Turkey Agrees to Five-Day Pause in Rout of Syrian Kurds. 
JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone. I'm John Vause. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Studio Seven at CNN's world headquarters here in Atlanta. Ahead this hour, it's still a ceasefire, but it is a gift to Ankara. The pause in fighting negotiated by the U.S. is a win for Turkey. Well, the Syrian Kurds hung out to dry. The White House Chief of Staff undermines weeks of denials by the President. Withholding military, he was part of a plan, he says, to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on political rivals. In other words, quid pro quo. And against the odds that at the very last minute a Brexit agreement, but now comes the hard part, Parliamentary approval and the numbers do not look good. Day 1,001 of the Trump White House who claims ownership of two extraordinary events on Thursday. The first a deal to pause Turkey's military offensive in northern Syria against Kurdish fighters, the same fighters who were the U.S. allies who are on the front lines in the defeat of ISIS. The deal brokered by the Vice President allows Turkey's military to keep the territory its already taken in Syria, and ends the threat of additional U.S. sanctions on Ankara. The Kurds it seems a lot worse off than before they partnered with the United States. And then there was a startling admission from the Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirming a quid pro quo in Donald Trump's phone call with Ukraine's leader back in July. A short time later, he tried to deny what he told a room full of White House reporters. First to Syria, where the U.S. President's sudden abandonment of Kurdish allies who fought alongside U.S. forces against ISIS now seems complete. On Thursday, this betrayal was announced by the U.S. Vice President. He was sent to the Turkish capital to be the public face of American disloyalty.</s>MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Turkish side will pause operation peace spring in order to allow for the withdrawal of YPG forces from the safe zone for 120 hours. Part of our understanding is that with the implementation of the ceasefire, the United States will not impose any further sanctions on Turkey. And once a permanent ceasefire is in effect, the President has agreed to withdraw the economic sanctions that were imposed this last Monday.</s>VAUSE: By any definition, this is not a ceasefire. Turkish foreign minister refused to use that word. We have more details now from CNN's Jomana Karadsheh in Ankara.</s>JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The Turkish government is not describing this as a ceasefire. They say that this is a pause in their military operation for five days giving the United States those five days to deliver on the agreement, whereby they will facilitate the withdrawal of the Syrian Kurdish fighters from that designated area that was agreed on between the United States and Turkey. But call it a pause in fighting or a ceasefire, we have two governments, two administrations that are claiming victory here calling this a win. For the United States, for President Trump, he's claiming credit for this ceasefire, especially after all the criticism he has faced from Senate, from Congress, from so many in the United States for what was essentially green lighting, this operation. And then for the government here in Ankara, they are getting what they wanted. In the world of a Turkish official, they're saying they got exactly what they wanted out of this meeting, that their military operation delivered the results that they were hoping for. For months, they have been negotiating with the United States, with their military, with the State Department to try and get them to commit to this safe zone, this buffer zone inside Syria. And on paper, in principle, at least they have gotten this commitment from the United States. How this is going to play out on the ground, we still do not know. There are so many questions about how it's going to be implemented, and enforced. The Syrian Democratic Forces that, the fighting force that is made up mostly of the Syrian Kurdish fighters from the YPG has come out and said that they have agreed to the ceasefire, that they were part of the negotiations. But it's really unclear at this point, whether they are going to withdraw after the end of those five days from these areas, or if they will not. So we'll have to wait and see what happens with that over the next five days. At the end of the five days, that is when President Erdogan is headed to Russia where he will be meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. At this point in time, we have not heard from Russia at least publicly on where it stands in all of this. So that is going to be quite a critical meeting. All eyes will be on Sochi, where that meeting will be taking place. Because as we have seen over recent months, and especially over the past few days, when it comes to this part of Syria, it is the Russians now who get to call the shots. Jomana Karadsheh, CNN Ankara.</s>VAUSE: The Acting White House Chief of Staff has made a remarkable admission that goes to the very heart of the impeachment inquiry. Then he tried to walk it back. President Trump is under Impeachment Inquiry because of his calls to the Ukraine's president asking for an investigation into a conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia, which interfered in the 2016 election. Also on this call, Trump press for an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. Mick Mulvaney admitted the U.S. withheld military as part of a pressure campaign on the Ukrainian leader.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine.</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So to 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 happened as well.</s>MULVANEY: We do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy. I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.</s>VAUSE: Well, hours after that, Mulvaney to reverse himself on a statement saying there was absolutely no quid pro quo. Mulvaney raises more ethical questions with an announcement that President Trump will host next year's Group of Seven Summit at one of his own resorts. Mulvaney said the President will not profit from the event. Nonetheless, the Constitution prohibits a president from taking gifts from a foreign government or taking payment from the U.S. government beyond his salary. The chosen site, Trump National in Doral, Florida has struggled financially for years, even though there's a free breakfast. U.S. Ambassador to the European Union says President Trump told senior U.S. officials to talk to his personal lawyer, that will be Rudy Giuliani, about policy in Ukraine. In written testimony in the impeachment inquiry, Gordon Sondland said Giuliani emphasize the President wanted Ukraine to conduct an anti-corruption investigation. He wanted a focus on the 2016 election. Sondland said he did not realize until much later that Giuliani was pushing for an investigation into Joe Biden and his son for the 2020 election. Joining us now from Los Angeles CNN's, Senior Political Analyst and Senior Editor at the Atlantic Ron Brownstein. Also with us, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, David Katz. Thank you, guys, for coming in. Good to see you both.</s>RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you, John.</s>DAVID KATZ, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, LOS ANGELES: Great to be with you.</s>VAUSE: Just as a reminder, here's how the President has been defending that conversation with Ukraine's leader, why it was all aboveboard, because of this. Here it is.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's no quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo. No quid pro quo.</s>VAUSE: There we go. So Ron, first to you. We'll get to Mulvaney's attempt to walk over this back, but how does this happen? How can the White House see itself be so far out of step with the President that it undermines the President's main argument, defending that he said nothing wrong in terms that conversation with Ukraine's leader?</s>BROWNSTEIN: Maybe every once in a while you just kind of blurt out the truth. But I think actually, the larger point is that we are seeing a consistent pattern in the Trump administration, this kind of belief that if you say things out loud, if you acknowledge things that in the past would have been completely out of bounds, that somehow you sanitize them. And we see that from the president, and we see that from his aides in terms of trying to justify behavior that previously would be considered unjustifiable. You know, one quick point. When Mick Mulvaney says that American foreign aid is often conditioned -- often has conditions attached to it, he's not wrong. But the conditions have to do with the American national interest, our interests around the world. The quid pro quo, the conditioning is not tied to benefiting the political fortunes of the president. And not understanding that bright line I think is exactly why they find themselves in virtual certainty of facing impeachment in the House of Representatives.</s>VAUSE: Yes. These -- we will give you financial aid if you promote women's rights or you know, child welfare, or democracy, that kind of stuff. So five hours after handing Democrats a gift, Mulvaney tried to take it back. He issued this statement. "Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a bias and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election." David, to you. We all heard what Mulvaney said. It was said to a room full of reporters with television cameras. Is there any point in trying to pretend it didn't happen? And legally, how damaging is this for Donald Trump and his impeachment defense?</s>KATZ: Well, legally, it's extremely troubling as well as in the court of public opinion. And I agree with Ron that there have been political quid pro quo, some policy for another policy, of course, with other countries. That's the goal of diplomacy. But to get a personal political benefit, a selfish political benefit for Trump, That's way beyond the pale. That's a bright line. Now, in terms of the certainty of impeachment by the House, it did become more certain. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who I used to work with said today that it got much, much worse. And I think already Romney, Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, are going to not be supporting the president. So I think he's probably about -- Ron would know this better than I but maybe about 15 senators away for being impeached. But legally, it's terrible. In fact, his counsel came out and After Mulvaney said what he said to that room full of reporters and made that acknowledgment of guilt. The legal team said we were not part of that presser at all. And it's only after that, that you heard the tweet, which basically said, by Trump's top henchmen said don't believe your ears, don't believe your eyes, believe this tweet that I'm sending out later on trying to walk back.</s>VAUSE: Right. It's funny you bring up the 15 Senator -- Republican Senators as a buffer. That's actually my next question to Ron. Are those 15 Senator buffer though, if you look at it, is it rock solid no matter what Trump does or, you know, could there be more Senators, on the Republican side that could be swayed, could they be won over if there are more days like this specially to come?</s>BROWNSTEIN: Well, first of all, I'm not sure there are five onboard ready to remove him by any means, not even sure there's one, but there could be. You know, look, first of all, the President seems to be daring the Republican senators to break from him. As we mentioned before, you know, when Bill Clinton face impeachment in 1998, he felt very conscious of avoiding any policy positions that would alienate the Democrats. He needed to lock arms to defend him on impeachment. For example, he stopped this kind of global negotiation with Newt Gingrich over cutting entitlement spending, including social security. President Trump is doing exactly the opposite. He is taking actions that he knows will be extremely provocative and offensive, not only to Democrats, but Republicans, abandoning the Kurds in Syria, something he knew would be very noxious to Republicans, announcing that he will steer the G7 summit to his own resort, which essentially it's kind of rubbing the face of Congress in his refusal -- in his skidding or at least, you know, abridging the lines of the Emoluments Clause. So in all of these ways, he is daring them. He believes that he has them so under his thumb because of his support among the Republican base, that they will be unwilling to cross him. I'm not sure that block will, in fact, play out. There's been a lot of focus on the Republicans who are up in 2020 like Corey Gardner, Susan Collins, Martha McSally. The bigger risk for the President is maybe some of the Republicans who are safe, who are retiring like Pat Roberts, and Lamar Alexander, and Mitt Romney. So it is possible that there will be several who vote against them, in the end, getting to 20, and maybe even 21, or 22 if Joe Manchin and Doug Jones would vote to remove him from office, still it's a very tall order.</s>VAUSE: Because it wasn't just Mulvaney out there causing problems for Donald Trump, there was this testimony to Congress, a written testimony from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. This was also bad news for the president. He told lawmakers that the President had told him to direct all matters Ukraine through his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. And you know -- and then there's Rick Perry, the Energy Secretary telling a number of reporters he was also told to go through Giuliani for all things Ukraine. So David, put all this together, what does it say about the case the Democrats could be building here and the strength of that case now that we have these insiders who are coming out you know, and basically defying the president if you like?</s>KATZ: Well, this was a disastrous defection today. This was a political appointee. He's number six. Adam Schiff has had quite a few witnesses. They've testified behind closed doors, but that's pretty soon going to be open testimony. The idea of having it behind closed doors is like a grand jury not to have these witnesses put their stories together. But this was a political defection today. This was someone who gave $1 million to be named an ambassador and he turned around and said, they said everything was to go -- was supposed to go through Giuliani. Now, he had to say that he was dealt with it and slow instead of saying he was corrupt. So he said, oh, my goodness, this was all going to be political against Biden. I didn't know why it was supposed to all go through Giuliani, the personal lawyer and not to the State Department. But in terms of the major allegations, John, he admitted them today. And there has not been one of the six witnesses who supported the President. It's been damning. And that's one reason why it looked like Mulvaney just threw his hands up in the air and said, yes, it was a quid pro quo, what are you going to do about it? And I agree with Ron strongly. This is a real provocation. When Clinton was about to be impeached, remember he had wag the dog. This is like choke the dog. This is the most alienating thing that Trump could possibly do to stab the Kurdish allies in the back 11,000 or more of them died to defeat ISIS for us. What could alienate the Republican senators more so if they stand there, and they go all the way to the health defending Trump, they could cost -- they could be cost their own seats, and they're not going to lose their six-year terms, especially as Ron says, the safe seats so that they can go take the fall. You see that Secretary of Energy, Perry, he doesn't want to take the fall. Giuliani quickly pointed to the State Department people that he said, oh my goodness, they said go through these people at state. Nobody really wants to take the fall politically or criminally for Trump. So I think he's really in bad shape. And I agree with Schiff, it just got a lot worse today.</s>VAUSE: So Robert, you have a situation with the administration losing this number of people, you know, these people fairly high positions, essentially, you know, throwing the president under the bus before Congress or whatever. What does that say about this, you know, the state of the administration and where this is heading?</s>BROWNSTEIN: Well, clearly, the alienation of the career professionals in a national security kind of bureaucracy is enormous. You know, we would not only, again, kind of compounding the injury, not only through Ukraine, where we are seeing basically, the -- everyone with expertise in the region horrified by what they were witnessing and participating in and the idea that Rudolph Giuliani who is out there outside of government operating without a security clearance is essentially dictating policy while explicitly demanding that a foreign government either investigate or manufactured dirt on a political opponent. I mean, they're kind of uniformly horrified. And I think, you know, what this testimony is doing is allowing Democrats to build a case that the phone call with the Ukrainian President Zelensky was not a one-time event. It was not an off-the-cuff comment. It was in fact, the culmination of a broad and systemic months long campaign to enlist a foreign government and assisting the president is 2020 campaign. I'm not sure it adds, you know, in the sense of Democrats being willing to vote for impeachment. I think they were there when they got the rough transcript of the call. But what this does, I think is make a much more persuasive case. And it is worth noting, John, that this weekend, Gallup polling, a majority of the country said that they supported not only impeaching but removing President Trump from office. Richard Nixon only reached a majority support for his removal in the final poll before his resignation in August 1974. Bill Clinton never got anywhere close to that at the high point was roughly around 35 percent. But in the Gallup poll, as in some other polls, we are now seeing an absolute majority