Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Source: President Trump Suggested Ousting Impeachment Witnesses; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) is Interviewed About the Impeachment Investigation; Transcript of Closed-Door Testimony from State Department Officials David Holmes and David Hale Being Released By House Committees. Aired on 8-9p ET
Aired November 18, 2019 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:17]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening.
What was already an important week in the impeachment inquiry just got that -- got that much more interesting. And that is on top of new CNN reporting.
Sources tell CNN that President Trump has again said he wants to fire witnesses who have testified against him in the impeachment hearings, prompting his aides to consider moving those witnesses, some of them out of the White House and back to their home departments within the government.
Late today, we learned about a new addition to the list of now nine officials and former officials who will be going before the House Intelligence Committee on television starting tomorrow.
The ninth is David Holmes, a seasoned diplomat and a staffer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. He is set to testify Thursday.
Now, Holmes, you'll recall, has already told lawmakers in closed door session about the phone call he overheard the president and Gordon Sondland have a day after the July 25th conversation with Ukraine's president, the one the president continues to describe this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was a perfect call.
An absolutely perfect phone conversation.
It was perfect.
That was perfect.
The conversation was perfect.
I made a perfect call. Not a good call. Perfect call.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So far, he is really the only one describing it as a perfect call. But the day after that allegedly perfect call, there was another made from an outdoor table of a restaurant in Kiev in Ukraine with the president talking so loudly that Gordon Sondland, the ambassador of the European Union, had to hold the phone away from his ears at some points.
I'm quoting now from David Holmes' testimony who was sitting there at the table, quote, I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explain that he was calling from Kiev. I heard President Trump then clarify that the ambassador was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state that President Zelensky loves your ass.
I then heard President Trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation? Ambassador Sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to. The call ended.
He asked Sondland whether the president, quote, gives a shit about Ukraine. Sondland replies that he does not, saying he only cares about, quote, big stuff, unquote, that benefits him, namely the Biden investigation.
And we have just learned from one top Republican source that a number of GOP lawmakers were more shaken by that testimony than they let on in public. We'll have more on that shortly.
Now, as for Sondland, the E.U. ambassador who somehow became one of the president's three lieutenants on Ukraine, if you take out the million dollars he gave to the Trump inaugural committee, he is going to testify on Wednesday. And as you probably know, he has already revised his testimony once in the face of contradictory account from nearly every other witness. The question now, will he alter his story once again?
And tomorrow, the committee hears from Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine. Like Ambassador Sondland, pieces of Volker's closed door testimony have also been contradicted by several key witnesses. So, look for some tough questions on that.
Look also for the president to do what he's done to so many others who testified or said they would, namely, bully them or just say he doesn't know them. We'll start with the latter.
Here's the president talking about Gordon Sondland whom he once called a great American.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Let me just say I hardly know the gentleman. But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo. And he still says that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Actually, Sondland now says in his revised testimony that he, quote, presumed the aid suspension had, quote, become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement, i.e., a public declaration by the Ukrainians that they were investigating the Bidens.
In any case, the barely know him defense, that's not the only one for the president. As we mentioned, there are the insults like calling people who testify to things that don't comport to the president's narrative, Never Trumpers. People who he has earlier described as being human scum.
Here is the president this weekend tweeting about Jennifer Williams, who will testify publicly tomorrow after the transcript of her closed door testimony came out. Quote: Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released statement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers who I don't know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better presidential attack.
Now, the president as you know lashed out on Friday at Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted ambassador to Ukraine, while she was actually testifying. He did not call her a never Trumper but he has used the term against Bill Taylor, Alexander Vindman, who is a lieutenant colonel who testifies tomorrow, and against Jennifer Williams.
As for her and Marie Yovanovitch, they have something else in common. No support from their superiors.
When asked about the attack today on Williams, who is a senior adviser to Vice President Pence, his press secretary all but disowned her saying, quote, Jennifer is a State Department employee.
[20:05:04]
As for Secretary of State Pompeo, here's what he said today when asked about the president's attack on Ambassador Yovanovitch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The State Department is fully supportive of not only what we've done, but our Ukraine policy moving forward.
REPORTER: But no defense of your employees?
POMPEO: I always defend State employees. The greatest diplomatic corps in the history of the world. Very proud of the team.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So, good news, right? He always defends his employees, except apparently when asked again seconds later about Yovanovitch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POMPEO: I don't have anything to say. I'll defer to the White House about particular statements and the like. I don't have anything to say about the Democrats' impeachment proceeding. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, that's what you call a profile in courage. Now, to the breaking reports about new attempts at retaliation against some of the people who either have testified or will testify this week,
CNN's Jim Acosta is at the White House with that.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, one thing we should point out before we get into that we are just getting word from our Capitol Hill colleagues, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb, that the testimonies are expected to be released, the full testimony, given by David Holmes and David Hale. David Holmes being that diplomatic official in Ukraine who overheard, who says he overheard the president's phone call with the E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland. You were just talking about some of this a few moments ago. Heard the president asking Gordon Sondland about investigations.
That testimony from David Holmes is expected to be released any moment and, also, testimony from David Hale. He is a State Department official. He has been notable in all of this because he apparently heard some of the concerns that were expressed by other officials about the role that Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, was playing in all of this missiles for misinformation scheme that was going on and being conducted by members of the Trump administration, and allegedly by the president, himself.
So, we should be getting some of that testimony shortly and be able to go through some of that and be able to read some of the revelations that we were hearing about last Friday when some of that came down. Anderson, one thing we should also point out with Alexander Vindman the lieutenant colonel, purple heart recipient, National Security Council official who is set to testify tomorrow, I've talked to a couple of Trump campaign advisers this evening who were saying they are hoping and one campaign adviser said his fingers are crossed, that the president will not, will not tweet about Alexander Vindman as we saw on Friday when he tweeted about Marie Yovanovitch. She said that was intimidating. And then we saw the president over the weekend refer to Jennifer Williams who is a top official in the vice president's office referring to her as a never Trumper. The vice president's office has pushed back in saying she doesn't really advise the vice president. That she works over at the State Department.
But getting back to Alexander Vindman there are some concerns inside Trump world, inside the Trump campaign that the president could blow this up tomorrow and turn another one of these key witnesses into a sympathetic figure testifying up on Capitol Hill.
Now getting back to what you just asked me a few moments ago as to these concerns about retaliation, my colleague Pam Brown, Kevin Liptak, they are reporting this evening that there are concerns inside the White House that the president was entertaining the idea of essentially retaliating against Alexander Vindman and other officials in this inquiry by sending them back to their departments of origin, for example Vindman would go back to the Defense Department and so on, and has been grumbling about Bill Taylor, because, you know, he has also offered some pretty damaging testimony against the president.
Some of this obviously ties back to Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, and there are some concerns inside the White House that the president has been grumbling about Mike Pompeo and wondering why all of these diplomatic officials are coming up to testify on Capitol Hill and doing damage to the president when he thought that wouldn't be something that would happen when Mike Pompeo was putting some of these key officials in these positions, Anderson.
COOPER: And I understand White House staffers were on the Hill today talking to Republican aides. Do we know what their message to them heading into this week was?
ACOSTA: Well, I think some of this is just getting started. Tony Sayegh and Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, they have come in and do messaging and do comms, essentially additional comms, war room, rapid response comms for the president, if you will, when it comes to this impeachment inquiry. They were talking with Republican aides on Capitol Hill in terms of sort of laying out a strategy for what is to come.
But, Anderson, they are kind of parachuting into the middle of all of this and as we've seen so far in this inquiry in these public hearings that got started last week and will be ramping up this week with a number of officials, there are all sorts of surprises that are coming out of these hearings that the White House is just not prepared for. It's hard to rapid respond to things like David Holmes' testimony, which just caught everybody by surprise over here at the White House late last week.
COOPER: All right. Jim Acosta -- Jim, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
More now on what to expect this week, starting tomorrow morning with the testimony of Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
[20:10:00]
Joining us is Intelligence Committee member and Illinois Democrat, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.
Again --
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Thanks, Anderson.
COOPER: What do you make of this new reporting the president is considering moving impeachment witnesses like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman out of the White House back to their home departments ahead of schedule?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: You know, again, I think this is part of the pattern with the president. It's very unfortunate but it's not surprising. And it's another form of witness intimidation where the president is basically saying, if you come out and tell the truth, and if -- and if you persist with coming forward before our committees, there will be consequences. That's a form of retaliation, a form of intimidation at this point.
And, so, very, very disturbed by those particular pieces of news.
COOPER: And, Ambassador Sondland is going to be testifying this week. There obviously remain gaps, inconsistencies in his earlier testimony. Is the committee's focus Wednesday going to be attempting to clarify exactly what he knew and when he knew it? Because even this call that David Holmes has now testified about hearing, that is not something that ambassador Sondland even in his revised -- his revised testimony when he amended it after hearing the testimony of other people that contradicted his original testimony, he still didn't mention this call.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Right. Well, I'd like to think that, you know, his memory was refreshed when he heard of what other people said subsequent to his deposition and that's what prompted the clarification in his addendum. Perhaps he's going to remember more on Wednesday as well. There's just so many events, so many meetings and phone calls and, indeed, text messages where he is the central figure.
I'll just point to one, which he mentioned in his declaration, which is the Warsaw meeting on September 1st where he and Mr. Morrison and ambassador Sondland all say that basically ambassador Sondland told the Ukrainian, a very high ranking official, Mr. Yermak, that military assistance is conditioned on the announcement of an investigation, period, end of story.
And so that's very, very important. And, you know, I think that there might be other revelations that he makes at his open hearing testimony as well.
COOPER: Is it clear to you why Ambassador Sondland was even involved in Ukraine? I mean, he's the ambassador to the European Union. There's obviously a lot of stuff going on with the European Union. Ukraine is not part of that.
Well, what -- I mean, is it clear the chain that got him in the middle of all this? Other than being a Trump donor?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, it is not entirely clear. What we know is that Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to the Ukraine was really, you know, at the heart of our foreign policy in Ukraine all the way up until she was unceremoniously fired basically may 20th of this year. On that date, basically, the three amigos, Volker, Sondland, and Perry, under the direction of Giuliani and the president commandeered our foreign policy at that point in the Ukraine, not necessarily in the best interests of America, but the evidence points to them basically operating in the best interests of Guiliani's clients, people like Donald Trump, and other international actors.
And so, you know, those "Three Amigos" parachuting in around May 20th and then being told on May 23rd in the oval office that they are basically going to be taking charge of Ukraine policy is really central to the alleged scheme that happened here in the Ukraine.
COOPER: Congressman, appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much. A lot going on this week. Appreciate it.
We are expecting any minute to get the full transcript of David Holmes' testimony. We'll bring that to you when we do. Our legal and political team joins us next to talk about the breaking news, the week's testimony and more.
And later, legendary White House correspondent Sam Donaldson on how what we're seeing compares to what he saw covering Watergate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:18:20]
COOPER: More breaking news. We've just gotten transcripts of the full closed door testimony of David Holmes and David Hale. David Holmes, remember, was a last-minute addition to the public roster. He's going to cap off the week going in front of the intelligence committee in front of cameras on Thursday.
His opening statement which CNN originally obtained exclusively caused a stir when it became public on Friday. We now have the complete transcript of his testimony. It's been released.
CNN's Phil Mattingly and our team in Washington are going through the full Q&A.
Phil joins us now.
Phil, I know you've just gotten this. Anything stand out that you've been able to see?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, they literally just popped it. I just opened it up. We're starting to scroll through it right now. I think there's a couple of things that I'm looking for. Obviously, we had the opening statement, the explosive and I would say rather explicit opening statement from David Holmes last week.
But the thing people are most interested in in the wake of that closed door deposition is what else he had to say. Keep in mind, Anderson, the deposition lasted more than six hours long. His opening statement was ten pages. That's a lot more than ten pages when you have six hours.
And I think the other thing, too, is obviously there is a lot of attention and rightfully so with the detail of how he overheard the call between U.S. ambassador to E.U. Gordon Sondland and President Trump at an outdoor tavern, what he actually heard the president say. But he also had details in that ten-page opening statement related to another key component of the Democratic impeachment investigation and that is the decision to withhold U.S. security aid to Ukraine.
The details of what Ambassador John Bolton was thinking about that, what people on the ground were thinking about that. And also perhaps most importantly what Ukrainians were thinking about that. Hearing from Ukrainian officials, what they knew, when they knew it, and how active they were in trying to reverse that decision or trying to move that decision. Those are going to be the key elements that I'm looking at.
And also another key thing, keep an eye on what the Republican questioning is.
[20:20:02]
How they work through this process. They knew this was coming. They knew it was going to be explosive when William Taylor first kind of unveiled this bombshell, if you will, during his open testimony in front of the House committees on Wednesday of last week, how they decided to interact with Mr. Holmes.
Not only will it be interesting from an informational purpose how much he knows, but keep in mind, as you noted, he will be testifying on Thursday. What this deposition says will be a very good, kind of entree, if you will, into what he is going to say publicly and, frankly, how and if he is able to connect this directly to President Trump. That's been the question that's outstanding.
Obviously, the call is pretty notable. But, what else he can say on that front is what we're going to be digging through right now, Anderson.
COOPER: All right. We'll check in with you later as warranted. Phil Mattingly, thanks very much.
So, nine witnesses testifying publicly this week, Holmes included. Two of them facing tough questions likely about why key portions of their accounts differ from most of the others. All of them potentially facing fresh Twitter wrath from the president. And sources familiar with the matter tell us the ones who work on assignment at the White House might see careers hurt or at least moved out of the White House and back to their home departments at the behest of the president.
There's that and new reporting on the impact of Holmes' close door testimony. According to one source, several GOP Hill lawmakers were more, quote, shaken by David Holmes' testimony than they publicly let on. Behind closed doors, our source tells us many expressed frustration that Gordon Sondland would place a call to the president in a public restaurant from Ukraine and are concerned that Holmes' testimony was the most convincing argument for President Trump's direct involvement in the campaign to pressure Ukraine.
Again, he was just added as a witness today, the final one of the week. And we have folks going over his testimony behind closed doors, the transcript of which was just released.
Joining us right now is CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, CNN political analysts, Kirsten Powers and David Gergen, and CNN senior political commentator, former U.S. senator and Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum.
Thanks to all for being here.
Jeff, the reporting about moving some impeachment witnesses potentially on loan to the White House back to their home departments ahead of schedule, is that -- is that OK? I mean, obviously, the president can have whoever he wants to have working around him.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: He can. And we can draw our own conclusions about why they're being moved back. I mean, you know, I'm reminded of a line from Philip Roth the smallness of people was simply crushing.
I mean, you know, the smallness of Donald Trump to punish these people for answering questions under oath when they've been subpoenaed is just -- you know, par for the course. I don't think it counts as obstruction of justice. I don't think it's witness intimidation. I don't think it's a crime or an impeachable offense, but it's just really, really small.
COOPER: David? I mean, if some Democrats considered the president tweeting about Ambassador Yovanovitch witness intimidation do you think there is anything, you know, not right about moving people out of their positions because they testified?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's unbecoming. It's sort of cheap and cheapens the presidency. Is it against the rules? No. Not formally. It's the same thing that applied to Ambassador Yovanovitch, the president had a right to bring her back but did it in such a mean spirited and contemptuous, dismissive way and very injurious to her. You just don't like to see a president setting that kind of example.
You know, it would be difficult for these people to stay on in the National Security Council staff. There are going to be a lot of -- you know, a lot of reasons why they probably should move on but it should be done with more grace and more appreciation of the fact that they in fact joined the whistle-blowers. Their identities are known but they're also blowing whistles.
COOPER: Kirsten, it will be interesting to see how the president decides to conduct himself this week whether or not, you know, he continues to tweet against witnesses or about witnesses as they are testifying.
KRISTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. I mean, why wouldn't he keep doing what he always does? He seems incapable of not doing that.
And I do think this moving people, punishing people, right, for testifying under oath and telling the truth, I think it's thuggish. It really is -- it's beyond inappropriate in the sense that the president operates like he's a king basically. Like these people are supposed to go up there and lie.
They've been called before Congress. They're telling the truth. They should not be punished for that. They work for the U.S. government, which is something that is actually bigger than Donald Trump.
COOPER: Senator Santorum, what do you think about that?
RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I mean, I think as David said it would be very uncomfortable for any of these people to go back up to the White House. I think it would be more than appropriate to let them go back and to their original places and go about their business some other way. But I don't think it's thuggish.
[20:25:00]
I don't think it's inappropriate. I think that it would just be sort of almost a gracious thing to do to remove them from there to be honest with you. I mean, it's -- it would just be a very difficult place for them to operate.
TOOBIN: It's like it was gracious for the president to let Jim Comey go back into private life when he got mad at him. And he fired him and it was gracious to allow the ambassador from Ukraine --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: I'm not saying -- I'm not saying -- Jeffrey, I'm not saying that he'll do it in a gracious way. I fully anticipate he won't do it in a gracious way, but I'm saying the act itself of removing them from the White House I think is wholly appropriate given what they're going to be testifying over the next few days.
POWERS: If they are so concerned about it they could request to be moved, right? I mean, this is retaliation. This is punishment.
SANTORUM: No, it's not retaliation. Look, these places are not big organizations. The White House is a small place. And you're going to have someone there who is just, you know, on national TV as, quote, a star witness for someone who wants to impeach a president and to go back and work in that office is going to be a very uncomfortable and difficult thing for everybody to be involved with not just those people.
So, I think if you are really concerned about a working, functioning operation at that White House, you would probably move some people out that are going to be a detriment to that.
COOPER: But nobody -- none of these people said they wanted the president to be impeached. I mean, in fact, like Ambassador Taylor or charges de affairs Taylor said, went out of his way to say, look, I'm not part of this discussion. I'm just here as a witness of fact.
David? Or either?
SANTORUM: Go ahead, David.
GERGEN: I want to come back on this, Anderson. I do think that -- listen, I think they ought to be treated with graciousness. I think there ought to be some -- sort of financial package, they ought to be other things. Maybe they ought to continue their work (ph).
But if you're the president of the United States and you got people in your organization who in effect have become disaffected and have, you know, testified against you in some fashion, I don't think it's unreasonable for a president to sort of think that's not -- that's not a great team player on my particular team, you know? I just think they were loaned over to the White House. They have -- I think they are extremely brave.
I think they ought to be rewarded and, you know, appreciated which the president won't do but there ought to be ways to do that. But at the end of the day, you know, you don't have ten disgruntled people who in the middle of your high powered team. That's not exactly a way to run a railroad.
COOPER: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: But remember, they're going back to the State Department where Secretary Pompeo won't even utter their names, won't even say a kind word about them.
GERGEN: A good point.
TOOBIN: I mean, you know, it's not like they have a safe harbor to go back to.
COOPER: Yes, we've got to leave it there.
GERGEN: I agree, Jeff.
Everyone stick around. We have more to talk about. A key pillar in the president's defense that he did nothing wrong is on shakier ground tonight. New CNN reporting on that is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:32:12]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: One of the pillars of President Trump's defense is the contention that the Ukrainians felt no pressure to launch any investigations. Here's House Republican Jim Jordan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): No pressure, no linkage.
We have the two individuals on the call, President Trump, President Zelensky, who said there was no linkage, no pressure.
No pressure. No pushing. No linkage.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Well, that said there is more indication today that the no pressure defense seems to be shrinking. During closed door testimony, former national security aide Fiona Hill, who testifies publicly on Thursday, said that several White House officials had learned in May that Ukraine's president was indeed feeling pressure from Rudy Guiliani to start investigations into the Bidens.
She said that she had heard this from an American businessman in a meeting with Ukraine's president's team. Hill also testified she then relayed the details of this meeting, first reported by the Associated Press, to her boss, John Bolton, as well as Bill Taylor.
Joining me now back, Jeffrey Toobin, Kirsten Powers, Rick Santorum, David Gergen. Senator Santorum, doesn't this seem to undercut the President and certainly Congressman Jordan's argument that Ukrainians didn't feel pressure to conduct investigations into President Trump's political opponents?
RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, I guess, you know, what's the definition of pressure? I mean, it's -- and I say that and that I think what Jordan is talking about primarily is pressure as a -- feeling that they were -- something was going to happen. They weren't going to get their money in order to -- if they didn't do that. I think that's the pressure he's talking about.
I think it's fairly clear that the President wanted the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens. I mean, the President said so, I mean, repeatedly throughout the course of the summer that certainly has been the case.
So if pressure means that they were asked, I think what Jordan is saying, pressure means that you're actually have something that you're using to pressure them other than simply asking. And all this says is, you know, the President asks him and that the Ukrainians felt like, you know, maybe they should do something.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: And the money was withheld.
SANTORUM: Again --
TOOBIN: And $300 million was withheld. That seems like that's pressure to me.
SANTORUM: OK. Well, you know, the rooster crows and the sun comes up. One is not a cost for the other. The reality is that, yes, the money was withheld, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to withhold that money, which has been laid out repeatedly over the course of last few months. So, the idea that just because the money was withheld, it was withheld for this purpose you can't tie those two together.
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But they were also trying to get a meeting with the White House, you know, and Kurt Volker who actually said that he didn't think that it was tied to the money, he did say that he believed that the Ukrainians understood that it was tied to the White House, or at least he understood that it was tied to the White House meeting that they were seeking and they weren't getting. And so, you know, they were able to figure out the fact that they had been asked by the President to do certain things.
[20:35:03]
They've been pressured by Giuliani to do certain things and they weren't doing them and they weren't getting what they wanted. So, it's not -- it was really isn't that hard to figure out that there was pressure happening.
SANTORUM: I would just say the reality is that, you know, the President -- that Sondland also said no quid pro quo. The President in his call --
POWERS: But then he changed his testimony.
SANTORUM: The President in the call is clear there was no connection between the money and what he was talking about with Guiliani and the investigation. Look, just because -- and this is where I talk about giving the President the doubt or not. You can want an investigation and you can hold back aid, it doesn't necessarily tie the two together.
COOPER: Although, David Gergen, I mean, if you have a conversation in which when aid is brought up, the first thing you reference right after is a favor of investigations into, you know, a fictional server or a, you know, no evidence of a server in Ukraine and the Bidens that does-- you can argue certainly, I mean, it's an arguable point. I know Senator Santorum will argue that the Bidens were not part of it.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: I can't say it's not arguable.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think any -- I think it's the -- I think you can't question, there is obviously a linkage. And Sondland, you know, is going to -- his testimony becomes pivotal this week because he himself has testified he told the Ukrainians that you're much more likely to get something done if you move on this, you know, this announcement and you go investigate the Bidens.
But let me just say, Anderson, I think the bigger point about this week, it is a pivotal week, is up until now the White House has very successfully blocked our view from the Oval Office. We've got the telephone call, but beyond that they've very carefully concealed what the -- to go to the famous Howard Baker question from Watergate, what did the President know and when did he know it?
I think this week we're going to get some answers to that, particularly the testimony about the phone -- this restaurant conversation with the President which allegedly the President said, what's happened to the investigations? Are they going to do our work for us, he told that, to his ambassador with these other guys sitting there and the question whether the President was directing it. So I think that's the -- this week could be really major in taking this case inside the Oval Office. In every scandal around the White House the question always is, did the President -- was the President involved? Did it get to the Oval Office? If it didn't get to the Oval Office, it doesn't seem like such a big deal. If the President himself was personally engaged, it's a big deal.
COOPER: Yes.
TOOBIN: But we ought to look at the evidence and the Holmes testimony just came out. He said he heard the President say, what about the investigations?
GERGEN: Right.
TOOBIN: And then he gets off the phone and he says he doesn't give a shit about Ukraine. The only thing he cares about the Ukraine is getting political advantage about it.
COOPER: Yes.
TOOBIN: He doesn't care about Ukraine, except for the improper purpose.
COOPER: Yes. We got to end it there. No doubt I think we'll be talking about this all week. Thank you all for being with us tonight. Appreciate it.
Up next, legendary White House correspondent and ABC News anchor, Sam Donaldson joins me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:41:53]
COOPER: Well, when it comes to breaking news, it certainly sometimes feels like drinking from Niagara Falls and it's only Monday, which is why we're going to a very full week.
We're always glad for his perspective from our next guest. He's a former ABC News White House correspondent and anchor, Sam Donaldson. Sam, thanks for being with us.
You've said that when you were assigned at the outset to cover Watergate, you had no idea how important it would be to the history of the country. Do you think we have a sense yet of how important or not important these proceedings may turn out to be?
SAM DONALDSON, FORMER ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: Well, I think we do. I mean, a lot of people think it's going to be very important from the standpoint of being against President Trump, but a lot of people are clearly think just the opposite.
You know, let's look at Nixon and Trump. Similarities, they both lie about the charges that they're being investigated about them. They both intensified their war against the press. I mean, John Mitchell, the attorney general in the Nixon administration, said to Katherine Graham, the publisher of "The Washington Post," she better watch out or she'll get her tip caught in a wringer. Thank you, John, appreciate your language. But, again, some of the language coming from the Trump administration they win.
But, you know, there are differences, Anderson. I think they are very important. The guys and gals showed up. The Nixon people, they came and testified before committees. I mean, Maurice Stans, the Treasury Secretary, and Mitchell himself the attorney general, Pat Buchanan, the aide at the White House in Nixon's day who prepared and helped prepare the enemy's list, he came and testified. And that was the difference.
But I think the one that really interests me is the Republicans. There was a big difference between the two sides then, one side, yes, defending President Nixon, another side defending President Trump, but in a far different way.
COOPER: Explain that. I mean, because -- I mean, Carl Bernstein and others have pointed to, you know, Republicans turning and going to the President essentially saying, look, you've -- you know, you've got to step down for the good of the country.
DONALDSON: Yes, that was at the end when they heard the smoking gun, the tape. But I'm talking about -- let's take the Watergate committee. Fierce partisanship in the sense that the Republicans sincerely I believe believed the President. It wasn't as if they said, oh, I've got to get reelected. They thought he was being misused here. They called it a witch hunt. Have you heard that term recently?
The Democrats, of course, said they thought there was a smoking gun here somewhere if they could find it. And of course, John Dean said, yes, in fact, the President said I can raise a million dollars if we need it to hush money, but it was Dean's word against the White House, that's all they had.
But they conducted those hearings. Take a look at the tape, with civility, they didn't call each other names. The Republicans didn't say, oh, the Democrats, you know, they're terrible, or any of the things that you hear today. And they tried to get at the facts.
And then later on in the House Judiciary Committee where the articles of impeachment are prepared, there was a distinguished lawyer from Chicago named Albert Jenner who was hired by the Republicans on the committee to take their side of it and, of course, that meant the President's defense to an extent.
[20:45:02]
Several days before it all ended, Jenner resigned. He said, I'm now convinced the President's guilty of obstruction of justice. I can't in good conscience continue.
COOPER: Wow. DONALDSON: And you saw six Republicans vote aye on Article 1. I mean, Caldwell Butler from Virginia and Larry Hogan whose son is now the governor of Maryland, and Bill Cohen who was the young guy from Maine went on to the Senate as you know and then later became Secretary of Defense in the second Clinton administration, these were real heroes because they said if you look at the evidence and you've got to say aye.
Today, how many Republicans, because they see the evidence, they're not all stupid and dumb. They're smart people. But for various reasons, they don't care about the evidence. Compare those two. There is no comparison.
COOPER: And imagine if Nixon had Twitter. I mean, it's so fascinating to hear the Nixon tapes now to hear what he was saying behind the scenes. If he had been able to, you know, in the heat of the moment or, you know, late at night or early in the morning just tweet out some of those thoughts that he said on tape, extraordinary. Sam Donaldson, it is always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you.
DONALDSON: Thank you.
COOPER: Great having you on. Coming up next, David Holmes describing a moment he says he had never seen before, not in his entire career. It's from the transcript just released of his closed door testimony. You don't want to miss it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:38]
COOPER: Just moments, we got transcripts of closed door impeachment testimony, including from David Holmes, a State Department official at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. Our Phil Mattingly and his team have been going through it. Phil joins us now with one key facet (ph). Phil?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson. I want to point out, look, we all saw the opening statement, but he's now questioned about the opening statement from Chairman Adam Schiff and it's at the of this that I think is really important to pay attention.
I'm going to walk you through it where Schiff says, Ambassador Sondland went on to say that President Zelensky loves your ass, meaning that he loves the President. Holmes replied, yes, sir. And then you could hear President Trump says, so he's going to do the investigation? Holmes replied, yes, sir. And Sondland replied, he's going to do it? Yes, Holmes said. Oh, yes, he's going to do it.
And then he went on to say President Zelensky will do anything you ask him? Yes, Holmes said. And those are the words you heard, to the best of your recollection? Yes, sir, Holmes said. And, you know, I think you said you have a quite a clear recollection of that. It left an impression on you, did it?
This is the important part, Anderson. He says, this was an extremely distinctive experience in my Foreign Service career. I've never seen anything like this, someone calling the President from a mobile phone at a restaurant, and then having a conversation of this level of candor, colorful language. There's just so much about the call that was so remarkable that I remember it vividly.
And I think this is one of the questions going into the testimony, he didn't take notes, he didn't have a recorder, how did he remember this? When you have a career Foreign Service officer sitting outdoors at a tavern and somebody picks up his cell phone, an unsecured line, calling the President and then having this conversation, this is why he remembers it so clearly.
We're still going through the deposition, Anderson, but he also makes clear he told many people about this because he was so stunned by what he heard and had the recollection of all of this.
I also want to make one other point. He walked through behind the scenes of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. He made clear Rudy Giuliani was very, very early actor in this and Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
You will see him testimony by himself on Wednesday morning, not just a player at the tavern at this meeting, but a player throughout this process based on his connection to the President, based on his connection to U.S.-Ukraine policy and it's almost certainly because of this testimony going to be a central witness on Wednesday, Holmes testifies on Thursday, pay attention to Sondland on Wednesday as well, Anderson.
COOPER: Yes. And of course, is he a reliable witness given this reversal already? Does he remember this phone call as well as David Holmes says he does? Phil Mattingly, thanks for that. "The Ridiculist" is next. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:56:57]
COOPER: Time now for "The Ridiculist." And tonight, there's word from the department of don't hold your breath that the President wants to testify in an impeachment inquiry. That's right, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that the President might want to appear in front of Congress and argue his side of the story, the President tweeted, "I like the idea and will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it."
Now, look, I don't have a law degree, but I have spent a bit of time studying the law and order and criminal minds and (INAUDIBLE) I've seen Barney Miller and Jonathan and Jennifer Hart and Max, the butler. I know the President is not going to testify. I know this, because I've watched the shows. And I know that you know it. And I know that you know that he knows it.
But my question is, does he know that you know that he knows it? I'm not sure he does. I don't know that he knows that. If he doesn't know that you and I know that he knows he isn't going to ever testify, then he must think we are all idiots. I mean, he's played this, gee, I really want to testify game before. Maybe he doesn't remember, which is scary, but everyone else remembers. I mean it was just back in the Mueller investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would love to speak. I would love to. Nobody wants to speak more than me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events?
TRUMP: 100 percent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to talk to Mueller?
TRUMP: I'm looking forward to it, actually.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But would you -- are you more likely to set an interview now?
TRUMP: My lawyers are working on that. I've always wanted to do an interview.
I would love to speak. I would love to go. Nothing I want to do more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Really nothing you want to do more than that? Really? Of course, the President refused to be interviewed by Mueller's team. No attorney in their right mind would let Mr. Trump's speak under oath. He doesn't want to speak under oath.
He did, though, submit to the take home version of testimony written questions that his lawyers answered for him. Answers by the way that have earned rave reviews from the special counsel ranging from, "incomplete to inadequate."
He wanted you to think he was eager to testify but was held back by, you know, those tough talking lawyers, but he didn't want to answer questions under oath. Nancy Pelosi did offer him the option this time of another take-home quiz, which I can only hope if the President does go that route, it is handled by his favorite legal eagle, Judge Jeanine Pirro.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS HOST: As someone who's run for office five times, if the devil called me and said he wanted to set up a meeting to give me opposition research on my opponent, I'd be on the first trolley to hell to get it and any politician who tells you otherwise is a bald faced liar.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Toot-toot, trolley to hell. But the way, I here Pixar's workshop in trolley to hell the musical, Nathan Lane stars the voice of the trolley, Lin Manuel Miranda is the driver just right here.
Anyway, I know the President doesn't like people taking notes around him, but he might want to ask Steven Miller to keep track of at least some of his lies so he doesn't embarrass us and himself by repeating them over and over.
It just gets awkward, you know what I mean? It's like when your relative repeats the same sentence minutes after he's already said something. Intimidating a witness is easy, but being one, that's not, in Congress or on "The Ridiculist."
And the news continues. I want it hand it over to Chris for "Cuomo Prime Time." Chris?
