Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

House Panel Debates Impeachment Articles Against Trump Before Vote; Greta Thunberg Responds to Trump's Tweet to Deal with Her Anger Management; Trump/Barr Rhetoric Has Chilling Effect on FBI; Eric Holder: Barr Not Fit to be Attorney General. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired December 12, 2019 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: -- Republicans clearly will fail.

[13:00:02]

But it's significant, Jeffrey Toobin, what we're seeing right now, the Republicans are making their arguments, well known arguments, the Democrats are countering with their arguments, well known arguments, they're simply going back and forth. A whole lot of new information though has not come forward.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Wolf, I move to strike the last word. That means I'm allowed to talk. You know what struck me about this hearing is how Donald Trump in a way has already won. How much did we hear about Hunter Biden, over and over again about Hunter Biden? That's what the Republicans are talking about constantly. And, you know, there are questions about Hunter Biden's behavior.

And so this incredible shift of emphasis -- and, you know, it's going to be a real challenge for us as journalists to decide how much to follow along with this. But the idea that we are sitting here debating the country, the House Judiciary Committee is debating the impeachment of the president of the United States, and over and over again, we get how all these questions about the behavior of Hunter Biden, the president's perhaps most likely opponent, the son of the -- and I just don't know what our responsibility is as journalists because it's not the point, but this is the news and this is what's there.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I also think there was a large shift this morning because we've been saying, well, they haven't talked about the substance, the transcript of the conversation. There was a lot of talk this morning about the transcript of the president's conversation with the president of Ukraine, and they were suddenly parsing the president's words, which were do us a favor though, because our country has been going through a lot. And what Congressman Jordan was saying, well, the president was upset and he was trying to find out what was going on.

And so they were saying the us means it wasn't about him. It reminds me of Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of, is, is when he was doing his grand jury testimony. So now, Republicans are actually taking the conversation, which was crystal clear, because the last part of the conversation talked about CrowdStrike and Biden and it was horrible. And now, they are saying, it was a perfect call, effectively, that there was nothing wrong with this call because it was about us, meaning the country, so he didn't abuse his office, he was just concerned about corruption.

BLITZER: Carrie, the president has been saying it's been a perfect call for weeks and weeks and weeks and that's why he decided to release this rough transcript of the conversation. But go ahead and give us your thoughts, the big picture right now of what we've been seeing.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I've been watching last night, I've been watching this morning, and I just keep waiting for when are they actually going to wrestle with the conduct. That's the issue of the impeachment. That's the subject of the abuse of power article of impeachment, which is the conditioning of the aid and of the White House meeting for the political investigations.

And I think the comments made in her remarks by Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee not so long ago are really right on, which is the strategy, the Republican strategy, has been, as Jeffrey said, to distract. And it's been distractions about the Bidens, it's been distractions about conspiracy theories about Ukraine's involvement in the election. Yesterday, it was distractions about FISA and FISA so- called abuse. It was distractions from Congressman Gohmert reading calls from 1943. It's been all distractions and they won't wrestle with the actual conduct. And so it makes me think that this committee, this House Judiciary Committee, is never going to wrestle with those facts.

I doubt that the full House is really going to wrestle with those facts. And so for me the question is will the Senate ever wrestle with the actual conduct that's the serious issue.

BLITZER: Well, Michael Gerhardt, you testified before this committee just a few days ago, so you have a personal understanding of what's going on. You're an expert on constitutional law, clearly, in your very strong views on what the Democrats are trying to achieve with these two articles of impeachment.

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. And I think that the Democrats are trying to stick with the facts. The facts certainly found, by duly authorized committees in Congress. The House Intelligence Committee is one, of course.

At the same time, I certainly agree with Jeff that the difficult here from sort of the public's point of view is that the Republicans are talking about corruption being everywhere else except in the White House. But if we look at -- so the fact that somebody else was corrupt doesn't make the president innocent. At some point, there is going to have to be an engagement with the facts, not just in the letter. I also want to point out there is a pattern of activity that leads up to the transcript and continues after the transcript, all of which is a systematic effort to get Ukraine to make an announcement of an open investigation.

[13:05:11]

Not an actual investigation but an opening of one.

BLITZER: Dana, Matt Gaetz, the Republican congressman from Florida, he was saying the Democrats should be pretty nervous right now because there's a bunch of Democrats from districts that President Trump won in 2016 are getting very nervous, they don't want this to go on, they want to focus on other issues, they're afraid they might not get re- elected if impeachment is the big issue right now. And you just heard some of the point he was making. The Republicans are unified, the Democrats, he says, increasingly a bit split.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He's right. He's right about that on the raw politics of it. The moderate Democrats didn't want to do this in the first place. They felt compelled. I talked to several of them. I have been talking to them along the way since the White House released the summary transcript of that call and the Ukraine issue blew up. And particularly those with national security backgrounds, they felt that they really didn't have a choice. They never wanted to talk about this.

They understood that coming from Trump districts, and there are 31 House Democrats who beat Republicans and gave the Democrats the majority, that allowed the majority to even be in the place where they are right now and taking up impeachment. And they want to talk about prescription drugs. They want to talk about other things.

And the frustration and concern among some of them, especially those in really, really big Trump districts, like Max Rose who Manu Raju has talked to a few times. The concern is that public opinion throughout this process as the House has had hearings and there have been public debates have not solidified behind the notion of impeachment for his constituents, the independents and maybe even some Republicans who voted for him in his district, it's gone the other way. And that is problematic if those voters decide in November that they're going to choose their candidate based on impeachment.

BLITZER: Gloria, you got a little shout out talk (ph) obviously with Matt Gaetz. He was clearly watching CNN earlier today.

BORGER: Well, earlier this morning -- I think it was this morning -- we were talking about the polling. And I think we were pointing to independent voters and how, if you're just looking at those independent voters, the polls do not look good for the Democrats. However, if you ask Nancy Pelosi would she do it again, many Democrats, they say, yes, because this is what we were sworn to do, to uphold the Constitution. And so if you raise the political argument, that's fine. But in a hearing about the Constitution and in a hearing about a very solemn hearing, it's kind of odd to start raising the polling for Democrats.

I just want to get back to this notion that Republicans said again and again this morning that this was all about the president's deep-seated desire to ferret out corruption in Ukraine. I mean -- and Republicans said, look, Ukraine is corrupt, we know it's corrupt and this is what the president was talking about, and the Democrats had a great argument back to him, which said, well, if he was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why wasn't he concerned about it before Joe Biden became a frontrunner?

BASH: He never mentioned the word corruption in either call.

BORGER: Exactly. So there were all these things -- it was almost humorous that they would say, oh, yes, this is an anti-corruption president and this was what his concern was about in this phone call, when he never mentioned it and could have done something about it before.

BLITZER: Charlie Dent, you have a unique perspective. Until recently, you were a Republican member of the House of Representatives. You know all of these characters who have been asking questions, 17 Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, 22 Democrats, one from Ted Lieu, he's ill right now so he can't participate.

But from your perspective, when the Republicans keep saying, you guys have not accused the president of any crime, just a couple of very ambiguous articles of impeachment, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. What do you say?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, what I would say is, as a former chair of the House Ethics Committee, that if any of them had used their office to call a foreign head of government to investigate their campaign opponent, they know the Department of Justice will be crawling up their backside right now. They know that. And they would be investigated by the Department of Justice and they would be in a heap of trouble.

And, by the way, if corruption really is the issue, then, hey, did the president of the United States call the president of Egypt and talk to him about the military assistance and human rights abuses there and corruption? How about calling the crown prince in Saudi Arabia, the military in Saudi Arabia. We know there's no corruption in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or I could go down a long list of countries where we do this.

[13:10:04]

So, bottom line is I think a lot of Republican members, look, they're just trying to distract. They'll talk about Hunter Biden. They'll talk about Adam Schiff being a mean guy because the facts are not on their side. I know that.

BORGER: Here's the other issue about corruption, which is the president didn't really ask for an investigation into corruption. He just wanted an announcement about investigating Joe Biden. There was no, can you really do an investigation? All he wanted was is it to be announced so he could use it in his campaign.

BASH: Can I ask a question, since you're the only one at this table who has the -- label moderate even though you're a moderate Republican and not a moderate Democrat. What about what Wolf said that Matt Gaetz was talking about? I mean, you're still in touch with their constituents. You understand, I mean, there is now a moderate Democrat in your district. Is it going to be tough for these moderate Democrats? Do you think a lot of them are going to vote now?

DENT: Look, the politics of impeachment cuts both ways. Is there risk for Democrat in these swing House districts? Yes. I'm not sure how much. I mean, I was on New Day. They showed a poll on Kendra Horn's district in Oklahoma, showing that 52 percent of her constituents were opposed to impeachment, and the high 40s, they were for removal. Now, that's Oklahoma. So is there some risk for her? Well, yes, but not that much. I mean, I thought it would be worse in Oklahoma. So, yes, there is some risk.

But if you're also a moderate Republican, say a Brian Fitzpatrick or a John Katko who represent districts that Hillary Clinton won, there is risk for them. But I think the biggest risk of all is for the Senate Republicans in the swing states who are up. That's the big risk because the president will be acquitted and those voters are going to be angry. The Democrats in those states will be angry and motivated.

BLITZER: Jeffrey, we keep hearing the Republicans raise the issue of Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, and he was working for Burisma. He was on the board of this Ukrainian gas company, he was making a lot of money over the years, and this was corruption and this was unacceptable from the U.S. perspective of the president of the United States. Well, if the president was so concerned about that, why didn't he go to the Ukrainians to complain and seek an investigation? Why didn't he go to the FBI or the Justice Department, or why didn't he ask his associates, his friends in Congress, to open up a formal investigation?

Only in the last couple weeks or so, Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, decided to open up an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

TOOBIN: And while you're at it, why did he not mention it at all until Joe Biden became a candidate for president? This whole Burisma chapter was a decade ago, and President Trump has been in office for several years now. So this whole notion that the president of the United States had any interest in corruption is just preposterous. It is just preposterous. The only thing he talked about were the fantasy about 2016 and CrowdStrike and figuring out a way to embarrass Joe Biden.

And, again, I just come back to this issue of how do we handle this in a way that doesn't just give air time to these bogus charges while doing our job of covering the news, and I don't have a clear answer to that question. But it is --

BASH: We've been doing a lot of fact checking. I mean, we, the media, writ large, but it's hard to do when it's a live event.

BLITZER: Carrie, the normal -- if you're so concerned about the Bidens and what they were doing, the normal procedure for an American president or somebody else is to complain through the FBI or the Justice Department, look into it. CORDERO: Sure. If he had a legitimate question as to whether or not there was criminal activity and corruption that needed to be investigated, then the simple thing to do would be refer to the Justice Department and then the White House just backs off and stays out of it and sees where that goes.

But I want to come back for a minute to this issue of crime and why there are articles of impeachment --

BLITZER: The two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

CORDERO: Right, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. And the Democrats could have taken this talking point away from Republicans, that there was no article that addressed a crime, by including the strongest cases of factual patterns of obstruction that were laid out in the Mueller report. There were very strong, up to ten potential fact patterns involving obstruction laid out in that report. They could have taken a few of the strongest of those and included those. And that would have just wiped out that talking point.

And so I understand the political judgment that was made to keep this narrow, but from a rule of law perspective and basically giving the president a pass on all of that conduct, I don't like it.

TOOBIN: You're under the impression that facts can refute a talking point?

[13:15:04]

Are you new here?

CORDERO: I do think that they would have (INAUDIBLE) and they would have had the opportunity to take those talking points off the table. And if you have that opportunity, why not do it?

BLITZER: Everybody standby. As we await the testimony to resume, we're getting word of serious concerns right now within the FBI about, quote, chilling effect of the new attacks from the president and the attorney general.

Plus, President Trump mocks a teen activist, Greta Thunberg, saying that she needs anger management. See how she responded.

This is CNN special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Hi there, I'm Brianna Keilar and you are watching CNN special coverage of the the historic impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. And after a fiery and at times deeply partisan debate on the articles of impeachment against the president, the House Judiciary Committee is now taking a brief recess for an unrelated series of votes. And lawmakers set to leave for the holiday break next Friday -- of course, they are. But before then, they have to take a vote on whether the president abused his power, whether he obstructed Congress with his efforts in Ukraine.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to approve these articles today. They're setting up a full House vote sometime next week with that.

We have CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju, who has been in this hearing room and he's joining us now to talk about it. Manu, give us the latest.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We expect a lot more fireworks during the course of the day, more amendments, more efforts by Republicans to try to undercut the articles of impeachment, trying to kill sections of articles. And all of those efforts are going to fail. Democrats plan to reject all of those along party lines.

And then ultimately tonight, whenever the members essentially give up, that's when there will be a final vote on these two articles of impeachment for the president who allegedly abused his power in office and mishandling relations with Ukraine and he obstructed Congress and its inability to investigate how the president's handling of relations with Ukraine.

Now, also at this moment is a significant one, because on the floor of the House, Republican leaders are now taking the temperature of their caucus. They're undergoing what's called whipping. They're determining whether or not if their members are going to vote against those articles of impeachment when they come to the floor next week.

They are asking all of their members where they stand, going member by member to make sure that they stand with the president, with the Republican leadership, to oppose those two articles of impeachment. And we're expecting at the moment that the Republican leaders don't expect any deflections in their ranks. We will see if that changes any account.

And at the moment, on the Democratic side, we do expect two defections and that could potentially grow to maybe a handful more, but Democrats are taking it differently. Nancy Pelosi said today she would not whip her members, she would not urge them to vote the party lines, she would let them vote however they so choose.

Even so, we do expect a majority vote to be taken next week. We do expect the majority House to vote to impeach the president next week, and that's ultimately that will matter is if the president were to go down as the third American president in history to get impeached. They just need a majority in the House. They appear to have the majority despite the handful of these defections. We expect this ultimately to come down along party lines. So that's going to happen on the floor next week.

But the significant vote still today, that vote to advance the articles of impeachment to the floor, expect it here in just a matter of hours, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right. Manu, thank you so much.

And just moments ago in the hearing, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren compared President Trump's impeachment case to the proceedings against Bill Clinton. This is what she said.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): I would just like to note that the argument that somehow lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of presidential power but the misuse of presidential power to get a benefit somehow doesn't matter. If it's lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels case ahead of us. We don't believe that's a high crime and misdemeanor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentlewoman yield.

LOFGREN: No, and it is not before us and it should not before us, because it's not an abuse of presidential power.

REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): The important thing is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. That is a crime. The article of impeachment that passed the House accused Bill Clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here, big difference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right. Let's talk about how that comparison shapes up in reality. Jeffrey Toobin, what do you think when you listen to what Congresswoman Lofgren says compared to what Congressman Sensenbrenner says?

TOOBIN: Well, it is true that lying to a grand jury is a crime and that -- and it is also true that the behavior -- that the core of conduct here by President Trump is probably not a crime.

[13:25:04]

But if you look at why impeachment exists at all, if you look at what the framers meant by impeachment, they were most concerned with abuse of power. You know, you or I could lie in a grand jury tomorrow. I mean -- and that's -- you would never do that --

KEILAR: I would hope I wouldn't.

TOOBIN: But you or I could not withhold aid to Ukraine. Only a president can do that, and that's much more significant even if it's not a crime. And that's why abuse of power is so much at the core of the impeachment power of Congress rather than simply a crime.

And there is also the small fact that when Congress -- when the framers passed the Constitution, Article I, II, III, there was no federal criminal code at all, so there were no crimes other than common law crime. BASH: Can I just add just parenthetically that these two were on the committee. They're five more members of this committee who were there voting in 1998, 21 years ago, almost or maybe exactly to the day that Bill Clinton went through this in the House Judiciary Committee. It has been fascinating.

Actually, I looked into this with Bridget Nolan about how the arguments have flipped. This is different because these are the alleged crimes that you just laid out are apples and oranges in every way, but the overall talking points and arguments for and against impeachment, for and against the process are -- they're singing from each other's song sheets from back in '98. It's really fascinating. It's like deja vu.

BORGER: Can I just to add to what Dana is saying. It's like Bill Clinton did testify before a grand jury. You did hear from Bill Clinton because his attorneys believed if they stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled, they were eventually going to lose, so they actually had the president of the United States under oath testifying about something.

We haven't seen that here. We haven't heard -- we have a president who says sure, I'd like to see everybody testify. I'd like to testify just to see -- same with Bob Mueller. But, of course, that didn't happen either. So maybe the president ought to testify if they want to make that argument about, well, he lied under oath, let's see what Donald Trump would do.

KEILAR: Congressman, how do you think this shapes up, this comparing Bill Clinton to President Trump?

DENT: Well, totally different issues. I mean, perjury is a big deal. You can't lie under oath even if it's about sex. Second thing is that this is -- but the Trump situation is much different, because there was a clear case of using official resources of the United States government, you know, to get a particular outcome, and the outcome was to have his campaign opponent investigated. And, of course, then there was the issue of withholding the funds, the military funds as leverage to pressure Zelensky.

So I think that this is an abuse of the president's office. It's a use of federal resources improperly. And I'm not sure if it's criminal or not. Jeffrey, you mentioned, I don't know if it's a crime or not, but I just think it's -- like I said, if a member of Congress had done it, you would be under investigation by the DOJ in a second.

KEILAR: And it is different, and one of the tells that it's different is when we listen to the Republicans in this markup, Carrie, they won't commit to that set of facts, pretty clear facts, as reality. Because if they did, then they would have to admit that this is different and this is very serious.

CORDERO: Right. I mean, I do tend to think the historical references are useful to an extent. But then there comes a point where we have to recognize that the facts of this particular impeachment really are different than any of the historical precedents, because there is a national security implication, because it involved the conditioning of defense assistance, because it involved pressuring a foreign leader to do something for personal, political benefit.

I mean, the fact pattern is just different, and that's why the abuse of authority is the central issue in this case, and it's not some discreet crime that we can just point to. If they wanted to go on a discreet crime, like I said earlier, they could have just pulled out a few of the obstructive acts that he did on the scope of the Mueller investigation. But that's not what this Congress decided they were willing to go to the map on impeachment for.

KEILAR: What do you think as you hear this comparison? It's useful to a certain extent. Is it useful in this moment?

GERDHARDT: I think it's useful to a certain extent but it tends to also overlook a couple basic things to maybe you sort of remember. The first is the Constitution is the law. The Constitution is supreme law of the land. And so when you abuse your power, you are violating the Constitution. And therefore, it is illegal.

[13:30:00]

That's the underlying sort of point to be made about the abuse of power here. He's extended beyond the powers the Constitution gives him. The second thing that is occurring to me is something we learned in Watergate. It was said there. It's been said since. Cover up is worse than the crime.

So we have to also pay attention to all of the ways in which the president has used his office to avoid testifying, black testifying on the impeachment article. That's the second article here.

Obstruction of Congress is based on a systematic attempt to order people in the executive branch and others in the loop on this Ukraine situation not to cooperate with Congress. So the cover-up itself is probably lacking.

TOOBIN: And that's so different from what happened to Clinton and even Nixon that -- there was a parade of Nixon White House officials to testify who were not prohibited from testifying.

Now, Nixon fought to keep the White House tapes private. But he released lots of other documents and testimony.

Clinton not only testified himself but cooperated with the investigation.

And here, that extraordinary eight-page letter that was sent by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, saying, you're not getting any witnesses, you're not getting any documents, that has never been done before.

And that, I think, is a precedent that is really a scary one for members of both parties. Because someday, there will be a Democratic president and the Republicans will want --

(CROSSTALK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We have so much more to discuss here in just a moment.

I want to get in a quick break. So let's stand by because our special coverage of the historic impeachment inquiry is continuing with an update on President Trump and whether he's watching these hearings. We have a live report from the White House.

Also, the president and another disturbing attack. This time on a teen activist, on Greta Thunberg. Hear how she responded when he said she needed to deal with her anger management.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:37:05]

KEILAR: We are keeping an eye on the House of Representatives on the right-hand side of your screen. We're just moments away from the impeachment debate hearing continuing, and we'll get you back to that when it's live again.

But what is the president up to on this day that the House is arguing on articles of impeachment against him?

We go to CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House.

Kaitlan, is the president watching this?

COLLINS: He seems to be watching and watching pretty closely, Brianna, because he's even tweeting about what certain members are saying or what he believes they're saying.

This morning, about 10:40 a.m., right as this hearing was unfolding, this debate was breaking out between these members, the president tweeted that "Democrats Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee purposely misquoted my call." He said, "I said, I want you do 'us' a favor, not 'me' a favor. They know that but decided to lie in order to make a fraudulent point. Very sad."

Brianna, there's still a lot of back and forth. I went back to see what exactly it was these lawmakers said. Sheila Jackson Lee, who is in Texas, had the actual transcript in her hands and was talking about what the president said in the July phone call at the center of all of this to the Ukrainian president.

And she quoted the president as saying, "I would like you to do a favor, though." She left out the word "us" but nearly verbatim said what the president said on that call, according to the transcript that was released by the White House.

And Veronica Escobar was essentially comparing the president's withholding that aid to what it would be like if that happened on a more local level, if a governor or a mayor withheld aid and what would be the result of that for that community. But essentially this shows the president is watching this closely and

he's keeping an eye on this, watching as this debate is unfolding, and as the Republicans are bringing up these challenges to the Democrats in the articles of impeachment, which, of course, we know, at the end of the day, isn't going to change.

But it shows they're trying to say they're here and they're on the president's side.

KEILAR: And, Kaitlan, the president went after the teenager who just beat him to become "Time" magazine's Person of the Year. What happened here? Tell us about this. It was very clear that he was bullying Greta Thunberg.

COLLINS: Yes, you see her there on the cover of this magazine. They announced this yesterday. She's a 16-year-old climate activist. We should also note she has as Asperger's Syndrome, which she says she views as a super power.

They announced yesterday that she won this. She was on the cover. Of course, President Trump, Speaker Pelosi also in the running for that.

The president attacked her today on Twitter, saying, "Greta must work on her anger management problem. Then go to a good old-fashioned movie with a friend." Essentially telling her she needs to, "Chill, Greta, chill."

We should not, it's pretty clear the president's frustration with this. She's a climate activist. She has spoken out against the president. He himself has appeared on the cover of this magazine multiple times. He talks about "Time" magazine at length.

At one point, even the "Washington Post" reported he had a fabricated "Time" magazine cover with him on the cover, something that never existed, this particular edition, hanging in several of his private clubs.

So clearly something he has a lot of fascination with -- Brianna?

[13:40:02]

KEILAR: Certainly.

Kaitlan, thank you so much for that.

Let's talk about this because this was a really interesting one where he's basically telling her go be a normal kid, which is he's saying she's abnormal. He's saying she has anger problems. He's saying she needs to "chill."

And it doesn't really escape a lot of viewers that he's taking her on in a way that he takes on women who stand up to him. And -

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: No. Go on, please.

BASH: She has Asperger's. She has a condition --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: When you see that tweet, do you feel -- you read that, you read that he is taking her on for that reason or he's taking aim at her having Asperger's with that tweet?

BASH: No -- well, I don't know. I'm not even going to say.

But as president of the United States, for any human who knows anything about somebody they're going after, you should not say things that appear to, whether intended or not, poke at her for something she was born with, that she can't control, and something that she talks about. And she has given a lot of people who also suffer from or are born with Asperger's -- I shouldn't say suffer from -- a voice and recognition.

So he has a responsibility -- a person, any person has a responsibility to know who you're talking about and to be careful because words matter.

KEILAR: I think it's key to who Greta Thunberg is, because she speaks about it as her superpower. You can link that to the fact that she is very direct, that she doesn't really suffer fools, and she gets right to the point. She speaks what's on her mind. It's right out there.

And the president sees that, Gloria, as an anger problem.

BORGER: Well, she beat him. He would love to be "Time" Man of the Year, of course, and that wasn't happening. And she won. And it doesn't matter that she's a child. It doesn't matter the age differential. It doesn't matter who she is in particular --

(CROSSTALK)

DENT: He's envious.

BORGER: He is completely envious. He wants to be the winner, not the loser. Everything is personal to him. Everything is personal to him. And that's what this is about.

And he's president of the United States. And he's got a bully pulpit, and he's got a Twitter account with who knows how many millions of people, and this is what he chooses to do with it?

TOOBIN: It's small. But I have to say -- I'm going to disagree a little bit. She's a public speaker. She gives speeches. I think talking about her is

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: -- is pretty much fair game.

BORGER: No, no. TOOBIN: You know what's worse?

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: You know what's worse? Denying that global warming is happening.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: I don't really care about being mean on Twitter. You know, that's who he is.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Let me ask you about this.

BASH: You shouldn't be mean to anybody who suffers -- I shouldn't say suffer -- has that superpower.

KEILAR: That's right.

BASH: As she calls it.

KEILAR: I also wonder if this is the same -- for instance, let's just look last week at one of the hearings that we saw where there was a constitutional expert who was making a point that the president -- said the president can name his son what he wants, but he is not a baron. And I remember thinking, why did she say that? There was just no reason to say that.

There were a lot of people who were defenders of the president who said, why would you bring that up. That is inappropriate.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: My point is, is she fair game? Sure. She's a public figure. But chill, anger management and, basically be normal, you're not abnormal when his wife is championing cyberbullying?

TOOBIN: It's petty and small. And of course, he shouldn't do it.

But compared to the fact that the planet is melting and there are -- and that he's trying to get gas companies -- automobile companies to -- not to lower their miles per gallon. That, to me, is so much more important.

The "Time" Man of the Year has to be about the least important subject in the world, frankly. I have no interest in who is "Time" Man of the Year.

BORGER: You don't. He does.

TOOBIN: Well, he does. This just strikes me, this is an opportunity to point out, we have a president of the United States who doesn't believe in manmade climate change. That is the scandal. What he calls this young woman, girl, doesn't matter to me. (CROSSTALK)

DENT: I don't understand the punching down. You're right, she's a public figure and she can be criticized. I wouldn't do it the way the president did it.

But if your president punches down on a teenage girl? This doesn't make sense to me. He fights with all sorts of people all the time. Most presidents try to stay above this. Not this one.

GERHARDT: It fits a pattern and pattern actually does obtain to these impeachment articles. So the president uses that bully pulpit not just against Greta, but he uses that bully pulpit to intimidate witnesses. That's happening in this situation. And that's very problematic.

[13:45:09]

To be able to use that bully pulpit and basically make people scared to talk up against him or talk about the truth or to testify, that's the more dangerous, I think, side of this.

KEILAR: Back to our special coverage now of this historic hearing in a moment.

But first, a warning about the words of President Trump and Bill Barr. How their attacks could have a chilling effect on the FBI.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:50:30]

KEILAR: A warning that harsh rhetoric coming from President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr over the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation is having a chilling effect inside the bureau.

Current and former FBI officials tell CNN they're concerned about agents becoming less aggressive when pursuing sensitive investigations.

I want to bring in CNN correspondent, Josh Campbell, a former FBI special agent.

Josh, what are these officials saying?

CAMPBELL: Brianna, we're learning about concerns from rank-and-file employees inside the FBI. Our colleagues, David Shortell and Evan Perez, are hearing from a number of current and former FBI officials who say the concern in the wake of the release of this inspector general reports centers on the current attorney general's characterization of the FBI's action.

We know that Attorney General William Barr has been very critical of the FBI, calling this report, talking about these intrusive, quote, unquote, "techniques" used. In the past, he's also described the FBI's activities as "spying." That's concerning people inside the FBI conducting these investigations. Because the question centers on how aggressive agents will be in the future if the same circumstance presents itself, people inside a political campaign that might be trying to get dirt from a foreign government, which is obviously a crime.

We heard from one FBI official, I quote, "We're constantly told to be agile and use all available legal tools available to us, but who will risk sticking out their neck now only to have DOJ chop it off."

It's worth noting that the inspector general report was highly critical of the FBI's use of these FISA surveillance warrants, documenting over 17 instances of abuse, ranging from sloppiness to outright malicious behavior, and that appears to be what the attorney general centered on.

Again, the question is how that might impact future investigations, if FBI agents determine they don't want to risk sticking out their neck, so to speak, only to have the Department of Justice become very critical of their actions as we'll continue to hear from the attorney general.

Obviously, he has his own investigation under way. Still awaiting results of that -- Brianna?

KEILAR: Josh, great reporting. Thank you so much.

Bill Barr's opposition to the inspector general's findings appears to be the final straw for Eric Holder, Obama's first attorney general. Holder wrote a scathing rebuke of Barr in a "Washington Post" op-ed, with the final line saying, "Attorney General Barr," quote, "is unfit to lead the Justice Department."

Holder goes on to blast Barr for not being an impartial law enforcement official but a, quote, "partisan actor under the direct control of President Trump."

Holder also condemned Barr for his recent comments suggesting communities who protest police may find themselves without police protection.

CNN reached out to the Justice Department for a response to this. We're waiting for that at this point.

Jeffrey Toobin, as you listen to this what do you think about this? What do you think about Holder taking on Barr here?

TOOBIN: I think it is a healthy thing for our country to have a debate about the role of the executive versus the role of the other two branches of government.

Because Attorney General Barr has a different view than, frankly, anyone who has ever served in that job before, including Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, under George W. Bush.

I mean, the idea that the president is within his rights, completely defying congressional oversight is something new under the sun. It is consistent with a view that Barr has articulated in other circumstances, but to be acting on it this way is really extraordinary.

And you know, Attorney General Holder, frankly, didn't even talk about the more extraordinary speech that the president -- that the attorney general gave at Notre Dame where he was talking about religious freedom, which to him means the ability of religious people to tell gay people you can't come in my store, and I will not make you a wedding cake, and I will not take photographs at your wedding.

That's what religious freedom means to Bill Barr. That's another aspect that seems very worthy of debate.

CORDERO: I just want to come back, though, also to Josh Campbell's reporting in this issue of whether or not Bill Barr's statements accusing the FBI of. quote/unquote, "spying," of being very anti-FBI, frankly, and the chilling effect that's going to have on national security investigations.

Ever since he came out after the Mueller report and he said, quote/unquote, "There was spying," I wrote a piece a long time ago and saying he should have ordered a review what are the approval process?

[13:55:10]

If he doesn't like the way national security investigations have policies and the standards under which his department conducts investigation, he's the attorney general, he can change the rules.

The fact he hasn't shows he's being disingenuous when making these allegations and he's really playing politics instead of having the institutional role of attorney general.

KEILAR: All right, everyone, stand by, if you will.

We are back to our special coverage of the historic hearing in just a moment. Expected to resume any minute after about an hour-long recess. Stand by for that.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]