Cindy McCain Tells David Axelrod Why She Did Not Have Trump At McCain Funeral; The Ukraine Scandal
ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thank you so much for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Any hopes Republicans had of having the whistleblower testify publicly snuffed out by that anonymous person's attorney a short time ago. The lawyer, saying moments ago, his client will only answer written questions from GOP lawmakers who insist the whistleblower be publicly identified. This in a statement to CNN today, my client's complaint has been largely corroborated. Nonetheless, I have offered to have my client respond in writing under oath and under penalty of perjury to Republican questions. That's not what Republican lawmakers want to hear. They submitted a list of witnesses today, and they want to see, under oath and on the stand, in the open hearings. Open not in writing. Again, Republicans want the whistleblower's identity revealed. Also on that list, among others, Joe Biden's son, Hunter. President Trump today telling reporters that there's another transcript from another phone call he had with the president of Ukraine, a different conversation than the one at the center of his impeachment firestorm. President Trump says that transcript is important, and he'll release it in the coming days. CNN's White House Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond is joining us now. Jeremy, what do we know about that earlier call with Ukraine's president?</s>JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't have a ton of information about the call. But the White House has said that it was a brief congratulatory call after President Zelensky won this landslide election, making him Ukraine's president. They've also said that it -- the president did discuss rooting out corruption in this call, but we don't know if they got into detail about some of these investigations that we know later on in this July call he actually sought. But, clearly, the president wants this transcript out there, and he wants it out there now. Here's what the president said.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, they want to have a transcript of the other call, the second call, and I'm willing to provide that. We'll probably give it to you on Tuesday, Monday being a holiday. We'll probably give it to you on Tuesday. But we have another transcript coming out which is very important. They asked for it, and I gladly give it.</s>DIAMOND: And, Ana, look, the timing of this is obviously notable. The public hearings start next week. And the president is also, obviously, trying to divert attention from the mounting evidence that this is not just about his interactions directly with the Ukrainian president. Not just about that July call. But, really, about a broader pattern of behavior a -- at the direction of the president to pressure Ukraine to carry out these politically motivated investigations that the president has really been seeking.</s>CABRERA: And one thing that's come up in the testimonies that have been revealed is Mick Mulvaney, the White House Chief of staff, and his involvement in orchestrating Ukrainian policy on behalf of the U.S. He did not show up for his own testimony that was requested and subpoenaed. And now, he, I'm hearing, is making a move to try to permanently get off the witness list.</s>DIAMOND: That's right. Well, we'll have to see how this actually plays out, because Mulvaney was subpoenaed to appear and testify before the House Impeachment Inquiry yesterday. And then, last night, he decided to file something in court, trying to join this lawsuit, filed by the former deputy National Security adviser, Charles Kupperman, that, essentially, says, look, the White House is telling me not to appear. Congress is telling me to appear. Let's let the third branch of government, the Judiciary, actually decide this. And Mulvaney is now trying to join that lawsuit. House Democrats working on this inquiry are saying, look, this is ridiculous. Mr. Mulvaney would clearly be willing to come testify if he had information that was exculpatory to the president's case. And it's interesting, because we're also seeing the former National Security adviser, John Bolton. He is also joining this lawsuit by former deputy National Security adviser, Kupperman. And his attorney is actually trying to get this forward. Because the House, last week, dropped their subpoena for Bolton, saying that this court case is going to take way too long. And Bolton's attorney saying, look, Bolton has personal knowledge of this information that has not yet been discussed. We're seeing a little bit of a different tactic here. Mulvaney joining the case because he doesn't want to testify. Bolton pushing forward because it appears that he does want to offer information to this House Impeachment Investigation.</s>CABRERA: And, yet, I talked with one of the Congress members who are behind these inquiry investigations right now, saying, we don't, really, need to hear from Bolton. We have enough already.</s>DIAMOND: Right.</s>CABRERA: It would be the icing on the cake, but we don't need that icing. So, Jeremy Diamond, we'll see where it goes. Thank you for keeping us updated. Before next week's public hearings, I want to take a moment to talk about logic and facts. Because the president, and his defenders, have tried to confuse and muddy the waters so much they seem to be betting on the idea the American people won't keep track of what's true and what's false. So, we're going to help you out. Let's start with the basic pillar of the president's defense.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo.</s>CABRERA: OK. But, then, as more details began to emerge, including the White House's own rough transcript or memorandum of that call, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney says the exact opposite.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the -- into the Democratic server happens as well.</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: We do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy. And I have news for everybody, get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.</s>CABRERA: He walked those comments back, but the GOP went from arguing no quid pro quo to arguing, essentially, no harm, no foul if Ukraine didn't know about the aid being held up.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: How do you have a quid pro quo when the person who is the subject of the pro said it didn't happen?</s>REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R), TEXAS: Neither he, or any other witness, has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can't have a quid pro quo with no quo.</s>REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: Ukrainians never knew that aid had been withheld. And then, of course, maybe most importantly, we have the simple fact the Ukrainians did nothing to get the aid released.</s>CABRERA: OK. But then, the guy the White House literally cited as proof there was no quid pro quo blew it up. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, revised his testimony and revealed he told a top Ukrainian aid that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement. And just take a listen to how the president's opinion of Sondland, who he once called a really good man and a great American, changed.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I hardly know the gentleman. But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo, and he still says that. And he said that I said that. And he hasn't changed that testimony. So, this is a man that said, as far as the president is concerned, there was no quid pro quo.</s>CABRERA: Not true. Sondland, by the way, gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Moving onto another argument you may have heard, you can't trust people like the whistleblower who started this because they only have secondhand knowledge of what happened with Ukraine.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call, heard something.</s>GRAHAM: We're not going to try the president of the United States based on hearsay.</s>JORDAN: He had no firsthand knowledge. He heard something from someone.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I understand it right, it's from someone who had secondhand knowledge.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He says he heard this from other people.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The complaint relied on hearsay evidence.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's always, I talked to somebody else. It's hearsay.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A secondhand account of something someone didn't hear isn't as good as the best evidence of what was actually said.</s>CABRERA: OK. But then, we actually did hear from people who were on the phone call, like Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. The National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, who testified that he was so concerned about what he heard, he immediately went to his supervisors to say something. But the president's allies say, don't trust that person either.</s>LAURA INGRAHAM, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: Here we have a U.S. National Security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interests, and usually they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?</s>JOHN YOO, ATTORNEY: I find that astounding. And some people might call that espionage.</s>CABRERA: Vindman is a purple heart recipient who was injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq. So, what's happening here? Perhaps John Dickerson of "60 Minutes" said it best. And I quote. "It used to be that public shame meant that people would give answers that range from A to D. They might not give you the God's honest truth, but they'd be too afraid or embarrassed to go beyond D. Now, many politicians have no fear. They give responses instead of answers, and the range is between A and Z. Maybe it's even worse than that, because it's hard to figure out what letter in the alphabet would cover this logic-crushing explanation from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.</s>GRAHAM: What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent. It depends on who you talk to. They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.</s>CABRERA: Just to be clear, you're now supposed to believe the Trump White House is so inept, they couldn't have possibly pulled off a quid pro quo. Senator Lindsey Graham, you just heard there, was a friend of late Senator John McCain. McCain's wife, Cindy, sat down with CNN recently, and here's what he said her husband would think of his party, if he were alive today.</s>CINDY MCCAIN: I mean, I think he'd be disgusted with some of the stuff that's going on. I really do. I think he's be -- what he'd be saying was is he'd be railing against what's going on. And I think John provided a lot of cover for other members. And when he would do it, then they could get behind him, kind of thing. And I'm not seeing a real rudder in the Senate right now.</s>CABRERA: A quit note, you can see more at Cindy McCain's interview coming up on "THE AX FILES" tonight at 7:00. Now, I want to bring in S.E. Cupp, the Host of "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED" at the top of the hour here on CNN; and Democratic Strategist, and former Clinton White House aide, Keith Boykin. So, S.E., you heard Cindy McCain there. Do you see anything that could change how Republicans are defending the president and their attitude toward this impeachment inquiry?</s>S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, thus far, I don't think Republicans have had -- have felt much incentive to walk away from the president. That's disappointing. We'll see what the senators do. The stakes are higher in the Senate. You know, they're legacy builders in the Senate. And I think they're thinking a lot harder about what they're going to do and what they're going to hear, during this trial that will be an impeachment inquiry. And so, we'll see if someone like a Mitt Romney decides to really, you know, stick to his principles and wants to go on record for the sake of posterity, for the sake of history, and say, I did not support this president and what he did. Now, are they going to, you know, vote him out of office, convict him and remove him? I doubt it. But you might see some senators saying, publicly and aloud, I don't support what this president did. To me, it's the least they should do. But we might -- we might start to see some.</s>CABRERA: Well, we've seen some of them say that. But, again, where's the spine, when it comes to taking action? Like, words are words. Action's another thing.</s>CUPP: Right.</s>CABRERA: Keith, but we already have 2,600-plus pages of transcripts that were released this week, from the depositions that have been happening on -- behind closed doors. I just wonder, you know, will the hearings and actually hearing from these people in the public hearings, which start this week, be a game changer?</s>KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm not sure if it'll be a game changer for the Republicans in Congress, but I think it could be a game changer for the public. Because, right now, there's been a great deal of muddying of the waters. And the Republicans have been doing a good deal -- a good job of, sort of, moving the goalpost, if you will. And, first, they said the whole story was fake news. And then, we find out it wasn't fake news because of the whistleblower complaint. Then, they said, well, it's just hearsay. But then, we find out it wasn't hearsay, because we had Vindman and others who were actually on the phone call. Then, they said, well, the process isn't fair because you didn't have a vote. So, then, they voted and they're still not happy with it. Then, they said, well, it can't be fair because it's in private. It needs to be public. So, then, they're going to have it public and Trump, last week, was saying they shouldn't even be having it public. So, where does this end up? I mean, every time you have a scenario where they say you have to jump over this hoop in order to prove that this is legitimate, then you jump over that hoop and they still say it's illegitimate. I don't think there's any way to convince these guys, until the American public sees it and starts to recognize that this is unacceptable behavior for the president of the United States to be extorting a foreign leader for his personal benefit.</s>CABRERA: Democrats say they want to make sure the hearings are focused on the task at hand, and the, you know, kind of, burden of proof with the American public and explaining what is an impeachable offense here. The Republicans now have a list of people they want to be part of this process. Witnesses they want to testify and hear from publicly. Here's that list. And among them, of course, is this whistleblower. Also, Hunter Biden is on that list, Joe Biden's son, who, again, no wrongdoing has been proven. No evidence of wrongdoing between -- of Hunter Biden or Joe Biden here. What do you think of that list?</s>CUPP: I think there are two aims here that we can -- we can read from that list. One aim is to embarrass and prosecute Hunter Biden. And, as a proxy, Hillary Clinton. There are a number of people on that list who were affiliated with Hillary Clinton's campaign, and I think Republicans want to try and tie some impropriety or construction or scandal back to Hillary Clinton. And then, the second aim, I think, is clear from that list is they want to distract. They want to throw other story lines in there, so that it's, sort of, a don't look at this; look over here kind of process. Because, as Keith mentioned -- and, by the way, you left out several of the excuses --</s>BOYKIN: Oh, yes, there are plenty of other things. Yes.</s>CUPP: -- and affections. There was -- there was also, you know, Republicans saying, well, he did it but that's fine. And it's not impeachable. I mean, I think, to your point, they'll want to say, well, if you're going to talk about this, then we're going to talk about that. Because they can't defend him on the substance. It's clear to any sentient being that he did what he is accused of doing. He's admitted he did it, in fact. So, I think the only game plan for Republicans will be to distract. I think that's what we're going to see.</s>CABRERA: Let's pivot to what's happening today. And the president is in Alabama. He's at the Bama-LSU game. And here is the reception he received.</s>ANNOUNCER: (UNIDENTIFIED.)</s>CABRERA: A different reception than he received at The World Series or the UFC fights.</s>BOYKIN: Well, I mean, if you go to Alabama, a state that votes Republican every presidential election going back to 1976, I think, it's hard for you, as a Republican, not to get a positive reception at a football game. If you don't, then you are really, really unpopular.</s>CUPP: You're doing the wrong thing.</s>BOYKIN: It's already bad enough that he went to a baseball game and was booed at the baseball game in Washington, D.C., The Nationals of The World Series. It was bad enough that he was booed and applauded,</s>CABRERA: But let me just push back. I was thinking -- you know, I think it's somewhat telling, though, that he would go to a football game. And, you know, his history, when it comes to some of these athletes and the comments that he's made that have been very controversial. And, yet, he's still getting that kind of applause.</s>CUPP: Well, I think it's also worth pointing out, Alabama told its students that if they protested Trump's visit, they would lose their season tickets. And so, I think maybe a little of this was, you know, acting polite so that they could keep those tickets. That's religion down there. They don't want to lose the rest of their football games over the season.</s>CABRERA: Yes. You speaking of controversial, look who's in the box with the president. It happens to be Jeff Sessions' Alabama primary opponent. That's Bradley Burn there. And, of course, this is just days after Sessions made sure voters knew he had never gone against the president, when he made the announcement he's jumping into the race.</s>JEFF SESSIONS (R), CANDIDATE FOR SENATE, ALABAMA: When I left President Trump's cabinet, did I write a tell-all book? No. Did I go on CNN and attack the president? Nope. Have I said a cross word about our president? Not one time. And I'll tell you why. First, that would be dishonorable. I was there to serve his agenda, not mine.</s>CABRERA: How do you guys see this playing out?</s>CUPP: It's pathetic. It's so pathetic.</s>BOYKIN: It's embarrassing.</s>CUPP: I mean, that's a grown man. That is a grown man groveling for the president's approval, saying I'm getting back in this race. Please don't hurt me. Please don't say bad things about me. I didn't say bad things about you, even though you fired me and humiliated me over and over and over again. I'm embarrassed for Jeff Sessions.</s>CABRERA: But maybe it works, Keith. Because the president was asked about Jeff Sessions, and he didn't say anything bad about Jeff Sessions.</s>BOYKIN: Trump can change his mind tomorrow. Wakes up and decides somebody says something and makes him mad and he'll go off on Sessions, again. There's no loyalty with Trump. It's a one-way street. You're either loyal to him. He's never loyal to you. But what's sad is it's not just Jeff Sessions. It's Lindsey Graham, who's, basically, spineless on Capitol Hill. It's Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and a lot of other Republicans.</s>CUPP: Rand Paul.</s>BOYKIN: And Rand Paul and others who were very critical of Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign and said negative things about him. And now, they refuse to say anything bad about the president of the United States, because they're afraid of being primaried by the Republican base. That's a sad and pathetic state. That you're afraid of your own base, and you won't stand up and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.</s>CABRERA: Keith, S.E., thank you both.</s>CUPP: Yes.</s>CABRERA: "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED" at the top of the hour, don't forget, right here and on CNN. As the president and some Republicans demand the whistleblower testify publicly, one social media giant is taking steps to block his or her name from being revealed. We'll have details on that just ahead. Plus, another billionaire toys with the presidential run, but does Michael Bloomberg stand a chance, especially this late and in such a crowded field?