John Kelly Speaks Out Against Trump; More DOJ Resignations Possible in the Coming Days; Attorney General Bill Barr to Testify Before House Judiciary Next Month
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.</s>JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto. Listen to this. The president's former chief of staff and retired Marine General, John Kelly, has called the president's demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens a, quote, "illegal order." That's right, Kelly in public defending Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and his decision to report that controversial demand and phone call to his higher ups.</s>HARLOW: Yes, it's remarkable that he chose these words and said this now. It was first reported by "The Atlantic." It happened overnight. Kelly told an audience that Army Officer Vindman who was repeatedly targeted by the president and of course mocked and then removed from the White House did exactly what he was taught to do. Again, to report, quote, "an illegal order" and Kelly did not stop there.</s>SCIUTTO: Also this morning, the Justice Department is roiled today. This after the attorney general intervened to reduce a sentencing recommendation from Justice Department lawyers for the president's longtime ally Roger Stone. Sources tell CNN that more prosecutors are now considering resigning. "The New York Times" reports that others fear pressure from the president. We're on top of all of the news this morning.</s>HARLOW: All right. So let's begin on this at the White House with White House correspondent John Harwood with more on the stunning comments. I mean, it goes so far beyond Vindman.</s>JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It goes beyond Vindman, Poppy. John Kelly really let loose in the set of remarks. And he talked, in particular, about the sense of duty that's bred in people in the military, that he brought to the White House, that he used to try to constrain the president. Let's first look at what he said about Alexander Vindman. He said, he did exactly what we teach them from cradle to grave. We teach them, don't follow an illegal order. And if you are given one, you'll raise it to whoever gave it to you, and say this is an illegal order and then tell your boss. There was, in addition, a quote on Trump's intervention in the case of Eddie Gallagher, the Navy SEAL, who had been convicted of murder in Iraq. The president restored his rank in the Navy SEAL. John Kelly said, "If I was in the White House, I think I could have stopped it." That's because John Kelly understands what is necessary for order and discipline in the military. And this is a president who doesn't value those things. And it is very clear at the moment, not just John Kelly who is not there anymore, but no one in the White House or in the Republican Party at this point, guys, is willing to stop him.</s>SCIUTTO: No, and he's removed those who have stood up to him. We've seen it from experience. John, please stay with us. Let's also bring in CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor himself, Shan Wu, and former Republican congressman and Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, who's also a former federal prosecutor. Shan, if I could begin with you. What's the legal standard for an illegal order? Is there one? Is this up to the judgment of uniformed commanders?</s>SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There's not really going to be a legal standard that's relevant to them because they're going to be in the field. They're making these decisions on the fly. I mean, there could be something that seems, again, it's going to be their discretion. If they're ordered to do something that they feel is illegal in terms of military regulations or other law, they're going to have to make that call at the time. He wasn't in a situation, Vindman, where he had to make an instant judgment. He was able to go to a superior, which is exactly why Kelly is saying he did the right thing to do. He didn't have to make a judgment on the fly.</s>HARLOW: Bob Barr, to you, you have criticized the impeachment of the president. You've called it a Democratic sham. But John Kelly is hardly a Democrat, and he is backing with these comments, the very foundation of the impeachment. Do you disagree with his take?</s>BOB BARR, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It doesn't make any sense to me what the general is saying because Vindman was not given an order to do anything. By all accounts, he simply overheard a conversation and then he interpreted a certain way.</s>HARLOW: So, Bob, I would just -- I would just jump in there with the context for people who haven't read the entirety of Kelly's comments. The idea is, if you are, you know, a lieutenant colonel, if this is your position and you hear something that you know is wrong, it is your duty to report it.</s>SCIUTTO: Right. Report it to the chain of command.</s>BARR: Well, he overheard the president who is the commander-in-chief and who is in fact in charge of U.S. foreign policy on a conversation with a foreign leader talking about U.S. policy with regard to that country. The colonel apparently interpreted what the president was saying one way. Others interpreted it another way. I see nothing in this equation that equates to an illegal order.</s>SCIUTTO: Shan --</s>HARWOOD: Guys, it's not just Alexander Vindman --</s>SCIUTTO: Sorry. John, go ahead.</s>HARWOOD: Not just Alexander Vindman who interpreted it that way.</s>HARLOW: Yes.</s>HARWOOD: Gordon Sondland, the president's appointee, interpreted it that way. Bill Taylor, the president's choice to be envoy to Ukraine, also interpreted it that way. There's no misunderstanding what happened here. And in fact, at the end of the Senate trial, we know that Ted Cruz told White House lawyers we all know there was a quid pro quo here. The only question being whether it's enough to convict and put him out of office.</s>HARLOW: Right.</s>HARWOOD: But the facts of the case and the fact that it was an improper association, link that the president made between those two things is universally accepted now.</s>BARR: No, it's not universally accepted now.</s>SCIUTTO: Shan, does it make a difference --</s>HARWOOD: Yes, it is.</s>BARR: It's not. I mean, I disagree with what you're saying and an awful lot of U.S. senators did also, and I suspect that if there had been a fair proceeding --</s>HARWOOD: Not according to Ted Cruz.</s>BARR: There would have been a lot of other witnesses that interpreted it very differently.</s>SCIUTTO: Shan, you heard Bob Barr there talk about how the president's the commander in chief. Does that negate a uniformed officer from making a judgment to say, listen, to me -- to me, this sounds like an illegal order and, therefore, I will report it through the chain of command?</s>WU: Yes. It absolutely does not do that. I mean, the commander in chief is simply a higher commander. So if he were, let's say, in the field, in a war zone, and his immediate supervisor gave him an order that he felt was illegal or something wrong to do, we want our armed services soldiers to not do that. To follow their training and to follow their own moral conscience. And that's what he was doing here. He did exactly the right thing. That's what General Kelly is saying. We should be proud of what he did.</s>HARLOW: Bob, quick response and then we're going to move on.</s>BARR: There was no order of any sort. This was a president talking about a U.S. foreign policy with regard to another leader. That can be interpreted and characterized many different ways.</s>WU: Well, that's exactly the point. I mean, you want them to interpret it and to fall back on the technicality, there wasn't an order to do this. That's just silly. Obviously, he felt he was witnessing something wrong.</s>SCIUTTO: Yes. And we should note that there was an order issued. We saw that in the e-mail traffic, the White House directed this aid to be stopped. But please stay with us. There's much more to cover this morning.</s>HARLOW: There is because there could be more exits from the Justice Department. This comes just days after four federal prosecutors just completely up and quit the Roger Stone case over the agency's decision to overrule their sentencing recommendations.</s>SCIUTTO: New sources saying this morning that several federal prosecutors have discussed resigning. Joining in these resignations in recent days. CNN's Laura Jarrett joins us now. So we've already seen four resign from this case. One, I believe, from the job itself.</s>LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: From the</s>SCIUTTO: Completely. You're hearing that there are others who are considering the same?</s>JARRETT: Just imagine trying to do your job every day and you have been there throughout multiple administrations. And you find out on FOX News that now it's going to be reversed for what reason? We don't know exactly what happened in those conversations, but we've seen this play out now in a way that I think undermines how they're supposed to do their job. And it's really a morale issue. We talk to sources and things were really heated on Tuesday. We'll see how it plays out in the days to come. Maybe things calm down. And it's not unusual for there to be policy disagreements. I think that's happened.</s>HARLOW: Sure.</s>JARRETT: But in criminal cases, those usually don't get touched. And what we're seeing now in Stone and other cases is different.</s>HARLOW: How much of this, Laura, your reporting in terms of the turmoil and the angst and the actual, you know, leaving of positions or cases at least that the Justice Department has to do with the attorney general himself?</s>JARRETT: Well, look, there's no question, Bill Barr, if anything, takes a hands-on approach to these cases. And it turns out that Stone's case is not an outlier. The reporting shows that it's also in the case of the former National Security adviser Michael Flynn. We saw some court filings that were sort of discordant, if you will, on the sort of softening of the sentencing and it turns out that he was involved in some of those discussions behind the scenes. But there's also so many more cases to go that are in the queue right now, that are politically sensitive that the president cares about. Look at, I mean, just that map right there. It shows you what we're facing in the weeks and months to come. So many we can barely fit it on one page there. And so for instance, on Eric Prince, Betsy DeVos' brother, if they don't indict him for lying to Congress, how are people supposed to look at this? I think that's the question for the Justice Department. How do people look at this and say, it was on the up and up? And so I think the appearance of impropriety, even if we've giving them the benefit of the doubt and that there's nothing wrong here.</s>SCIUTTO: Yes.</s>JARRETT: It's the appearance that some people aren't getting a fair shake.</s>SCIUTTO: It's why you have rules against conflicts of interest. Right?</s>JARRETT: Precisely.</s>SCIUTTO: Because, you know, if you have those conflicts you should not be involved. Bob, I wonder how you respond to that. The president has an interest in all these cases. There are folks who advised him. Roger Stone has been one of his most loyal advisers through the years. Do you have any issue? You're a former federal prosecutor as well. Imagine if a president interfered in a case that you prosecuted to the best of your ability and said, no, I don't care what you did. This guy is a friend of mine. Ain't going to happen. How would you respond to that?</s>BARR: There's something important to keep in mind here. While federal prosecutors have a great deal of flexibility in how they handle their cases, it is not absolute. And particularly with regard to cases involving public figures and corruption involving public figures, the U.S. attorney or the line attorneys prosecuting the case are required by the U.S. attorney's manual to coordinate that case with main justice. And, in fact, what happened here, apparently, is there was some disagreement between main justice and the attorneys handling the case. There was an understanding that they would follow the guidelines, and then they filed a paper with the court that did something very different.</s>SCIUTTO: Not the question I asked. I mean, I asked if you would have any issue with the president repeatedly intervening in cases in which he has a personal interest as a former prosecutor yourself.</s>BARR: The president is not intervening in anything. The decision here first and foremost is going to be made by the judge, and not by the line attorney, not by William Barr. It's going to be made by the judge. The president can say whatever he wants. That's not going to influence the judge.</s>HARLOW: All right. I would just note, Bob, in your piece in the "Daily Caller" you criticized the judge as an Obama appointed judge and took aim at all of this, saying Stone was never charged with any substantive criminal offenses, and you're talking about five counts of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing a proceeding. Shan Wu, you've been in meetings like this when you were a former counsel to AG Janet Reno. I mean, did you see anything like this happen?</s>WU: Absolutely not. There's a very solid wall between the White House generally and the Justice Department. Precisely for the reason of the integrity of the process, not wanting public confidence to be undermined. In fact, the sort of interesting thing is usually when defense counsel are making appeals to the higher ups at the Justice Department, main justice, usually they have very little success if they're going against the judgment of the operational people, the trial folks who have actually worked the case. The higher up you go, the less inclined the officials are to overrule the people at the bottom. So the idea here that this is a normal situation, it's not. It's very abnormal.</s>SCIUTTO: Well, we're watching it unfold. Shan Wu, Bob Barr, thanks to both of you. Laura Jarrett as well. Still to come, Attorney General Bill Barr with face lawmakers on the hill weeks from now. We're going to speak to a member of the House Judiciary Committee who will be asking Barr questions, just ahead.</s>HARLOW: Also 2020 Democratic presidential Mike Bloomberg picking up several endorsements from prominent African-American lawmakers, including one from New York, even as he faces all of these questions over his controversial stop and frisk policy in New York City. So what do those endorsements mean? Also, Rush Limbaugh, recently awarded the Medal of Freedom by the president, now targeting a presidential candidate's sexuality, saying on his radio show that he wonders what would happen in a debate between, quote, "Mr. Man," President Trump and in Limbaugh's words, quote, "gay guy" Pete Buttigieg. It's difficult to even repeat his words here and the way that he clearly meant them. Much more on that ahead.