Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Soon: Four Witnesses Publicly Testify in High-Stakes Hearings; First Reaction from Ukraine President Since Start of Impeachment Probe; House Prepares for Further Public Testimony in Impeachment Hearings; Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Aide to Vice President Pence Jennifer Williams to Testify in Impeachment Hearing; Interview with Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) on Impeachment Inquiry. Aired 8-9a ET
Aired November 19, 2019 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:00:12]
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's special coverage of the impeachment hearings continues right now.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We'd like to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Three days of critical hears kicking off on Capitol Hill. Four key witnesses testifying today. Two face questions one hour from now. Both of them were on that now infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine, and both have now been directly attacked by President Trump and his allies. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman is a decorated Iraq War veteran and the White House's top Ukraine expert. Jennifer Williams is a senior adviser to Vice President Mike Pence. Brace for fireworks as the gavel drops. Both witnesses have faced attacks from the president and his allies, and that is expected to continue from Republicans today.
Let's begin on Capitol Hill. Our senior Congressional correspondent Manu Raju is of course on the scene for us. So Manu, set the scene, what can we expect in the coming hours?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A revealing day of testimony, Wolf, as a number of these witnesses, three of these witnesses who are testifying today heard the president's own words on that July phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine in which President Trump urged Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and each of those witnesses had concerns, different level of concerns. You will probably hear the most serious concerns this morning when Alexander Vindman testifies about the concerns he raised to the highest levels of the National Security Council in the aftermath of the call. Also his concern was mainly that this would undercut national security and pull back potentially on bipartisan support for Ukraine.
Now, Alexander Vindman also expected to note concerns that he raised directly to the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who was pushing for investigations, those political investigations, and raised concerns that he essentially was pushing a quid pro quo, pushing the Ukrainians to move forward on those investigations before a key meeting was held with Ukrainian President Zelensky and President Trump, and aid also was released.
Now, also wait for Jennifer Williams this morning, Wolf. She is of course the Vice President Mike Pence's -- one of his advisers, also raised concerns about that call. So it's a key moment this morning in just under an hour, Wolf.
BLITZER: Walk us through, Manu, the format for today's questioning once again.
RAJU: This is going to be similar to the last two public hearings. This is going to begin with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff who is going to make an opening statement, followed by ranking Republican, Devin Nunes. Then the witnesses themselves will give their own opening statements followed by a round of questioning. It will be led by Schiff and his top attorney Dan Goldman, who will engage in a 45-minute round of questioning. That will follow the Republican line of questioning that will be led by Devin Nunes and his top attorney Steve Castor.
Now, watch also, Wolf, for Republicans to question potentially about the context that Alexander Vindman had in the aftermath of that July call when that was raised in the closed-door deposition last month. Democrats pushed back. Adam Schiff blocked Republicans from moving forward with that line of questioning because he was concerned that would out the whistleblower. And I'm told that Republicans are not ruling out going down that route again. They say they're not trying to out the whistleblower, but that Schiff should not dictate their questioning. So expect potential explosive fireworks at the beginning of this hearing or throughout this hearing as Republicans press forward and Democrats could object. Wolf?
BLITZER: Explosive and historic, indeed. Manu Raju, of course, we'll get we'll get back to you. For more on what we can expect from these two key witnesses today starting with Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, I'm joined by our national security reporter Kylie Atwood. This is going to be dramatic stuff that we're about to hear.
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, because both of these officials that we're hearing from this morning work at the White House. They both raised concerns about this July 25th call which really launched this whole investigation.
So first Alexander Vindman, he's a top NSC Russia expert. As you said, he is a decorated war veteran. And one of the things that he said that is he doesn't think it was proper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. Obviously, President Trump asking for an investigation into the Bidens.
He was also worried about the wider implications there. And so specifically when he was speaking with lawmakers behind closed doors, he did talk about raising concerns about this July 25th call. And he said that his understanding was that the Ukrainians understood asking a favor to be asking for investigations.
[08:05:02]
The other thing that he told lawmakers is that Mick Mulvaney, the president's chief staff, is now implicated in this quid pro quo because he was in touch with Gordon Sondland, Sondland being the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. who has talked about there being this tradeoff, asking Ukrainians for this investigation in order for them to get the security assistance that was on hold.
The other thing that he said about that July 25th call, Wolf, is that the omissions in that transcript were Biden and Burisma. Those are things that weren't included in the transcript. And we will hear from him. We're also going to hear from Jennifer Williams this morning.
BLITZER: Tell us about Jennifer Williams, an aide detailed from the State Department over to the White House to help the vice president.
ATWOOD: Yes, so Jennifer Williams works in the Vice President's office, so she will be able to provide some detail in terms of what he heard, what Vice President Pence knew about this phone cal. She was on it, and she raised concerns in her closed-door testimony that the call was unusual and inappropriate. She was concerned that President Trump was pushing his own personal political agenda. And over the weekend, we saw President Trump come out with a tweet undermining her, saying he never knew her, and also having questions about her having to listen to both of the calls, his first call with Zelensky and his second call. But she is one of those folks who is going to draw this story closer into the White House.
BLITZER: Certainly will. All right, thanks very much, Kylie, for that report.
We're also watching the White House, obviously, very closely this morning. Will President Trump continue to attack these witnesses? That is one of the concerns as the impeachment hearings prepare to get underway. Two Trump campaign advisers say they hope he does not tweet about Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. The president's attacks on the Iraq war hero and Purple Heart recipient fell flat earlier in the inquiry. Fingers crossed is what one campaign adviser is telling CNN.
Let's go to our White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, have officials over there said if the president is planning, a, to watch the hearings, and, b, to start tweeting as they are going on?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, they haven't said yet, but he has nothing on his public schedule until he holds a cabinet meeting at 11:30. And we should note that in the past when they've said he wasn't watching, he later admitted that he in fact was tuning in.
And you just referenced those two campaign advisers who say they hope the president doesn't tweet attacking these witnesses as their hearings are going on, but we should note, the president has already gone after both of them, saying that Alex Vindman is a never-Trumper, something he said he was going to provide evidence for but something that never materialized in the last several weeks. And last week the White House also blamed Vindman for the discrepancy between that first call that Trump had with the Ukrainian president and the readout that the White House initially published of that call. The two things were very different there.
For Williams, he has also gone after her, calling her a never-Trumper, though he hasn't given any evidence as to why he thinks that. And we should not that she was a reluctant witness in all of this because actually no one even knew she was on that call until she had been named to House investigators by someone else.
But Wolf, we do know one interesting thing that is going to happen during that first hearing today, and that is that Alex Vindman's identical twin brother who also works on the National Security Council as an attorney is expected to attend the hearing, we're being told.
BLITZER: You also have been doing some reporting, Kaitlan, that the president has considered actually dismissing these aides who have testified against him, including Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Tell us about that.
COLLINS: Yes, it's important to keep in mind, these two people still work here, and they are not aides who are in Ukraine or far away or at the State Department. They work right next door to the White House in the Executive Office Building just feet away from the Oval Office is.
And we're told by sources that in recent days, the president has been asking people why these people work for him, and exploring ways to send them back to their home agencies, because a lot of them are these detailees, meaning they work for the State Department or the Department of Defense and they are detailed to the National Security Council, Wolf. But of course, both of them came into these jobs after Trump was already in office. So they weren't here in the National Security Council when Barack Obama was in office. They came once Donald Trump was in office.
But we should note, no one has been moved yet, no one has been fired yet, though it's certainly something they have explored. Of course, the caution there is it could look like they were trying to get revenge against them for testifying.
BLITZER: Kaitlan Collins at the White House, we'll get back to you. Thank you very much.
Joining us now to discuss all of this, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. He sits on the House Intelligence Committee. He'll be asking questions later today. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. And you are about to question the first of two witnesses out of nine who will be testifying publicly before the cameras during the course of today, tomorrow, and Thursday. Let's talk about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman first. He serves National Security Council. And also Jennifer Williams, she is a State Department career diplomat who has been serving, detailed over to the White House to work with the Vice President. What do you expect them to outline today? [08:10:10]
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, (D-IL) HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, as you know, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a Purple Heart awardee. He was a participant in the call on July 25th. Unlike some of the others whom my colleagues on the other side say did not participate, he was a first-person witness to what the president said. Not only that, but he was charged with actually helping to prepare the call summary. And so he is very intimately familiar with the details of the phone call, and as well as the leadup to the phone call.
Jennifer Williams, as you know, was an aide to the vice president, and she also knew about the hold on the military aid that was placed later, the vice president's reaction, and generally what was happening in the White House at the time of the phone call.
BLITZER: Tim Morrison, who will also be testifying later today, this afternoon, he is on the National Security Council. He said in his deposition, he said he had concerns about Vindman's judgment, and now Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, he released a scathing letter, very lengthy letter, going after Vindman's conduct. He sent the letter to House Republicans saying that Vindman might fit the profile of bureaucrats trying to sabotage the president and remove him from office. What do you make of these attacks?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I read that letter, I read the attack on Vindman. I found that to be an appalling attack on Vindman. A lot of these folks are going after Vindman merely because he disagrees with the president. He is a Purple Heart awardee, he's a veteran, he's an expert on Ukraine for the National Security Council, and he was appointed by the Trump administration to his current post. The fact that he would come forward to tell the truth really gets under the president's skin. That's why I think he attacks him repeatedly. But I think the American people can judge for themselves his credibility. I found him to be compelling at his deposition, and I expect that he will be again today.
BLITZER: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his twin brother, by the way, they were only three years old when their parents, Soviet Jews, emigrated to the United States. He eventually went to college, joined the U.S. military, Purple Heart recipient, as you point out, wounded in Iraq. When the news of Vindman's concerns about the call first came out, there were some in the conservative media who actually suggested that Vindman may be more sympathetic toward Ukraine than, say, American policy. Would you expect any of those kinds of ugly attacks to continue today?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I hope not. And you are absolutely right, his loyalty was questioned to the United States. And I think part of it was because of his immigrant heritage. As you know, immigrants within the Trump era have felt generally pressure under this administration. The fact that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, a member of the National Security Council, would be subject to the same types of attacks that others have been subject to just shows the lengths to which this White House will go in trying to discredit people who disagree with them. They'll call them never-Trumpers, they'll try to intimidate them before they testify, they will threaten retaliation if they do come forward and tell the truth. It is absolutely unacceptable.
BLITZER: In Vindman's closed-door deposition, Congressman, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, stopped the line of questioning from Republicans that he felt was designed to find about out the identity of the so-called whistleblower. Do you expect Republicans will try that same tactic before the cameras today?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: They might. And if they do, I think Chairman Schiff is going to be very strong in basically trying to end that line of questioning, because, at the end of the day, the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity. And in this proceeding, what we've seen over and over again is the president wants to identify that whistleblower so he can retaliate against him or her. Not only that, but the president appears to want to try to create a chilling effect on other people who would come forward with wrongdoing. That's absolutely unacceptable. We are not going to burn the whistleblower.
BLITZER: And there we see, Lieutenant Colonel, by the way, Congressman, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman arriving up on Capitol Hill. He is dressed, obviously, in his military uniform. He will be testifying shortly. We'll watch that very closely. He is now walking in like everyone else who enters the House of Representatives, one of the office buildings. He will go through security, briefly go through security, and then he'll go into a holding room and await the start of this hearing. I interrupted you, Congressman, but finish your thought.
[08:15:01]
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I just think that any attempt to try to out the whistleblower will meet with stiff resistance from the chairman who has been consistent and right in trying to end any kind of questioning to out the whistleblower. The American people created the whistleblower system so that rank and file members of the government can come forward with evidence of wrongdoing, OK? But it relies on the system protecting those whistleblowers and if they with wish for anonymity to allow them that anonymity.
In this case, the whistleblower requested to continue to be anonymous even though he or she brought forward his complaint -- his or her complaint to the inspector general. And we have to respect their wishes.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thanks so much for joining us.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you. Thank you.
BLITZER: We'll listen closely to not only your questioning but all of the questions and answers that are coming up. Appreciate it very much.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
BLITZER: All right. So, we're on top of all the major developments this morning as the key witnesses arrive up on Capitol Hill. Also just into CNN, this is very significant, the president of
Ukraine, President Zelensky, is now publicly reacting this morning to reports that he was about to open up investigations after his call with President Trump.
Our special coverage will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:20:50]
BLITZER: All right. This just coming in to CNN.
The president of Ukraine speaking out this morning on allegations that he was ready to announce investigations following that July 25th phone call with President Trump.
Let's go to Kiev right now. Fred Pleitgen is on the scene for us in Ukraine.
So I understand you just had a chance to speak with President Zelensky. What did he tell you, Fred?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf. Yes, this was at a press conference together with the Czech prime minister. And Zelensky didn't want to take any questions after the press conference. He was already on the verge of walking out.
When I asked him that very question, whether or not he was indeed ready to publicly announce an investigation into Burisma, that's when President Zelensky and actually became quite emotional.
Here's what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: President Zelensky, is it true that you were ready to publicly announce an investigation into Burisma after your phone call with President Trump?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, UKRAINE: There --
PLEITGEN: Yes, there, absolutely.
ZELENSKY: I'm sorry. You know, I think -- I'm -- I think everybody in Ukraine is so tired about Burisma. We have our country, we have our independence, we have our problems and questions. That's it.
PLEITGEN: Well, that doesn't mean we don't want to talk about it anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: So, Wolf, I think that you can see the very difficult position that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is in and has been put in after that phone call that he had with President Trump. Right now and over the past couple weeks, we've really seen as we've seen Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials really trying to lay low on this matter and not comment too much because, of course, what they want to do is maintain bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington, D.C.
We've talked about it so much over the past that the Ukrainians obviously need that support from Washington. They are still very much engulfed in a Russian-fueled insurgency against them in the east of the country, and certainly need as much support from D.C. as they can get.
And, of course, commenting on this could put them in a very difficult position, Wolf.
BLITZER: They are under enormous pressure right now, not only political pressure, but also, there is a war going on with the Russians and they desperately needed that nearly $400 billion in U.S. security assistance and those weapons that they need to resist the Russian aggression.
PLEITGEN: Yes, they certainly need that. And I think that there are several levels to that. When you speak to people here, Wolf, in Kiev, it is something that you hear again and again and again. The kind of military aid that the Ukrainians get from the U.S. is mostly high tech stuff. We've talked about the javelin anti-tank missiles, but also things like night vision goggles, also, sophisticated radars to help them pinpoint places that they're getting hit by artillery from for instance.
So, it is the high tech military goods that the Ukrainians desperately need to try to stand up to those pro-Russian forces that they have in the east of the country.
But the other thing that is so important to the Ukrainians is also the fact that it makes a statement from the United States when they get that military aid that the U.S. has their back and obviously over the past couple weeks since that phone call came to light between President Trump and President Zelensky, there are people here in Kiev who questioned whether the U.S. unconditionally still stands behind Ukraine, Wolf.
BLITZER: Excellent reporting from Fred Pleitgen, in Kiev, in Ukraine for us. We'll, of course, get back to you as well. Thank you very, very much.
Once again, we're awaiting for arrival -- more of the witnesses about to arrive. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman just arrived and Jennifer Williams will be joining him in a testimony. That's coming up in minutes. Much more of our special coverage right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:28:51]
BLITZER: Important day, a very important day. On the left, you can see just moments ago, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, U.S. Army, arriving up on Capitol Hill to begin preparing for his testimony. He is the top Ukraine expert over at the National Security Council. And his testimony could potentially be very explosive this morning.
We're still waiting the arrival of the senior adviser to the vice president, Jennifer Williams, also an official on the National Security Council working with the vice president, she was detailed over from the state department, where she's a career foreign service officer, also an expert on Europe, especially Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, other areas in that part of the world. We're going to watch for her arrival momentarily.
But let me bring in Jim Sciutto, and our panel.
Jim, this is an amazing moment right now in American history. The president of the United States, only the fourth time an American president is facing an impeachment inquiry here in the United States and the charges are very significant.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I think that we have to remember that because everything has been so lost and clouded by politics as everything is today.
[08:30:00]
But remember what's at core here, Ukraine, a small country, fighting Russia in an ongoing war, dependent on U.S. aid. Keep in mind, this $400 million was one-tenth of Ukraine's entire military budget, in a war that it's losing, in effect. You know, part of its country has been chopped off. Everybody in government, Republican and Democrat, wants to support Ukraine in this war. That's in agreement. And you have a president, the allegation being, and we're hearing more corroborating evidence, that was willing to hold that over their head to get a political favor. I mean that's essentially the core of this question.
Now, you're going to hear a lot of questions today about the credibility of witnesses. Be prepared for attacks even on an Alexander Vindman. But also trying to establish distance between the president and this policy.
But the more we hear from the people involved, even the president's own appointees, it's getting closer to him. This being a personal decision by the president. And ultimately Democrats and Republicans and people at home have to decide if that's a decision that they're comfortable with.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And let's not forget, Gloria, that shortly after that July 25th the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, Vindman, who was listening in, in the White House Situation Room, listening in on that call, he went to the top lawyer at the National Security Council and he raised concerns about this suggestion that U.S. aid was being withheld in exchange for political favors.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, because he thought it was irregular. And, you know, to your point, what we're going to hear are people who actually listened in on this phone call. So Republicans have been complaining about hearsay, et cetera.
So you have Vindman, who was on the call. You have Williams, who also listened in on the call. And then you have Mr. Morrison also who listened in on the call. Eventually you're going to hear from -- from all three of them and they're going to have to tell you their versions of the call and what they got out of it.
And, you know, in looking back and stepping back and looking at this whole story, I was thinking of the parable I learned in school about the blind man and the elephant. That each person is seeing a piece of the puzzle here, but nobody really saw the entire thing. And so they have various degrees of knowledge about what was really going on and then it became clear to these people in various stages. And so Holmes figured out he knew what was going on after he heard Sondland on that -- on that phone call at dinner -- or at lunch, but --
BLITZER: By the way, this is Jennifer Williams.
Gloria, sorry for interrupting.
BORGER: Right.
BLITZER: She's arriving now up on Capitol Hill. She's a senior adviser to the vice president, Mike Pence, a State Department employee, as I said, detailed over to the vice president's office. She's currently serving as the special adviser to the vice president for Europe and Russia.
She was in the White House Situation Room, together with Alexander Vindman, listening in on President Trump's July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian President Zelensky in real time and she later testified under oath in that deposition that that conversation struck her as unusual and inappropriate and shed some light on possible other motivations for the decision to freeze the aid.
She's going through security, as everyone does once they come into the House of Representatives. Or the House itself or one of the officer buildings. She's going to go into a holding room. She'll join, presumably, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman as they get ready.
And, Gloria, they'll be testifying jointly.
GORGER: Right.
BLITZER: They'll be sitting next to each other after they're sworn in. They'll -- they'll both make opening statements.
GORGER: Right. And, look, they were both -- they were both listening in. They may have different interpretations of the call. She thought it was unusual but her hair wasn't on fire about it. She may have made notation about it, but she didn't take it to an ethics person, et cetera. So I think that, you know, there are -- there are -- people can listen in on a phone call and they can have different degrees of interpretation about it. So we'll hear that today. And the Republicans will clearly want to mine her more than Vindman in that sense and try and figure out from Vindman who he went to talk to because there may be a way of outing the whistleblower. We'll see.
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, Wolf, two things stand out to me in this.
One, we're really getting back to the original complaint by the whistleblower who said there were others within the white House who had a real problem with the conduct of this call. And what is clearly, if you do this, we'll do that. That's the quid pro quo. It's pretty clear from the call what the president was talking about.
But also what we need to watch for today is how the president and those around him handled those complaints afterward. We'll find out in real time, as we did with Ambassador Yovanovitch, how the president tries to criticize people, intimidate them in real time. We'll see Republicans do that with Vindman. I think you'll hear the -- the accusation that this was the politicalized bureaucracy trying to undermine the president.
But what did they do? When Vindman complains about the call, they salt away that partial transcript into a different server. So I think that becomes a big part of the story too once these complaints are raised, how does the president and those around him start responding to it.
BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Jeffrey Toobin, in a letter to her Democratic colleagues yesterday, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, wrote this.
[08:35:04]
She, obviously, has a very strong view. The facts are uncontested, she said, that the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit at the expense of our national security interests.
That's a very serious charge.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: And she's also been getting away from the language of quid pro quo and into the language of bribery. You know, only David Gregory speaks Latin most of the time. So this -- bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. And the notion of, we will give you your security money, your $390 million, if and only if you give me political benefits. That is, at least on the surface, a case of bribery. That's how the language she's been using, that sentence you read, is consistent with that.
And the question is, is a Democrat -- a majority of the Democrat -- of the House of Representatives going to agree with that? Likely yes. The question, is -- is the rest of the country going to follow along? And, you know, that beats the hell out of me.
BLITZER: Andrew McCabe, you have a unique perspective on what's going on as of former acting director of the FBI. But the notion of bribery itself, do you see bribery here in this so-called quid pro quo, the pressure on the Ukrainians to launch this investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election? ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, FBI: The basics of any bribery
relationship are clearly here in this scenario. Now, as a -- as a federal criminal offense, bribery can be tough to prove. It's been made tougher by recent Supreme Court decision, particularly out of the McDonnell (ph) case in Virginia. But that is not the obligation of the Senate Democrats here. They are not trying to prove a federal crime. They are simply trying to present the facts and present them in a compelling way.
And in order to do that, they've got to shed light on each element of the story to make it a vivid and compelling tale that people can really sink their teeth into and decide whether or not they believe a bribery took place here.
ROSS GARBER, TEACHES IMPEACHMENT LAW AT TULANE LAW SCHOOL: Yes, I think -- I think the two elements of bribery, no matter how you slice it, that are going to be the issue here are, number one, was it, like Jeffrey said, a political benefit, or was it, you know, something else that was going on and related to that? And I think most important is, what was the president's intent? Under any definition of bribery, you need corrupt intent.
BLITZER: In a legal matter. But this is a political --
GARBER: Well, even -- even a political matter. You don't -- you don't just punish things where somebody doesn't intend to do something wrong. And especially in the area of foreign policy where the president has vast authority, the question is going to be, did the president intend for this to benefit him politically or personally or was his intention to actually look after the -- the country. And was that what was going on? Was he actually trying to address corruption issues or was he trying to do this for a campaign.
BLITZER: Because at the time, Carrie, as we know, Biden was then atop the Democratic field.
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, and this is where the difference between the different witnesses is going to come into play and the facts that they have.
Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman are really not going to be able to speak to the president's intent because they were on the -- they were on the call and they heard information, but they were not part of the actual conspiracy or activities that were going on. That's going to be more from the testimony of Kurt Volker later this afternoon and probably most substantially from Ambassador Sondland tomorrow because he was integrally involved in the activates on behalf of the president.
BORGER: But they've all claimed, for example, that they didn't know that Burisma equaled Biden.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BORGER: And so they claim that, you know, they were sort of blind to this to a certain degree, that they thought, oh, investigating Burisma, well, that's just another corrupt Ukrainian, you know, company, energy company. And so you're going to hear that side of the story too.
So the question, to your point, is, who knew everything? Who knew -- who know everything about this scheme? And the answer is, what, Rudy Giuliani and the president?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (ph): I think that very well may be. It very well may be.
CORDERO: I think Gordon Sondland seems to have known a lot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (ph): Yes.
CORDERO: I mean I really --
BORGER: Yes.
CORDERO: Think that the facts that we've learned them so far, including his changed testimony, including all of the information we're learning about different phone calls between him and the president directly, and he's going to be under oath tomorrow in open session. Other than Rudy Giuliani, he seems to be the closest.
BORGER: Because he's the Trump whisperer (ph).
GREGORY: But -- but it is striking the extent to which the president of the United States' intent was driven by the fact that he was marinating in conspiracy theories that had been debunked.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
GREGORY: And there is an effort to legitimize and to package presidentially this anti-corruption fights when at its root were claims that were not backed by fact that the president was picking up (INAUDIBLE).
[08:40:09]
BLITZER: The discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia --
GREGORY: Right.
BLITZER: That was interfering in the 2016 election.
Everybody hold their thoughts for a moment.
The two key witnesses this morning, they have arrived up on Capitol Hill. We're only moments away from the start of this historic hearing.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:45:26] BLITZER: The first two key witnesses who will appear this morning before the House Intelligence Committee, they both are up on Capitol Hill right now. They both have arrived, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and senior adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, Jennifer Williams. They will be testifying shortly. Both of them will make opening statements before the questioning actually begins.
We're expecting all of that to begin within moments. As I like to say, this is history unfolding here in the nation's capital.
You know, Jim Sciutto, we were talking about hovering over this is this sense from Rudy Giuliani, and the president himself and their supporters, that it was Ukraine --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BLITZER: That was interfering in the 2016 election, even though the entire U.S. intelligence community and all of the president's appointed intelligence officials have concluded without a doubt it was Russia. And Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the other day said it's interesting that in February of 2017, it was Russia that first proposed this notion --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BLITZER: That Ukraine was responsible for hacking the DNC and all of that. And for some reason nobody has accepted that except maybe Rudy Giuliani and the president.
SCIUTTO: We can -- we can call it more than a conspiracy theory. It's 100 percent false that Ukraine stole the DNC server and not Russia. We know that. The intelligence community -- and, by the way, Republicans and Democrats from the relevant committees, Senate Intelligence Committee, have concluded that decisively. So it is entirely false.
And three years after Russia interfered in the election, you know, political Pearl Harbor, whatever you want to call it, the sitting president still does not acknowledge that. And more importantly, I think for folks at home have to think then one year from the next election, is the commander in chief doing his duty to protect the country from another Russian attack, which, by the way, U.S. intelligence says with confidence Russia will do again. And it is already doing today by amplifying conspiracy theories like this.
A lot of this stuff doesn't -- you know, comes from the dark recesses of the web, but it also comes from Russia. And you have, in effect then, Americans doing Russia's dirty work for them, which is remarkable. And the president here, and his personal lawyer, steered the machinery of state to pursue this conspiracy theory.
Beyond that being a waste of time, how does it affect America's security as we have another election coming? It's a sobering thought.
BORGER: And, don't forget, the president's own homeland security adviser at the time, Tom Bossert, just said publically, I told the president this was a load of bunk and you shouldn't believe it. His own homeland security person. So not only was he not listening to the intelligence community, he wasn't listening to his own appointee saying to him, don't do this.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BORGER: And -- and, you know, you also have to question Rudy Giuliani's motives here. Was it just to please the president or does Rudy Giuliani have his own financial --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BORGER: Motive here in terms of dealing with Ukraine.
Remember, Paul Manafort's off in jail.
And, you know, so the -- so the question is whether -- what was Rudy Giuliani thinking about when he was converting with these people who are now under indictment and was he using his access to the president of the United States to stir the pot on some conspiracy theory for his own personal gain.
GREGORY: I also think there's a -- there's a larger theme that's going to play out today, which is this accusation that comes principally from the president and his allies that there is this vast bureaucracy in the United States government, be it at the FBI, in the intelligence community, or the Department of State that is actively working to undermine the president. It's not only baseless and dismissive, it's just flat wrong.
Yes, can there be a history where elements of the bureaucracy don't agree with a particular president's policies and is there leaking that goes on? Yes, that's always happened. But you're seeing in front of us, in real time political -- professionals in the diplomatic corps who are dedicated to policy.
And I think it's striking, Bill Taylor said, look, if there's -- if there's guys who have a direct line to the president, fine, they can do that. Irregular channels are OK. It's when we get really bad and sideways with our policy that's counterproductive for United States national security. That's when I say that that was untoward (ph).
BLITZER: And it's interesting, that's a very important point, Jeffrey, that because in this letter that Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, writes to Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, two members, two Republican members of the panel that will be questioning the witness, Johnson writes this. And let me read it because it's really alarming.
[08:50:01]
He says (ph), I raise this point because I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their, quote, turf. They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.
I want -- I want both of you to respond.
TOOBIN: Well, I -- you know, I've -- Director McCabe can answer this. The idea that the FBI is this nest of liberals and resistance members, I mean as, you know, I had a very different perspective as a lowly assistant U.S. attorney, but I had the opportunity to work with a bunch of FBI agents. That wasn't exactly my impression of how the FBI works.
But, you know, I think there is this fantasy that there is this resistance within these organizations like the FBI and the CIA which --
BLITZER: And the State Department.
TOOBIN: And the State Department, which, in my experience, are not exactly left wing outfits.
MCCABE: Yes, well, you're absolutely right about what the likely leanings are politically within the FBI. And, of course, I say likely because we don't know in the FBI. We don't ask each other our political beliefs. We don't talk about political issues.
I think there is, of course, no deep state. There is no resistance within the bureaucracy across government agencies pushing against this president.
But what there is in that bureaucracy are thousands and thousands of men and women who are committed to the rule of law. And we now have an administration that frequently finds itself bumping up against those laws that we rely on to govern this country. And so when people across government stand up for those rules and point out those transgressions, we see how they're treated by this president and by his administration. They're attacked. They're vilified in probably the same way you'll see these witnesses referred to today.
TOOBIN: And it's worth remembering, there was a policy, the president's policy, which was support the government of Ukraine against the Russian intervention. I mean, that was the policy.
BORGER: Which was approved by Congress.
TOOBIN: Which was approved by Congress.
GREGORY: Yes.
BORGER: And the money was appropriated.
TOOBIN: Which was signed by the president.
BORGER: Yes.
TOOBIN: And so the idea that trying to support the policy was some sort of anti-Trump activity is just wrong.
BLITZER: Yes, but the smear against Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is really awful.
TOOBIN: (INAUDIBLE).
BLITZER: Everyone, stay with us. We're only minutes away from the start of this really important hearing.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:56:52]
BLITZER: All right, several members of the House Intelligence Committee, they're beginning to walk into this hearing room right now. We're watching all of this unfold very, very carefully.
This is History unfolding.
Manu Raju is in the hearing room himself.
Manu, give us a sense of what we're about to see in the coming minutes.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): A very significant hearing, Wolf, where these two witnesses are going to come and sit down and answer questions from this committee and they will raise their serious concerns that they had with that July phone call. They were on that July phone call in which President Trump urged President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.
Now, they will issue different levels of concern. Vindman will make it very clear that he raised concerns on multiple occasions to the highest levels of the National Security Council that this call was not appropriate, concerned that it would undercut national security. And also we expect to hear Jennifer Williams, the adviser to Mike Pence, someone who's been detailed from the State Department, raised concerns that this could -- that this was a political call and that it was inappropriate, but she did not report those concerns. She did provide the transcript of that phone call to Vice President Mike Pence. She's not aware of what Mike Pence did with that transcript. So those will be questions that the members have, how much did Mike Pence know about all of this in terms of the push for investigations into the president's political rivals.
But Vindman also will describe a potential quid pro quo, a push for investigations by the Ukrainians in exchange for a key meeting in Washington, in exchange for releasing aid to the Ukrainians, something that was described to him by various conversations that he had with Ambassador Gordon Sondland of the European Union.
So, Wolf, right now Democratic lawmakers in this room filing in. They had a morning meeting, I'm told, that they narrowed -- they sharpened their focus in the line of questions. We're waiting for Republicans to enter. And, of course, these key witnesses will walk in, in just a matter of moments, Wolf. BLITZER: Yes.
That's Daniel Goldman there speaking with Congressman Swalwell. Daniel Goldman sitting. He's one of the House Intelligence Committee's staff attorneys on the Democratic side. He'll be doing 45 minutes of questioning of these two witnesses, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Jennifer Williams.
You know, it's very disturbing, if you saw "The Wall Street Journal" report that just was posted a little while ago, as far as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, 20 year veteran of the U.S. Army, a hero. It says this, the U.S. Army is prepared to move Colonel Vindman and his family on to a military base in the area to ensure their security if it is determined they are in physical danger according to U.S. officials. Army security officials in recent weeks conducted a security assessment at Colonel Vindman's request reviewing both his and his family's physical security and their online security according to U.S. officials. One more sentence, Army security officials have also been monitoring Colonel Vindman and his family around the clock to make sure there aren't any imminent threats.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
Listen, it's a sad fact that this is life in Trump's world today because if you get on the wrong side of this president, he will attack you personally. And that generates a whole sort of tribe, right, that joins on to that attack. And some people -- I mean, listen, we've all received some of this criticism in social media, but some of it is very real to the point where the military considers that a serious threat to him.
[09:00:03]
END
