Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Dems Take on Trump during Debate; Trump Invites Republicans to the White House; Testimony today from Hill and Holmes; Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Interviewed on Continuing Impeachment Inquiry; National Security Council Adviser to President Trump on Russia to Testify before Congress on U.S. Interests regarding Ukraine and Russia; Hill: "Domestic Politics" Should Not Stop U.S. from Defending Itself. Aired 8-9a ET
Aired November 21, 2019 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:00:24]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Chris Cuomo is joining us from Capitol Hill. In one hour, another impeachment witness, another rejection of the White House's narrative on why Ukraine was pressured. We are now learning how Dr. Fiona Hill, President Trump's former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, will push back on the president, more bad news, potentially, Chris, for the president.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Because it's going to be more perspective about what was true versus what was being offered up as motivations for the president's actions, Wolf. Hill in her opening statement will dismiss the core of the GOP impeachment defense that Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 election so it was OK for the president to say it needed to be investigated. Instead, she will make clear it was not Ukraine meddling in 2016. It was Russia. And it will be Russia again in 2020, and we are not ready.
Joining Hill this morning, David Holmes. He's the Ukraine embassy official who says he overheard Ambassador Gordon Sondland in that July phone call with President Trump at that restaurant in Ukraine, Wolf.
BLITZER: It's interesting, the E.U. ambassador, he testified for hours and hours yesterday that not only was there a quid pro quo directed by the president, but both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew all about it. It's a very, very serious development, Chris, that unfolded.
CUOMO: It is the closest thing we've seen to putting meat on the bones of the allegations that this was a bribe. That's how it was intended, and that's how it was solicited.
So let's begin here on Capitol Hill with CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju. What more do we know about Hill's testimony? MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, she's going
to make it very clear that the claim being pushed by not just President Trump but some of his Republican allies on the House Intelligence Committee that Ukraine meddled or may have meddled in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton, she's going to call that fiction. In fact, she's going to make it clear that in her words this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by Russian security services themselves. And she's going to make it clear that this is something that is distracting from what the U.S. should be focusing on, the Kremlin interference and the Kremlin's effort to interfere in the 2020 elections.
She also says this. She says she respects the work of Congress, but "If the president or anyone else impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention, but we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm." So this is a very serious concern being raised by an individual, the former top Russia adviser in the White House, Fiona Hill, someone who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. She's going to make it very clear that what is being discussed and what the president raised in the phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, to investigate Ukraine, potentially Ukraine interference, that is harmful to the national interests.
And of course we have now learned through these various witnesses that the president himself and some of his allies made clear that that was essentially a condition for moving forward, some of these key efforts. So expect some very strong words from her in just under an hour, guys.
CUOMO: The shorthand will be that she's basically going to make an argument that what the president was doing was a threat to national security, because he was chasing down a rabbit hole of something that's just a conspiracy theory and constructively mitigating the blame on Russia, and thereby also distracting from the intensity of the need to protect against Russia, which is something this president has been charged with for a long time now. David Holmes, what does he provide in the puzzle?
RAJU: Well, he, of course, we've learned overheard a phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland of the European Union in a restaurant in Kiev in which President Trump and Sondland were discussing in the testimony of David Holmes an investigation into the Bidens that should be launched by the Ukrainian government. According to his testimony, Sondland made clear to the president that the Ukrainian president would move forward with that investigation, would do anything the president wanted. The president cared only about that according to what we'll hear from David Holmes. And that's what he said in his closed-door deposition last month -- last week, saying that's all the president cared about according to what Gordon Sondland told them.
Of course, Sondland has a slightly different story yesterday, but we'll see how much more contradiction David Holmes gives to what Sondland testified to yesterday, Chris. [08:05:06]
CUOMO: Appreciate it, Manu. Joining us right now is Democratic member of the House Intel Committee, Congressman Eric Swalwell. Good to see you, sir.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL, (D-CA): Good morning, Chris.
CUOMO: You got to the president this morning. He's talking about you. Here's what he said.
(LAUGHTER)
SWALWELL: It's news to me.
CUOMO: You were on FOX, and he tweeted about it. They're going to put up the tweet at some point, but, luckily, I know what it said. He said "Why is FOX wasting time with you? You recently left the primaries. You had a grand number of zero in the polls. He doesn't even know how that's possible. And then he said to FOX, stick with who got you where you are." Now, I don't care to talk about you and your politics and running for president. Good for you for making a go at it. But was does that tell you about how the president sees that outlet and sees the dialogue you're all engaged in?
SWALWELL: First off, Chris, I have to go on that other network. It's the only way my parents will see me on TV.
(LAUGHTER)
SWALWELL: But second, he's clearly not working. He should not just be focused on this impeachment inquiry. There's other work he can be doing on gun violence, health care, prescription drugs. But Chris, I want to actually -- you pointed out something that I think is really important about David Holmes coming forward, and that is the power of people hearing what the facts are in this investigation and raising their hands and saying, I have information.
You've covered a lot of investigations. You know most investigations these days are document driven. Witnesses are shown emails, text messages, documents to refresh their recollection. This investigation is entirely driven by firsthand accounts of people who had the courage to come forward. We have no documents, and we are as far as we are.
CUOMO: Now, there was a suggestion last night. So Sondland was making the point, listen, I can't remember a lot of this stuff, because the secretary of state won't let me -- the Department of State won't let me have my documents. And, obviously, I talked to the big shots, but the big shots are being kept from testifying. Then there was a counterargument made. Well, David Hale got all his documents from the State Department. Why couldn't Sondland? Do you accept that premise?
SWALWELL: I don't. If that's the case with Mr. Hale, I think it's selective releasing of documents. And there are questions now that are fair. Why don't you bring in Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, all of these others who have been invoked? And the answer, I believe, is we should actually look at why is the president blocking us from bringing them in? That I think goes to his consciousness of guilt, if they can help him, he would send them to us. And we actually I think have a solid case as it is, and there's really not a need to play this how many angels can dance on the head of a pin game when the evidence is already overwhelming.
CUOMO: So the evidence is overwhelming depending on who is looking at it, right? I know you'll argue objectively it is, it doesn't matter who you are. But you're in a political process. And I have never seen, now that we're all doing our homework on impeachments past all the time. I've got a professor of it sitting right next to me right now. We've never seen a president get the kind of backup from his party that this president is getting right now. You have to expect that you will get zero buy-in for any articles of impeachment. How do you handle that?
SWALWELL: I'm putting my faith, Chris, in the eyes and ears of my Republican colleagues, meaning, do they read the emails and the mail that will be coming in from their constituents? Do they listen to their constituents concerns at the town hall? Because I don't think the facts are really in much dispute here, especially with the president releasing the call record. It's really, is this a country where we want the president to leverage his massive power over a foreign government to involve itself in our election for his benefit. I don't think that's who we are, and I think my Republican colleagues over the next few weeks will be hearing from their constituents.
CUOMO: Fiona Hill is going to swing a big axe today on that. She's going to say, listen, you guys are talking about, the president had a good-faith effort that Ukraine was involved in 2016. So that makes all this OK. No. Based on her opening, she's going to say there's no basis for that. It is a conspiracy speculation. And by engaging in it, no matter whether you thought it was good faith, it is bad practice because not only are you ignoring and, therefore, mitigating the wrongdoing of Russia, but you are creating a national security threat by not focusing on the real inimical entity, and that leaves us unprepared and is a national security threat. Do you accept that?
SWALWELL: I do. And President Putin proves her right. Yesterday he was talking about how Ukraine is now at the center of election meddling. And, Chris here -- there's a couple of defenses we've heard about the president. One, if the Ukrainians didn't know about it, how is it a, quote, bribery or extortion. We heard yesterday from Ms. Cooper actually as early as July 25th, they were asking about security assistance the same day the call with the Ukrainian president took place.
[08:10:01]
Second, while this president cares a lot about corruption so he was going after the Ukrainians, we heard from Ms. Cooper yesterday, actually on May 23, she told the White House that all the corruption issues were cleaned up. The hold is later placed on them.
And finally, this voices in his head defense -- even if the president was irrational, these concerns he had about Ukraine justified doing what he did. And again, that's not a defense in any criminal court, and it's not going to be a defense, I think, for the American people.
CUOMO: Eric Swalwell, thank you so much, Congressman, and good luck today.
SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thank you.
CUOMO: The country is watching. Wolf, over to you.
BLITZER: Thanks very much. Good interview.
Let's continue the discussion with my team of experts, our correspondents and our analysts. And Jim Sciutto, we've been going through Dr. Fiona Hill's prepared testimony. She's going to be testifying, the former top Russia adviser to the president on the National Security Council. This line also jumped out at me near the end of her opening statement. "If the president or anyone else impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention," she tells these lawmakers.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I think we always have to get back to what the core of this issue is. Keep in mind, here's Fiona Hill. She's a respected Russia expert, President Trump's appointee to lead Russia policy. And Russia is America's -- one of America's top national security threats. She's articulating there, and she's going to be uttering these words under oath, that the president subjugated U.S. national security interest for his own political interest. She's stating what the case is.
And she was, by the way, involved in developing and carrying out the president's policy there. She goes on to call out members of the committee for propagating both myths but also things contrary to U.S. policy. She said, this is also from her statement, "Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative." She goes on to say it also happens to be a Russian narrative.
That's remarkable for people inside this administration, appointed by this president, to say definitively that he was subjugating U.S. national security interests to his own interests.
BLITZER: Because she specifically, Jamie, and I'm going to get everyone to weigh in on this. She specifically says that this whole narrative that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, that was propagated by the Russians. And now you have people like Rudy Giuliani and maybe the president himself accepting what the Russians originally came up with.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: And just to put this in some context, what have we been saying for three years? Donald Trump will not criticize Vladimir Putin. As Nancy Pelosi said in her finger pointing meeting, why do all roads keep going back to Putin? This is another example of a difference between his top senior officials and what they see and what the Intelligence Committee sees, and then what Donald Trump wanted to do.
I think it's also worth pointing out, at the beginning of her statement, she makes a big point of saying, I'm here as a fact witness. I am nonpartisan. And I am here for the truth. She is also representing people who are not testifying today, namely, John Bolton. She was his top aide, and I think people are going to be looking very closely to see what she can say about what Bolton did.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: But where the hell is John Bolton? Why is he not testifying? Why doesn't he walk in there and testify? She has an interesting line in her testimony where she says, I believe that those who have information that Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. John Bolton apparently has a legal and moral obligation to give speeches for money, to give -- have a $2 million book contract to talk about all these issues, but when the Congress of the United States is deciding impeachment, John Bolton has to go to court and say no. What is that about?
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I agree with that. And I think that what Fiona Hill, what you just read, Jim, I think is very much coming from John Bolton who is a Trump appointee, who is a hardliner, and who thinks this was completely inappropriate. But I agree with you, then he ought to come forward and actually say it, because that gives you some window into the fact that there was an official track of foreign policy, and there was a rouge track, but it wasn't one person. It was from the president to his lawyer, perhaps secretary of state and others who were involved.
There's another piece to the humanity of these folks who are foreign policy experts who serve the government. Fiona Hill spending time on her biography, who she is, where she comes from. Her dedication. We have a president who has dismissed these professionals and these foreign service officers and their commitment, saying things that always have sexist overtones like, oh, the woman, and I don't even know who she is.
[08:15:05]
And he says it about men, too, just to dismiss them as faceless bureaucrats instead of seeing what America can see -- people who are dedicated not only to their expertise, but to serve the United States.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You know, it's interesting, Andrew, the president clearly -- he is fixated on all of this right now getting ready to watch more of this dramatic testimony just tweeted this. And I'll read it you.
I never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word impeachment. The calls, transcripts, were perfect. There was nothing said that was wrong. No pressure on Ukraine. Great corruption and dishonesty by Schiff on the other side.
You can see, he's obviously getting increasingly concerned by what's unfolding during these hearings.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: He is, and he should. What he's hearing in these hearings are an existential threat to his presidency, and for good reason.
It's really important the comments that you, Jim and Jamie, made about the Russia implications here. It's not just that he subverted U.S. policy for this fictitious theory about Ukrainian meddling in the election which, by the way, the absolutely unanimous conclusion that it was Russia, not Ukraine is a conclusion placed on fact. The United States government has detailed, hard forensic evidence of the Russians' engagement in that meddling.
So he adopted a conspiracy theory propagated by Russia with the effect of withholding security assistance that would have been used to battle Russia and Ukraine. So, it's not just his adoption of the conspiracy theory is in line with Russian goals but the effect of that adoption is to deny our ally, the aid they need to fight the Russians on that.
BLITZER: And she makes the point, Carrie, this is Dr. Fiona Hill, President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize their own political opposition research and false narratives.
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, a lot of the story of the Trump presidency has been about foreign influence. That was really the main part of volume one of the Mueller report. It was about foreign influence and it was about the 2016 campaign's openness to receiving that foreign influence.
What we've seen be uncovered about the summer and the early fall of 2019 is that pattern continuing -- the Trump campaign, this time the Trump 2020 campaign, willingly wanting foreign assistance and embracing and trafficking in conspiracy theories that are feeded by foreign influence and foreign governments hostile to the United States' interest.
And Dr. Fiona Hill is a subject matter expert on Ukraine, on Russia, on that region of the world. And I think her testimony is going to be incredibly compelling and a real warning about the current situation that the United States is in. And the president is using his very powerful use of social media, over 60 million followers, I think, and that's something that we see that we worry about. Those of us in the national security space that we worry about authoritarian governments using technology, using social media to influence how their citizens are thinking about things. And so, it's very concerning.
BLITZER: Certainly is.
Very quickly.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Just to put it another way. What did the president always say? No collusion and no obstruction. What we have seen with Ukraine is collusion, again, between the United States and a foreign government to try to help him win the election, and obstruction. No witnesses produced voluntarily. No documents produced voluntarily.
Collusion and obstruction, it's what happened with Mueller and it's what happened with Ukraine.
BLITZER: Everybody, stick around. There's a lot more we're following. The arrivals of Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes. They're set to testify moments from now. We're on top of all these fast- moving developments.
Chris, this is going to be powerful.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: It is. It's going to be the culmination of the first part of a very important process to our democracy. And not to be forgotten, ten Democratic candidates squared off as the impeachment hearings were consuming Washington.
How did it fit in to the debate last night? What did they have to say about this? And who made some points for themselves last night?
We have much more coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:23:38]
CUOMO: All right. We have the arrival of Dr. Fiona Hill. There she is for her all-important testimony going through the magnetometer. Of course, the threat that she carries with her is in her head.
The words and ideas that she's going to explain today in the impeachment inquiry about how wrong it is to suspect that Ukraine had something to do with election interference in 2016 and how it literally creates a national security threat to ignore Russia's role and to engage in that kind of conspiracy theory.
So we get her arrival here. We're waiting on David Holmes, who's going to be on today together this morning.
But let's get up to the White House. CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins.
The president is also up and exercised this morning. The president who in his initial address to the country said that American carnage would end seems to be continuing as much blood sport as possible, referring to the Democrats and the impeachment inquiry as human scum this morning.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and repeating that same argument, Chris, that we've seen from the president saying essentially that he's frustrated because they do not have White House attorneys present in the room as these witnesses are coming forward to testify about what was happening inside the White House to talk about this pressure campaign happening with this military aid in Ukraine.
And the president is very clearly frustrated with the coverage. He says essentially that he feels like what happened yesterday is very different than what he's seeing reported. And a lot has to do with Gordon Sondland himself, what the president has been pointing to as his defenses for Gordon Sondland and what actually is being said about Sondland is exposing testimony that we saw yesterday as the Republicans tried to push back on that.
[08:25:15]
And, Chris, this comes as sources are telling us that the president is trying this interesting tactic over the last 24 hours of trying to convince people that he didn't really know his hand-picked European Union ambassador all that well. Now that's confusing aides and allies who the president is speaking with because they think the best line of attack is pointing to where Gordon Sondland couldn't say the president had explicitly or personally told him he was withholding that military aid or White House meeting in exchange for the investigations that he wanted. But that is the attack and that is the tactic that the president is trying this morning.
This comes as people inside the White House are looking forward to Fiona Hill's testimony because essentially they view her about as close to John Bolton as House Democrats are getting right now. And they're curious what she's going to say not only about what happened with Ukraine but also may be give some insight into the president's mind-set on Russia because you saw what Manu said about her opening statement where she said she wasn't going to be a party to this conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine that interfered in the election and not Russia.
And, of course, Chris, the main person who's been pushing that, the chief person who's been pushing that is the president himself who says he believes Ukraine tried to take him down in the election.
CUOMO: Well, it is an interesting set of defenses, you know, that the president doesn't know better than to think Ukraine was involved with the 2016 election. He doesn't know better than to discuss foreign policy with someone that he barely knows. It's interesting.
Kaitlan, thank you very much. Appreciate the reporting.
Back with me, CNN global affairs analyst Susan Glasser and CNN legal analyst Ross Garber. He teaches impeachment law at Tulane Law School.
I mean, that -- Ross, that's essentially how they are trying to get him out of the necessary mind-set here for being party to a bribe which is, yes, he's not smart enough to get that this is a conspiracy theory about Ukraine. And, yes, he'll talk to a guy who doesn't even know Gordon Sondland asking him for directive. So ignorance is bliss.
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's one of the reasons today is going to be interesting is Fiona Hill is going to sort of lay out why Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election, but it's not -- it's not going to go. I think the Republicans are going to say to the ultimate issue which is the president's mind-set and why he thought, because of press articles, honestly because of Rudy Giuliani, why he actually thought that Ukraine did actually meddle in 2016. CUOMO: How does litigating a conspiracy help the cause here, though?
If you are the Democrats and you get into a back and forth litigating nonsense, aren't you empowering the nonsense?
GARBER: Well, I think that's going to be one of the issues. In a way, it doesn't really matter.
CUOMO: As we talk, just so you know, there's David Holmes. He's coming in this morning to join Fiona Hill. How does he fit into the picture?
He is one of the staffers who heard Gordon Sondland, the guy the president doesn't really know, although he gifted him with an ambassadorship, on the phone with the president. So I guess he knew him that day. And they were having a very loud discussion about how the president wanted the investigations before anything else would flow Ukraine's way.
Sondland then got off that phone call, according to Mr. Holmes, and explained to him that the president doesn't care about Ukraine. Just about the parts that matter to him, like investigating the Bidens. OK? So we'll see how they can take him down today.
Continue, Ross.
GARBER: Yes, so, you know, ultimately it will be interesting to see how the Republicans handle Hill today. Will they push back on the notion of Ukraine actually interfering in 2016?
CUOMO: We know the answer. But we know this answer, right?
GARBER: Yes.
CUOMO: They are going to say to him -- to her, the black book. We don't really know it was authentic. They say it was authentic. They do. But aren't they corrupt?
And Manafort, a lot of stuff they had on him. That was weird. And weren't these people named Chalupa, not the Taco Bell, but the other one. She went in and tried to get help for Clinton. Didn't that happen?
How do you deal with that when these are things you've dismissed out of hand?
SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that Fiona is, in fact, a key fact witness in addition to making the point the entire U.S. government has already made over and over again that it was Russia responsible for the intervention. In the deposition, the Republicans went down the road of arguing about conspiracy theories with her and that was a very sharp moment. You can read that transcript and she challenged them. So, I'm not sure that they actually will pursue, you know, an extended debate about the facts of the matter because I think, frankly, she'd annihilate them on the facts. She herself however is a key witness because John Bolton, her former
boss, the former national security adviser, because he has refused to testify so far, she's the one who produced, I think, the really eye- popping disclosure in her early deposition that he was -- that national security adviser was so alarmed about what the president and his advisers were doing, he told her to go to the lawyers.
CUOMO: Right.
[08:30:00]
GLASSER: He said what -- you know, I don't want to be a part of any drug deal --
CUOMO: Right.
GLASSER: That they're cooking up. He called Rudy Giuliani a hand grenade. And so Fiona, I think, is a very important witness when it comes to the alarm inside the White House with the president's own advisers --
CUOMO: Right.
GLASSER: As far as what was going on here. And so I wouldn't discount that. You know, if you're going to have a philosophical argument about it --
CUOMO: No, no, no, I -- I think they're actually counting on it.
GLASSER: Yes.
CUOMO: Which is, it's still an abuse of power --
GLASSER: That's right.
CUOMO: Even if you believe something like this because it was so ignorant to believe it that it actually makes you a national security threat.
I'm out of time, though, unless what you're going to say is going to change the whole disposition of the day (ph).
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, I was just going to -- I think the Republicans are going to point out, though, that it's unclear if these concerns of Bolton actually made their way to the president.
CUOMO: OK, thank you very much.
Susan Glasser, Ross Garber, always a plus.
Let's tell you this, still to come, impeachment is going to make its way on to the Democratic presidential debate stage. And we're going to bring you the highlights of how it played out. What points were made? How did they land?
Plus, we're going to be set to hear in just minutes from two key witnesses. We've been showing you them arrive. It's always good to see. What is that disposition? You can tell in Sondland yesterday, he was ready to get after it. He had a smile on his face and a pep in his step. The president is up this morning and attacking it every way he can.
So stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:36:02]
BLITZER: Right now all eyes are on Washington as we gear up for yet another day of powerful testimony in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
You're looking at live pictures from the hearing room.
We're about to hear from two more witnesses who have offered very compelling details behind closed doors. But today it will all be televised. While the focus, of course, remains on Washington, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, they're making their case why voters should choose them to replace President Trump. The candidates now hoping to build momentum after their fifth presidential debate this election cycle.
Correspondent Jessica Dean is joining us from Atlanta, where the debate took place last night.
So what's the latest, Jessica? What are you seeing? What are you hearing?
JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this is such a unique situation, of course, because these candidates are in the middle of this primary with this impeachment inquiry playing out in Washington. Yesterday's testimony especially a bombshell and so pivotal. So then to come to this debate, it's just a very, very interesting situation. I mean remember that a handful of these candidates would be part of a Senate trial, but they are all in agreement this is impeachable conduct.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I learned something about these impeachment trials. I learned, number one, that Donald Trump doesn't want me to be the nominee.
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just to be clear, the president's already confessed to it on television.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have a criminal living in the White House.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What this impeachment proceeding about is really our democracy at stake. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How did
Ambassador Sondland get there? You know, this is not a man who had any qualifications except one, he wrote a check for a million dollars.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We cannot simply be consumed by Donald Trump. Because if we are, you know what, we're going to lose the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: And Bernie Sanders there with an interesting point because all of these candidates, of course, trying to walk that fine line between engaging in this impeachment conversation, making the case they're the best person to defeat Donald Trump, but also engaging with voters, Wolf, on issues like health care, climate change, things that they're asking about out here on the campaign trail.
BLITZER: It was interesting, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, he's seen a major boost in recent Iowa polling, but he spent part of the week apologizing after his campaign used a stock image of a Kenyan woman to represent black America.
So what did we hear from him, Jessica?
DEAN: Yes, well, a lot of people expected Pete Buttigieg to take on a lot of incoming last night for that very reason, that they -- we have seen him rising in the polls, especially in Iowa, where he's had some very strong poll numbers there. But he has really struggled to gain traction with African-American voters, which make up a huge portion of Democratic primary voters.
Here's what he had to say about that. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I welcome the challenge of connecting with black voters in America who don't yet know me.
While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: So that's really going to be the challenge for Buttigieg moving forward is being able to make some inroads with the African-American primary voter.
Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jessica. Jessica Dean reporting from Atlanta for us.
Thank you very much. All right, we're only moments away from the start of this hearing. This is going to be potentially very, very explosive. David Hale (ph), a U.S. embassy official, who overheard that conversation between the president of the United States and the president -- and the U.S. ambassador to the EU, he will be testifying as will Dr. Fiona Hill, President Trump's former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council.
We're standing by for their arrivals in the hearing room.
Much more of our special coverage right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:44:48]
BLITZER: Moments from now, David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, Fiona Hill, the former -- former top Russia expert at the National Security Council under President Trump, they will be walking into the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing room.
[08:45:06]
They will be answering a lot of questions, making opening statements. We'll, of course, stand by for live coverage.
At the same time, it's very interesting, Jamie, we just got word the president's inviting Republican senators over to the White House. He's lobbying them to make sure they will be on board if, in fact, he is impeached in the House, it goes to a trial in the Senate. He's going to want their support. Including Mitt Romney is coming over today. Susan Collins is coming over today. He's got some work to do.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Particularly the ones he's worried about. I think some of this lobbying has been going on for weeks. But what we've been seeing from a lot of these senators yesterday is they said, I'm not going to comment because I'm going to be a juror. He's making sure his jurors are feeling some love from the White House.
I do want to tell you, I was just texting with a former senior administration official who worked very closely with Fiona Hill. And the official said, many thought Sondland would be the bombshell, and in many ways -- in some ways he was. But it is Fiona Hill who is the bomb. Unlike all the rest of the witnesses, she's actually a senior policymaker. She has had many interactions with the president. She saw firsthand the contravention of normal channels. She heard the president clinging to conspiracy theories and pushing personal, political agendas. And the source ends, she's incredibly smart and has no fear.
BLITZER: That could -- Jim Sciutto, that could be explosive.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, does she provide that link directly to the president? Was she in the room when he said, you know, pursue these investigations and perhaps made the connection to the aid, et cetera? Or short of that, as Jamie was saying, to say, I was in the room when repeatedly he prioritized this stuff, conspiracy theory, Biden, over what should have been the focus of the policy. Maybe Fiona Hill is what Sondland -- some expected Sondland to be today.
Short of that, as well, you will have her state the bigger picture issue here, right, which is, what happened to U.S. policy priorities there? And, you know, it's interesting, you know, we know that U.S. national security was subjugated to the president's personal interests, which, at the same time, helped Russia's interests. And how do we know that? Because yesterday Vladimir Putin was celebrating what he heard in the impeachment hearings. He said he was speaking to people in Moscow. He said thank God, in his words, people are now pointing the finger at Ukraine and not Russia for interfering in the election.
It's remarkable how many times Trump talking points and arguments mimic Russia's. you know, whether that's intentional, we don't know. But -- but what is a fact is that they are often in line.
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And the totality of this evidence from people at different levels, who took notes, who noticed what was happening, who had key conversations that could be validated by others. And now you have people in a position, who dealt directly with the president, who knew exactly where his mind was, what his priorities were.
And I think the larger point, talking about Republican senators who will be jurors, the fact that the president pursued a conspiracy theory that directly helped Russia, so if they -- they believe that there was an abuse of power, who benefited because a really damning part of this.
BLITZER: The Republicans, the president's allies, they keep saying, Jeffrey, that, you know, there was -- couldn't be any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn't even know there was a suspension, a withholding of the U.S. military assistance until much, much later.
But yesterday we heard Laura Cooper, former -- current deputy assistant secretary of defense, say on July 25th, shortly after the president's phone conversation with president Zelensky, they got a call from the Ukrainian embassy in Washington saying, what's up with the aid?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, one of the lessons -- one of the things we've learned from -- from these two weeks of hearings is, we've seen the Republican talking points disintegrate one by one. You know, one -- one of them was the one you mentioned yesterday, Laura Cooper, not a celebrated witness, but one of the Republican talking points had been, well, in other -- the Ukrainians didn't even know that the -- the aid was being withheld, so it couldn't be an exchange.
Well, here, on the very same day as the notorious phone call between the two presidents, we know that the Ukrainians were saying, where is the money, you know, that Congress appropriated? Where's the money that is going to save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers on the front line against the Russian separatists? So, you know, that -- that talking point falls apart, just like the no firsthand testimony talking point falls apart, just like the talking point that, well, the Ukrainians got the money anyway so what's the big deal talking point fell apart because the only reason the Ukrainians wound up getting the money is because the president got caught in this process and the whistleblower came forward and they released the money at that point.
[08:50:11]
BLITZER: All right, everybody hold on for a moment. I want to go back to Chris.
You're watching this from Capitol Hill. The members are beginning to arrive in that hearing room. This is about to begin.
CUOMO: Yep, we're just moments away. We'll be waiting for them to get situated so we can bring everybody the testimony here.
Let's get a quick take of what we're going to expect right out of the box.
CNN global affairs analyst Susan Glasser and CNN legal analyst Ross Garber.
You know Dr. Hill. What should we anticipate in terms of how she'll handle the questioning to upset her premise in her opening?
GLASSER: Look, Fiona Hill isn't going to take any guff from any member of Congress. She knows her material. She's going to think -- I think frame this in an important way as about the geopolitical consequences of this. This is not just something that doesn't matter. An inconsequential political debate here in the United States. So I think --
CUOMO: You quit? You're a never Trumper?
GLASSER: Well, you know, that's an interesting argument. She was advised by everyone, literally everyone who knew her more or less not to take this job. She did it because she felt that it was important for the United States to maintain a consistent, and, by the way, bipartisan policy toward Russia.
What this has underscored is the extent to which everyone in Washington, more or less, agreed with this approach of supporting Ukraine, except for the president himself.
CUOMO: So here's the box that she can put the president in today, and I want your take on how they get him out of that. If you didn't really believe this and you were just trying to spread stink on Clinton and on the Bidens, then it's abuse of office and it's impeachment. If you did believe it, which is where Fiona Hill comes in, then you are ignorant beyond belief to the point of incompetence and where it is impeachable because of the abuse of power that goes into believing this kind of nonsense. How do they get out of the box? GARBER: She may -- Fiona Hill may be able to stand up to that sort of
questioning, but she may not. I mean I would expect the Republicans, including Jim Jordan, to sort of lay out the reasons why it was legitimate for the president to believe in this.
CUOMO: But her argument is, if it was legitimate for him to believe it, in your mind, then you're as dumb as he is and you're a threat to national security.
GARBER: She may -- she may be able to pull that off, but I wouldn't be too sure that she is. I think Jim Jordan and others are going to be able to point out the press articles, the evidence that suggested even if it's -- even if it's been debunked by this point, the reasons why, at that point, it was legitimate for President Trump to --
CUOMO: For Ross Garber it's all right (ph), although I think Tulane would have a problem with you.
GARBER: No, no --
CUOMO: For the president of the United States that is under counsel from your intelligence community, it is not OK that there's some Alex Jones articles about him.
GARBER: I -- well, and, by the way, it wasn't just Alex Jones articles. We're talking about in legitimate publications, including "Politico." I think let's see how it plays out. You know, this started off as the most sort of partisan impeachment process in modern history. I'm going to be looking to see if any Republicans get moved by any of the testimony, including today's.
CUOMO: Well, that's -- that's going to be an interesting measure to be sure.
Ross, Susan, thank you so much.
All right, let's take a quick break. We're right there. They're getting situated. They're going to sit down. We know how the process works by now. But today is going to have consequences.
So stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:57:51]
BLITZER: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world.
In minutes, a warning to the GOP from the president's former top Russia adviser, you are buying the fiction that Russia is selling. In her impeachment testimony, Dr. Fiona Hill will reject the White House narrative that Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 presidential election here in the United States, pointing out that it's exactly what the Russians want to hear ahead of 2020.
David Holmes is also testifying today. He says he overheard that July phone call between Ambassador Gordon Sondland and President Trump from a restaurant where they were having lunch in Ukraine.
Let's begin our special coverage right now as we await the start of this important hearing.
Our senior congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, is joining us right now.
So, Manu, what do we know first of all about Dr. Hill's testimony?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we expect some fiery words from her right at the top, pushing back on the notion that Ukraine may have interfered in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton. This is something that has been pushed by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, as well as the president himself and Rudy Giuliani. The president, of course, ration the notion that Ukraine may have interfered and that also being placed as a condition for roughly $400 million in military aid, as well as a key meeting with White House -- with -- between President Trump and President Zelensky in Ukraine and asked for those investigations. Several witnesses have testified that it's all been part of this discussion about moving forward.
But Fiona Hill is going to make some very serious concerns raised about the -- any suggestion that Ukraine interfered and saying you can take the eye off the ball of Russia. She's going to say this, based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
And, Wolf, expect her also to raise some serious concerns about Rudy Giuliani, the role he played, even about whether or not he was legal, his push, to get Ukraine to announce those investigations that could help the president politically.
[09:00:07]
END
