yet but given the fact that just within recent days the North Koreans have started reviving their insulting language that they used to describe President Trump using the word dotard which means old senile lunatic that was after President Trump described Kim Jong-un once again as rocket man. It's all a very unsettling sign for those of us watching the Korean peninsula.

And North Korea has been talking about this Christmas gift that the United States could receive. We don't know if this engine test is the Christmas gift or maybe just the stocking stuffer but, either way, it's not a welcome gift from the viewpoint of the Trump administration going into an already complicated election year.

WALKER: Will, I have to say, it feels like it was just a few months ago that we were talking to you and things seemed quite optimistic that, you know, there might be some kind of diplomatic breakthrough and now we're back at the name calling and threats and now it looks like another test.

[06:05:13]

I mean, how do we get to this point?

RIPLEY: Three face-to-face meetings between Trump and Kim have failed to resolve the biggest issue for the North Koreans which is sanctions relief. And also the biggest issue for the United States which is getting Kim to give up even some of his nuclear arsenal.

Despite all of those photo ops including the one back in the spring when President Trump walked into North Korean territory to much fun fare, the two leaders at that point promised to restart talks but nothing has happened, because in the end both sides continue to dig in their heels on this issue of sanctions and getting North Korea to denuclearized.

There has been pretty much no ground made up between the two of them. You can almost argue that the last 10 months since Hanoi have been wasted diplomacy. And certainly the North Koreans feel it's a waste of time which is why in their messaging they have said the United States is just been kind of dragging this process along and they are now going to do things their own way, which could mean a return to the kind of provocative behavior that kicked all of this off to begin with.

Remember it was just at the end of 2017 North Korea conducted a nuclear test. They launched a long-range missile and they have always kept those types of provocations in their back pocket waiting to see if diplomacy has worked out. If the North Koreas now feel that it's not going to work out they are going to take it to the next level to try to put pressure on President Trump and the world.

WALKER: All right. Will Ripley, appreciate your assessment on this. Thank you for that.

Let's bring in now CNN's Kristen Holmes for reaction, from the White House. And, Kristen, I mean, President Trump has been, I guess, sounding more of an -- sounding a bit more optimistic, despite these latest developments.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Absolutely.

So, we haven't heard back from the White House yet on this very important test but we did hear from the president yesterday on this increased tension. And as Will just described it, we have really seen this rhetoric starting to heat up again in the last couple of days. Remember it was just earlier this week that North Korea said that the talks with the U.S. were just foolish games involving U.S. politics, really hinting at President Trump's election in 2020 there.

So we asked President Trump about what exactly was going on particularly given that yesterday the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations said that denuclearization was off the table. And here is what Trump had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Yes. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un. I think we both want to keep it that way. He knows I have an election coming up. I don't think he wants to interfere with that but we'll have to see.

The relationship is very good but there is certain hostility. There's no question about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: That's the kind of thing we hear from the president often the sort of juxtaposition. We hear him saying it's a very good relationship but there is some hostility. And as Will mentioned -- I mean, keep this in mind it was just two years ago that we saw this increased rhetoric, the name calling of rocket man and dotard. Now we're hearing rocket man and dotard all over again. And these drills -- I'm sorry. These conversations are still continuing with really no movement here.

And I want to mention something. You know, earlier this month, the U.S. made a big step in postponing some of these military drills with South Korea. That was for negotiations. They were trying to show a good-faith effort. And, still, there has been very little progress. And now, of course, we are seeing this very important test and we are waiting for the White House to react as to this now.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Something we have seen this administration do and many -- even Republicans have disagreed with, the decision to postpone some of those exercises. Kristen Holmes for us there in Washington. Thank you.

WALKER: Ahead, disturbing details about the gunman behind the Navy base attack in Pensacola. The latest on the shooter and his alleged actions before killing three sailors.

BLACKWELL: Plus, what we are learning about those young victims who lost their lives.

Also ahead, Democrats plan to conduct tomorrow's impeachment hearing like a trial. Will House investigators make their case for impeaching the president?

WALKER: And rising candidate. Pete Buttigieg is under the microscope as we get closer to the Iowa caucuses. Coming up, the growing questions about his campaign's closed-door fundraisers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:12:58]

BLACKWELL: There is disturbing information about the gunman behind Friday's attack on a Navy base Pensacola. "The New York Times" is reporting that Mohammed Alshamramani -- Alshamrani -- I'm sorry -- watched mass shootings videos at a dinner party the night before that shooting.

WALKER: Meantime, the three sailors who died are being remembered for running toward the danger and saving lives. The Navy identified the aviation school students as 23-year-old Ensign Joshua Kaleb Watson from Alabama, 19-year-old Airman Mohammed Sameh Haitham from Florida, and also killed 21-year-old Airman Apprentice Cameron Scott Walters from Georgia. We haven't yet obtained a photo of him.

Now this morning we're covering all angles of the story from Pensacola to Saudi Arabia. Let's go first to CNN's Natasha Chen in Pensacola with more on the investigation. And, Natasha, yes, we know that the FBI has not classified this as terrorism but we are learning more about the suspect and some concerning findings, especially online.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Yes, Amara, you're correct that the FBI has not officially used the word terrorism here for the shooting. They are deliberating whether this is terror related. They have got joint terrorism task force and criminal division all working together to here to figure that out. And the details you're speaking of are quite disturbing.

We are learning from the SITE Intelligence Group, that's a nongovernmental organization. SITE stands for Search for Intelligence Terrorist Entities. They are based in Maryland and they issued a report saying that the suspected gunman actually had social media posts quoting Osama bin Laden in a will to Twitter and that his (INAUDIBLE) is very anti-American views, showed hatred toward Americans for what he perceived as a pro-Israeli stance. And, of course, you also mentioned "The New York Times" reporting that he was watching mass shooting videos at a dinner party the night before this happened.

[06:15:06]

"The New York Times" also reports that he and some friends, some Saudi nationals, went to New York City over the thanksgiving holiday. They saw the Rockefeller tree lighting, went to museums.

The official who talked about this did not know the reason for their visit, but we are told that the friends, the Saudi nationals, are being questioned right now and they are being cooperative. So we are still trying to learn more details about that visit and perhaps the dinner party where he supposedly watched mass shooting videos.

Now, of course, when asked about all of this, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien called this very troubling but, again, we are still not hearing officially from the FBI and investigators the word terrorism. I want to remind folks that the uncle of the suspected shooter spoke to CNN yesterday. He described his nephew as 21 years old. He said Alshamrani was very likeable and exceptional smart. He said that he saw no indication that Alshamrani would have done anything like this.

And that is very interesting because we also know that the U.S. government vetted Alshamrani before he came to the United States for this training and looked into his background after the shooting and there are still no found links between him and any known or suspected terrorists. Amara and Victor, back to you.

WALKER: All right. Natasha Chen, thank you for that update.

House Democrats are gearing up for tomorrow's key impeachment hearings. Still ahead, what they have been doing behind closed doors to prepare.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:20:25]

BLACKWELL: All right. Another day of preparation for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

WALKER: They are holding mock hearings again today as they get ready for tomorrow's key impeachment hearing.

BLACKWELL: Now we have learned that it will operate like a trial. House investigators will give opening statements, lay out their theory of the case and present evidence against President Trump.

WALKER: And we could get the articles of impeachment this week. Democrats say they are still deciding what they will contain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RASKIN: Speaker Pelosi has charged us with writing articles of impeachment. And we're in the process of exploring every possible dimension of that process and that's pretty much what I can tell you. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The issue is whether the allegations of obstruction of justice that were detailed in the Mueller report will be included.

WALKER: Meantime, the president continues to call the impeachment hearings a total hoax. He says it's a continuation of a three-year witch hunt against him.

BLACKWELL: All right. I'm joined now by CNN Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor, Michael Zeldin. Michael, welcome back.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you. How are you?

BLACKWELL: I'm very well. Thank you.

Let's start here. Generally in these conversations legal experts are talking about or focusing on, I should say, three articles of impeachment. Bribery, obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice. But you say -- you say that there should be a fourth article that should stand alone, solicitation and tell us why.

ZELDIN: Yes. So the obstruction of justice can fit into obstruction of Congress and obstruction of Mueller. Then the abusive power can be the quid pro quo evidence, that is, the president withheld a meeting and withheld military aid until he got the investigation of the Bidens. But then before all of that, there was the solicitation by the president of President Zelensky for the investigation of the Bidens.

I think that solicitation, in and of itself, is an abuse of the powers of his office because he is asking for a foreign government to interfere in the sanctity of our electoral process. So even if there were no quid pro quo, even if there was no meeting, no military aid just that ask alone is an abuse of the powers of his office and should be sanctioned.

BLACKWELL: You and -- interesting piece up on CNN.com. You and Robert Ray, a former independent counsel into the Whitewater controversy, have a point, counterpoint piece up on CNN.com and headline is, "Do Democrats Have Enough Evidence For Impeachment?" And you assert this. Let me read it.

"While continuing the investigation will no doubt uncover additional evidence, sufficient evidence exists to draft an abuse of power article of impeachment."

But there is no evidence, up to this point, that the Democrats have produced that has convinced a single congressional Republican or more than a plurality of the American people according to the polls. So if they think that to conduct this is their duty is it not their duty to continue the investigation if they believe that this president should be removed from office to try to convince those additional Republicans?

ZELDIN: Well so there's -- it's a great question and there are two components to it. One is tomorrow will be that opportunity for the House judiciary and the House intelligence committee counsel to make an opening statement and present evidence, essentially to America to say, this is why we are moving forward this way. And if America is listening, we will see whether that narrative compels them to change their mind or, you know, move one way or the other.

The other thing with respect to playing it out until all of the witnesses testify is a, you know, sort of a rabbit hole in the sense the courts could take a year or more to resolve all of those matters. If you believe that the president abused the powers of his office, and there is sufficient evidence to sanction him, then there is no reason to wait for a year or more to present evidence which presently exists. So --

BLACKWELL: Let me -- let me ask you this, Michael, because this sounds like potentially a censure. You want to say that what the president did, you do not approve of, but if you do not think that you've gotten to the additional step of convincing people to remove him from office why not go until you believe you would get that evidence?

ZELDIN: Well, because of the time line. And, Victor, I'm not arguing against that. There is -- there is the possibility that that is the best strategy. If tomorrow's hearing doesn't convince America that there is compelling evidence to move forward with articles of impeachment, then the Democrats really have to think about do we want to string this forward until we get all of the evidence through the mouth of Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton and Kupperman and all of those witnesses that the president has refused to allow to testify.

[06:25:15]

Or do we want to -- to your idea, potentially, just say you know what? We can't get it soon enough. Let's sanction the president with a bipartisan censure motion, call it a day, and move on, wait for 2020.

BLACKWELL: All right. Michael Zeldin --

ZELDIN: Tough choices.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Certainly tough choices. We will see how this hearing goes tomorrow and if those articles come within the next week. Thanks so much for being with us.

ZELDIN: My pleasure.

BLACKWELL: Now, later this morning on "STATE OF THE UNION" House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler joins Jake Tapper along with Congressman Mark Meadows. That's at 9:00 Eastern right here on CNN.

WALKER: And fewer than 100 days until the Iowa causes and Pete Buttigieg's rise in the polls is coming under scrutiny. Coming up, the latest in his public feud with opponent Elizabeth Warren over fundraising.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [06:30:00]

WALKER: And, look, if there are people running for president, do you think it's more important to protect the two cents of the millionaires and billionaires? I'm ready to have that fight.

There is disturbing information about the gunman behind Friday's attack on a Navy base in Pensacola. The New York Times says Mohammed Alshamrani watched mass shooting videos at a dinner party the night before the shooting.

BLACKWELL: For more on Saudi Arabia's connection to all of this, let's go to CNN's Nic Robertson live in Saudi capital of Riyadh.

Nic, hello to you. We've heard several times the Saudi reaction from the mouth of President Trump. What are the Saudis themselves saying publicly?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The reaction is to distance themselves from the attacker, essentially not in our name, this doesn't represent the country. That's what we have heard from his tribe. His family has said that they have seen nothing wrong with him, that there were no indications of any problems with him, you know, sort of terror connections or inclinations before he left over two years ago to begin this training in the United States. And they said over that period of time they had not seen a change in him.

The New York Times article does go on to say some people thought he had become more religious since he had returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia earlier on this year. But his family is saying that's not their understanding. But very clearly, there is an effort from the king on down to say that this is not representative of Saudi Arabia.

Look, you had a huge, major world boxing championship fight here last night. That's what Saudi Arabia really wants to be in the headlines for at the moment. The world's largest IPO, Aramco, the massive state oil company here, that goes into effect in the coming couple of days. These are the headlines that Saudi Arabia is trying to strive for these days.

So the king is clearly in damage limitation, trying to make sure the relationship with the United States is on good standing. As to the background of this individual, undoubtedly, Saudi authorities will be talking to his family. The king has said that they should cooperate. Intelligence authorities here should cooperate with the FBI in their investigation.

The impression that we get at the moment is that's what's taking place. His family is not speaking about it publicly, if they are involved in the investigation at the moment.

WALKER: Nic, do the Saudis expect the relationship with the United States to get worse or to get more complicated after this incident, especially, as we have seen in the past, you know, with Congress and the U.S. president not really being on the same page when it comes to Yemen and, of course, the killing of the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, the difference we saw with the president and his closest advisers really standing by the side Saudi Arabia? Is there a concern there about a more complex relationship now?

ROBERTSON: They certainly know. And President Trump, they believe, they've got somebody who is a kindred spirit on Iran (ph). So that's hugely important. They felt that they didn't that have that with President Obama, so they like President Trump.

They recognize the relationship is complex, the 9/11 attackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudis. That's very hard for them to shake off Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi national, the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, as you say, so all of these things count to that negative impression of Saudi Arabia with many people in the United States, they are very aware of that.

I think the view from here is the king is trying to get out ahead of this. We have heard from the deputy defense minister from the Saudi ambassador to the United States, the foreign minister, all saying the same thing, condemning the attack, passing on condolences. If this individual is found to have been a loner, acting out for whatever reasons, then this will be an isolated case and I think it will be wrinkle that they feel that they can lay to rest fai If it's something bigger and more complex rly quickly.

, the FBI hasn't found that yet. But if it is, then that's -- we are in different territories and the Saudis know that.

BLACKWELL: Indeed. Nic Robertson for us there in Riyadh, Nic, thank you.

WALKER: Well, 2020 Democrats made their pitch to blue collar voters yesterday, taking part in a presidential forum hosted by the Teamsters Union.

BLACKWELL: CNN's Jessica Dean reports on the competition for the union's endorsement.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A handful of 2020 Democratic candidates gathered here in Cedar Rapids on Saturday. They're talking to the Teamsters, one of the largest unions in the country. They are hoping to get their endorsement in this 2020 race.

So what did they talk about? Well, a lot of union specific issues, things like pensions, the right to work, all of those types of things, healthcare that affect a lot of the people here.

[06:35:01]

They want to hear what these different Democratic candidates have to say about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So what did we (INAUDIBLE)? A hundred years ago, people like Teddy Roosevelt were talking about the need for all people to have healthcare.

Well, I think the time is long overdue for talk. Now is the time for action.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I read the Medicare-for-all bill. I read it and I'm the only member of Congress on that stage that is not on that bill.

What I want to do is this. I want to build on the Affordable Care Act.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm a big believer in a single-payer plan. I have to say I think that's the best thing to do.

But if we can't get all the Democratic senators on the stage to agree on it, getting all of the Democrats in the Senate, let me tell you, it's even going to be harder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: And we don't know yet just when an endorsement could come. It could come after the DNC Convention later in the summer of 2020. In 2016, the Teamsters ended up endorsing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, but that didn't come until later in that cycle in August of 2016.

But what we do know for sure is that we are well within a hundred days here in Iowa and that all of the Iowans here that are going to be caucusing in the Democratic caucuses are looking at all of these candidates. They're taking a second, a third, a fifth, a sixth. Look at all these candidates, trying to figure out who they will support when the caucuses happen in February.

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jessica Dean, CNN.

WALKER: Pete Buttigieg under increasing scrutiny as we move closer to the Iowa caucuses. And this week, the very public feud between the South Bend mayor and Senator Elizabeth Warren intensified. Warren fired the first shot, criticizing Buttigieg for holding closed-door fundraisers and refusing to disclose the names of his top donors. Yesterday, Buttigieg refused to elaborate on what critics claim is his lack of transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-SOUTH BEND, IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Again, I don't have a timeline for you.

REPORTER: As a candidate, can you just direct your campaign to open those fundraisers?

BUTTIGIEG: What's that?

REPORTER: As a candidate, can you just direct your campaign to open those fundraisers?

BUTTIGIEG: Yes.

REPORTER: And why haven't you done that?

BUTTIGIEG: What's that?

REPORTER: Why haven't you done that?

BUTTIGIEG: There are a lot of considerations and I'm thinking about it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Next question.

REPORTER: Can you give us an example of those considerations?

BUTTIGIEG: No. Thank you.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Americans are just sick of the typical politician who says one thing out in public and then goes behind closed doors and doesn't want anyone to know what they are saying to the millionaires and billionaires that are funding this campaign.

This is about the conflicts that he is creating every single day right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: All right. Joining me now, Errol Louis, host of the podcast, You Decide, and a CNN Political Commentator. Good morning. Good to see you, Errol. Thanks for joining us.

So, yes, what are your thoughts on that? I mean, Pete Buttigieg, he's been doing quite well, surging the polls, obviously getting more scrutiny as a result. You saw him in that news conference. He doesn't want to talk about the why as to why he won't open up his fundraisers to the public, to the media. What's your take on that?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Amara, I think what we see going on here is that Pete Buttigieg has already hit a bit of a rough patch when it comes to who is raising money for him, who's bundling money for him, who's holding fundraisers, where he's showing up. He had to give some money back.

Actually, there was a city attorney who was involved in a very controversial police killing case involving Laquan McDonald in Chicago and it turned out that one of the people who co-hosted a big fundraiser for him was involved in that case in a very negative way.

Pete Buttigieg didn't want to sort of be in bed on that issue and so he sort of returned the money and said, it wouldn't happen again. But, of course, it raises the question if he is going around doing these fundraisers, who else might be sponsoring him, who else is in that room? People in the media would like to know.

And, clearly, from that clip that you showed with him just kind of clamming up and basically running away from the podium, he knows more about this than we do and I think he doesn't want us to know much more about it. WALKER: Yes. And, obviously, that raises a lot of suspicions. But if Elizabeth Warren is going to be calling out Buttigieg on saying, hey, give us a list of these big donors to your campaign, don't you think that she should be just as transparent? I mean, yes, she has released her tax returns but not before 2008, which is significant, because she had corporate clients as a law professor.

LOUIS: Yes. I mean, look, I looked through some of her disclosures. To her credit, I think Senator Warren has put out a list of 60 clients that she used to work for. They've got citations. You can look up the cases. You can find out what she did. You can find out what kind of money was involved on and on and on and on. It's actually somewhat impressive.

If you want to go further back than that, well, sure, the two of them are going to fight over this. And I think the answer can be found if you look at the polling data.

[06:40:00]

Elizabeth Warren, the senator, has been dropping in the polls from the low 20 percent range down around 14 percent while Pete Buttigieg is on his way up. And they're now -- sort of the lines are touching and they're in this conflict zone where they're going to be accusing one another of not being transparent enough.

WALKER: Yes. And when it comes to lack of transparency, I mean, also questions about Buttigieg's time working for this prestigious management consulting firm, McKenzie and Company. How much of that is going to be a problem? And he has released, I believe, a timeline of his work with the consulting company but I can't imagine those will be enough details for those who are saying, look, we want to know who your clients were.

LOUIS: Right. I mean, look, here, again, the journalist in me says the minute a politician doesn't want to tell you something, that's the place you need to look. The fact that he doesn't want to disclose during a three-year period who his clients were tells you that there is going to be some embarrassing information there. Now, he says he's bound by this non-disclosure agreement.

Look, you want to be the leader of the free world, you want to be the commander in chief for the Armed Forces, you want to be president of the United States, you may have to take some chances. You may have to disclose some information and dare your former employer to do something about it. What are the penalties for breaking the non- disclosure agreement? Could it cost him some money? There's a guy who's raised tens of millions of dollars and can probably raise millions more. But that may not be the barrier.

I suspect there is going to be some embarrassing information in that list and the burden is on him to prove otherwise, I think.

WALKER: Errol Louis, we're going to leave it there. Thanks so much.

LOUIS: Thank you, Amara. BLACKWELL: President Trump claims, without evidence, that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, found plenty during a trip to Ukraine to dig up some dirt on his rivals. Coming up, a closer look at who is giving this information to Giuliani and the debunked theories they are pushing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: All right. 15 minutes until the top of the hour.

The president hasn't offered any evidence to support this, but he claims that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, found plenty during this trip to Ukraine and he wants to make a report to Congress and to the DOJ.

[06:45:11]

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He says he has a lot of good information. I have not spoken to him about that information. But Rudy, as you know, has been one of the great crime fighters in the last 50 years.

He has not told me what he has found but I think he wants to go before Congress and say, and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice, I hear he has found plenty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Giuliani was in Ukraine last week, doubling down on an effort to find evidence of corruption by president's rivalries, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Let's be clear, no evidence of any illegality by the Bidens in Ukraine.

WALKER: CNN's Nathan Hodge reports from Kiev with a closer look at just who Giuliani met with during his trip and the unproven conspiracy theories they're pushing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NATHAN HODGE, CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: In a whirlwind trip across Europe, Rudy Giuliani was on a mission to dig up dirt on President Trump's political rivals meeting ousted Ukrainian prosecutors in safe houses and making visits to Kiev to bolster dubious theories designed to defend President amid impeachment.

Andriy Telizhenko says he was with Giuliani every step of the way.

ANDRIY TELIZHENKO, FORMER UKRAINIAN DIPLOMAT: Right now, a process of Mr. Giuliani to protect his client, as he says, and to have the witnesses there to protect his client, that's the main thing, because he is the attorney of the president of the United States, and that his main goal is to make his part of the story to protect his client. HODGE: Telizhenko is a former junior diplomat at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington who has promoted a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, conspired to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Giuliani didn't meet any current officials or President Zelensky whose July 25th phone call with Trump is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Instead, Telizhenko says he met with former officials described as corrupt and impeachment testimony and gave face time to two Ukraine politicians who tried to promote another fringed (ph) theory about alleged corruption under the Obama administration.

Giuliani's new allies both have have a questionable track record. A YouTube blogger and a graduate of the Russian FSB Academy, both publicly called for an investigation into Hunter Biden and Telizhenko's claims that Ukraine meddled in 2016, a theory denounced by Russia expert Fiona Hill in her recent testimony.

FIONA HILL, FORMER WHITE HOUSE RUSSIA EXPERT: This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

HODGE: Telizhenko says he is concerned the theory was picked up and amplified by the Russians, but is willing to present it in an interview with the Senate.

TELIZHENKO: It has bothered me because, first of all, it's -- for me, it makes (INAUDIBLE) my story through that story of Putin. And if Russia was smart enough, they would be quiet and let him talk. And if Putin is using them, unfortunately, they cannot. Nobody can stop him from saying whatever he is saying.

HODGE: And while Giuliani is gathering new claims in Ukraine, back home, he is under greater scrutiny than ever.

Nathan Hodge, CNN, Kiev.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: Well, he is an army man through and through, but now this dad has to cheer for the Navy football team because of his son.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC CAL, NAVY OFFENSIVE LINEMAN: My dad doesn't like it too much when I give him the Navy gear that says Beat Army on it, but it's free stuff so he still wears it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:50:00]

BLACKWELL: So, for a lot of military families, the Army/Navy Game is a source of pride and passion and bragging rights. But for one family, there is an extra special variable.

WALKER: Yes, that's right. Eric Cal plays football at the Naval Academy but his family and most notably his dad, Paul, all have ties to the Army. Yes, they are a house divided.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

E. CAL: There is a lot of West Point connections with my family. My uncle, Josh Hugh (ph) Cal, is actually the first to go to West Point. Then my dad followed him, went to West Point as well. He graduated in '85. My dad commissioned as an infantry officer and went Rangers and went Airborne. Throughout his time in the Army, he actually went -- got a graduate degree so he could go back to teach at West Point.

PAUL CAL, USMA CLASS OF 1985: Our youngest son was born at West Point, Eric, in 1997. The three years that I was there as a faculty member, I was a season ticket holder. And so Eric even sat through as a newborn infant through Army football games.

LYNETTE CAL, ERIC'S MOM: When he got his first offer from West Point, we were excited about that.

E. CAL: I love West Point and I have a lot of respect for them. But when I came here a Navy, Coach Niuma, the entire staff really made it feel like a home.

P. CAL: We always say we wanted our children to pursue their paths. We brought them up to think independently and think for themselves. And for Eric, the United States Naval Academy was the right option for him.

E. CAL: My dad doesn't like it too much when I give him the Navy gear that says, Beat Army, on it, but it's free stuff so he still wears it. My mom gets all crazy about it, decked out head-to-toe Navy gear, paints her nails navy blue and gold and has her pompoms and everything.

L. CAL: An Army/Navy Game is electric. It's just an electric feeling throughout the entire day.

We sit on the Navy side. We are dressed from head-to-toe in Navy gear. My husband spends some time with his Army friends in the morning.

[06:55:02]

But once we get to the stadium, it's all Navy.

E. CAL: I'm excited to see how he'll feel about the Army and Navy Game coming up after I graduate.

P. CAL: Next year, 2020, it's, Go Army, Beat Navy. That will be after Eric graduates and I'll go back to supporting Army. But when Eric started at the Naval Academy, Navy had a 14-year winning streak. That was before then, I was a very strong Army fan. So I had been suffering for 14 years. Now with Eric at the academy, the Army has won for three years in a row. So I've been rooting for the losing team for 17 years now.

E. CAL: It's like, please just win, I don't want to lose another game. The feeling of being able to beat Army at the end of the year, finish out, (INAUDIBLE), would probably be the happiest moment of my life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALKER: Great family dynamics there.

Coy Wire will be in Philadelphia next week in for the 120th edition of the Army/Navy Game.

BLACKWELL: All right. Before we go, we have to share with you a moment from Saturday Night Live.

WALKER: Last night, they spoofed President Trump's appearance at the NATO summit this week. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you hear him talk about climate change yesterday? He said we need stronger toilets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is like dumber than Boris.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is. He is dumber than me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quick, quick. Wave to him so it seems that we like him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are my best friends. We run this place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is nice. My name is Eggless but you can call me Egg. Would you like to try some of my pickled octopus?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God, I'm at the loser table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]