Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Dems Accusing Trump of Bribery Instead of Quid Pro Quo; Kremlin-Controlled TV Celebrates Political Chaos in U.S.; Deadly School Shooting. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired November 15, 2019 - 01:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:00:31]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hello, I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. We're glad you're with us.

We begin with heartbreaking news tonight out of Southern California. Yet another mass shooting at a high school, living yet another community completely devastated, horrifying does not begin to describe it.

SCIUTTO: It's just heartbreaking, we've seen it so many times. And now, two families tonight are grieving the loss of their teenage children.

Police, say one of their classmates pulled a gun out of his backpack, a semi-automatic pistol, and began shooting at his high school on Thursday morning. Students, teachers, community members, as you'd expect, struggling the process why and how could happen again?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I heard the first few shots and I was kind of confused. But then when I heard the third one, I just started running with my friends. And then, like four other shots went off and I don't know what happened after that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not the type of day as a father, as a trauma surgeon, there are no words to describe the emotions for this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was at the very back of campus and a kid came sprinting in. And the teachers like, what are you -- what are you doing? And he said, gunshots. And then, we just sprung into action, barricaded the door, lights off, back of class, huddled down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It breaks my heart that more kids have to die for us to do something in this country. It really, really, really breaks my heart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: She's right. In Washington, also another blockbuster day of testimony is just a few hours away. The House Intelligence Committee will hear public testimony from Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. She was unexpectedly recalled from her post earlier this year.

Behind closed doors, lawmakers will depose David Holmes, the State Department employee who overheard the president on that key phone call on July 24th with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the call the president says he doesn't remember.

SCIUTTO: President Trump at a rally in Louisiana attacked the witnesses from Wednesday's hearing. Of course, you'll remember the president said, I didn't watch. But he accused them without evidence of being never Trumper.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins has more details from the rally and from what was a busy day at the White House. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Jim and Poppy, the president also claimed tonight, the Republicans like the impeachment investigation and that it's making their poll numbers go up, though that's certainly not the sentiment that we've gotten from several Republican lawmakers that we've spoken with behind the scenes about what's happening on Capitol Hill.

But nonetheless, this comes after the president hosted Republican senators at the White House for lunch today, where one of them told CNN, impeachment did come up, it was one of the many subjects that they had discussed.

But while they were talking about it, the president kept bringing up the transcript of his first call with the Ukrainian president. And then, at one point, offered to let the Senators who he had invited over to the White House read it.

One of them, Senator Kevin Cramer, did read it. He said it was about a page long in substance. And he said based on his quick scanning of it that there was no mention of military aid, though we should note we were kind of expecting that because one of those witnesses who testified in these closed-door depositions said that, that first call that Trump had with Ukrainian President Zelensky was so friendly that people were essentially high-fiving after the end of it.

And that's why it stood in such stark contrast to the one that we're now talking about at the center of this inquiry. Of course, all this comes is there was another interesting meeting at the White House today and that's where before the president left to go to this rally, he was in the Oval Office, seen with the Attorney General Bill Barr in the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone as reporters are waiting for the president to leave the Oval to get on Marine One to go to Louisiana.

And we are now being told by sources that, that meeting was about in reference to the so-called Horowitz report. That's in reference to the Inspector General for the Justice Department Michael Horowitz, who is investigating the origins of the Russia probe. A report that we're told is supposed to wrap up soon, something that could be published soon and released soon.

Though, Jimmy, Poppy, it's still unclear what exactly the president was told and what his reaction was to all of that.

SCIUTTO: Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are preparing to question today's witnesses. Democrats hope that Marie Yovanovitch and David Holmes will help build their case.

Republicans, of course, attacking their credibility. CNN's Lauren Fox has more on what to expect. Lauren.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Democrats getting ready to hear tomorrow from Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted from her role and without explanation.

Democrats hoping to make the case that she was really the first victim of Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer's shadow foreign policy.

[01:05:08]

FOX: Meanwhile, they're also expecting to hear from David Holmes. That testimony will happen behind closed doors. Holmes, a significant figure here because he is the aide to Bill Taylor, who Taylor said, overheard a conversation on July 26th between President Donald Trump and Gordon Sondland, the E.U. ambassador.

And on that call, Holmes told his boss, essentially that he heard Sondland tell the president that the Ukrainians were willing to move forward with announcing investigations.

After that call, Holmes asked Sondland, what did the president think of Ukraine? And what he was told, according to Bill Taylor's testimony was the president cared more about getting the announcement of those investigations than he did about Ukraine.

Now, meanwhile, expect Republicans to push back on Marie Yovanovitch's testimony tomorrow because they're going to argue she wasn't even there for the withholding of U.S. military aid, which is essentially at the center of this impeachment probe, just gives you a little sense of how Democrats and Republicans are preparing for tomorrow. Jim and Poppy.

HARLOW: OK. Lauren, thank you very much. Let's talk more about Marie Yovanovitch, of course, she is a career diplomat, not a political appointee. Democrats have high hopes for her public testimony. Republicans are preparing their ways to push back to what she has to say.

Our Alex Marquardt explains a little bit more about who she is, her background, and why this public testimony is so important to the Democrat's case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others, including his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch.

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: The former Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch, had been treated poorly, caught in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and in Washington.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. diplomat ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, kicking off the first public impeachment hearings by defending their colleague Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted ambassador to Ukraine is the next to testify in front of the House committees.

She defied the Trump administration and appeared before lawmakers last month after the State Department tried to block her testimony. In it, she leveled stunning allegations about a shadow Ukraine policy led by Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. She called it a "partisan game". A game that would eventually result in her own removal.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: She was sworn into ambassador as ambassador U.S. -- ambassador to Ukraine in 2016. She was unexpectedly recalled from her post in May months earlier than expected.

MARQUARDT: Dr. Fiona Hill, the White House's former top adviser on Russia testified that the ousting of Yovanovitch, a well-respected career diplomat was a turning point.

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This was a politically motivated move, it was orchestrated by Giuliani based upon interest that had nothing to do with foreign policy.

MARQUARDT: Yovanovitch testified that late last year, she learned from Ukrainian officials about a concerted campaign by Giuliani and a former Ukrainian prosecutor to undermine her. And that they were going to "do things, including to me."

George Kent, the top State Department official on Ukraine corroborated her story. Testifying that a Ukrainian official was behind the campaign.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: This was like a thriller. All these people spreading rumors, undermining her position.

VINOGRAD: There's a history of this. You would expect her to be smeared by corrupt Ukrainians and Russian interest because she was implementing U.S. foreign policy with respect to anti-corruption.

What's new is that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani really allowed themselves to believe these conspiracy theories. MARQUARDT: Yovanovitch told lawmakers that she learned she was being sent home at 1:00 a.m. with a phone call from the State Department. She was told, "This is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane."

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): That smear campaign orchestrated by this irregular channel was successful in removing a U.S. ambassador.

MARQUARDT: The president has mischaracterized what happened on the July 25th call with the president of Ukraine. Claiming it was President Zelensky, who first criticized former Ambassador Yovanovitch during the conversation.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (via telephone): Even if you listened to the very good conversation that I had, a very, very good, no pressure congenial conversation with the new president of Ukraine, he had some things that were not flattering to say about her, and that came out of the -- out of the blue.

MARQUARDT: But, that's not true. In the rough transcript, which was released by the White House, it's the president who brought it up first. Saying, "The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news. So, I just wanted to let you know that."

Asked by House investigators if she felt threatened, Yovanovitch responded, yes.

TRUMP: I heard very, very bad things about her for a long period of time, not good.

MARQUARDT: The campaign to remove the U.S. ambassador disturbed many others at the State Department as well. Including Michael McKinley a former senior advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who went to his boss three times, according to his testimony, urging Pompeo to release a statement in support of Yovanovitch which Pompeo has publicly denied.

[01:10:15]

MIKE POMPEO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: That in May when that took place, he didn't say a thing to me.

VINOGRAD: It's deeply troubling when the Secretary of State is lying to the American public about anything. And most certainly when he's lying about any step to protect a member of his staff.

MARQUARDT: The post in Ukraine was Yovanovitch's third time as United States ambassador. Her first was under President George W. Bush, part of more than 30 years in the Foreign Service.

Alex Marquardt, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Thanks to Alex there. Coming up, CNN special coverage of the impeachment hearings will begin 8:00 Eastern Time. Coming up this hour, what to watch for as both sides get a second chance to make their case directly to the American people?

HARLOW: Also Democrats shifting their strategy, starting to use the term bribery instead of quid pro quo to describe what they believe the president's actions are. Will this new label stick and help them in the minds of American voters?

SCIUTTO: And the impeachment hearings are being covered around the world including in Russia. How the Kremlin sees all of this? CNN special coverage continues.

[01:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right, welcome back. So as lawmakers prepare for their second day of televised testimony in this impeachment inquiry, they will be questioning a crucial witness a little bit later on behind closed doors.

SCIUTTO: He could become a key player in the Democrat's overall strategy. David Holmes is the official who overheard a call where the President allegedly asked E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland how those investigations that he wanted, that he demanded from Ukraine were coming along, and that that was his focus in his relationship.

With us now discuss Daniel Lippman, White House Reporter for Politico, also with us CNN Presidential Historian Jeffrey Engel. Thanks to both of you guys for coming on late to join us here.

Daniel, we got a couple of big witnesses coming in the next few days, right? I mean, you got -- you got Maria Yovanovitch, a respected Ambassador Ukraine who was pushed out by the shadow foreign policy. You got David Holmes here. He heard this call. It ties to the President. You got an OMB official on Saturday. I mean, what's happening here is the Democrats methodically building a case they hope to show that there was bribery here, the new word they're using.

DANIEL LIPPMAN, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: Yes, they think that quid pro quo didn't test great in terms of messaging and that it might be a little too complicated. They don't want to hang their entire case on a Latin phrase. Everyone knows what bribery is instead.

And with the ousted U.S. ambassador Masha Yovanovitch, she is seen as a crucial witness because she can kind of be that personal, you know, firsthand victim here. That she was -- she serves this country well and honorably. She was the ambassador during the Bush administration. No one has really accused her credibly of being anti-Trump. And she was only trying to do her job yet she was ousted because of the smear campaign from Rudy.

HARLOW: Except here's the issue I think that -- with that argument, you know, is the pushback that is going to come we know from Republicans to that point, right, about she's been -- she's the victim here. And she is -- I think that's indisputable. However, Jeffrey, our Jim Acosta's reporting is that Republicans push back to that is Ambassador serve at the pleasure of the President. If the President is not pleased with the job an ambassador is doing, he can recall them at any time. There is nothing impeachable about that. What do you say to that argument?

JEFFREY ENGEL, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, that's absolutely true. There's really nothing that anyone can do to say a president can't remove diplomat or Ambassador whenever they want. Now, of course, the question becomes is there some nefarious reason that they're removing the person.

So, in a sense, removing Ambassador would not be impeachable, but finding out why the ambassador was removed, could shed some light on a broader issue. In fact, I think it's really critical that the Democrats are starting to use the word bribery here, as opposed not just a quid pro quo, but also to high crimes and misdemeanors.

And this is one of those moments where we actually need a historian because how the American people --

HARLOW: Well, it's a good thing that you are one.

ENGEL: Yes, handy. How the American people have understood the word bribery has really changed over the years since the Constitutional Convention. Today, we think of it usually as someone who accepts money in order to do something. Back in the 1780s, the bigger concern was somebody who use the power of their office or use money that came from our office to make someone else do someone something or force someone to do something.

So in a sense, the bribery that we're seeing discussed here in the Congress, in these hearings, is really the exact kind of bribery that the constitutional authors were worried about.

SCIUTTO: Interesting. That's why we have historians on. I just learned something about the history of this work.

HARLOW: Even at 1:18 in the morning.

SCIUTTO: Exactly. Daniel, even given this change in messaging here which was focus group tested, right, but by the DCCC, the Democrats will say according to CNN reporting that they don't have high expectations, the public hearings are going to massively change public opinion on this.

Now, we could be surprised. You know, witnesses could come out of the woodwork. John Bolton can suddenly say, hey, I'm going to -- I'm going to talk and the President told me to do this.

HARLOW: Be there -- I'll be there tomorrow.

SCIUTTO: That kind of stuff can happen but very well may not happen. Democrats settled with this not massively moving the dial politically.

LIPPMAN: I think Democrats are kind of at peace with their decision that they felt they had no choice but to launch these hearings. They say that it's important for history, at least to judge that they did the right thing in terms of at least telling -- sitting a U.S. president it's not OK to try to have a foreign government interfere in our elections and for the U.S. president to use hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars just to, you know, make political points and have a foreign government launched investigation to a political rival.

And so even if it doesn't result in a conviction in the Senate, they would say, well, this will be up to the voters next November to decide. And it won't actually hurt Democrats politically because a lot of people had thought, well, how is this playing in the red states? If they can kind of come to a draw, then they will feel good about what they did.

[01:2041]

HARLOW: Jeffrey, you've got David Holmes this afternoon. He's going to testify about that newly revealed July 26th call that he overheard between Ambassador Sondland and the president, the call the President says he doesn't recall at all. And then you have Sondland under oath next Wednesday having to testify all about that. How does the "I don't recall defense," how has that worked for presidents historically because that's what this President is saying?

ENGEL: You know, it really hasn't worked very well at all. Because the truth of matter is, a president who can't recall is typically a president who's about to be remembered -- reminded that there's a lot of evidence about what a president does.

I mean, the fact that we have, you know, literally dozens of people who are listening to these calls, transcribing these calls, understand these calls, that's the way the national security state works. There's simply a whole lot of people with a whole lot of information.

So I think it's going to be very difficult for the president or anyone around him to say that they don't recall because we're living in an information redundant society. And frankly, they're really should be worried that whatever they say they don't recall, that they're going to be reminded of that very quickly.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, let's be honest. The President has made public statements to certain effects, which were later contradicted by factual testimony that the President change the story. So we'll see if that happens here. Daniel, before we go, timeline of this, Democrats still planning for a vote by about middle of December based on the latest projections here. Is that a timeline that's likely to happen?

LIPPMAN: They feel like they're proceeding a pace that they are working on weekends six days a week to try to get this through. They don't want to have this dragged into next year too much. They know that the Senate, which is controlled by Mitch McConnell, he might want to play some games in terms of extending that Senate trial to hurt some of those Democrats who are running for president.

But he also probably has heard from the President in the White House that they don't want this long trial just enacting political damage on them. They'd rather get this kind of, you know, cleaned up sooner or later.

SCIUTTO: Yes, there are political dangers to a long trial to both parties, frankly. Jeffrey Engel, Daniel Lippman, thanks so much to both of you for sticking out late with us.

LIPPMAN: Good to see you.

SCIUTTO: Still to come this hour, we heard the term quid pro quo for weeks. Now, the Democrats are shifting the strategy to new word.

HARLOW: Bribery. You'll hear that word more and more, and you'll hear it a lot more over the course of this inquiry. That's next.

[01:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right, a second day of high stakes testimony begins in just a few hours. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is changing the words that Democrats are using to describe what they believe the President did and his phone call with the president of Ukraine. She now accuses the president of bribery.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery. Quid pro quo, bribery, bribery, and that is in the constitution attached to the impeachment proceedings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What was the bribe here?

PELOSI: The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a -- of a fake investigation into the elections. That's bribery. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, according to The Washington Post, the decision to retire the term quid pro quo in favor of bribery came after a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee study, focus group study, in effect found that that language resonated more particularly in key battleground states.

Joining us now Renato Mariotti, he's a former Federal Prosecutor and CNN Legal Analysts. Renato, you say interestingly that you don't like the word -- use the word bribery to describe the President's alleged behavior here. Tell us why.

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, as a legal matter, I don't think that the term really would fit here. In other words, you know, a reporter just asked in that clip we just showed Speaker Pelosi, well, what's the bribe? Well, under U.S. law, the bribe would have to be to Trump, right? He would have to be soliciting a bribe for the official act of giving aid. So what is he being given a value in exchange? What is he getting in

exchange for giving the military aid? Well, she put it, an announcement of a fake investigation. Is that a value to anyone? I suppose it's a value to President Trump. It's certainly the sort of case that I don't see a prosecutor ever charging.

I think it's a useful analogy. It certainly sounds a lot like it. I imagine, as you point out, it appeals to focus groups. It's certainly simple to understand. But to me, it gives Trump a potential defense. It gives them something to talk about. Up until now, we've heard a lot of song and dance from the Republicans because there isn't much of a difference in the merits. And I'm worried that this might give him one.

[01:29:54]

HARLOW: But it's in the Constitution, right? And that's what Democrats are pointing to. Look at Article II Section 4, quote, "The President shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Does it help them by it literally being in the same sentence as impeachment?

MARIOTTI: For sure. I mean if they can prove bribery, then you don't have any question as to whether or not this is an impeachable offense. So they help themselves on that front.

On the other hand, they introduced, you know, a question of what is the bribe? I can imagine Republicans having an argument about that.

SCIUTTO: Now, I will say that one of our historians that we had on in the last hour said that at the time of the founding, that bribery in their sense meant using money to your benefit. In other words, you don't have to be receiving money but listen, that's going back a couple of hundred years.

I do want to ask you, because you wrote an op-ed in "Politico" arguing that this first public hearing on Wednesday showed just how strong the Democrats' case is, how the Republicans are kind of flailing in your view for a defense here.

That said, perhaps their strongest argument made in that public hearing is that as of yet, you don't have an eyewitness to the President's directing this order in effect, right? You have people hearing that it came from the President. How much does that weaken their case?

MARIOTTI: You know, I'm not really sure that that's going to be a problem long term because Ambassador Sondland did speak directly to the President. So it will be interesting to see what he has to say, but if, you know, he's already amended his testimony once. But if he raises his hands and says that Trump told him that, you know, that this was in fact being held up for those reasons, I think that argument goes out of the window. HARLOW: Well, what about Linda Trip? I mean if you look back to the

Clinton impeachment, that wasn't, you know, firsthand. That's hearsay. No problem with it then.

MARIOTTI: Well, no question. Look. Ok. Just to be crystal clear, secondhand information is used all the time at trials. There's a lot of exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I don't believe that that's a genuine argument that is being made with a straight face. I think that it's just something that is being used to distract, like many of the other points that are being made by Republicans.

I mean after all, there is plenty of eye witnesses who are being kept from the inquiry by the Trump White House --

HARLOW: The White House.

MARIOTTI: -- right.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MARIOTTI: People like Mulvaney and John Eisenberg, and many others. But in any event I think there's going to be sufficient evidence to prove the point here anyway. I really think that -- and frankly in the Senate, the Republicans are going to be able to, if they want to call additional witnesses, they can.

I think the real issue here for Republicans is, you know, when it comes down to it, there's going to be a lot of witnesses saying there is a quid pro quo, or bribery, or whatever Nancy Pelosi wants to call it. And then the question for Republicans is what do you do with that?

And I think ultimately, where they want to settle is to say, well, this is really bad. It's really unfortunate but it's not an impeachable offense. And, you know, unfortunately for them, Donald Trump does not want to go that route. He wants to fight this on they merit.

If they just came forward and said, Trump did this and let's censure him, I think that it would take a lot of the wind out of the Democrats' sail.

SCIUTTO: And some Republican lawmakers are already road testing that argument that yes, this probably happened but not -- does not rise to the level of impeachment. So that might be a sign of things to come.

HARLOW: Thanks -- Renato. Appreciate it.

MARIOTTI: Thank you.

HARLOW: The impeachment inquiry is being covered by Russian state media a lot as well. And the Kremlin isn't even trying to hide its enjoyment.

SCIUTTO: We're going to give you the view from Moscow coming up next.

[01:33:50]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Do you want to know what the reaction to the impeachment inquiry is in Russia? It seems that the Kremlin-controlled media is having a field day gleefully defending President Trump.

CNN international correspondent Fred Pleitgen is in Moscow. And Fred -- it's -- we have seen lately some poking of fun at the U.S. even at the President in Russian state media. We should remind people this kind of stuff doesn't happen by accident in Russia. Tell us how they're covering the Ukraine story.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're absolutely right. I mean it certainly does not happen by accident that they would be poking fun at the President or at the United States.

But you can really see that as these impeachment hearings are going on there's a lot of coverage that's going down here in Russia -- a lot of it is very much in the corner of President Trump. And they certainly are also saying, look all this proves that the U.S. really doesn't care that much about Ukraine and that Ukraine needs to make a deal with the Russians as fast as possible.

Here's what we're learning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN: The Kremlin is feasting on the impeachment inquiry in the U.S.

State run media clearly taking President Trump's side, even echoing talking points used by Republicans during the first hearing, trying to discredit testimony from America's top diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You didn't listen on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?

BILL TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: I did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never talked with chief of staff Mulvaney?

TAYLOR: I never did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never met the President?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): And one of the main witnesses in this case turned out to be almost a stool pigeon. It came to light that all has information is third hand. He never met Trump and spoke to Zelensky about everything except the main thing for everyone -- the military aid.

PLEITGEN: Ignoring other damning evidence Taylor laid out, the Russians rejoicing, believing President Trump has shown he cares about investigations into political rivals but not Ukraine itself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You are being used without even asking for any permission. You know what the term for that is. All those important people in America are now talking what strange people you are and how you could be used.

PLEITGEN: But Russian state media's support for President Trump goes even further. One news report even attempting to reveal the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint brought the controversy around the Trump-Zelensky call to light. Even as the President continues to claim there was nothing wrong with the call.

[01:40:04]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The whistleblower gave a lot of very incorrect information, including my call with the President of Ukraine which was a perfect call.

PLEITGEN: The cozy relations with President Trump are paying off for Vladimir Putin, perceived lack of support from the U.S. President has weakened Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelensky as his country continues to face a Russian-backed insurgency.

Zelensky was recently all but forced to agree to a Russian-approved negotiating formula and ask for talks with Moscow, leading to protests against him in Kiev.

And Zelensky was challenged by veterans on the front line who felt he was bowing to the Russians after losing America's support.

VOLODYMIR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translator): I am the president of this country. I'm 41 years old. I'm not a loser.

PLEITGEN: As Ukraine's president struggles to navigate the fall-out of President Trump's Ukraine moves -- Kremlin-controlled media is in a feeding frenzy hungrily awaiting the next impeachment hearing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN: So, you can see obviously the Russian media they are very much having a field day. Now, one thing that we do have to mention Jim, is that the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, he has not commented on the impeachment hearings yet. Neither has the Kremlin in general.

Vladimir Putin is right now in Brazil but as you can see, Russian media very much doing the talking for official Moscow. Of course, one of the things that we can all bet on is they are very closely going to be watching those hearings as they continue later today.

By the way, those hearings start pretty much when primetime starts here. (CROSSTALKING)

HARLOW: That is a very good point.

SCIUTTO: Good timing for Russian eyeballs.

HARLOW: Fred Pleitgen -- thank you for the great reporting again tonight. We appreciate it very much.

Still ahead, a horrifying yet familiar scene playing out today in California.

SCIUTTO: Little kids, children going through this kind of violence. The gunman, also a child, opening fire at a school killed two students.

The community now is trying to come to grips with what happened, why. Will anybody do anything about it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It still feels like it's a dream, you know. It hit me. It hit me hard when, you know, we all had to walk in a line and seeing all the news reporters, seeing all the police, seeing all the helicopters, it just -- seeing all the backpacks left there, the papers on the floor, it was -- it's an experience that I do not wish upon anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[01:42:33]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: More now on that school shooting, yet another one, that left two children dead, three injured. From start to finish, the shooting at Saugus High School near Los Angeles lasted only 16 seconds. But with the kind of weapon used, a semi-automatic hand gun, it was enough time for a student to open fire on five of his classmates before turning that gun on himself.

HARLOW: A community church has head vigils around the city tonight. So many in disbelief that someone being new could commit such a horrific act.

SCIUTTO: Eddie Mendoza is a senior at Saugus High School. He witnessed the shooting. Just a short time ago, he spoke to us. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: What did you see?

EDDIE MENDOZA, STUDENT: You know, I woke up today and I thought it was going to be a normal day. Unfortunately, that was not the case. I was in jazz choir. And you know, it started off line and my teacher -- you know we were on our (INAUDIBLE) practicing. She opened all the doors, she says. Everyone go, go, get in my office, get in my office.

So, you know, there were people that came from outside and she locked the other doors. She barricaded the doors. We put the grand piano to protect ourselves, and everyone ran into the office.

And it wasn't until, you know, one of the girls who had run in from outside said that she was shot. I'm sorry -- just thinking about it, it's definitely dramatic (ph). And, basically, you know, everyone started panicking. And it was this whole thing where, you know, people are crying.

And so my teacher then proceeded to go outside of the classroom. She said, you know, lock the door. Like do not let anyone in. I'll be right back.

So she ran towards like one of -- she went near her desk and there was a first aid kit. She runs, she gets it, she comes back and, you know, she just jumped into immediate action. And she was able to, you know, cover the wound and really help the student out. We called 911 a couple of times and we waited. You know, it felt like it was forever. It genuinely sounded like it was war in less than an hour. It's super scary.

And fortunately, you know, officers came. They opened the door. They put our hands -- you know, start on the risers and they helped the young, you know, female who got shot and they took her to the hospital.

SCIUTTO: Eddie -- this is Jim. I saw an early interview describe that poor little girl saying she wanted her mom as it's happening.

MENDOZA: Yes. It was -- it was awful. You know, just hearing her say, you know, like I want my mom here. Like it was heartbreaking, like you don't realize that this, you know, this can -- this can happen to anyone at any time, and no one is safe. I think that's so sad.

SCIUTTO: I hear you, man. I mean you -- we've -- as Poppy was saying we've covered these so many times, like all of our colleagues.

[01:50:01]

SCIUTTO: And I wonder as you watch this, could you believe -- I mean you've seen these before. You read about them in the news. Now, you found yourself in the midst of one of them. Did it seem real as it was happening?

MENDOZA: You know, as we speak right now, it still feels like it is a dream, you know. It hit me -- it hit me hard when, you know, we all had to walk in a line and seeing all the news reporters, seeing all the police, seeing all the helicopters. It just -- seeing all the backpacks left there, papers on the floor. It was -- it's an experience that I do not wish upon anyone.

SCIUTTO: No. HARLOW: Eddie -- I think the one thing that we share with you on this, and Jim and I have never experienced what you had to go through -- the hell you had to go through today. But I saw you described in an earlier interview that you just felt completely hopeless.

And I think I speak for both of us who oftentimes covering these and sitting here feeling like there's not a lot, you know. You feel like what can I do. And it sounds like you felt like that so much today.

MENDOZA: Yes, I did. It is just -- it's frustrating because, you know, this is in the first school shooting that has happened in America. And for me personally, it's just frustrating because it keeps happening and it keeps happening.

And, you know, my question is, when is this going to stop? When is change going to happen? You know, when are we going to all come together and, you know, forget about politics, forget about all that -- when are we all going to come together? And when are we going to not make this the norm, you know?

This is -- I feel like this is -- you know, a school shooting happens, the news reports on it and then in the next couple of days, it's like it never existed. You know, when is this going to end? That's why I feel so hopeless.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

Well listen, man -- please take care of yourself, take of your friends, stay close to them -- friends and family. We will be thinking of you.

HARLOW: We're so sorry.

MENDOZA: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: It was heartbreaking to hear that.

From start to finish, that shooting at Saugus High School near Los Angeles lasted 16 seconds. Two dead kids. The sheriff described in chilling details exactly how the situation unfolded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY: They were just standing in the middle of the quad, really not saying or doing anything. And he had a backpack on. At one point, he took off the backpack. He retrieved a 45 semi-auto pistol, shot one round, and fired at one student, injured that student.

And then appeared to clear some sort of jam in the weapon, and then fired an additional four rounds at four other students before turning the gun on himself. And that ended it all in 16 seconds.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HARLOW: The sheriff also told our CNN affiliate that they have now learned that one of those victims was a family member of an employee within their own department.

All right. Former President Bill Clinton called into CNN a little bit earlier today -- this was after the school shooting. In 1993, he helped get the Brady Hand Gun Violence Prevention Act through Congress. A year later, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons -- a relatively short ban. He says the California shooting is another deadly example of the consequences of inaction in Washington. And the former president had this to say to America's students.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My message is first of all, your school to do everything they possibly can to minimize this. But they did gun safety drills in the school where the shooting occurred. And that you deserve an environment which minimizes your risks.

We can minimize your risk without doing anything to the right to have an arm, for hunting, sports shooting or self protection. Nothing, zero, nada -- it doesn't affect that at all to have a good comprehensive background check law.

And from my point of view, it does nothing to it to (INAUDIBLE) end the military style assault weapons and ammunition clips over a certain size. When we did it, no one missed any time hunting or sports shooting. And no one complained that they couldn't protect their home if they didn't have, you know, an assault weapon.

But if you continue to pretend like you can deal with all of this violation of existing law without trying to prevent it, we're going to continue to have these things happen.

And we don't know what the facts are here now. I don't know what kind of weapon this young man used, I don't know what went on there.

[01:55:03]

CLINTON: But I do know this. In most of these cases, if we had an aggressive, preventive program, it doesn't interfere with Second Amendment Rights, the Supreme Court has specified we could have prevented or minimized the damage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: The president also talked to Jake earlier today about the importance of taking action, even during an impeachment inquiry, as he did when he went through it.

(CROSSTALKING)

SCIUTTO: Listen, three months ago, you had El Paso, and we were covering that. You remember the national conversation afterward? There was some political pressure, even had Republicans coming out, ones who had opposed these measures in the past. You had the President saying and then he sat down on the Oval Office with Wayne Lapierre of the NRA. And yet again that movement failed, and here we are.

HARLOW: And the death of these two children, the injuries of the others do anything at all to move this forward? I don't know.

SCIUTTO: Based on precedent -- no.

HARLOW: Yes. No.

Thank you for joining us. We will see you back here tomorrow night for special coverage once again.

I'm Poppy Harlow.

SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

"ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:00:00]