Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House GOP's Four-Part Strategy to Defend Trump; New Testimony Ties Trump Closer to Alleged Ukraine Pressure Campaign. Aired 1-2a ET
Aired November 14, 2019 - 01:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[01:00:46]
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Top of the hour, this is your special live coverage of the first televised testimony in the impeachment investigation of the president. We are glad you're with us. I'm Poppy Harlow.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto. Today's revelations came from two veteran diplomats who detailed what they knew about an alleged scheme to pressure Ukraine to investigate President Trump's political opponents using as leverage crucial military aid and a meeting with the U.S. president as leverage as well.
HARLOW: Perhaps the biggest bombshell came right at the beginning from the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine who testified about a previously unknown phone call involving President Trump.
SCIUTTO: Republicans dismissed much of today's testimony, basically a failure defense, arguing that the aid to Ukraine was eventually released and that investigation into Joe Biden and his son was never initiated by Ukraine despite the president's demand.
HARLOW: But Democrats vow what they learned today, whatever we will learn today is just the beginning.
Our Sara Murray has a look at today's most extraordinary moments.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): In the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States.
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The hearing's big bombshell was dropped early in the proceedings by the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor.
BILL TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: A member of staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland about the investigations. So Sondland told President Trump the Ukrainians were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Mr. Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden which Giuliani was pressing for.
MURRAY: The disclosure ties President Trump directly to alleged pressure campaign against the Ukrainians, and not through second or third-hand accounts. Taylor also recounted that Trump was primarily concerned with his own political prospects and recalled first learning in July that money for Ukraine had been frozen.
TAYLOR: I and others sat in astonishment.
MURRAY: And later realizing not only a White House meeting but also the military aid was contingent on Ukraine carrying out the political investigations Trump was demanding.
TAYLOR: Ambassador Sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.
MURRAY: He expressed alarm that Ukraine might publicly announce those investigations and the U.S. still might not come through with the funds.
TAYLOR: My nightmare is that they, the Ukrainians, give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it and I quit. And I was serious.
MURRAY: As the funding freeze continued, Taylor raised concerns again in early September.
TAYLOR: Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ukrainians did not owe President Trump anything. And holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy.
MURRAY: The hearing featuring Taylor and top State Department official George Kent was led by questions from lawmakers but also by chief counsel for the Democratic majority and the Republican minority. It was also peppered with partisan squabbling.
SCHIFF: We will not permit the outing of the whistleblower and questions along those lines. Counsel will inform their clients not to respond, too.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Now there is one witness, one witness that they won't bring in front of us. They won't bring in front of the American people. And that's the guy who started it all. The whistleblower. Nope.
MURRAY: While Democrats focus on the president's allegedly corrupt motives for withholding aid to Ukraine and the role Rudy Giuliani played as a shadow diplomat --
REP. TERRI SEWELL (D-AL): Was it normal to have a person who is a private citizen take an active role in foreign diplomacy? GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: I did not find his
particular engagement normal. No.
MURRAY: The GOP focused less on the president's conduct and more on the conduct of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden who served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.
KENT: The vice president's role was critically important. It was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda.
[09:05:03]
STEVE CASTOR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MINORITY COUNSEL: OK, but given Hunter Biden's role on Burisma's Board of Directors, at some point you testified in your deposition that you expressed some concern to the vice president's office. Is that correct?
KENT: That is correct.
MURRAY: Kent testified that he was concerned about a perceived conflict of interest but he never saw any evidence of wrongdoing. Kent also rejected the GOP theory that Joe Biden had a Ukrainian prosecutor ousted to protect his son and Burisma from being investigated.
DANIEL GOLDMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MAJORITY COUNSEL: Mr. Kent, are you familiar, as you indicated in your opening statement, about these allegations related to Vice President Biden?
KENT: I am.
GOLDMAN: And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support those allegations?
KENT: None whatsoever.
MURRAY: GOP lawmakers cast the witnesses as unreliable narrators with secondhand information.
JORDAN: The president -- you didn't listen on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?
TAYLOR: I did not.
JORDAN: You never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?
TAYLOR: I never did.
JORDAN: You never met the president.
TAYLOR: That's correct.
JORDAN: You had three meetings again with Zelensky that didn't come up.
TAYLOR: And two of those they had never heard about as far as I know. There was no reason for it to come up.
JORDAN: And President Zelensky never made an announcement. This is what I can't believe and you're their star witness. You're their first witness.
TAYLOR: Let me just say that I don't consider myself a star witness for anything.
JORDAN: They do. You don't --
TAYLOR: No, I don't. I'm just -- I'm responding -- I am responding to your questions. I think I was clear about I'm not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcome. So let me restate that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MURRAY: Now another player has emerged from all of this testimony today and that is the aide to Bill Taylor who overheard that phone call between Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland. His name is David Holmes and he is expected to testify on Friday behind closed doors.
Back to you, Jim and Poppy.
HARLOW: Sara Murray, thank you for all of that.
As Sara just mentioned, Democrats took a different approach with their format for questioning these officials today. But was utilizing a congressional attorney more or less effective?
Let's go to our congressional correspondent Phil Mattingly. He's on the Hill with more.
Phil, good evening, what are lawmakers telling you?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy and Jim, when you talked to Democrats and Republicans after the hearing, I'm going to shock you when I tell you this but both claimed massive victory. That it did exactly what they wanted it to do.
Here's kind of the bomb line when you cut through the spin and cut through what people are trying to say after the hearing. When you talk to Democrats, Democratis on the committee, Democratic aides, they went into this hearing hoping to lay the groundworks, to essentially set the stage for what's to come, and in doing so, with two witnesses, two diplomats, two individuals who had an on-the-ground view of what the Trump administration is doing with its Ukraine policy, how to some degree it had spun out of control or was being led by people outside the government, they believe they accomplished just that.
They wanted to tell the story that they'd been hearing behind closed doors, in those closed-door depositions over the course of weeks. And they wanted to lead in to what's to come next.
Now Republicans made very clear, these two witnesses did not have direct line to the president, did not know the president personally. Hadn't gotten personal directives from the president. And as such they believed those were clear holes in their testimony.
But here's something to keep in mind. There are more witnesses to come, and this goes back to the Democratic strategy, at least according to people that I'm talking to right now. You will notice the name Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., came up multiple times during the hearing today.
Both witnesses made clear it was their understanding he had a close relationship with the president, spoke to him on the phone, regularly interacted with he and some of his top officials. Gordon Sondland will testify next Wednesday by himself. That was scheduled earlier today. Democrats are keenly waiting for that testimony.
There's another element here that I think is probably the most important thing to come out of the hearing at least from Democratic perspective. When Ambassador William Taylor came to testify, he unveiled new information, information that was not in his deposition. Information he learned after his deposition. That there was an individual, one of his top staffers who was Gordon Sondland when Sondland received a phone call from President Trump, where they discussed investigations, where they discussed what had been going on behind the scenes in the Ukraine policy.
In that discussion, and after that discussion, Sondland told this top aide that President Trump was more concerned about those, quote- unquote, "investigations" in the Bidens than he was about Ukraine generally. That was new, that was important, and that, according to Democrats, is firsthand testimony.
Will they get that firsthand testimony? Here is the other big element. That individual is now scheduled to come give a deposition behind closed doors on Friday. There is a possibility that individual will also testify publicly at some point in the future.
There are more things to come is the broader point here, laying the groundwork for what's to come. Republicans feel like they got what they wanted out of this hearing. Democrats making clear this is only the start of fairly lengthy process -- guys.
SCIUTTO: Phil Mattingly, thanks.
You could say methodical is the word.
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Bill Taylor, George Kent, they both testified at length on Wednesday about a second irregular channel of foreign policy taking place with Ukraine. One that Taylor says was, quote, "running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy." That's key.
Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley asked them both about who was calling the shots that -- on that regular channel -- irregular channel.
[01:10:08]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): So the entire discussion about a public statement about the two investigations President Trump wanted was done in what you have described as an irregular channel involving Ambassador Sondland and Volker, and they tasked to take on Ukraine policy by the president, isn't that correct, Mr. Kent?
KENT: That would be my understanding.
QUIGLEY: Ambassador?
TAYLOR: The same.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: All right, with us now, Ron Brownstein, senior editor of the Atlantic, former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin and Steve Hall, retried CIA chief of Russia operations.
Good evening to all of you. Michael, let me begin with you because you had some interesting points on this especially on an area where you think Democrats were rather ineffective. Where was that?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think that the Democrats keep missing the basic point which is that exhibit A is the transcript of the July call in which the president, with words out of his own mouth, says to the president of Ukraine the relationship between us had been unequal, we've been giving you more than you've been giving us, and therefore I have a favor to ask you. And that is to do an investigation of the Bidens.
That in and of itself is the abuse of powers of the office. Irrespective of whether there's a quid pro quo, irrespective of whether there's a public announcement. That ask in and of itself is the problem, is the abuse, is the impeachment offense. And the Democrats keep falling to this trap of arguing quid pro quo or no quid pro quo when it's not even necessary given the initial conversation by the president with Zelensky.
SCIUTTO: I mean, it's a good point because of course we went through enormous controversy and investigations due to Russia's interference of the 2016 election, you know, denounced by Republicans and Democrats alike. And here you have a U.S. president in effect soliciting another foreign influence.
Ron, I want to ask you this question because beyond Michael's point, you know, you have the transcript of the call, the president asking for this favor, and now you have a second phone call, the very next day we heard in testimony where the president checks in, in effect.
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: To say how is this going on my demand for investigations.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.
SCIUTTO: And that, according to Taylor, was his clear focus.
BROWNSTEIN: Right, and look, I think what you get -- Michael is obviously right about the incriminating nature of the rough transcript that the White House itself revealed. But the key I think out of Ambassador Taylor's testimony and all of these others is that that was not a one-time event. It was not a casual comment by the president in the middle of this phone call. It was a sustained campaign of pressure that went on for months and that involved multiple things that the Ukrainians cared about very much in particular of this military aid.
And I think that, you know, the Republicans today are putting a lot of weight on a very fragile branch. The idea that Ambassador Taylor and Kent did not talk directly to the president. What is the -- where is the other road lead? Is the idea that Rudolph Giuliani and Gordon Sondland were doing this on their own?
HARLOW: Right.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: That they somehow cooked up --
HARLOW: Well --
BROWNSTEIN: -- this entire plan and -- and persuaded the executive branch of the government to withhold the money because they were -- you know, they were doing this? I mean, it goes to a dead end very quickly.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HARLOW: It's a branch that could break a week from today, right? Next Wednesday when Gordon Sondland is set to testify in public and answer questions all about that newly revealed call.
Steve Hall, to you, you have an important opinion piece in "Washington Post." The title, quote, "I saw a request like Trump's when I was in the CIA but not in democracies." What did we learn today?
STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Boy, there was a lot that we learned today. And Michael took the words straight out of my mouth. I think people are really getting wrapped up in this quid pro quo thing, going down the rabbit hole. The president himself provided the most damming evidence I believe to date which is him during that phone call on the 25th reaching out and asking a foreign leader for assistance in getting dirt on a domestic political foe.
That is something that the Ukrainians are very used to hearing, request like that, but never from the United States of America. They expect that sort of thing when Vladimir Putin is on the other end of the line or when some other two-bit dictator is on the line. The real damage here I believe down the road, and it's going to take a long time I think to heal this damage, is really American credibility diplomatically, militarily, intelligence wise.
I mean, it used to be when an American official walked in the room, it doesn't matter who else is there, French, Germany, Angola. It doesn't matter. Usually the most attention, and it's not an ego thing, it's just you're the most important person in the room because you are the American official.
[01:15:02]
If foreign governments get the idea that really the United States is no different from any other corrupt society, the president is going to call up and ask for a personal favor? Then American credibility, an American ability to tell other countries, look, you guys got to start acting more democratic and buck up and start behaving, all of that goes away and Vladimir Putin is going to say, look, they're no different than what they're accusing me of. So it's a real damaging situation. It's going to take a while I think to heal up.
SCIUTTO: Michael Zeldin, I want to ask you about, from a legal perspective, how Democrats approach this since the president is blocking many of the key witnesses here and the president has been known to speak in ways when he's asking for something that might get the point across without saying it in so many words. I mean, we saw that with Michael Flynn and James Comey, right, saying, can you just let it go? You know, perceived by James Comey as a request to stop an ongoing investigation.
HARLOW: Yes. Yes. That's true.
SCIUTTO: But he didn't say stop the ongoing investigation. If you're prosecuting this as a lawyer, say, against the mob, where you might have similar circumstances, how do you get around that? What's the response when some of these, you know, obstructive steps seemed to be working?
ZELDIN: Well, first and foremost, I think the Democrats need to enforce their subpoenas. I think they need to go to court. I know they don't like the idea of being delayed in court. I do think they need to enforce subpoenas. We'll see what happens when the decision in the Don McGahn's subpoena case comes down which should be imminently. And that could be a precedent for Kupperman and Bolton and all the other refusals to now come forward.
But I think in a case like this, in a conspiracy case, then you do not need the words out of the mouth of the lead. You see it through the acts of his men. Like with Nixon, all the president's men, Nixon and -- gave orders and Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Mitchell all executed and to the points that were made earlier in this segment it's impossible to believe that Volker and Sondland and Giuliani and Secretary Perry were doing this on their own. It's just not credible.
And if you're before a jury, you would say exactly that. It's an incredible story to believe that these guys were conducting foreign policy without the direction of the lead which is the president.
HARLOW: But, Ron, where is -- where is the Howard Baker this time around?
BROWNSTEIN: That's extraordinary. I mean, we almost accept without kind of reaction that the entire House Republican caucus viewed itself as kind of defending the president with no independent institutional desire to get to the truth of what happened. And that is an extraordinary moment. You know, people talk about, well, Republicans will say well, they can't afford to break from the president because the base is so solidly with him.
The base is so solidly with him in part because they are not getting any cues from elected officials that they respect that there are reasons to be concerned here. And it really is just -- you know, it does raise a question as I do in my Atlantic column tomorrow, how far will Republicans go to defend the president?
HARLOW: Yes, but it's not all of them. Justin Amash, you know, leaving the party, becoming an independent.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
HARLOW: Tweeting about it today. Francis Rooney.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HARLOW: Saying he's open to impeachment.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, but --
SCIUTTO: True.
HARLOW: But he's leaving.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HARLOW: The Congress.
BROWNSTEIN: We'll see.
HARLOW: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I guess we'll see, Poppy. I mean, look, today there was not a Howard Baker in the bunch. And you know when Ambassador Taylor -- describing Ambassador Taylor as a hearsay witness, he was told -- he was testifying that he was told directly by Gordon Sondland explicitly that everything, including the military aid was dependent upon the investigations.
And as Michael said and as I said earlier, OK, are you supposed to believe that was Gordon Sondland and Rudy Giuliani who dreamed up those conditions? I mean, the idea just kind of explodes upon contact and to describe him as a hearsay witness ignores his direct communication with people who are involved in executing the scheme.
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Yes. You know, and the president often described by these same people as one who, you know, it's a very top down structure. He says what he wants and people do what he says he wants them to do.
Ron, Michael, Steve, stay with us. We have more to discuss.
Still to come this hour, Republicans say none of what we heard on the first day of testimony was, as we're just saying there, firsthand, right, from eye witnesses' mouths. Will Republicans be able to drive home that hearsay argument, particularly when other witnesses with firsthand knowledge come to speak?
HARLOW: And Russia and Ukraine are at the center of this impeachment inquiry. What do those two countries, citizens there think as they watch all of this take place in America?
Our special coverage continues next.
[01:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: There is a first time for everything even if you have decades of experience in public service. The top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor says he told then National Security adviser John Bolton in August he had serious concerns about withholding security aid from Ukraine.
HARLOW: Taylor says that Bolton recommended he send a first-person cable to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, telling him exactly that. And that was a first. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY): Have you ever sent a cable like that? How many times in your career, 40, 50 years have you sent a cable directly to the secretary of State?
TAYLOR: Once.
MALONEY: This time.
TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
MALONEY: In 50 years.
TAYLOR: Rifle company commanders don't send cables but, yes, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: That just shows how concerned he was and how urgent he felt the need was to contact the secretary of State.
Back with us, Ron Brownstein, Michael Zeldin and Steve Hall.
I'd like to take a moment to just step back, and Steve, I'd like for you to address this because there was a moment at the end of Bill Taylor's opening statement that was so powerful and it wasn't about politics. [01:25:09]
It was about the emergence of a young democracy in the face of Russian aggression. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAYLOR: In this second story, Ukraine is the subject. This one is about young people in a young nation struggling to break free of its past, hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new Ukraine, proud of its independence from Russia, eager to join Western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life.
This story describes a nation developing an inclusive democratic nationalism, not unlike what we in America, in our best moments, feel about our diverse country. Less concerned about what language we speak, what religion if any we practice, where our parents and grandparents came from. More concerned about building a new country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: And a country, Steve Hall, that has lost some 13,000 of its own to Russian aggression. So given all of that, even though the aid did flow, how was Ukraine or do you believe Ukraine was hurt by what transpired?
HALL: I believe that Ukraine is probably suffering on a number of different levels. I mean, yes, finally they did get some of that aid that they so badly needed in the face of the Russian aggression. But I think, Poppy, you're right, if you step back, one of the really uplifting moments, I thought, was that segment today that you just played.
HARLOW: Yes.
HALL: Because it really does harken back to things that I think a lot of Americans perhaps don't think about every day or when we hear it from politicians, we just think, OK, they're -- you know, they're trying to get their ratings up.
HARLOW: Right.
HALL: But when you hear it from a career ambassador like Ambassador Taylor, it really does -- that's the sort of thing that really does ring true for countries like Ukraine, for newly independent countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, the Baltics, Eastern and Central Europe. Those are things that they all aspire to, the idea that, you know, they can have a country that they control, that Russia doesn't control. That they can make their own decisions as to who they want to align themselves with and how they want their future to be.
So when you have a president of the United States who starts to act more like Vladimir Putin, who starts to act more like a two-but dictator or as the president likes to say, you know, the head of a banana republic, then you cause questions to arise in those other emerging democracies. And they look back and they say, well, we're an emerging democracy, we're a young democracy, is this how we want to look in our old age?
Do we want to look like the United States of America where a president like Trump is able to, you know, just make the same sort of demands that guys like Vladimir Putin are making? So that's damage that's done on a much deeper level I think than just how much military aid they got.
SCIUTTO: You got to go there. Right? I mean, you go to the Maidan, that's the central square in Kiev, where during democracy protests just a few years ago, right? Not even back in Soviet time.
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Protesters were shot in the head by snipers, backed by Russia.
HALL: Yes --
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: -- there on the ground.
HALL: Yes, Jim --
SCIUTTO: This is not theoretical stuff. It's a war happening right now.
HALL: No. And I was there, you know, back right around the Maidan, and it was just -- you know, walking around there, it's amazing when you see the flowers and the monuments and all of that stuff.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HALL: It really is -- it brings it home to you in terms of what a young democracy is struggling with. It's quite impressive.
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Well, I have to ask you, because we brought up the name John Bolton. And Bolton, according to other testimony, described this whole scheme as a drug deal.
HARLOW: Right.
SCIUTTO: In his words. He's asked a judge in effect for a permission slip to come testify. But it strikes me, Ron -- John Bolton wants to testify here.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
SCIUTTO: And that he might tell a story that is not good for the president.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, he can walk in tomorrow and testify. The same thing we talked about with Don McGahn during the Mueller hearings. I mean, he -- if he believes his obligation to the country, to American national security interest, exceeds his personal loyalty to the president and the demands of the White House not to testify, he could do that.
You know, and he would be important because one of the things that today did I thought that was very significant was understandably much of the debate about this entire episode has focused on the potential to corrupt and improperly influence the 2020 president election here in the U.S. but there was the other side of it, as we have, you know, been discussing in the last couple of minutes which is that the mechanism by which the president chose to try to exert leverage on Ukraine, threaten their security, threaten our foreign policy interests, and strengthen the hand of Vladimir Putin.
Now I think that was a very important point that Democrats wanted to underscore today that both of the witnesses did, and I think we're going to hear a lot more. The stakes here are not just about what this meant for domestic American politics but what it meant for America's interest in the world and the ability to deter Russian aggression.
[01:29:48]
I mean it isn't coincidental that the mechanism the President chose here advanced the interest of Vladimir Putin even as he thought he was advancing his own.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Michael Zeldin -- you know, if the Democrats, you know, have their way here, they will have to not only persuade some of their Republican counterparts certainly in the Senate.
But arguably more importantly, the American public has to move and I wonder if you believe that what we heard today will significantly sway the American public.
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not yet. It should but I don't think yet. I think that these witnesses were foundational. That is, they laid out the case as to why the cynical approach to the President of Ukraine for personal benefit was undermining of their democracy and undermining of our democracy.
Now, what they need to do is put people in the witness chair who can say with more, you know, sort of direct knowledge that the President was the mastermind of this scheme, and that it is he who was responsible for this and therefore he should be held accountable.
They haven't yet gotten to that. That is where the defense of Republicans rested which was, prove this was the President. Now Ron and I have it is impossible to believe that it wasn't the President, but I think until we have a little bit more direct evidence that the President was the puppet master here, the public is not going to yet move in favor of removal.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Noting that the White House has deliberately prevented those people from testifying which is an ongoing threat in this, but this something the Democrats are going to have to figure how to deal with it if the judge doesn't rescue them.
HARLOW: Yes.
ZELDIN: Yes, that's right.
HARLOW: Ron Brownstein, Michael Zeldin, Steve Hall -- thank you as always. But an extra thank you because it is 1:30 in the morning. Thank you for staying up late with us.
ZELDIN: Well worth it.
BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.
STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Thank you.
HARLOW: Thank you guys.
BROWNSTEIN: Not in California.
HARLOW: That's true.
The Republicans have a four-part plan to defend the President during this public phase of the impeachment inquiry. Will their strategy work? And what did we learn about it today?
[01:32:12]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: You might not be surprised that Democrats and Republicans have different reviews of today's testimonies. Democrats applauding it as a game changer for the hearings that lie ahead. Republicans on the other hand, claiming nothing has changed. That it was a good day for them.
Many repeating the argument that because of military aid did eventually make its way to Ukraine, and no investigations into the Bidens that the President was requesting were initiated that therefore there was no quid pro quo and therefore no abuse of power.
HARLOW: Joining us to discuss, CNN political commentator Scott Jennings. He is a former special assistant, of course, of former President George W. Bush. Scott -- thank you for being here and for staying up quite late with us. We really appreciate it.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hey -- good morning.
By the way it's 8:30 -- it's 8:30 p.m. in Hawaii so aloha to the folks who are watching primetime in Hawaii.
HARLOW: Aloha -- Hawaii.
SCIUTTO: Now you've just made me feel worst.
HARLOW: If only. We didn't think that was possible. We usually wake up about three hours from now, but there is that.
All right. To the serious stuff. Scott -- what is the most important thing you think the American public learned today?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean the most consequential thing that happened was that Ambassador Taylor dropped in this phone call that his staffer overheard Sondland having with the Trump supposedly. And because Sondland is the only person on the witness list that, I guess, has had direct contact with Trump, it really raised the stakes for his testimony next week.
Beyond that, I didn't see a lot today that I think changed the calculus here for Republicans. Remember most Republicans think that it's fait accompli that we're going to have the President impeached in the House. So what we're looking for is, is public opinion's going to change enough that would influence the U.S. Senators to decide he's going to convict the President when the trial heads over there.
And I don't hear a lot of concerns today from Republicans on the Hill that the PR or the public opinion may just really change out of what we got today.
SCIUTTO: So Scott -- let me ask you this because you make a point -- and it's a good one -- that until we hear from Sondland you don't have someone with firsthand knowledge of what the President saying, do x, right.
JENNINGS: Right.
SCIUTTO: That said, as you know, the White House has deliberately blocked the testimony of several witnesses who could testify to that very question, right? Either exonerating the President or backing up this claim that this was his order in effect.
If Republicans want transparency here and they want to get past the hearsay argument, why not support calling these key witnesses -- John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, people with direct knowledge?
JENNINGS: Well, there's a separation of powers issue, and the White House, of course, is relying on this OLC opinion from the Department of Justice that frankly extends back several years and has been utilized by administrations of both parties that protects direct advisors to the President from having to show up and respond to Congress when they get subpoenaed.
HARLOW: Yes.
(CROSSTALKING)
HARLOW: But Scott -- in your White House -- it didn't work with Harriet Miers -- in the White House that you worked in.
JENNINGS: Well, but the Obama administration used it. They leaned on it some. The Bush administration leaned on it. Interestingly --
SCIUTTO: I was at the hearings. I saw a lot of people brought before Congress to answer hard questions.
JENNINGS: But anyway, this opinion is laying out there in the court, and in fact I think Don McGahn's claim on this right now has been litigated by the court.
And so there is a legitimate question about whether the executive branch would want to give in on that particular privilege right now. And of course, the Republicans in Congress don't want to do anything that necessarily hurts the President of their own party. So to answer your question, I think that's largely why.
[01:40:00]
JENNINGS: And so I don't expect White House officials to show up. However, however -- I may have one caveat. If you are an ex White House official and you don't currently work there, there is not much they can do to you. If you currently work there, you violate a Presidential order not to testify, they can fire you.
HARLOW: Right.
JENNINGS: But if you no longer work there, you know, they really can't do anything for you although I guess you could find yourself ostracized, you know, from the Republican Party.
HARLOW: Are you talking to John Bolton?
JENNINGS: John Bolton -- yes.
HARLOW: John Bolton. But this is why I enjoy having you on, because obviously you have your political beliefs, but you also see things like what you wrote today and I had to read it twice but it was in your piece today.
You said it's going to be interesting to see how the White House attack the comments of its own appointee and someone who apparently does have firsthand knowledge of the President's conversations and state of mind.
You're talking about what sounds like you think is going to be a pretty big challenge for the White House next Wednesday when Gordon Sondland testifies.
JENNINGS: Well, they had an easy time today, I think to go after Taylor and Kent -- they didn't have to go after their patriotism or their professionalism. They just had to go out to the fact that they didn't have conversations with the President. They don't have firsthand knowledge of the President's thinking.
That goes away when you put someone on the witness stand who actually apparently did have repeated conversation with the President.
Now, you already saw today, President Trump downplaying his connections to, in his conversation with Sondland. And my anticipation is that attack is only going to ramp up on Sondland as we get closer. I mean he's already had to go back to Congress and update his testimony once. And depending on what he says in an open hearing, you know, the White House may find itself in a position to say that this appointee of ours is not correctly representing what the President says.
So that would be a really interesting interplay, you know, a president having to contradict someone that he appointed, they frankly are pretty high odds.
SCIUTTO: Listen -- tied to the Republican lawmakers' hearsay arguments, is the idea that somehow Sondland, Giuliani and others were pursuing this alternate Ukraine policy. And this extortion, if you want to call it that -- quid pro quo, without the President's knowledge -- freelancing in effect for an investigation that would help wound possibly a possible challenger to the President in 2020.
Is that something you find plausible?
JENNINGS: Well, I think that it is plausible that conversations were had about this but that the White House could potentially argue that some of these people that worked for the President executed it in a way that was too narrow cast (ph). They would say well, the President was really more concerned about corruption broadly and these folks took it in a wrong direction and we didn't necessarily approve of what they were doing.
SCIUTTO: Scott -- I'm just asking you to run it through your reality check chamber for a moment.
JENNINGS: Well, I mean look, it really depends on what Sondland says. I mean if he walks in and says the President flat out ordered me to do this specifically, that changes things. If he walks in and says well, we had general discussions about it, maybe I misunderstood.
So a lot of it really hinges on, and it's what I said earlier today, we're going to talk a lot over the next few days but until we get to Sondland I'm not sure much is going to change because everything he says may change the entire, you know, complexion of this.
HARLOW: That's an amazing statement. I mean a hotel magnate who had no experience in foreign policy, who, you know, befriended the President, donated a million bucks to his inaugural campaign, got this key post. Now these hearings for the potential future of the President may ride on this --
(CROSSTALKING)
HARLOW: It's a remarkable thing.
JENNINGS: And one thing that I am a hearing from a lot of Republicans on the Hill, especially over in the Senate is this. Even if Sondland goes that far and sort of drops the President directly into this, they're still not necessarily comfortable with the binary choice.
Democrats seem to be arguing that you either support what the President did, or you should impeach him. And that is a binary choice. And I think what Republicans are banking on is that public opinion may fall somewhere in the middle.
Some group says it's not a problem, some group says I don't like it but it's not impeachable.
And so if Democrats continue to go down the binary choice of it's fine or impeachment, Republicans may have some room to run with the American people who maybe just would prefer to sort it out in the election.
SCIUTTO: Yes. It's a parallel to the Clinton impeachment hearings, right.
JENNINGS: Except -- except.
SCIUTTO: -- a largely agreed set of facts and then the question was did it rise to the level of a high crimes and misdemeanor.
JENNINGS: And here's the difference though. In the Clinton iteration, it was in a second term. There was no remedy on the horizon. He had already faced reelection.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HARLOW: Yes.
JENNINGS: With Trump, a fallout is hey let's let the American people decide. We trust them more than the Congress.
HARLOW: Can you imagine that? Trusting the American people more than Congress?
Scott Jennings -- thanks for staying up late. Talk to you very soon.
JENNINGS: Of course.
HARLOW: So an important question in all of this is how do citizens in Ukraine and Russia feel as they watch these public impeachment hearings in the United States? We'll take you there as our special live coverage continues next.
[01:44:53]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: At the center of the impeachment inquiry is the U.S. relationship with Ukraine and Russia. And of course, the war going on right now between Ukraine and Russia -- both countries closely watching these proceedings to see what is next for President Trump, how it might impact them or weaken them.
HARLOW: Our senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen is live for us in Moscow where it is just about ten in the morning. So, you have been monitoring, they've been watching, what are you hearing? FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we
certainly have been, and you know it is quite interesting to see what's been going on in these two countries.
Right now it is 8:49 in Ukraine, and I can tell you we are looking at the morning shows that are on television in Ukraine, and certainly the impeachment hearings have been left, right and center. By far, the main topic in all of these. Right now it is mostly straight news coverage.
One of the things that we have done though is we've reached out to the president's office too. Volodymyr Zelensky's office and he said, or his office said, at this point in time they don't want to comment on these matters.
Now, that is significant in that Zelensky really has been trying to lay low in all this. He was put in an extremely difficult position by President Trump with President Trump essentially asking him to take sides in the battle against one of President Trump's political rivals, with the Bidens.
[01:49:59]
PLEITGEN: So the Ukrainians really trying to do some damage control here and try to get out of this without offending either of the sides -- the Democrats or the Republicans. But they know that this topic is absolutely key to their future.
You fast forward and go over here to the Russian side, it really is a very different picture. We were in touch yesterday with the Kremlin and they were basically trying to discredit these hearings before they even start.
I want to read you a little quote from the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov. He says, quote, "You know all about these scandalous stories where Russia was mentioned, and there was very little, pitifully little, substance that could have anything to do with reality and truth."
So the Russians are essentially saying they believe that the Mueller investigation had no substance. They believe that these impeachment hearings could possibly have no substance either.
Of course, finally the Russians right now very happy with their situation. They believe that the position of the Ukrainians have been weakened considerably, and that the Ukrainians now have to ask for negotiations with the Russians because of the pressure that President Trump was putting on the Ukrainian side.
SCIUTTO: That is a key point for American support for Ukraine to be questioned, emboldens Russia, makes Ukraine weaker and they are at war. We keep saying that.
PLEITGEN: Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: They are. Fred Pleitgen -- thanks very much. Remember, this was just day one of hearings in the impeachment inquiry. There are still many more witnesses to come.
We're going to speak about them and the role they might play in all of this coming up.
[01:51:22]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARLOW: Well, the testimony today has been just the first of many public and closed-door hearings that Democrats are pursuing.
Before we go, here's a look at what is ahead this Friday. Lawmakers will hear from the aide at the center of Bill Taylor's revelation. His name -- David Holmes. He overheard that phone call between President Trump and E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland.
SCIUTTO: The next public hearing, also Friday, will be with the fired ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
And Saturday, lawmakers will depose Mark Sandy, an official at the Office of Management of Budget.
Next week, at least eight officials will testify about the Trump administration's negotiations with Ukraine, many of them key figures with firsthand knowledge mentioned in today's hearing.
HARLOW: Thank you for being with us tonight for our special coverage. I'm Poppy Harlow.
SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto.
CNN NEWSROOM with Rosemary Church starts after a quick break.
[01:56:13]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
