Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Giuliani Waged A Campaign Of Lies To Smear The U.S. Ambassador To Ukraine; House Democrats Track To Impeach Trump By Christmas; Trump Wanted Barr To Announce He Did Nothing Illegal On Ukraine Call; Trump Ordered To Pay $2 Million; More Explosive Transcripts Of Testimony On Impeachment Inquiry; Michael Bloomberg Plans To Run For President; Interview With Andrew Yang (D), Presidential Candidate. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired November 07, 2019 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: You could tweet the show @THELEADSCNN. Our coverage on CNN continues right now, thanks so much for watching. I'll see you tomorrow.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news. "Full of Lies," just released transcrips shows State Department official George Kent told impeachment investigators that Rudy Giuliani was spreading false hoods in Ukraine, in an effort to smear the US ambassador there. And then, Kent was told, the former mayor was influencing President Trumps Ukraine policy.
"Impeachment by Christmas," with televised hearings less than a week away, House Democrats investigation of President Trump is accelerating right now at a rapid pace with a vote on articles of impeachment now on track to happen next month.
"One-on-one with Yang," Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang joins us live this hour to talk about his campaign, the battle for Iowa, New Hampshire and the impeachment probe into President Trump.
"And Brain Death," as Mr. Trump continues to attack NATO, French President Emmanuel Macron now warns the alliance is in crisis right now and says America is showing signs of turning its back on its allies.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
BLITZER: We're following breaking news including a new transcript of impeachment inquiry testimony this time by the Deputy Assistant George Kent, who'll testified publicly next week. He told lawmakers behind close doors that Rudy Giuliani carried out what he called, and I'm quoting now, "A campaign of lies to smear then US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. And he testified that the President's special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, told him he would reach out to Giuliani, because he has influence on the President's stance on Ukraine. Also breaking, new signs that House Democrats are moving toward wrapping up their investigation of the President in the coming weeks, and that they're on track right now to file articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump by Christmas.
We'll talk about the breaking news in more with Congressman Dan Kildee of the Ways and Means Committee, and our correspondents and analysts are also standing by.
First, let's get details of the ladies impeachment testimony, the transcript that was just released. Our Senior National Correspondent Alex Marquardt is working the story for us. Alex, we'll hear publicly from George Kent next Wednesday but we now know what he told lawmakers privately.
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We will hear from him next week, Wolf. There's also been a major question since this all began about what Vice President Mike Pence knew and when he knew it.
Also today, there was a senior national security adviser on his team who had been on that now infamous July 25th call. She testified that what she heard between the two presidents, Zelensky and Trump, was more political than diplomatic. This as we're hearing more in hundreds of new pages of that transcript from George Kent who, in theory, over oversees US policy in Ukraine and who, as you mentioned, described Rudy Giuliani's campaign of lies.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT (voice-over): He was the top State Department official on Ukraine but was shut out. In the just released transcripts. To George Kent's testimony, Kent told lawmakers that the Ukraine portfolio was taken over by others close to the president, which included his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in a key role.
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D), FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: He was very bothered by it. He felt that the demands on the Ukrainian government to provide dirt, amount of pushback to political opponent, what he said was undermined 28 years of US efforts to persuade successive Ukrainian governments to abide by the rule of law.
MARQUARDT: The President's special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told Kent he would be reaching out to Giuliani because it was clear that the former mayor had influence on the President. Giuliani was working to get the ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, removed remove, spreading what Kent called slander and a continuation of his campaign of lies.
Trump recalled Yovanovitch in May, when Giuliani then attacked Kent. Kent was told by his boss to keep his head down and lower his profile. Another key witness appeared today on Capitol Hill to testify, putting the spotlight on Vice President Mike Pence's role in alleged quid pro quo.
Jennifer Williams, a senior national security aide on the vice president's team listened to the July 25th call between the US and Ukrainian president, in which Trump asked Zelensky for a favor and to look into the Bidens and 2016 election interference. Williams told lawmakers she found the call's political nature unusual. She made a note of the call but did not raise it with superiors.
It's unclear whether Pence read the transcript of the call and Williams said she never heard pence discuss the investigations that the President had asked Ukraine for. Pence has denied any quid pro quo and that he ever mentioned holding up aide for Ukraine unless the Trump administration got something.
[17:05:00]
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES: In all of my discussions with President Zelensky, we focused exclusively on President Zelensky's efforts to end corruption in Ukraine and also enlist more european support.
MARQUARDT: Another crucial voice for Democrats is former National Security Adviser John Bolton who, according to multiple witnesses called the rogue policy in Ukraine a drug deal. Bolton refused to show up today as the committees had requested and they didn't bother sending a subpoena, knowing they would have to fight it in court.
An official in the inquiry said, "We have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: So the committees won't be hearing from John Bolton any time soon. But what they were told by George Kent was that, what he heard about that July 25th call was unlike anything he had heard about other calls. He was given a so-called readout by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who also testified in front of Congress.
And Kent said that Vindman felt uncomfortable about the call, that he couldn't even share most of what was said, Wolf, because it was too sensitive.
BLITZER: It was pretty sensitive, indeed. All right, good point. Thank you very much, Alex, for that report.
We're also getting a clearer picture right now on the timeline for impeachment. Our Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju has been working on this part of the story for us. And, Manu, House Democrats, they are moving to complete impeachment proceedings, what, by Christmas? Is that really possible?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're certainly on track at the moment, a series of steps that they have taken in recent days suggest that they are on this fast track. And earlier this week, of course, Adam Schiff announced that there will be public hearings next week. Those hearings are probably going to take a couple of weeks because he has indicated that that would limit the number of witnesses. They would not have all of the witnesses who have come behind closed doors, more than a dozen or so come in a public setting.
Also, they've withdrawn a subpoena for one individual who defied their subpoena request because they did not want to fight that in court and they decided not to subpoena John Bolton, the former national security adviser, because of concerns that Bolton would fight that in court and that could drag out, so does this all mean?
Looking at the calendar, there are-- next week will be public hearings. There likely going to be public hearings, probably the week after. And then, after that comes Thanksgiving week. That's a time where if there are not more public hearings, that would be a moment for the House Intelligence Committee along with two other committees to write a report detailing their findings.
And then, when they provide their findings and recommendations, that will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee likely in that first week of December. It could spill into the second week of December as they continue to pursue the matter and pursue articles of impeachment, both in a public hearing and in a committee vote.
And it's possible then, according to Democratic sources, that this could spill into the week of December 16th, the week right before Christmas where they could have that historic vote to impeach the President for just a third time in American history that that would happen and 21 years around the same time that Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998.
Now, Democrats who have corset to these closed door proceedings, say the theme has been consistent throughout, that the President has sought to link this aide to the demand for investigations. And that's what one Congressman said emerging from a closed door deposition earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We have not yet seen an arrow going in any other direction, and that this was a shakedown led by the president of the United States. We have not heard a single witness yet come in and provide testimony that would suggest this was anything other than defense dollars for dirt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And Republicans, of course, say they disagree with that, saying there's not been a direct link to the President. But that will all play out next week in the public hearings. And one note, Wolf, Democrats contend that this calendar is still fluid, it could change. It could evolve and Nancy Pelosi, importantly, has not made a public declaration about exactly how she plans it to play out in the coming weeks.
BLITZER: Well see how it plays out together with you, Manu. Thank you very much.
Let's go over to White House, White House Correspondent Boris Sanchez is working on this part of the story for us. Boris, amid all of this, we're now learning that the President wanted the attorney general of the United States, what, to exonerate him?
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Effectively, Wolf. CNN has confirmed reporting in the Washington Post that President Trump wanted Bill Barr to hold a news conference to declare that President Trump did nothing illegal on his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
President Trump is furious at this reporting and he is yet again raging against impeachment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL BARR, US ATTONERY GENERAL: Thank you, Mr. President.
SANCHEZ: Tonight, President Trump pushing back on reports that he asked the attorney general, Bill Barr, to hold a news conference to help clear his name from the Ukraine controversy. A source telling CNN that Trump wanted Barr to announce that he did nothing illegal on the July phone call with the Ukrainian president.
The Washington Post first to report this story, says the attorney general refused the President's request, but the story appears to have struck a nerve with the President. Trump tweeting the post made up the story and Barr did not decline my request to talk about Ukraine, adding, the Justice Department already ruled that call was good.
[17:10:07]
While it's unclear if the two discussed the move directly, Barr so far has not denied that Trump wanted him to clear his name. Tonight Trump's allies in the Senate are struggling to keep up with the daily release of witness testimony. Senator Lindsey Graham now questioning whether one key witness, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, may actually be a Democratic operative even though he donated $1 million to President Trump's inauguration.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Was there a connection between Sondland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff staffers? I've been a lawyer for a very long time, when somebody changes their testimony, they suddenly recall something they didn't know before, it makes me incredibly suspicious.
SANCHEZ: Other Republicans pointing fingers at the House Speaker rather than the testimony.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to impeach him. I don't mean any disrespect but it must suck to be that dumb.
SANCHEZ: And Senator Rand Paul who called for the unmasking of the whistleblower.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower. SANCHEZ: Vice President Mike Pence also in the spotlight tonight. Excerpts from the upcoming book written by Anonymous suggest that White House aides were sure that Pence would support invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office for mental incapacity, the Vice President defending himself today against the allegations.
PENCE: When those rumors came out a few years ago, I dismissed them then. I never heard any discussion in my entire tenure as vice president about the 25th amendment. And why would I? If there's some in our administration or serve in our administration, who doesn't support this president, or doesn't his agenda, they should do the honorable thing and resign.
SANCHEZ: Sources with knowledge of the book titled "A Warning," tell CNN the details first reported to the Huffington Post are accurate.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Wolf, President Trump has yet to appear publicly today. He does have an event in about an hour where he's going to avoid the President's citizenship medal. We'll see if he takes questions then, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, we'll follow that as well. Boris, thank you. Let's get some more on all of this, joining us now, Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee of Michigan. He is a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.
And I want to quickly begin with the breaking news, according to a newly released transcript, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent accused Rudy Giuliani of carrying out what Kent calls a campaign of lies in order to remove the former US Ambassador from Ukraine. Your reaction.
REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): Well, I think this is beginning to paint a picture that goes far beyond the President in a phone call which, of course, he describes as perfect. But paints a picture of a presidency that is solely focused on protecting the president and, in this case, entirely focused on trying to clear the way in Ukraine so that they can operate the way they want to.
In Rudy's case we don't know quite the extent of his business interests there, but also to try to solicit or invoke Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
So, you know, the picture that's being painted is one that paints a picture of the administration within and his agent outside the administration, Mr. Giuliani, essentially pursuing this really bizarre goal of trying to, in Rudy's case, enrich himself and at the same time help the President get re-elected by soliciting foreign help in the election. It's a very frightening picture that's being painted.
BLITZER: We do know that he received about half a million dollars from Lev Parnas, one of these individuals was recently charged with crimes. How much legal trouble do you believe Rudy Giuliani is potentially facing right now?
KILDEE: I think it's really serious. He has a lot of explaining to do. And this is the danger when the President goes outside the norms. And, you know, it's been excused that way that, well, you know, Rudy is his guy.
This is the danger when there this blend of private interest and official responsibility. Rudy is tasked, theoretically, to represent the United States for the President in dealing with Ukraine, but has all sorts of entanglements.
It's a theme that's so consistent within this presidency. It not only applies to Rudy Giuliani, but in other ways, applies to the President himself. The lines between private interest, financial interests and official responsibilities are so blurred within this administration that they probably talked themselves into believing it's OK, and it's not.
[17:15:06]
BLITZER: We were showing video of Rudy Giuliani with his former associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom have been charged with serious crimes by the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.
The transcript that was just released is more evidence, Congressman, that top US diplomats knew that the dealings between the White House and Ukraine were, in their words, suspicious. But there was relatively little direct interaction with the President himself. Is that a potential obstacle for Democrats in their investigation?
KILDEE: I don't believe it is because all roads lead to this President. And I don't believe anybody else within this administration has acted in a manner that would be as consistent as his behavior where he's always trying to protect himself.
Plus, there are other references in some of the testimony that the request, that the order is coming directly from the President. So this is Donald Trump's White House, and he has made it very clear that he's running every aspect of it. And so, he can't escape responsibility as some might try to suggest, that it wasn't him. It's him.
Some of the defenders of the President are applying some unbelievably bizarre logic. You know, I saw your earlier report that included comments from Senator Graham. I think folks better really take it seriously and wonder what the long view of history is going to say about some of these defenses that the president and his supporters are offering. They just don't stand up. They're not logical.
BLITZER: It appears, senator, that Democrats, as you heard in Manu Raju's report, are aiming to hold a vote on articles of impeachment by Christmas. Do you think that's realistic? Is that a realistic timeline?
KILDEE: I do, because I think it's going to be important for us. And this is my view, that I've been advocating, that we focus on this Ukraine story and some of the obstruction that has taken place around it.
There are other as expects of the President's behavior that we need to pursue and we need to continue to pursue, but the combination of the President's own admissions, the corroboration of witnesses that have come forward through the deposition, the deposition that have been provided I think are making it very clear that the President sought Ukraine's help in digging up dirt on one of its political opponents. That's impeachable. Some may not agree with that, but my view is that we have or soon we'll have enough information to move forward on this. And I would hope that we can move expeditiously.
There are lots of other things we need to focus our attention on. This is very important. But I think once we have enough information and I think we're getting there, to move forward, we should move forward and hand this over to the Senate and not prejudge what they will do, even though many of us think rather cynically about the way Mitch McConnell has been such a cheerleader for this president. That, you know, we shouldn't condition on whether we do our job on whether or not he's willing to do his.
BLITZER: Congressman Dan Kildee, thanks so much for joining us.
KILDEE: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. And stay with us for more in the breaking news. It's looking like House Democrats may finish impeachment proceedings against President Trump as we've been reported by Christmas. And up next, President Trump has ordered to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit he boasted he would never settle.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:20:00]
BLITZER: A New York judge today ordered President Trump to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit involving his defunct charity, the Trump Foundation. He was accused of multiple violations of campaign finance laws. Let's bring in our National Correspondent Athena Jones who is working the story for us.
Athena, President Trump settle this lawsuit after vowing not to do so. So what happened? What's the latest?
ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, wolf. That's right, the President saying he will never settle. Well, now we know he's being forced to pay $2 million in damages. And it's pretty unusual position for the President to find himself, and you don't have that in every day, a sitting President forced to pay damages in a suit like this.
This is a civil lawsuit that was brought by the attorney general of state of New York in June 2018, accusing Trump and three of his adult children, Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka of pattern of persistent illegal conduct. We're talking about self-dealing, abusing the charity's nonprofit status, violating state and federal laws with regard to charities, and also violating campaign finance law.
Now, you'll remember one of the interesting details from the self- dealing part of this was the $10,000 that Trump, through his charity, used to pay for a portrait of Trump himself. That portrait, as you see there, was hanging at Trump's National Doral Golf Resort in Florida.
They also used $100,000 from the charity to settle a legal dispute involving another resort of the President in Florida, the Mar-a-Lago Resort. So that's the self-dealing side.
But also, there were violations of campaign finance laws, the charity coordinating directly with the campaign. You may remember the fundraiser that then candidate Trump had just a few days before the Iowa caucuses. This was in January of 2016. He held a fundraiser instead of going to a debate with the other GOP rivals for the nomination.
[17:25:00]
So that fundraiser raised $2.8 million, and they said it was for veterans groups. Instead, the President directed that money to go to certain groups just days before the caucuses. So that was clearly for his own political gain.
So those are a couple of the examples of the allegations that the President and his children had to settle in this suit. Wolf?
BLITZER: $2 million, all right. Thanks very much, Athena Jones, for that report.
We've got a lot to discuss, and all the breaking news, our experts are here. Get ready. We're going to discuss right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:30:27]
BLITZER: We're back with our experts and our analysts.
And Phil Mudd, let's talk about this newly released transcript from this key witness, George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of State. At one point he references two of these Giuliani associates who have now been indicted. They've been charged with crimes.
Let me read to you from his testimony. "Separately there are individuals that I mentioned before including Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman who started reaching out actively to undermine Ambassador Yovanovitch," the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, "starting in 2018 with a meeting with former congressman Pete Sessions on May 9th, 2018."
This is a year before that famous phone call between the president and the new president of Ukraine. This was really a long-term effort to undermine her and to shift U.S. policy.
PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think this is so complicated with us, with the media trying to read the newspaper. So let's make this simple. These are a bunch of cowards.
BLITZER: Who's a bunch of cowards?
MUDD: That is the president and Giuliani, cowards. The same thing they did on a smaller scale with the former FBI director when they sent the president's bodyguard over, instead of the president saying, I want you out the door.
CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR-AT-LARGE: To deliver the letter.
MUDD: To deliver a letter saying, you're done. Every ambassador serves not only as the U.S. government representative to the country, but as the president's personal envoy and every ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. All the president do -- had to do if he had an ounce of courage would be to say, I'm not comfortable with this person. I don't think that she represents my interests. I think I should have somebody who does.
Instead, we've got this whole orchestration to say we've got to come up with sleaze because I can't sit in front of somebody like with Jeff Sessions when the president can't fire him but attacks him on Twitter. I can't sit in front of somebody and say, maybe you should go.
Politics here, fine. This is just cowardice. I just -- it's just unbelievable.
BLITZER: Yes, it's amazing, what's going on.
You know, Chris Cillizza, George Kent testimony, the transcript that we got today, isn't the only damning testimony that we've received in recent days. I want you to listen to the president's allies, Senator Lindsey Graham, his reaction to the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland's reversal on whether or not there was a quid pro quo. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Why did Sonderland change his testimony? Was there a connection between Sonderland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff staffers?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He kept saying Sonderland. It was really Sondland.
CILLIZZA: So all --
BLITZER: That's his name. But that's -- I mean, this is a political appointee who gave a million dollars to the Trump Inaugural Committee.
CILLIZZA: Do you want to know why Gordon Sondland change his testimony? Because someone said, hey, man, perjury is a federal crime. And because what he had told them under oath had been contradicted, and he knew that. So he issued a three-page addendum that basically said oh, yes, my memory. I had forgotten that in September. Let's remember, this isn't 10 years ago. This is a few months ago.
In September, I actually talked to a top Ukrainian official who's close to President Zelensky and made clear that at least it was my belief that the military aid was tied to the public announcement of an investigation using this language.
Again, the whole "I didn't remember it" thing, like you might not remember what you had for breakfast a month ago. It seems to me likely you would remember a conversation with a top Ukrainian official. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that slips your mind.
PAMELA BROWN, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's why -- because, like, it was unique for him.
CILLIZZA: Correct. You do it a lot. Right.
BROWN: He was the E.U. ambassador. He didn't do it a lot.
MUDD: That's right.
BROWN: So you would think he that would remember that specific conversation on something so significant.
CILLIZZA: But Lindsey Graham -- I mean, just one more thing on Lindsey Graham. Like this is a joke. Like I'm sorry. The idea that the reason that Sondland changed his testimony is because Adam Schiff got to him. I mean, if that's the case, then provide some evidence of that, because otherwise it seems quite clear the fact pattern suggests Gordon Sondland said something that he was later advised by counsel could be a situation of him perjuring himself, and so he went back and got himself legally right.
That seems to me the much more obvious explanation than there's some broad conspiracy of Adam Schiff somehow influencing a guy who gave $1 million to the Trump Inaugural Committee. This is not a never Trumper, folks.
BLITZER: Right.
CILLIZZA: I mean --
BROWN: Yes.
BLITZER: You know, you think it's realistic for the Democrats to think of voting on Articles of Impeachment by Christmas?
BROWN: Well, I can tell you the White House certainly hopes so. I mean, in their view, look, the sooner, the better that this all wraps up. And I think one thing that also worked in their favor with this fast timeline is the idea that maybe someone like a Bolton, who could be -- really provide explosive testimony, won't because as we've made clear with our reporting, Bolton would testify if the court says he has to.
[17:35:08] Well, there's a chance that the McGahn case won't be settled by this timeline and, you know, the Kupperman case that the House is withdrawing the subpoena or wants to at least. And so this timeline actually works in the favor of the White House according to sources I've been speaking with.
BLITZER: Let me get Abby to weigh in. Abby Phillip is joining us.
What do you think, is any of this realistic, this timeline?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think it is, potentially, considering that we're about to start with the public part of this process as early as next week. So, the big part of this, I think, for Democrats is going to be what happens when all of this goes out into the public sphere? Are they able to shift public opinion even more than it has already shifted?
Right now, the country is roughly evenly divided on this issue and they're going to need to do a little bit more than that, I think, in order to fulfill what Nancy Pelosi has wanted about this process, which is that it would have more bipartisan support in the public than it did at the start of the process. So, I think that that's where we're headed and they have to do that as quickly as possible.
BLITZER: We've got some breaking news and significant breaking news that CNN has just confirmed, the former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is now expected to file the paperwork to join in on the Democratic presidential contest, file paperwork to participate in the Alabama Democratic primary that's coming up early next year as well.
Chris Cillizza, this would be a significant shakeup. This is a billionaire, widely respected for his tenure as mayor of New York City. If he joins this race, it raises a lot of possibilities.
CILLIZZA: Yes. So I think the first question most people would have is why Alabama? And the reason for that is because Alabama's filing deadline for its presidential primary is coming up in the next very near future. So you have to gather signatures if you want to be on the ballot. So I think what Bloomberg is doing there is ensuring he has the possibility that if he wants to run, he will be on the primary in a state that I think votes early March, if I'm not mistaken.
What you don't want to have to happen is you decide to run and filing, deadlines have passed and nobody could vote for you, which is always the danger of getting in late.
Here's the advantages Bloomberg has. $50 billion -- whatever he's worth, those are all big advantages. It's in the billions. It's in the billions.
BLITZER: He could clearly finance his own campaign.
CILLIZZA: That's a huge advantage, broadly speaking. It's also basically a necessity if you're going to start running for president this late. You have to build organizations. That takes money. The -- and time. The only way that you can make up for that time lost is with more money. He obviously has it, has shown a willingness to spend it, including, by the way, in Virginia, where his gun safety group spent millions and had an effect in flipping the Virginia state Senate and statehouse.
The problem for Michael Bloomberg is what has always been the problem, that the Acela corridor, so New York to D.C., is not the dominant voting bloc in a Democratic primary electorate. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. Show me where -- and I'm interested. I'm not saying he can't, but show me where he beats out Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden, or Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris there. Maybe. But it's not a sure thing. His money ensures he has to be taken seriously, however.
BLITZER: You know, let me --
PHILLIP: Wolf?
BLITZER: Abby, you know, because he clearly is uneasy with some of the positions taken by the more progressive Democratic presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
PHILLIP: Ultimately, I think that is exactly what this is all about. This is a little bit of a revenge of the moderates kind of happening here where you're seeing some people -- you know, Bloomberg kind of leans independent, center left. And they're concerned about the rise of an Elizabeth Warren. They're worried that Joe Biden is not strong enough to beat Warren in some of the early primaries and that some of these other moderate candidates like Buttigieg and Harris don't -- maybe don't have what it takes to overcome her early enough in the process.
So that seems to be the concern that's motivating Bloomberg to jump in at this point. On the other hand what Chris pointed out is exactly right. There is not a clear natural constituency for this former mayor from New York. And for as much as Democrats might want a more moderate politician in the race I am not sure that they also want someone who, in their view, might represent essentially the kind of a big money corporatist politics that they have been moving away from, whether you are Elizabeth Warren or even some of the more moderate candidates.
So I think there's a little bit of a problem here with figuring out where this all lands. But clearly it's a signal that there are moderates within the party who are growing uneasy. They've been uneasy with Warren for some time and Warren's strength is really not waning. She's steady, slow and steady as an Iowa Democrat told me today. And that is what I think is alarming some of these folks in the party right now.
BLITZER: You know, Pamela, there's a lot of concern among some of these Democrats that the current field potentially could lose to Donald Trump. He could be re-elected for another four years.
[17:40:03]
It looks like Michael Bloomberg, who has not formally announced or anything along those lines but is seriously considering running, I suspect he's one of those as well.
BROWN: You know, absolutely. And I think, you know, when you look from Trump's point of view, Trump world's point of view, they would look at someone like Michael Bloomberg as a potential threat because of what he brings to the table on the business front. As we know, Donald Trump has prided himself on what he views as his business acumen, his business success, being a wealthy man.
Well, that's something that Michael Bloomberg clearly brings to the table. And I think that that is -- could be viewed by the president and his allies as a real threat.
CILLIZZA: And the argument for -- to Pam's point, the argument for or the bumper sticker for Michael Bloomberg is Donald Trump, but richer, more successful and less offensive. I mean, that's the -- that's the Bloomberg argument. Like I'm richer than this guy.
BROWN: Yes.
CILLIZZA: I've been more successful than this guy, and I have 12 years as the mayor of New York City to demonstrate that from a policy perspective. I can get things done.
BLITZER: Yes.
BROWN: Yes.
BLITZER: I mean, clearly, Bloomberg is a lot richer than President Trump is, those billions --
CILLIZZA: And especially me.
BLITZER: Billions -- but richer. Than you, of course.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Let's continue this. Joining us now, Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, who's also a businessman.
Thanks very much, Andrew, for joining us. So let me start with the breaking news and get your reaction. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, thinking seriously of jumping into the Democratic primary. What do you think?
ANDREW YANG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, he is a phenomenal entrepreneur and businessman. I will say that I think it'd be very tough for someone to jump into the race at this point in time. I'm here in New Hampshire. And I've been here now over 20 times, getting to know the voters of New Hampshire. I just wouldn't envy anyone who tried to get into the race at this late juncture.
BLITZER: Because I suspect he's very uneasy with the current field of Democratic candidates. He's worried -- this is what I've heard from some of his associates over these past few weeks as these rumors were starting. He's worried that the current field might not be able to beat the incumbent president. What do you think? YANG: Well, the burden is on us to present a new way forward and a
new vision for the country that gets people excited. That's what's going to help solve the problems that got Donald Trump into office in the first place and that's what it will take to beat him in 2020, in the general election. I plan to be that candidate.
BLITZER: So tell us why you think -- let's say he jumps in, hypothetically, Andrew, why do you think you'd be a better candidate than Michael Bloomberg, who spent, you know, a couple of terms as the mayor of New York City and by all accounts was widely respected and did well?
YANG: I admire Michael's work a great deal. He and I have actually met. But to me, the focus has to be on solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected in the first place. We're going through the greatest economic transformation in our country's history. We started with decimating millions of manufacturing jobs, and now we're heading to retail, transportation, call centers.
And to me the focus has to be on these problems. I haven't -- I know that Michael understands technology and the future but I haven't seen him present real solutions beyond retraining that from the data I have seen will not be effective for the majority of Americans, particularly those who are a bit older, who are being forced to transition.
BLITZER: He's worth billions and billions of dollars. You say it might be too late. He doesn't have to worry about raising money. He's got billions. If he wants to self-fund his campaign, he could easily do that. That's an advantage. Right?
YANG: For sure. But we already have one billionaire in the race. And we're seeing the limits of what money can do. You know, as someone who's now been campaigning for a number of months, again, there's no substitute for meeting people in their homes or union halls or places of business or worship and getting the chance to meet people over the last number of months has, to me, been the lifeblood of my campaign. And I think it's very, very hard to substitute that with money.
BLITZER: You just wrapped up a town hall in New Hampshire. You're up there very actively on the campaign trail. Let me ask you this. What are you hearing from voters about impeachment?
YANG: You know, Wolf, I get very, very few questions about impeachment. And the fact is, when we're talking about Donald Trump, we are not presenting a new vision that's getting people excited. The voters here in New Hampshire see it the same way I do, which is that impeachment will not help move the country forward and talk about Donald Trump is a loser for Democrats even if it's in the context of impeaching him.
BLITZER: If the House of Representatives, Andrew, were to vote to impeach the president by Christmas, the trial in the Senate would likely begin in January. That's right before the Iowa caucuses, right before the New Hampshire primary. Do you worry about that dominating the news and the race for the Democratic nomination becoming a distraction?
[17:45:03]
YANG: I do. I think that would be terrible timing for the Democratic field. And we have to face facts that not a single Republican crossed the aisle for the House impeachment vote. And if that plays out in the Senate, then Donald Trump is likely to not be successfully impeached. I expect him to be there for to defeat at the ballot box in 2020.
BLITZER: Would you like to see impeachment wrapped up on an expedited timeline or should the House take its time to lay out all the alleged wrongdoing by the president?
YANG: I think the sooner the better and then we can get our focus back to beating Donald Trump, if he's still there, which I expect him to be. So, if the timeline plays out where half the Democratic field is in D.C., listening to testimony through the crucial month of January, I don't think that's a good thing.
BLITZER: Let's talk a little bit more about the campaign. As you know, Elizabeth Warren's rise in the polls is being met with some rather sharp criticism from Joe Biden who slammed her Medicare for All plan, accused her of being an elitist. You called Warren's plan overly optimistic. But do you think it's fair to label her, to call her an elitist?
YANG: It's certainly not a term I would use. We have to focus on people's actual ideas and policies for the country and not get caught in attacks about someone's background. To me, I said it was overly optimistic because one of her primary funding mechanisms is a wealth tax that when a wealth tax was tried in France and Germany and Denmark and Sweden, they repealed it because they couldn't meet the optimistic revenue projections. I don't see any reason to expect that it would meet those revenues here in the U.S. when it didn't work in those countries.
BLITZER: You have a Medicare for All plan that would give people still the option of keeping their private health insurance. Do you see your plan as closer to Elizabeth Warren's or Joe Biden's?
YANG: I think it takes the best of both worlds, Wolf. The fact is, the burden has to be on our government to demonstrate to the American people that any Medicare plan or public plan is a better alternative to the existing insurance programs. And if we can demonstrate that, then people will vote with their dollars and with their feet and we can squeeze out private insurers over time. But if we can't demonstrate that, then American consumers will make the choices that are best for them and their families.
And unlike Elizabeth Warren, I do not believe that every American hates their insurance company. I think that there are some Americans who actually are quite attached and happy with their coverage.
BLITZER: Yes. There's a lot of people who like their private health insurance. You're going to share a debate stage on, what, November 20th in Atlanta, Georgia, with nine other Democrats. You qualified for that debate. You haven't yet qualified for the Democratic presidential debate in December. I think that's going to be in Los Angeles. If you don't make it, what will that mean for your campaign?
YANG: We're going to make it, Wolf. And as you know, we just put down a seven-figure ad buy in Iowa. Our polls are all heading up to the right. We made every debate very comfortably. I'll be on the stage in November and December and January and February, and the entire way through the winter and the spring.
BLITZER: A very confident Andrew Yang joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Andrew, thanks so much for joining us. Good luck out there on the campaign trail.
YANG: Thanks, Wolf. See you soon.
BLITZER: All right. Definitely.
All right. Let's get back to the breaking news. And I want to go back to you, Chris Cillizza. You've been doing some work.
CILLIZZA: Yes.
BLITZER: I see you on --
CILLIZZA: On the old phone, yes.
BLITZER: On that little iPhone over there. So let's talk a little bit about the breaking news. And it could be a huge development in this Democratic presidential candidate.
CILLIZZA: Yes.
BLITZER: The former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seriously thinking of jumping into this Democratic presidential contest.
CILLIZZA: Yes. So just one thing that I noticed from what Andrew Yang had to say, that I just want to dispute a little bit and then one other thought. The one thing on dispute is the comparison -- he didn't say his name but the comparison between Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer is a little bit off. Michael Bloomberg --
BLITZER: Tom Steyer is also a Democratic candidate.
CILLIZZA: Billionaire.
BLITZER: He's also a billionaire.
CILLIZZA: Who's running -- who's run a million ads on impeaching the president and eventually converted that to a campaign. Michael Bloomberg is a known national commodity from 12 years as the mayor of New York City, with a long record of -- you know, you can debate but he's got more than a decade of being in charge of the largest city by population in the country and is just much better known by the average person than Tom Steyer. That's point one.
Point two, I'm just thinking of how this affects the field. If I'm Elizabeth Warren, and Abby was touching on this, I'm relatively happy about this because I think what Bloomberg does is there's a set of votes for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and then there's kind of a set of votes that up until now were Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden broadly. There are other candidates who get some but those are the big four.
Bloomberg, by dint of his money, assuming he spends it, and there's every reason to assume he would if he runs. Bloomberg gets into that Buttigieg-Biden space, splits that vote up a little bit more.
[17:50:05]
I -- I think that's all basically to the good for Elizabeth Warren. I don't think it hurts her. And I think it suggests what we've been hearing. Again, Abby mentioned this. What we've been hearing. There, the establishment is very concerned and I would say rightfully so, given his fundraising and where his polling is going, about Joe Biden.
BLITZER: Yes.
PHILLIP: Can I -- Wolf.
CILLIZZA: And they're not sure that Pete Buttigieg, 37 years old, mayor of South Bend Indiana and nothing else, can fill those shoes. That's where Bloomberg sees his opportunity.
BLITZER: That's a city -- you know, that's a city of 100,000 people.
CILLIZZA: Correct.
BLITZER: As opposed to seven million or eight million in New York City. All right, Abby. Go ahead.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, there are a couple of things that we should start talking about right now. And first and foremost, that the Democratic primary is one in which no candidate is going to be able to win this primary unless they're going to -- they're able to really put together a full Democratic coalition. So we're talking progressives, we're talking moderate Democratic voters and we're also talking voters of color, Latino, African-American voters.
And I do think that for Bloomberg, that's particularly important because to Chris' point he has a very long record, a very long record, one that is going to be very easily delved into. And there's some problems there. I'm thinking about stop-and-frisk in New York. That's going to be an issue for him with black voters. So name ID is a big part of this but I also think that there are some real potential hurdles that he is going to face.
And I also think in a lot of these early states particularly in a state like Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada, organization does matter. It is very difficult to jump in at the last second even if you have a lot of money if you can't get people to be on the ground knocking doors, doing that work for you.
So this going to shake up the race right now but I do think there is a long way to go before we see whether or not this is going to have an impact on the standing of some of these other candidates in this race.
BLITZER: Pamela, what do you think?
BROWN: Yes, it's interesting. I'm just texting with a Trump source -- a Trump campaign source just to get reaction from that side. You know, the source said, look, in terms of what this means for Trump, you know, him joining the race, how this might change the dynamic, this person says look, he's not as battle tested, right, as Abby is pointing out and you were, too, Chris. Like he has lived relatively easy for 20 years.
Yes, he was mayor in New York, high-profile job, but this takes it to a whole another level. And his record will be scrutinized in a way that, you know, Donald Trump, because he's president running again, he's been under fire, right? He's been battle-tested for many years now. At the same time, you know, their view is that the Trump campaign's view on this development is that now the Democrats are going to direct more fire toward Bloomberg and it could take heat off of Trump. That's their maybe wishful thinking.
BLITZER: You know --
BROWN: But that is what their view is.
BLITZER: Let me get to Phil Mudd. It's not necessarily your area of --
MUDD: Oh, heck, yes, it is.
BLITZER: All right.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: I remember when another ex-New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, was running for the Republican presidential nomination. That didn't work out very well. Bill de Blasio, the current mayor of New York City, he was running, how did that work out? Is Bloomberg different?
MUDD: I think he's totally different. Let me picture a candidate in this current Democratic field. Somebody with big name recognition who's seen as not a fringe person, a moderate, who can also look at business people and the middle class American say, hey, I'm not going to put in place economic policies that undermine the progress that you saw under President Trump. So that's one side, but we're missing the other side.
I am curious about how he polls, that is Bloomberg, among Republicans. If you want somebody who's got not only experience but also economic background who doesn't have the baggage of the president, I'd say --
CILLIZZA: Yes. MUDD: One final thing, temperament. I mean, the president kneecapped
people during the Republican campaign by going after them on Twitter. Bloomberg is not stupid. He's also got a great source of humor. I think in terms of that social media engagement he might be --
BLITZER: He's very, very smart. Yes.
CILLIZZA: No question. And he's been hugely success in everything he's done including politics. Now it helped that he spent literally hundreds and millions of dollars of his own on this campaign for New York City mayor. But still, the one thing I just (INAUDIBLE) politically speaking, if Joe Biden was in a strong position, this does not happen.
BLITZER: Right.
CILLIZZA: It just -- it does not happen. There is not space for it. The issue is Biden faltering and -- or at least looking like he's beginning to and Pete Buttigieg rising, yes, but still lots of concerns about a 37-year-old whose biggest job was being a mayor of 100,000 people in terms of the gravitas. You say, well, gravitas got you Donald Trump, whatever. There is concern there and that's Bloomberg. I think it speaks as much to Biden's weakness as Bloomberg's --
BLITZER: I suspect he would be a formidable candidate if he decides to run. Let's see if he does, and I suspect that President Trump would fear Michael Bloomberg a bit, knowing these are two New Yorkers and he knows how much he's worth, he knows how much Bloomberg is worth and those are numbers that the president pays attention to.
Everybody, stick around. There's a lot more we're following on the breaking news including a top State Department official telling Congress that the impeachment inquiry, Rudy Giuliani was spreading lies in that inquiry.
[17:55:10]
Stay with us when it comes to the latest developments on Ukraine.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Happening now, breaking news, campaign of lies. That's how a key impeachment witness describes Rudy Giuliani's activities in Ukraine. Democrats releasing a new transcript of testimony as they prepare to make their case against the president on live television.
Christmas impeachment?
