Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Protection To The Max For The Whistleblower; Trump's Big-Time Donor To Testify On Capitol Hill; Trump's Tax Returns Could Possibly Be Seen; The White House In Crisis: The Impeachment Inquiry; The Anatomy Of A Lie. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 07, 2019 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): It's shocking. It's wrong. It's illegal and ultimately the president has to be held accountable for it.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: All right. It's always a pleasure. Thank you, Congressman Cicilline. We appreciate your time.

CICILLINE: My pleasure.

LEMON: And thanks for watching, everyone. Our live coverage continues now with the "White House in Crisis: The Impeachment Inquiry" with our very own Laura Coates. She's here. Laura, what are you looking at tonight?

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: You know, I'm still really processing so much. Cuomo's big interview with President Trump's Jay Sekulow, the lawyer. He tried to make the case that the president doesn't have to turn over his taxes, Don, because it's not required in the Constitution.

But of course, that argument is pretty hollow. And I'm going to walk through exactly why a little bit later in the show. And you know, it's a time we really can't miss a minute here.

LEMON: It's interesting because the information is out there. At least by the law. And you, listen, you know the law way better than I do. So, what is the purpose of someone like a Sekulow coming on television? Is it just spin, Laura?

COATES: You know, you wonder if it's part spin or if it's trying to craft the narrative. Remember, we're talking about an impeachment inquiry here the public has to kind of go along with it. They have to be either on one side or the other. Either in favor of it or against it.

Right now, a lot of people are in the middle trying to figure out what they believe, what they think and where we should go. And so, his job is to get out there and say hold on a second, let's put this into perspective, into context but the kind of context that helps my client's case.

And remember, that whole phrase the audience of one, Don, a beneficiary of one when it comes to the nation and it comes to the president United States can't cut it in democracy. So, we're going to investigate what that really means and who Sekulow is speaking to, what cases need to be made and what the American people need to know to make up their own minds.

LEMON: All right. I'll be watching, Laura.

COATES: Well, thanks, Don. So, let's get to it, everyone.

This is a CNN special hour, The White House in Crisis: The Impeachment Inquiry. I'm Laura Coates.

Tonight, we're going to dig deep into every angle of this fast-moving impeachment investigation. Our headlines include a new and extraordinary effort to protect the Ukraine whistleblower.

The Democrats expanding the inquiry with new subpoenas for officials at the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget. And we're going to preview tomorrow's star witness. It's the ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, a million-dollar Trump donor who, by the way, is set to testify before not one, not two but three committees on Capitol Hill in the morning.

But first, President Trump as usual was playing and busy playing defense at the White House. And CNN's Sara Murray takes us through the biggest developments of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You can't impeachment a president for doing a great job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: President Trump kicks off his week under pressure from an impeachment inquiry and raging at the Democrats. But he says he's thriving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: What they did to this country is unthinkable. And it's lucky that I'm the president because, I guess -- I don't know why. A lot of people said very few could handle it. I sort of thrive on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: But while Trump claims he's thriving we learned today that the House intelligence committee is taking extreme measures to protect the whistleblower from a president itching to learn his identity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This country has to find out who that person was because that person is a spy in my opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP) MURRAY: And sources tell CNN there are growing concerns about the

whistleblower's safety. It's still unclear when the whistleblower might talk to lawmakers but a committee is considering using an off- site location limiting staff and members who could be present or even disguising the whistleblower's image or voice.

And today, another crack in the Republican force field around the president. Ohio Senator Rob Portman took a measured approach, criticizing Trump's conduct on the call with the Ukrainian president.

The president should not have raised the Biden issue on that call. Period. It's not appropriate for a president to engage a foreign government in an investigation of a political opponent. But, there was a big but, I don't view it as impeachable offense. That strategy held up better than House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): You watch what the president said. He's not saying China investigate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: Who apparently missed Trump saying this just four days ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with -- with Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: As for the actual impeachment investigation the House committee fired off new round of subpoenas to the Pentagon and Office of Management and Budget today. Democrats are seeking more information about the decision to freeze aid to Ukraine at the same time Trump and Rudy Giuliani were pushing for investigations into the Biden family.

House Democrats also threaten to subpoena three associates of Giuliani after they missed a deadline to provide documents to the Hill. Today, two of them, Ukrainian American businessman Lev Parnas and his business partner Igor Fruman responded via their attorney John Dowd. The same John Dowd who one represented President Trump. He said a response would take time.

[23:05:03]

"Your request for documents and communications is overly broad and unduly burdensome." Dowd wrote. "This, in combination with requiring immediate responses, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Democratic committee members intent is to harass, intimidate and embarrass my clients."

COATES: And Sara Murray joins me now. Sara, I mean, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union is going to testify tomorrow in front of three committees. You got the House, intelligence, foreign affairs and also oversight. And we all saw his name pop up in those damming text messages. So, tell us why is he so significant that he's going to have the attention of three congressional committees tomorrow.

MURRAY: That's right. And he's going to be interesting for a number of reasons. I mean, one, he was heavily involved in the run up of this call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president. Trying to get it off the ground at a time when Ukraine was pressing for face to face meeting with President Trump and President Trump was holding back that meeting in exchange for investigation.

So, he knows a little bit about what that quid pro quo may have looked like behind the scenes. Certainly, more on what we have seen in the text messages. But also, when you see these text messages play out you can see him discussing with other diplomats who are concerned that there's another quid pro quo going on.

They are concern that the president is withholding this military aid in exchange for these investigations. And you really begin to see Gordon Sondland's tone change. And we know a couple of things happened during the course of these text messages.

We know from Wall Street Journal reporting he had a conversation with Republican Senator Ron Johnson where he told Ron Johnson, essentially the president is holding up Ukrainian military aid in exchange for these investigations.

The president talks to Ron Johnson and says no, no, that's not what's going on. And all of a sudden in text messages with other diplomats Gordon Sondland say absolutely not. The president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quo.

So, if I'm a member of this committee I want to know what gave him this impression when he talked to Ron Johnson, who got to him, what changed his view of the situation in those couple of days between those conversations and those text messages. Certainly, there's a lot to be gained from Sondland's testimony tomorrow.

COATES: And of course, answering that question why do you say call me. I mean, that to me --

(CROSSTALK)

MURRAY: Absolutely. Why don't you want a record?

COATES: -- a big question. Why did you want this in writing?

MURRAY: Thank you, Sara. You know, let's now unravel some of this with two of the smartest guys I know. CNN Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin and CNN Political Analyst, David Gregory. David, Jeffrey he paid me to say that about him but it means something for you as well. I want to tell you.

So, Jeffrey, let me ask you. Sondland's testimony tomorrow will be of really big moment in this inquiry. And his name is all over those text messages. Let me read one of them with a top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine.

Bill Taylor, "as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with the political campaign." Then Gordon Sondland responds, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I got to ask you, Jeffrey, what is the significance of that exchange and how important -- and by the way it sounds very sanitized, doesn't it?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes. I mean, that doesn't read like a text. It reads like the back of your credit card bill. I mean, it's very carefully stated. And it comes after more informal conversations several days earlier where they are talking about where Wilson the diplomat is saying like what is this quid pro quo. Why is this a good way to conduct foreign policy.

Then says call me to sort of end the recorded part of their exchange. And then after something happens, and we don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Hours go by, by the way, not a quick exchange.

TOOBIN: Hours go by between those two, you know, why are we doing this, quid pro quo. He says there was no quid pro quo in that very stylized formal e-mail which doesn't sound like any of his other e- mail.

So certainly, one of the questions the congressmen are going to want to ask tomorrow is what made you write that e-mail and did you have helped. What prompted you to write in such a different style than you had written previously.

COATES: I mean, you know, David, everyone I know says quid pro quo in every sentence they have ever said to a friend via text message. I mean, it took Sondland about five hours to answer that text. And when he finally did, you know, we're talking about it sound sanitized, it sounds scrubbed. But is it still damming now that he's essentially cleaned up that earlier exchange?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it is. Because you've two camps here. You've got those who are inside the tent and those who are outside. And those who are outside are professional diplomats with real experience in international affairs.

[23:10:00]

Sondland does not have that. He's a wealthy guy who's in the hotel business who gave a lot of money to Trump despite his early reservations and becomes an ambassador to the E.U. And people should remember. There are lot of people who are named ambassadors who have no diplomatic experience. He has none. And what he's doing here is he's carrying the president's brief here

and saying no, there's no quid pro quo. But he's also been involved in what is this shadow agenda here by the president and Rudy Giuliani. Because when they say corruption, they mean Joe Biden.

TOOBIN: Right.

GREGORY: That's what they mean when it comes to Ukraine. And everybody else has to get on board. And I do think what's so telling, I wonder how helpful he's going to be in questioning by members of Congress.

But what is so telling is that you have the likes of Bill Taylor who are really saying this is bad. This stink. I don't like how this looks. It's bad policy. And that he cuts it off.

Bill Taylor knows enough to make a record even though they're texting. We should point out I guess in the post-Hillary Clinton world there's more people in the diplomatic who are texting. He knew enough to make a record here and Sondland wants to cut that short. That's telling. And that's where I think the investigation focus.

COATES: Maybe we want to hear from Bill Taylor. I mean, if he did that with the intention of getting a record, what does that say to you?

TOOBIN: You certainly want to hear from Taylor.

COATES: Right.

TOOBIN: Because Taylor is one of these professionals as David said, who is horrified by the idea of using American foreign policy to gather political dirt.

What all of these investigations are trying to do is establish a chronology of what happened, particularly with regard to this money. The money that Congress appropriated and for reasons that remain mysterious does not get to the Ukrainians for quite some time.

And there are exchanges that suggest very strongly that the reason it doesn't go to the Ukrainians is because they hadn't come across with the political dirt yet.

GREGORY: Right.

TOOBIN: American taxpayer dollars in return for dirt on Joe Biden. That's certainly the way this looks. But the Democrats on the committee need to establish a chronology with the text messages, the e-mails and starting tomorrow the testimony.

COATES: I want to go to that chronology as well.

GREGORY: We also --

(CROSSTALK) COATES: I'm going to -- Jeffrey, David, stick around. We have a lot more to discuss. And I want to definitely hear from you. Because coming up, I'll make my case about what might be today's most important development. And by the way, it happened 200 miles away from Washington. We'll have you both back on.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Jeffrey Toobin and David Gregory are back with me. Now we're going to talk about today's decision by a federal judge here in New York that might have a huge impact on the investigations into President Trump.

Now this decision could finally clear the way for all of us to see whatever Trump is hiding in his tax returns. Because today Judge Victor Marrero ruled that Trump's tax returns can be turned over to a New York State grand jury. And he dismissed the president's claim that the occupant of the White House enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind.

In fact, the judge called that claim an overreach of executive power and quote, "repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional values."

Now the Manhattan D.A. wants to know if Trump or his company falsified business records in connection with those hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Now both women allege they had affairs with Trump who denied the allegations.

Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, admits paying some hush money on Trump's behalf. He's serving time in federal prison after pleading guilty in a case concerning those very payments.

And attorney for the president immediately appealed today's ruling. And Trump and his lawyers have one main argument. The President of the United States is untouchable. As long as he has on the ruby slippers of the presidency the so-called wicked witch hunts of the justice system can't touch him. That's called above the law by the way.

Now the president's team is clinging to Justice Department guidelines. And I stress the word guidelines, which say that a sitting president can't be indicted, can't be criminally prosecuted.

And here's where Judges Marrero's ruling today could -- now could have far- reaching implications. Remember that old DOJ guideline that says you can't indict a sitting president? How often did you hear that?

Well, after today that guideline maybe all bark and no bite. Because here's a key part of his opinion. It reads, "The court rejects the DOJ memos position. It concludes that better calibrated alternatives to absolute presidential immunity exist yielding a more appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the burden that subjecting the president to criminal proceedings would impose on his ability to perform constitutional duties, and, on the other, the need to promote the courts' legitimate interests and functions in ensuring law enforcement attendant to the proper and fair administration of justice."

Now he then addresses the question of a president asserting immunity. Writing, "It should be justified by exacting reasons of momentous public interest, like national security, and be reviewable by a court of law."

[23:19:50]

Above all, he writes, "it's effect should not be to shield the president from all legal process, especially in circumstances where it may appear that a claim of generalized immunity is invoked more on personal than on official grounds, and work to place the president above the law."

Now what does all that mean? In other words, Judge Marrero is saying President Trump is not above the law and the constitutional mandates of checks and balances and separation of powers, well, those Trump absolute immunity.

Now President Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow was on Chris Cuomo show tonight. And here's what he had to say about the president's tax returns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: But the bigger issue for people at home, Jay is --

(CROSSTALK)

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Well, hold it. This was not in his appeal --

CUOMO: Why not just turn over the taxes?

SEKULOW: Chris, well, we're not required to when the people elected the president to become the president, he had not issued his tax returns. It's not required in the constitution.

CUOMO: So, what?

SEKULOW: Do you think there should have - why don't we say we -- because the Constitution doesn't require it, Chris. But let me talk to you about it.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: But that doesn't mean the Constitution says you shouldn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Back again with Jeffrey Toobin and David Gregory. You know, David, I want to ask you. The language this judge has used is pretty stark. I mean, what are the implications what you see for Trump's impeachment inquiry now?

GREGORY: Well, I'll stay away from the law and raise the question of whether this gets us any closer to learning what's in those tax returns. And it appears that the answer is not really. Because even if there is an order that they should be released they may not be released publicly. Which is something that we'll have to wait for.

You know, I think the one piece of this I think is most constitutional question but becomes a political question is we have a means to hold a president accountable for abusing office and abusing power and that is the impeachment process. The problem is it's such a political process and so the yields the result of removing a president from office. Unless there's enough bipartisanship to reach such a conclusion, which in this day and age of political polarization seems impossible. Those are at least a couple of the political questions.

COATES: But I mean, David, on this issue, I mean, the idea of the taxes has been long brewing. I mean, is this really about taxes? Politically speaking. Or is this more about the president flexing his executive power in a way that he's trying to say look, you and what army?

GREGORY: Right. I think it's a much bigger issue. And perhaps the Supreme Court will visit this again on the question of whether a president can be indicted. But there's larger battles here about presidential authority about executive power that predate Donald Trump as president.

And some of this this is the judiciary speaking. But Congress has a role to finally do its job and assert some more prerogative and some more power in this country. And that's one of, I think one of the fights that's at issue here in impeachment in this regard. But it plays out in national security, it plays out in the role of using force overseas, the power that was given to the president after 9/11 that Congress has not reauthorized or has not taken up the debate again.

COATES: Now, Jeffrey, I have to mention this because this is really big. We remember that the DOJ guideline was used by Mueller to justify why he could not pursue charges, why it may have been the basis and the predicate for why the exploration of part two of that 400-plus page Mueller report. I mean, what do you see as the big deal here thinking about a judge saying those guidelines, well, thank you very much, but it's not the Constitution.

TOOBIN: Right. But I think it's important to point out that this case is not about the prosecution of Donald Trump. What the Trump's lawyers are arguing is that if you have this DOJ policy against prosecuting a president you also can't subject the president to compulsory process in a criminal investigation. You can't subpoena him, as well as not prosecute him. In which Judge Marrero says is, no, no, no.

Even if you accept the policy of no prosecution, you can still treat the president like a witness who has to produce documents. And has to produce in this case, his tax returns.

COATES: And also --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: And remember, there are also, there's several cases all over the country about the president's tax returns. There's the Way and Means committee which has its own process to get it. In California, there's a law that says you can't go in the presidential ballot unless you produce your tax returns.

You have this New York State prosecution -- investigation here. All of them are aimed at getting the tax returns, none have succeeded so far. I think one or more are going to succeed eventually.

COATES: And of course, remember, we're talking about the case maybe going up to the Supreme Court. We know that it's the president's Supreme Court in many ways. The consequential decision to not allow Merrick Garland even to get a hearing in the past administration. And now he's been able to seat more than one person.

[23:25:03]

I wonder if it will have an impact frankly what goes down. We'll have to follow the story along.

You know, President Trump is upsetting his Republicans defenders with his abrupt decision on Syria. But they're awfully quiet, I mean, crickets when it comes to the Ukraine scandal. So, why the utter lack of consistency? We'll break that down, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Welcome back. This is a CNN special hour, White House in Crisis.

[23:30:01]

Now today, Republicans on Capitol Hill are actually outraged with the president of the United States. But here's the catch. It has nothing to do with his request for China and Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. The reason they're so angry, the president's hasty and confusing decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.

It seems like some Republican senators are only taking the president seriously half the time. Take what Marco Rubio said about Trump's calls for China to investigate Joe Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I don't think it's a real -- I think he did it to gig you guys. I think he did it to provoke you to ask me and others and get outraged by it. He plays it like a violin and everybody falls right in. That's not a real request.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's not a real request. But when Trump announces pulling out troops from Syria, well, that's real to Senator Rubio. He said it's a grave mistake. And Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, well, he is actually running ads that say he will lead republican efforts to stop President Trump from being removed from office.

And by the way, that's not even considering what an impeachment inquiry will find. But Trump's decision on Syria, well, here's his strongly worded statement. "A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria would only benefit Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime. And it would increase the risk that ISIS and other terrorist groups regroup."

McConnell says Trump's decision benefits U.S. enemies. Well, that's stunning. And Senator Lindsey Graham, well, he had no problems with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden over debunked claims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I have zero problems with his phone call. There is no quid pro quo here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Zero problem. But Trump's troop withdrawal from Syria, that's a big problem for Senator Graham. So big that he called the president's favorite TV show to say it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM (voice-over): This impulsive decision by the president is undone all the gains we have made, thrown the region into further chaos. Iran is licking their chops. If I'm an ISIS fighter, I've got a second lease on life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator --

GRAHAM (voice-over): I hope I'm making myself clear how short-sighted and irresponsible this decision is in my view.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Just so we're clear, it is an impulsive action that short- sighted has ramifications about foreign diplomatic relations. OK. There is a lot to discuss here. Joining me now are Manu Raju, Kaitlan Collins, and Shane Harris. I'm glad to have you all here.

Kaitlan, you know, a big difference between how key Republicans are reacting to the president's Syria withdrawal and his calls for a foreign interference from Ukraine and China. So, tell me, why the split here?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, they're making sure to separate the two, saying that they don't interconnect them, they are going to criticize the president over this decision on Syria. That doesn't mean that they're not going to still give him cover over those calls with Ukraine that have now come under scrutiny. So that will be something to watch. But also what's interesting is as the president is infuriating some of these Republicans who a lot of them probably should have seen this coming because it is something the president promised on the campaign trail, it is something he talked about last December because it, of course, led to the resignation of the defense secretary at the time and other top officials.

What is going to be interesting is the president's fate in not that long potentially could be in a lot of these Republicans' hands, whether or not they hold the support for the president as he is likely facing this impeachment inquiry. That's something I heard a lot from White House officials today. They're going to be watching how some of these key Senate Republicans are criticizing the president over this, and of course whether or not he decides to recalibrate.

As you saw him do a little bit today when he then went on Twitter, pivoted slightly and said he is going to try to restrain Turkey though he didn't exactly go into detail of how he's going to do so.

COATES: Well, compartmentalization may be the name of the game here. Manu, I got to ask you. Why do Republican senators feel it is OK to attack the president on Syria, but they want to give the cover on election interference, what Kaitlan is talking about? Is it really a matter of compartmentalizing or something different here that we're all missing?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Ukraine matter and the aftermath and the scandal and now the move for impeachment really threaten the heart of the Trump presidency.

It could ultimately undercut his ability to win reelection and in the most extreme circumstance could lead to removal of the president from office although at the moment, of course, there is no indication that the Republicans would convict him in the Senate.

[23:34:54]

RAJU: But nevertheless, by agreeing with Democrats that was over the line when it comes to Ukraine, that his conduct was unbecoming of a president that potentially fits the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors, that would be bridge too far for many Republicans.

They realize that at the end of the day, the fight over impeachment in the House, the impeachment investigation, for the most part is going to be a partisan affair, you have to pick your team essentially, Republican or Democrat.

This issue, they view it as sort of a bit easier, safer ground. It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency in any way. They view it as more of a policy matter to break from the president on. You have seen that from time to time in the Trump presidency whether it is over the Trump tariffs, whether it is over his criticism of NATO, whether it is over here as it moves on Syria.

So you have seen that very occasional break from the president on foreign policy ground, but when it comes to matters that could rock the core of his presidency, that's completely different, Laura.

COATES: Yet it's the same theme here, foreign policy considerations. Maybe I'm being skeptical here when I say maybe it's just enough cover to show that you're being objective to have a little bit of a give and take.

Shane, let's go to you. Shane, the president needs Republican support on the impeachment front. We know this. So, will his decision on Syria cost him that support?

SHANE HARRIS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it's a risky strategy to pursue when you need these Republicans to side with you as jurors, and he is counting on them to acquit him if it does go to impeachment. He has picked the one thing that unites Republicans in the Senate against him, which is this issue of supporting the Kurds.

For many of these senators, this is about a couple of things. One, it is supporting a group of stalwart allies that spill their blood that died, that dismantling the caliphate is something President Trump likes to take credit for. And this also speaks to American integrity and dependability.

These senators are worried about how our allies are going to be looking at us in the future. When we go to war, we do it as a coalition. The United States doesn't go to war alone.

And so if you want to pick this one place to really give the Republicans a chance to stand up, this is it. That seems to me a pretty risky strategy when you're looking into a possible impeachment trial.

COATES: Yes, it's a great point, to think about what that looks like and why it would be the case. Kaitlan, you're reporting that the White House has been struggling with an impeachment strategy overall. The president campaign is taking the lead or attempting to. So why is the campaign in a stronger position on this than say the White House?

COLLINS: It's interesting. It's kind of something that's confusing people in the White House who don't understand why they haven't been able to develop a clear effective message since Nancy Pelosi launched that formal impeachment inquiry during that. Something that aids and push back on the White House, saying it's not real impeachment inquiry until Democrats bring it up for the vote which, of course, Democrats have disputed.

But something you're seeing inside the White House is as simple as who is defending the president on television. If you watch on Sunday, not a single White House official was out there making the president's case. Instead, they left it up to Republican lawmakers, who for the people who watched, could see that they struggled saying that the president was just kidding when he was talking about having China investigate the Bidens, an argument that even the White House hasn't made.

But instead, you're seeing the campaign really take a lead here where they're hosting a conference call with reporters today pushing their talking points. And while at times those talking points were not completely accurate, they see it as they're at least trying to defend the president, trying to put some kind of message out there which you haven't really seen a concerted effort like that coming from the White House yet, which is frustrating people.

COATES: I hope it doesn't come down to that old adage again, literally versus seriously. Manu, Kaitlan, Shane, thank you each for being part of the show. President Trump claims it's a perfect call. He said it over and over again. But the facts, they just don't line up. The anatomy of a lie, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: As Democrats continue their investigation into the president, a second whistleblower has come forward. President Trump was asked if he was concerned about the new whistleblower earlier this evening. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not at all because the call was a perfect call. You had stenographers. You had people that took down exactly was a perfect call. It's just a scam. This is a scam by the Democrats who try to win an election but they're not going to win in 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, joining me now to break down the anatomy of a lie is CNN's resident fact checker, Mr. Daniel Dale. Daniel, all right, we have heard it again and again and again. The president says his call with the Ukrainian Prime Minister Zelensky was perfect. Was it perfect?

DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Well, as a fact checker, as a reporter, I'll leave the characterization of it to the president and to pundits. But what I can tell you is that what the president keeps saying about the whistleblower complaint and its description of the call is completely inaccurate.

Trump keeps insisting that the whistleblower got the call totally wrong, way off. And it's not at all. In fact, the whistleblower's three main points in his three-point bullet point list were all corroborated by the very transcript that Trump's White House released.

COATES: Of course, Trump is claiming that that transcript that was released by the White House was exact.

[23:44:58]

COATES: But we know that's not true because the transcript itself says it's not a verbatim transcript of a discussion, right? DALE: That's right. On the very first page of this text, there is a note saying caveat warning, this is not an exact recitation. It goes into explaining why it may not be exact. The transcript may be affected by poor call quality, incomplete notes and so forth. So, no, this is not an exact transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky.

COATES: The president has repeatedly called this whole impeachment inquiry -- you heard him say it on the sound bite there, a scam. He has attacked the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff. We just watched this from earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Now what happened is Schiff, Adam Schiff, went up before Congress and he read the most horrible speech, attributed the speech to me. He made it up. It was horrible. And he said, the president of the United States said this on the call. It's a fraud.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right. So, take us through it. What exactly did Schiff say?

DALE: So Schiff at a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee offered a kind of confusing dramatic interpretation of Trump's phone call with Zelensky. It was a mix of near actual quotes, Schiff's analysis and what Schiff called parody.

I wrote in a fact check that Trump has reasonable ground to be miffed about this because I think there were times in the recitation when it wasn't quite clear who was supposed to be talking, whether it was Schiff's take or whether it was supposed to be Trump's words.

But Trump is wrong in saying that Schiff purported to be reciting actual words. Schiff actually introduced this whole thing by saying I'm going to give you the essence of what Trump said. So he did suggest in at least some way that this was his own interpretation.

COATES: Dale, thank you for your time. The American people need clarity, not parody, right? We'll be right back.

DALE: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: House Democrats are hours away from questioning a critical figure in the Ukraine scandal. Million-dollar Trump donor and U.S. ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, will be grilled over the text messages that he sent to other diplomats. CNN's Alex Marquardt shows us Sondland's close relationship to the president and how he became a likely star witness. ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Laura. Ambassador Sondland is going in front of no fewer than three House committees tomorrow -- foreign affairs, intelligence, and oversight.

Now, normally the ambassador to the European Union wouldn't be so deeply involved in Ukrainian affairs, but it's clear from text messages that not only was he a point man for President Trump on Ukraine, but he was very aware of what the president wanted.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT (voice-over): A wealthy donor, given a large but uncontroversial role in the Trump administration, has been thrust into one of the biggest scandals to grip the White House. Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, is testifying to Congress on Tuesday, now a key player in the impeachment inquiry because of his high-level dealings with Ukraine.

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U.: I had a wonderful hour- long meeting with President Zelensky that followed on the heels of his telephone call yesterday with President Trump.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): Text messages released by the House Intelligence Committee show that Sondland was well aware that for the president, the U.S.-Ukraine relationship was deeply intertwined with the president's desire for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son.

The group messages Sondland is on are full of references to Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer assigned to pushing a Biden conspiracy theory that has zero supporting evidence.

On September 1st, the ambassador to Ukraine asked Sondland if hundreds of millions of dollars and military assistance were conditioned on investigations. Sondland responded, "Call me." A week later, the ambassador told Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Sondland denied it was, saying President Trump has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms.

Sondland has ended up in the hot seat in Washington after a career in business. Like President Trump, building hotels across the country and making a lot of money.

JEB BUSH, FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Thank you.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): In the 2016 campaign, the longtime Republican donor first supported Jeb Bush. He slammed Trump for going after the gold star Khan family, who lost a son in Iraq. But his tune soon changed. Once the election was over, Sondland donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration and secured his E.U. ambassadorship.

Once there, he linked up with Energy Secretary Rick Perry and now former special envoy Kurt Volker in managing the Ukraine relationship, calling themselves the three amigos.

SONDLAND: And we've been tasked with sort of overseeing the Ukraine- U.S. relationship between our contacts at the highest levels of the U.S. government and now the highest levels of the Ukrainian government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: There is one more part of that trove of text messages that we need to highlight, a message in which Sondland says that he thinks that President Trump really wants what he calls the deliverable. That deliverable, we understand from the other messages, is a public statement from the Ukrainian president that Joe Biden and his son will be investigated. Laura?

[23:55:07]

COATES: Wow. Thanks, Alex, for that. There's a lot coming up on the docket tomorrow, everyone. Ambassador Sondland is set to be deposed behind closed doors. That begins at 9:30 a.m. The D.C. district court is going to hold the hearing on a lawsuit seeking redacted details in the Mueller report. And the president is going to award the Medal of Freedom to Edwin Meese at 4:30 p.m.

Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)