Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Meets with German Chancellor Merkel At NATO Summit; Call Logs Reveled in Impeachment Inquiry; Trump Calls out Trudeau; Constitutional Experts Weigh in on Impeachment. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired December 04, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Any minute now President Trump will sit down with the German chancellor Angela Merkel, the latest ally to meet with him at the sometimes-fiery NATO summit in London. We'll go there in just a few moments.

But first, we are now a step further in the process of impeaching the president of the United States for just the third time in American history. Just two hours from now the next phase in the probe kicks off. The House Judiciary Committee holds its first impeachment hearing. Constitutional scholars, four of them, will face questions on the legal framework for impeachment as Democrats try to sharpen their case and Republicans look to undermine it.

Next hour, House Democrats will meet to plan out their next steps in this overall impeachment inquiry after the Intelligence Committee hands down a 300-page roadmap. Its report argues the evidence of the president's misconduct and obstruction is, quote, overwhelming, and digs up new call records showing what Democrats say is a coordinated pressure campaign on Ukraine. In today's hearing, we could hear more about those new revelations.

Let's go to Capitol Hill right now. Our senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is joining us. Manu, set the scene for us. This is an historic day here in the nation's capital.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is when the Judiciary Committee begins its new chapter of this impeachment hearing. And expect a very firing hearing from the star. Republicans are expected to strongly object to this move to impeach the president. Democrats are going to warn what the president did violates the Constitution, violates the oath of office, and they're going to make the case, try to, to the American public that the president deserves to be removed from office.

Now this hearing is going to break down much the way these past impeachment hearings have been taking place before the House Intelligence Committee. The format is we need much the same. There's going to be the Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is going to deliver his opening statement, following by the ranking Republican Doug Collins, and that's going to be followed by the witness opening statements. And those witness opening statements we're also starting to just get a taste of, including from the one Republican witness. There are four witnesses, they're all academics, will weigh in on these matters about whether or not these meet the high crimes and misdemeanors as they laid out in the Constitution.

And the one Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, who is testifying today, we're getting a sense of what he is saying from his opening statement. And he makes a case and says this. He says "I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence in an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, the impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. Does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and at times bitterly divided."

Now that's not going to be the consensus on the panel. Expect the other witnesses to give their own case about what meets high crimes and misdemeanors threshold under the Constitution, whether what the president did here certainly meets that. But the questioning will also take place not just from the members but also some of the staff counsels. After the witnesses deliver those opening statements, the Democratic Counsel Norm Eisen will have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. Afterwards the Republican staff counsel will also have 45 minutes to question staff witnesses. And then each of the members of the committees, those very big committees, five minutes a piece from each of these members will get a chance to question, to make their case to the public, try to get these witnesses to answer questions.

And Wolf, going on at the same time in the next hour, Nancy Pelosi is going to go behind closed doors with her colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus, they're going to be talking about next steps for impeachment. No staff is allowed in this room, which is unusual for these kinds of meetings. The House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is going to lay out the case, the report that he released yesterday as Democrats weigh their next step as the Judiciary kicks off the next chapter of these proceedings, Wolf.

BLITZER: As you know, 41 members of the House Judiciary Committee, 22 on the House Intelligence Committee. Last night, they released this 300-page document outlining their findings in their investigation, the House Intelligence Committee. Give us some of the major, major moments that they released in this document.

RAJU: Well, they try to make a case this was a scheme that was perpetrated by the president to try to push for matters in helping his political campaign and undermine national security, undermine foreign policy, and leverage his relationship with the Ukrainian government in order to push forward on those investigations. They tried to make two broad categories. One misconduct by the president, two, obstruction of Congress by not turning over records to Capitol Hill. Those are generally probably going to be the outlines of articles of impeachment that we can expect to see upcoming draft in the coming days, abuse of Congress, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress.

But also new revelations about phone records they obtained from subpoenaing third parties that sheds new light about the context of Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, had with people in the White House as well as people involved in the matter to try to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, the president's political rival, as well as and trying to oust the Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

[08:05:11]

It also brings in Devin Nunes into the picture, the ranking Republican in the House Intelligence Committee, someone who has been a sharp critic of this process but who apparently also had some communications during those key episodes as dirt was trying to be sought on those opponents of the president. So a lot of questions still, despite that new information, a lot of questions still about what those phone records mean, Wolf, in the days ahead. Wolf?

BLITZER: Manu, we'll get back it you. Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill.

Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren who serves on the Judiciary Committee. She'll be asking questions later today. She's the only member of Congress, by the way, who has now worked on three congressional impeachment probes. Here she is during President Nixon's impeachment probe back in 1974 and President Clinton's in 1998. Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good morning.

BLITZER: I know this is going to be historic. A very busy day for all of you. You've called President Trump's conduct involving Ukraine, in your words, more serious than Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. So what's your bottom line right now heading into today's historic Judiciary Committee hearing?

LOFGREN: Well, I think the issue that we're addressing today is the Constitution. We operate in a framework of the Constitution and the weight of history. So we're going to explore with these scholars, what do the words "treason," "bribery" or 'other high crimes and misdemeanors" mean? We went through that in the Nixon impeachment, and in fact, there's an excellent report that goes through the history of that phrase and its meaning in the Constitution. I have it on my website if anyone wants to read it.

What the president has apparently done is not only tried to subvert the election as Nixon did, but to involve a foreign power in doing that. So in that way, it is a more serious measure than what Richard Nixon did. But what we need to do is assess the facts. We will be getting the presentation, I'm sure, soon, from the Intelligence Committee on their report. And then we need to decide whether this set of facts meets the standard in the Constitution, really take the facts, apply the law, and reach a conclusion.

BLITZER: Your party, the Democratic Party, is meeting in just a few minutes up on Capitol Hill as everyone else is getting ready for the hearing. What do you expect to hear from the leader, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker, in terms of what the democratic strategy should be today?

LOFGREN: I don't know, and as a matter of fact I have a competing meeting that I've established about dam safety in my district at the exact same time, so I'm going to miss that meeting.

BLITZER: Several Democratic sources told CNN that we can expect discussion of the Mueller report to come up this morning as well as Ukraine. Do you think your party should keep it all narrow, limited to the Ukraine scandal, or include other issues like the Mueller report's conclusions, or the president's finances for that matter?

LOFGREN: I don't know. We've got to explore that. But if you take a look at the resolution the House adopted, we really directed the intelligence committee to be the lead fact-finding committee. And they have done, I think, an admirable job in putting together the facts. So I think that will be the main focus. Clearly, the Mueller report was very specific in ways that the administration blocked Congress from its legitimate oversight role and blocked him from receiving information. But I think the main focus will be in accordance with the resolution we've adopted, which focuses on what the Intel Committee is able to report to us.

BLITZER: We do have that 300-page report from the Intelligence Committee that was approved strictly along party lines last night. We know, and you pointed this out as well, that the hearing this morning will focus on defining what the constitution describes as "bribery," "high crimes," "misdemeanor," "treason." We've heard some Republicans say that while the president's behavior may have been inappropriate at times, his behavior was certainly not impeachable. What do you plan to ask during these hearings to perhaps try to change that perception?

LOFGREN: Well, I think it's important that we hear from the scholars, and we have them for a reason -- they are constitutional scholars -- on what the meaning of those phrases are. Our real task -- I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming on what happened. Our job now is to assess what is the level of danger to the Constitution, to our national security? What are we called upon to do about these facts that have been presented to us? What does our oath of office require us to do to protect the country? And that's, really, the question before the committee and before the country right now.

[08:10:12]

BLITZER: Some Republican critics, they are going after the three Democratic witnesses, constitutional legal scholars who will be testifying this morning, saying that they're registered Democrats. They've given money to Democratic presidential candidates among others, and they're saying this opening up your party to criticism. What do you say?

LOFGREN: Well, I don't know what the party registration is. I know that they are constitutional scholars. That's why they're there. And I am looking forward to hearing all four witnesses.

BLITZER: The purpose -- you recently tweeted a quote from the 1974 impeachment inquiry report involving Richard Nixon, and you wrote this. "The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government." So not even some moderate outgoing Republicans like Will Hurd, for example, who hasn't been afraid to speak out against the president from time to time, is on the Democrats' side here. Not one Republican member of the House, at least so far, is open to impeaching the president of the United States. Is that a problem for you? LOFGREN: Well, we'll find out. We're in the middle of a process. We

will -- we've heard from just members of a few committees. Certainly, I listen to people informally across the House. I know that there are plenty of members, both sides of the aisle, who are concerned about the president's behavior. But the question is, does that pose a threat to our constitutional order? And that's what we have to decide. And I think we need to let this process unfold and have people make that judgment really in the best interest of the United States.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, thanks for joining us on this very busy day.

LOFGREN: Thank you. Thanks so much.

BLITZER: I appreciate it very much. The impeachment drama is hanging over the president of the United States as he meets with world leaders in London. Let's go to our White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. She's traveling with the president in London right now. Kaitlan, set the scene for us right now. The president, I understand, is about to meet with the German chancellor Angela Merkel.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. They're running a little late, but we are expecting them to appear in front of the cameras soon, sitting down together. But Wolf, this is only capping off what's been a pretty uncomfortable summit for the president. He often doesn't like coming to meetings like this where the other world leaders where it's a lot of niceties. And he spent yesterday getting lectured by the French president, something he's not used to, a turn in a relationship that was once pretty chummy, and then now overnight this video has surfaced that appears to show some world leaders mocking the president and how many times he was speaking with reporters yesterday off the cuff about topics ranging from immigration to trade to, of course, the GDP defense spending here that has been at the center of his complaints with NATO for so many times.

Now Merkel, of course, is on her way out. They've had a contentious relationship in the past, and whether that continues to be a point of contention is something we're going to be paying attention to. But Wolf, we are also learning that the president did sit down with the Turkish leader, President Erdogan this morning, a meeting that was not on his schedule and something that is also notable because that was a big point of disagreement between President Trump and President Macron during that incredibly tense meeting that the two had yesterday with Macron challenging a talking point that's inaccurate that you often hear from the president about why Turkey purchased that Russian missile defense system. Macron saying, no, it's not because the Obama administration wouldn't sell them one. They could have bought one from Europe, but instead they decided to defy NATO. So we'll be waiting to see if this meeting with Merkel is going to be as tense as that one.

BLITZER: And I wonder if the president is going to react. I'm going to play some of that video, Kaitlan, of these world leaders seemingly, seemingly joking about their meetings, their respective meetings yesterday with the president, and the lengthy news conferences in effect he had while they were sitting there. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: He was late because he takes a 40 minute press conference off the top every time. Yes, yes, 40 minutes. He announced --

I just watched. I watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We'll continue to discuss that. But now the president is meeting with Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, right now. We expect to hear what he's saying momentarily. They're going to make sure that we can hear what the president and Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, are saying. Kaitlan, you're still there for us as we clear up the audio part of this. Tell us about the reaction, if any, that you're getting from the White House to those world leaders seemingly joking about the president.

COLLINS: So, Wolf, we've reached out to the White House.

[08:15:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So, Wolf, we've reached out to the White House. No comment back from them but we've also reached out to the French and Canadian press offices and they haven't responded, but, Wolf, they also haven't pushed back because those leaders don't mention Trump by name, but we should note, he is the only leader at this summit who has spoken extemporaneously for more than 40 minutes, and now you see him meeting here with Merkel now. We'll see if he does the same.

BLITZER: All right. Let's listen in.

ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): Well, yes, I would agree that we had a very successful meeting indeed, on this occasion, the 70th anniversary of NATO. We discussed a number of strategies very important to secure the future of this alliance. It was a constructive debate we had and this is also why I'm very satisfied with the meeting today.

And now we shall talk about bilateral issues.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's right.

OK. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

REPORTER: Mr. President --

REPORTER: Will you talk about the Erdogan meeting, sir?

TRUMP: Yes, we had a meeting.

REPORTER: Did you discuss with him NATO -- TRUMP: I discussed everything. We discussed a lot. We had a

meeting, unscheduled, but we have already put out a notice. It was a very good meeting, I think.

We discussed Syria. We discussed the Kurds. We discussed numerous things, and we're getting along very well. The border and the safe zone is working out very well.

And I gave a lot of credit to Turkey for that. The cease-fire is holding very much so, and I think people are surprised. Maybe some day they'll give me credit but probably not. They've been trying to work this out for 100 years. That border is a mess for a long time.

We pulled our soldiers out and took over the oil. We have soldiers where the oil is. And that's the way I like it. And they can police their own border.

And that's what they're doing. They can use other countries if they want, if they want to spend the time and energy. They can do it.

But this has been a border under siege for many, many decades, and it was time for us to leave, and we left, and it's been holding very nicely. So we're very happy. We talked about that.

REPORTER: Are they committed to protecting the NATO commitment to protect the Baltics and Poland?

TRUMP: Oh, yes. They've been very good. I think that, frankly, a lot of people paid great respect to Turkey for the work they've done, and we had a number of mentions where they were mentioned specifically. Now, they've been doing a good job and they've been doing a good job also on the border and the safe zone, and they have held.

Obviously, there were some skirmishes. That's been around for a long time, but they've -- the cease-fire has held very well.

REPORTER: Mr. President, can you explain why your personal attorney Giuliani would need to talk to the budget office.

TRUMP: I really don't know. You have to ask him. Sounds like something that's not so complicated. You'd have to ask him. No big deal.

REPORTER: Mr. President, Germany has (INAUDIBLE) making it nine countries that are circumventing U.N. sanctions against Iran. Have you talked about that with the chancellor?

TRUMP: No, but we will.

REPORTER: What will you say?

TRUMP: I'm not going to say what I'm going to say, but we'll be talking about a number of things. We'll have a good meeting.

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) TRUMP: Say it again?

REPORTER: Will the U.S. put sanctions on North Korea, too?

TRUMP: Well, we haven't really determined that yet. I do think it's a problem, but it's a problem that Germany is going to have to work out for themselves. Maybe for Germany, it won't be a problem. I hope it's not actually, but we'll be talking about that.

REPORTER: Mr. President, what did you respond to President Putin's offer on a moratorium for medium-range missile systems which were made the end of October?

TRUMP: We're talking to Russia about many things, including a cessation on nuclear and nuclear creation. It's, in my opinion, the biggest problem the world has today. I think it's bigger than any other problem the world has today and we're working very hard on it. And he wants to see something happen, and so do I and so does China.

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you talk about joint issues with Europe as well (INAUDIBLE)?

TRUMP: We're going to be talking about everything. Yes, trade is very important. Germany is a very big trading partner, but it's been really the European Union, and we are -- we've been discussing it for quite awhile.

It's been a little tough for the United States. We've had a very bad imbalance for many, many years, for decades, actually, and we're discussing that right now. So I think we're going to come -- I think we'll come to a satisfactory conclusion.

(SPEAKING GERMAN)

[08:20:09]

MERKEL (through translator): I think that the fact that there is a new commission in place and also in the leadership of a new president of the European Commission that now we have a very good basis to resume our trade talks.

TRUMP: The meetings have been set up and we'll talk and I believe that it will work out very well for everybody, and I think it should. We have some very tough barriers to get over.

They've created barriers as Angela knows very well and making it very hard for the United States really to openly trade. And that can't be done. And so, we're going to be talking about that and other things.

I think we will solve it. We do a lot of business but they do much more business than us. And we're going to make -- we're going to change it. I've been saying this for the last six months, for the last year. And we've made progress. But we will make a lot of progress.

And we just want fairness. We have to have fairness in trade, not only with the E.U. but with many other countries.

We're talking to China. Those discussions are going very well and we'll see what happens. But we're talking to China. We're talking to others.

We made a deal with South Korea. We made a deal with Japan. The Japan deal is a partial deal. The rest will come next year, but we've made already many deals.

We're looking at the big deal is the USMCA with Canada/Mexico and Nancy Pelosi has to get that approved. She has to put it out for a vote. She doesn't have to talk to anybody. She doesn't have to talk to any of her Democrats because they'll approve it and their constituents want it approved very badly.

So, that's where we are. We have -- we've made a lot of deals. This is a deal that's going to be -- the E.U. is actually one of the more difficult deals we have because it's gone on for a long time unchecked. But it will get there I'm sure.

(CROSSTALK)

REPORTER: -- deal of Prime Minister Trudeau talking about you last night?

TRUMP: Well, he's two-faced.

REPORTER: Do you think that Germany is too naive --

TRUMP: And honestly, with Trudeau, he's a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy, but the truth is, I called him out on the fact that he's not paying 2 percent, and I guess he's not very happy about it.

I mean, you were there. A couple of you were there. He's not paying 2 percent, and he should be paying 2 percent. It's Canada. They have money. And they should be paying 2 percent.

So I called him out on that, and I'm sure he wasn't happy about that, but that's the way it is. Look, I'm representing the U.S. and he should be paying more than he's paying. And he understands it.

So I can imagine -- I can imagine he's not that happy. But that's the way it is.

REPORTER: Mr. President, where are you in terms of persuading other allies in terms of allowing China to build 5G networks?

TRUMP: Well, I'm not working very hard on that, but I do think it's a security risk. It's a security danger.

And I spoke to Italy, and they looked like they're not going to go forward with that. We spoke to other countries. They're not going to go forward. Everybody I've spoken to is not going to go forward but how many countries can I speak to? Am I going to call up and speak to the whole world? It's a security risk in my opinion, in our opinion. We're building it, and we've started but we're not using Huawei. REPORTER: Will you tax Germany for not paying enough in terms of

defense spending?

TRUMP: Well, Germany is a little bit under the limit. I will say that, but we'll talk about that now.

OK. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

I think what we'll do just for purposes of -- we'll be having a meeting with the 2 percent people and we're having another meeting with Denmark and then we'll probably go directly back to Washington.

Because I can't imagine --

REPORTER: Will you address Greenland --

TRUMP: I can't imagine, will we discuss Greenland? What do you think? Tell me.

That's a good -- she must be in the real estate business. That's a very good question.

So we'll go directly back. I think we've done plenty of press conferences, unless you're demanding a press conference. But I think we've answered plenty of questions.

And again, let me just finish by saying we've had a tremendous two days. I think NATO is stronger than it's ever been. A lot more money is being produced by a lot more countries and they're enthusiastic about it. And within three years you'll be talking about four -- committed to $400 billion more, and not by the United States, by other countries. So it's been very successful today, and there's great spirit, OK?

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you.

BLITZER: All right. So there the president wrapping up a little photo opportunity with the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel.

The president doing almost all of the talking right there.

Kaitlan Collins, you're still with us, our White House correspondent.

It was clear he's not very happy with the Canadian prime minister who was joking about him last night.

[08:20:007]

COLLINS: No, he's not, Wolf. This is the first public reaction we are getting from the president to that video that showed Trudeau, Macron, Boris Johnson, several other figures talking about the president and these extemporaneous press conferences he holds with reporters.

He called the Canadian prime minister two-faced and suggested that he only reacted that way because during their one on one meeting yesterday with the cameras in front of them, of course, the president called out Trudeau for saying that Canada doesn't spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense, which is a NATO requirement, something that has long been the president's complaint that while countries commit to it a lot of them don't actually do it.

And he repeatedly said he believes Trudeau is two-faced. Clearly not happy with that video, Wolf, and that video, they were talking about how many times the president was speaking with reporters yesterday. Sometimes for 40 minutes. It was a total of two hours and one minute and the president essentially implied he's not going to hold that press conference he was scheduled to hold with reporters here in a few hours after he wraps up these meetings, saying instead he's going to be going back to Washington instead, Wolf.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Kaitlan, because on the issue of the impeachment hearing, that the House Judiciary Committee is about to begin very, very soon, the president was specifically asked, I think, a couple of times about Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and the phone conversations he had with the office of management and budget, and the president basically was saying, talk to Rudy Giuliani. I have nothing to do with that. I have no idea what's going on.

But give us the background here. What's going on? Because some will suggest the president appears to be throwing Giuliani a little bit under the bus.

COLLINS: Yes, he essentially told reporters who wanted to know why Rudy Giuliani was calling the White House's budget office that they'd have to ask him, but he said it doesn't seem so complicated to him. It doesn't seem as if it's a big deal.

And shortly before reporters went in the room and asked the president that question, Rudy Giuliani tweeted for the first time about these calls saying, quote, the mere fact that I had numerous calls with the White House does not establish any specific topic. He says, remember, I'm the president's attorney.

Of course, Wolf, that tweet didn't do a lot to justify why it was that Rudy Giuliani was speaking with someone from the Budget Office, something we saw recently unearthed in that report that was released yesterday, but also the numerous contacts that Rudy Giuliani had with the White House in the 48 hours before Marie Yovanovitch, that former ambassador to Ukraine, was forced out of her job.

The question will be why the president is not defending Rudy Giuliani, not saying, well, I instructed him to call the budget office because, of course, that is what a lot of the officials who testified they had to work with Rudy Giuliani said. That it was because the president instructed them to work with Rudy Giuliani. And, of course, you can read in the president's transcript that he released of his call with the Ukrainian leader, he tells the Ukrainian president, work with Rudy Giuliani. I'm going to have him call you three times.

That has been a central point in all of this. It's likely going to come up in the hearing today. Rudy Giuliani's role and that report yesterday just put him more at the center of all of this. BLITZER: It certainly did. Kaitlan, stand by.

We're going to get back to you.

Jeffrey Toobin, this is a pretty big deal. It's one thing for the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to speak with officials at the White House, but it's another thing to be speaking to officials at the Office of Management and Budget. What does he have to do with that?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the only implication that I can think of for why Rudy Giuliani would be speaking to the Office of Management and Budget is that it was connected to the withholding of aid from Ukraine, which is a central part of this Ukrainian investigation. So, why else would he be talking to the Office of Management and Budget?

This is also evidence of how hamstrung the investigators have been in terms of this investigation. Because if you were doing a real investigation with real access, you would call the people he spoke to. I mean, Rudy Giuliani, OK, he's the president's lawyer. He wants to cite privilege. It may even be justified. Work product.

But if the congressional investigators were allowed to do their jobs as they're supposed to be allowed, they would simply call the members of the Management and Budget and say, what did Rudy Giuliani say to you that they have not had access to all those people?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The investigative trail also includes Gordon Sondland who is the ambassador to the E.U. who speaks to the president and relates how the president said talk to Rudy.

So, the -- if the goal here is to provide more direct evidence the president was involved in withholding the aid, was directing people to do that to offer something of value to the Ukrainians in exchange for what he wanted them to do, if Rudy is the point person, if he's telling others to talk to Rudy, maybe Rudy has been talking to everybody else.

BLITZER: It's an important point.

And, Jim Sciutto, as you know, the order to withhold the nearly $400 million in military defense related assistance to Ukraine didn't come from the Defense Department, didn't come from the state department. It came from the Office of Management and Budget.

[08:30:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, for you to believe what is essentially the Republican argument here is that Democrats have not proved that this came from the president. you have to believe that all these operators, Giuliani included, his personal attorney, were operating in a freelance mode.

But what was clear from this report yesterday, and I think a lot of this was new because we didn't know that these call records existed, was the level of coordination. And not just with Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is speaking to Lev Parnas, who is now indicted, around the time when you are both attacking Marie Yovanovitch and getting her out of that position, right, but also developing these Ukraine conspiracy theories. And you look at the calls. It's Giuliani. It's Nunes. It's Parnas. It's John Solomon, reporter for "The Hill," who writes many of the pieces that are still cited as a Nunes and the Trumps of the world as a basis for attacking Yovanovitch, but also these Ukraine conspiracy theories.

You have all this coordination here. You have to imagine that this whole campaign somehow came out of nowhere without orders from the president if you're going to buy the Republican defense.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, of course you can't make that like incoherent leap to have that level of assumption there. But what I see here, when I look at this idea that in this report it says they actually had access to these call logs back in September, before we had any public hearings, which means that, as a matter of strategy, they've already gone past the idea of the bare minimum they would need essentially to do an article of impeachment. They're looking ahead to a trial at this point in time.

Why were we not aware of it before now? Why is the Devin Nunes connection and the OMB and Mick Mulvaney, even given the stonewall, why haven't we heard about it until now. And the only thing I can think about is, as a prosecutor, look at it and say, well, what am I going to present as evidence at trial? Not simply about getting the charging documents. And I have to believe, looking at it, that they have some coordinated effort in response to what is essentially the definition of collusion at this point in time, although the term has been exhausted in pervious interactions with Mueller and the like.

But this is a clear example of why strategy is going to be so important going forward. You have a constitutional law expert for them today to say, here's what all this means. But, going forward, they're looking ahead at a Senate trial and you've got to have evidence. And so I wonder, is it a gotcha to Nunes? Is he now the focus? Will they now be expecting to have people like a Bolton, like a Mick Mulvaney, coming to testify being previously stonewalled? Are they considering the fact that maybe the Supreme Court or other courts will weigh in prior to that testimony and prior to that request to have this be a part of a trial?

BLITZER: If the president and his supporters and his advisers have nothing to be concerned about, it was a perfect phone call, they did nothing wrong, why are they preventing all these potential witnesses from appearing?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the -- what the president and his -- and his advisers have said is the reason they are not allowing all these people to testify is they don't want to establish a precedent that will hamstrung later precedents. This is, I believe, the first time the president has ever cared about future presidents on any subject. But that's the public -- that's the public statement. However, it is worth noting, and I'm sure this is going to come up

during the testimony today, that both President Nixon and President Clinton, who were under impeachment investigation, gave investigators far more access to White House documents, to emails, to the White House tapes, which ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court, but certainly allowing witnesses to testify. Virtually all of the White House staff were -- testified in the Watergate investigation, as did most -- much White House staff in the Clinton investigation.

BLITZER: And we'll be hearing a lot about that in these opening statements that are coming up in a little while.

I want to go back to London. Nic Robertson is there.

Nic, this is pretty extraordinary to see this feud develop between the prime minister of Canada and the president of the United States. We just heard the president say that Prime Minister Trudeau, you know, I called him out. He wasn't happy because he was joking about the president at that photo op last night.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, and it's really -- we're seeing a flashback, if you will, to the end of the G-7 summit hosted in Canada last year where President Trump appeared to use a similar formulation. He didn't sign the communique back then. And I think he accused Prime Minister Trudeau of being two-faced back then as well.

Trudeau, yesterday, in his meeting with President Trump, was kind of, you know, quiet. He had seen what had happened the way that Macron had got into a feisty conversation with Trump. He'd seen the way that Trump, earlier in the day, speaking with the NATO secretary-general had really dissed President Macron. So Trudeau was in there sort of being fairly quiet, not confrontational, and Trump twice yesterday asked him, so what is your number? What's the contribution that you're making to NATO? And eventually Trudeau was forced to give a number and, first of all, he tried to say, you know, we've increased and then he -- then he gives a number.

[08:35:02]

So President Trump really trying to spin this now that the reaction that Trudeau -- we saw on Trudeau yesterday evening was a reaction to that meeting. But I think what's fascinating to me is the difference between President Trump yesterday, who spent over two hours taking questions from journalists. Today he's come in, and we're seeing a much more muted, a much quieter president. He's indicating he's not going to do a press conference here. You get the sense that he's not happy. He's the one that's not happy. And he's talking about sort of getting out and leaving sooner than he otherwise would.

And that's the impression he's going to create here. It's a president who came and tried to rip up the diplomatic rule book yesterday, in public, and it's today not happy with the way that it's gone, might leave sooner rather than -- rather than as originally anticipated, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, he wants to get out of London as quickly as possible.

Jim Sciutto, it's pretty extraordinary. We've covered these kinds of summits over the years. It's one thing for the president to have disputes with other various world leaders, but the prime minister of Canada?

SCIUTTO: You know, what's not new in this NATO summit is that the president has differences with key U.S. allies. What -- what is different is that they're willing to stand up to him. And the Macron moment yesterday when Macron says, let's be serious, you know, when the president's talking about ISIS, openly disagreeing with him, that was notable. Trudeau as well.

I mean, listen, they were essentially laughing at the U.S. president there. That's remarkable. And it is also clear, even as you see the president sitting next to the German leader, Angela Merkel, there, they just look uncomfortable. He looks uncomfortable. While the president talks about how friendly and warm things are with Erdogan, who -- who is really challenging NATO. It's bought weapons systems from Russia, you know, et cetera. He's more comfortable almost invariably with the Putins and the Erdogans of the world than the Merkels and the Macrons.

One final thing I'll just note about Canada. I know that the president speaks often in dollar terms here, but -- but I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan a lot. One thing that has been consistent since 2011 is that Canadian forces are forward deployed as aggressively as U.S. forces and other countries such as Denmark and so on. They have been the tip of the spear, to a degree more so than other European countries. And that is something that I imagine Canadians as they watch this say, hey, wait a second, we bled on those battlefields, you know, not as much as America, they don't have the same force presence there, but in terms of putting their soldiers at risk, Canada does that. And I imagine they would like an acknowledgment from the president.

GREGORY: One note about watching the president on the world stage. Two things really. One, it's important to remember that presidents have real relationships, good and bad, with leaders around the world. And as you talk to presidents and cover presidents, as we have, you get a real sense of that in real-time and then after the fact how they really feel about leaders, some very deep friendships, some rather contentious.

We also have to remember that the leaders were talking about have their own domestic, political concerns.

BLITZER: Yes.

GREGORY: Macron in France is trying to assert leadership in France. And in Europe, rather, with -- especially as Merkel recedes. Justin Trudeau came off a very tough re-election. He's got domestic, political considerations where standing up to the president is a good idea. So there's no question that President Trump has destabilized traditional allied relationships around the world, but they have reasons for asserting themselves, and they want to take him on publicly. That's why we've seen a breakdown, I think, in some discipline across the board.

BLITZER: Yes, the president says Trudeau is two-faced. He said he had a very good meeting with Erdogan.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BLITZER: So the contrast is pretty significant.

GREGORY: Yes, that tells you -- right.

BLITZER: All right, we're coming up to the next historic phase of the impeachment probe here in the United States. A key hearing set to get underway. We're just minutes away now from Democrats meeting behind closed doors to talk about their strategy as far as impeachment is concerned. We're on top of all the breaking news as our special, live coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:42:52]

BLITZER: All right, we're coming up to the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. It will take center stage up on Capitol Hill. There are four constitutional experts who will explore the grounds for impeaching a president of the United States. They will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.

We now have their opening statements.

I want to bring in our team of experts.

And, Gloria, let me read some of what these four individuals, Noah Feldman, for example, professor of law at Harvard Law School, among other things, he says this. On the basis of the testimony in evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.

So where Noah Feldman stands is abundantly clear.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. And Noah Feldman stands where the House Intelligence Committee stands, almost word for word I would have to say, from their voluminous report yesterday. So you're going to have three Democrats testifying, or I should say three attorneys brought in by the Democrats who are going to testify, and then Jonathan Turley, who was brought in by the Republicans, who is going to say exactly the opposite of this, which is that the Democrats have not proven anything here. That this is all sort of hearsay and that they haven't proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt and that, therefore, this is not a basis to impeach a president.

So you're going to have dueling lawyers today, which, as the lawyers here know, is not -- is not rare. But the American public will be able to hear the arguments behind the real question of, is this just inappropriate or is this impeachable? Because what you're going to hear from Republicans, as we know, is, well, this may be inappropriate, at least in the Senate you're going to hear that. You're not going to hear that today on this committee. But it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

GREGORY: It is important because I think it's a question of, why are we here?

[08:45:01]

You know, the impeachment train is up and running and we're into this question of what can they prove, what can't they prove, and that becomes the subject of a trial assuming impeachment articles are passed.

But how did we get here? There are the constitutional questions. So I think it's worthwhile. But I'm a little bit torn about this, honestly, because I think while that is worthwhile, I'm wondering why it's important that we hear from constitutional professors about what their opinion is about these facts? And -- because, ultimately, this is a political exercise and the question becomes, if it's pretty clear what the president did, what do you do about it? Do you -- you know, what is the right response to an action that no one defends? That's the question.

BORGER: Well --

BLITZER: And, I just want to -- Jeffrey Toobin, you're our historian here. Didn't both the Nixon impeachment process and the Bill Clinton impeachment process begin with constitutional scholars testifying, giving the background on what the Constitution had in mind in impeaching a president?

TOOBIN: They did. And I think, David, I really disagree because I think this is a good exercise because I think most Americans don't know, what is the grounds for removing a president? I mean there is this mysterious phrase in the Constitution, much debated, bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanor. What does that mean? It's not obvious. I mean constitutional lawyers disagree about what those phrases mean.

And I think, you know, Noah Feldman's statement is an introduction to a subject that I think really is a good one for today, which is, abuse of office, because, I mean if you look at the history of the Constitution, it wasn't about committing crimes. They weren't concerned about the president violating federal laws. There were hardly any federal laws on the books when the Constitution was written. What they were really concerned about was abuse of office. Did you do something as president that is so far outside the authority of what a president is supposed to do that you had to be removed? And I think it's a fascinating distinction with the Clinton impeachment where perjury, lying under oath, is a -- obviously a crime.

BORGER: Obviously. BLITZER: Yes.

TOOBIN: But was that an abuse of power? That was the issue.

BLITZER: You know, Ross Garber -- Ross Garber teaches constitutional law -- impeachment law at Tulane Law School.

You could have been testifying, by the way, today, as well.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think I'd rather be here.

BLITZER: Yes, right. We're glad you're here as well.

But give us your thoughts on why, you know, the members, these Judiciary Committee members, and the American public need to hear from these constitutional scholars. Three named by Democrats, one by Republicans.

GARBER: Yes, and I do think this is important. And I don't just teach this stuff, I've actually handled four impeachment proceedings.

And the reason why I think this is important is because there are lots of issues. You know, what is a high crime or misdemeanor? That's one. But another is, what's the level of proof that's required? Does it have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or is it more like a grand jury where probable cause is enough? You know, we'll see from Jonathan Turley, who I think we'll talk about in a second. You know, he's going to advocate for a very high standard of proof and argue that it hasn't been met yet.

So I think putting aside the facts which, you know, I agree, David, I think, you know, what these guys, you know, today have to say about the facts is not very important. I think, though, that with the history and some of the thought processes, you know, they can give these members a -- some tools to deal with this stuff, including, you know, burden of proof, including, you know, Adam Schiff has talked about using adverse inferences. You know, is that appropriate in this setting? You know, what's the -- what's the impact, if any, on the president's invocation of privileges and immunities? I think there are a lot of issues (INAUDIBLE).

GREGORY: And I don't disagree with what either of you are saying. I mean I'm -- in part I'm trying to be a bit provocative. I am. Just, to me, I'm of two minds about it. But I guess where I come down, too, is, you have such differences of opinion, it seems, based -- I haven't read all the statements -- about what the Constitution allows or what it -- what it prescribes with regard to impeachment. So they become kind of partisan actors in this fight.

BORGER: Now --

GREGORY: And we know how political impeachment has been historically. There's no agreement about what is the basis of impeachment over the years.

COATES: That's true, but think about it in terms of, if it were a trial. You have fact witnesses who are going to tell you what they saw firsthand. Then you have experts tell you what it actually means. If a fact was a medical report and someone shows you the actual words, you need a medical expert to say, what is the diagnosis going to be?

I look at this as a diagnosis. But I also look at this as a sense of, remember, talking about history and the founding fathers of the Constitution, they were fighting against a king. They did not want to have a monarch. What is a monarch? Somebody who could indefinitely hold office and no one can do anything it. And they abused power to stay in office. Well, right now we're talking about somebody who's been accused of abusing his power to remain in power. That is antithetical to the founding father's vision of (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: All right, we're going to have more excerpts from these opening statements.

[08:50:00]

We're only just getting started. And our special, live coverage of the Judiciary Committee takes over from where the House Intelligence Committee has just left off. Can this panel with a rather dramatic past avoid a circus in the coming hours?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The Judiciary Committee will please come to order.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition.

NADLER: Motion is agreed to unless --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You won't recognize members of the committee?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're not going to go down this line.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ashamed of?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) kangaroo court here.

No wonder the IG doesn't want to come here and testify when you're running things without regard for debate.

NADLER: The gentleman --

[08:55:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Totally unfair.

NADLER: Attorney General Barr has informed us that he will not appear today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chicken Barr should have shown up today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We go back to a circus political stunt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, I've -- and we'll do so with trampling minority rights.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to be, Mr. Chairman, where there are -- there is not going to be a recognition of members who seek legitimate inquiry as to the procedures --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE). I did not cast aspersions. I read his statements.

NADLER: Very well. Since I believe the gentleman cast aspersions --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're wrong!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, that congressional body known for rather colorful characters, off-beat antics on both sides of the aisle set to take the baton later this morning, about an hour or so away. The House Judiciary Committee is about to kick off the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. Its first public hearing just a little bit more than an hour away. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, reportedly hopes the hearing strikes a somber tone, but could Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York get his members to leave the drama at the door?

Let's get back to our experts.

You know, and, Gloria, if you take a look at these House Judiciary Committee members, some of them, as we just saw rather lively, the chairman, Jerry Nadler, he's going to have his hands full. On the Democratic side, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson Lee, David Cicilline, Ted Lieu, Jamie Raskin, they're all rather lively with very strong views. On the Republican side, the ranking member, Doug Collins of Georgia, outspoken, James Sensenbrenner, former Chairman Louis Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz. This could be -- these academic scholars may be rather sedate but this could be rather lively.

BORGER: Right, to use a technical term, it could be a circus. We don't know -- we don't know whether it will be or not, but I want everybody to remember the storming of the secure location which was done by members of this committee.

So the question is, will Jerry Nadler be able to control this committee? And, by the way, it's twice the size of the Intelligence Committee. So you have a lot more members. You do have the attorneys asking questions at the beginning, which will keep a little bit of the theatrics down. But then you're going to go through the members. Will Jerry Nadler really be able to control these people?

TOOBIN: Can I just make one prediction --

BORGER: Yes.

TOOBIN: Which I don't like to do, especially about the future.

BORGER: An hour away.

TOOBIN: Roll call votes. Almost under any circumstances, the minority has the right to request a roll call vote on any ruling from the chair. They are slow and boring. They -- you know, 40 people voting, you know, aye. Everybody knows the result, but if the Republicans demand a series of roll call votes --

BORGER: On what? On --

TOOBIN: On anything. Any rulings about, you know, who should --

BORGER: On procedural motions?

TOOBIN: Procedural motions.

BORGER: Yes.

TOOBIN: Motions to table. Motions to limit testimony to cer3tain subjects. It doesn't matter.

But the imposition of roll call votes will make this hearing boring --

BORGER: Well, and Collins is an --

TOOBIN: And that in and of itself may be the goal. So watch for how often the Republicans ask for roll call votes.

BORGER: And Collins is an expert on House procedure.

TOOBIN: On the rules, yes.

BORGER: So that -- that could occur.

On the other hand, do they want to drag this out? Do Republicans really want to make this go on longer and longer and longer? I mean, that's an open question.

GARBER: I think they're going to want to show kind of the issues that tee this all up. You know, the Republicans are saying, you know, we don't even know what the process is. Is the committee going to hear witnesses? What witnesses will appear? What's the timing? What's going on here? And so I think we should expect to see a bunch of that at the outset.

SCIUTTO: Well, and a remarkable phenomenon here is Republicans have stayed in lockstep. Even those initial voices who were open to calling out the president for inappropriate, perhaps impeachable behavior, the Francis Rooney's of the world or even Will Hurd with some of his questions, although he's already made clear he's going to stay, you know, in lockstep with the party.

They've stayed tight on this. And that's remarkable given that where the facts have moved in the two months since we learned from the whistleblower's report because not only has that whistleblower's report, I think we have to mark this as you move forward, been corroborated, but we've learned more. It was not just the call, it was months and weeks of 3333decisions and meetings and calls to delay this aid tied to a political favor here.

We've learned more beyond that complaint and yet Republicans have become not less united but more united against the impeachment process.

COATES: I think we should expect to see a lot of mirroring what Pat Cipollone said in his letter Sunday.

BLITZER: The White House counsel.

COATES: The White House counsel as to why the president and his attorneys would not be there, which was namely, we didn't have sufficient notice of who was going to testify. Is it a meaningful process for the president to engage in? And, more importantly, is this part of a partisan game and continuing witch hunt that they're calling it?

I think you'll also going to have questions about whether or not there is a Devin Nunes among them. The one who was the most vocal in the prior -- in 333the Intelligence Committee is the one who had a skeleton in his closet in a report.

[09:00:06]

Is that here, too? I'll be waiting to see.

BLITZER: All right, everybody stay with me.