President's Acting Chief Of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, Tried Once Again To Walk Back His Quid Pro Quo Admission Last Thursday Of The Ukraine Scandal; Democrats Are Setting The Stage For Another Week Of Major Testimony In The Impeachment Inquiry
WHITFIELD: All right, new developments that we continue to follow. This expanding impeachment inquiry. Today the President's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, tried once again to walk back his quid pro quo admission last Thursday of the Ukraine scandal.</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: That is what people are saying that I said that I didn't say that. Can I say how people took that the wrong way? Absolutely. But I said there was quid pro quo because there isn't.</s>WHITFIELD: This coming as multiple sources tell CNN that Mulvaney faced internal efforts to oust him from the White House before Democrats move ahead on this impeachment inquiry?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever offer or think to offer the president your resignation?</s>MULVANEY: Absolutely not.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was that ever discussed?</s>MULVANEY: Absolutely, positively not.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.</s>MULVANEY: Listen, I'm very happy working there. Did I have the perfect press conference? No. But, again, the facts are on our side.</s>WHITFIELD: CNN's Jeremy Diamond is at the White House for us. So Jeremy, you know, how is Mulvaney now explaining this, you know, quid pro quo admission? And is it as a result of that meeting at camp David yesterday with Republicans?</s>JEREMEY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Fredricka, the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was repeatedly confronted with his own words after he made that stunning admission that Ukraine was in part, at least, frozen because of the President's interest in Ukraine investigating matters related to the 2016 election. And when he was confronted indeed with several of his clips, his won words, in which he made that admission, Mulvaney stuck by his denial of the words that he said.</s>MULVANEY: One of the things that you, again, said just a few seconds ago that I said there was a quid pro quo. I never used that language because there wasn't a quid pro quo.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were asked by Jonathan Carl. You describe a quid pro quo when you said that happens all the time.</s>MULVANEY: And again, reporters will use their language all the time, so my language never said quid pro quo but let's get to the heart of the matter. Go back and look at that list of three things what was I talking about. Things that it was legitimate for the president to do.</s>DIAMOND: And the chief of staff's defense now appears to be that he didn't use the words quid pro quo even if that is indeed what he was describing. And when he went on to say what those three things were, one of those things was, indeed, once again he said the President's interests in that investigation into that debunked conspiracy theory involving the Democratic National Committee server back in the 2016 election.</s>WHITFIELD: And then what about these reported, you know, plots about his ouster?</s>DIAMOND: Well, Fredricka, multiple sources are now telling CNN that there were efforts to oust Mick Mulvaney before even all of this impeachment saga came to be. Sources telling us that top aides to the President began reaching out to at least two potential replacements for the White House chief of staff because of some internal dissatisfaction with Mulvaney's position. And, again, Fredricka, this came before this latest matter, this briefing in particular in which the chief of staff has really prompted some concerns among even his own colleagues at the White House. But, of course, much of those efforts were put on ice, it appears, as this impeachment saga has really consumed this White House. That being said, Fred, it's been ten months since Mick Mulvaney has been chief of staff and he still has that acting word before his title.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. That he also holds a different cabinet position., office of management and budget. All right, thanks so much Jeremy Diamond. Appreciate it. All right. Here to talk about all of this. Margaret Talev, "Axios" White House editor and Sabrina Siddiqui, national politics reporter for the "Wall Street Journal." Good to see both of you. Margaret, you first. You know, it's quite terrible to talk about whether someone's days are numbers but the acting chief of staff White did respond, you know, to that inquiry. So is this moment the prelude to his possible firing or dismissal given the pattern of events that usually unfolds at this White House?</s>MARGARET TALEV, WHITE HOUSE EDITOR, AXIOS: Well, Fred, I think because of previous chief of staff's experience at the White House, everyone knows that they serve at the pleasure of the President and that if their days are numbered, they might find out when everyone else does. So I think with that as the caveat, there were, in fact, some folks inside the White House who felt like Mulvaney had overcorrected for John Kelly. John Kelly ran a very tight ship, one that ultimately President Trump struggled to get out of the kind of chains of. And Mulvaney's attitude was very different which was like, I'm here to support the President, I'm here to do whatever he wants to do. There's some people outside the White House who feel a little more restraint is required on the President. There is also a factualization between the White House counsel right now. And many other parts of the White House including the chief of staff, so there's friction there. Jared Kushner in many ways has taken over more charge of responding to the impeachment process. But on the flip side, there is a real question for President Trump. Does he want the optics of pushing out yet another chief of staff, and who would come in to replace him, and is that where they really want to be in the middle of an impeachment probe? So I think Mulvaney, like any other chief of staff, probably understands that things change very quickly there. But on the flip side, there really are all these other considerations that kind of make this a hazard one to predict what happens next.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes. Sabrina, would it do more harm than good if he were removed or, you know, steps down, however way it were to happen?</s>SABRINA SIDDIQUI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, look, I think that, as Margaret pointed out, to lose your chief of staff in the midst of an impeachment inquiry just adds another burden at a time when the president is already struggling. It also would certainly give off the impression that Mick Mulvaney was pushed out for what many people believe is acknowledging what the White House has been trying to deny, that there was some kind of quid pro quo, that the reason the administration withheld aid to Ukraine was because the President wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son hunter Biden and to also try to discredit the Mueller probe. I think the challenge that Mick Mulvaney has ran into is frankly the same as his predecessors, which is in previous administration, a chief of staff has played a critical role in decision making and messaging at the White House. But in this particular administration, it's the president who calls all of the shots and routinely has a tendency to undercut his aides, including his own chief of staff. And so, you know, ultimately, it's a job that not many people in Washington, frankly, want. I do think, though, that everyone saw the tape for itself. So as you look at Mick Mulvaney repeatedly trying to say, you know, I never said there was a quid pro quo, that's the media's characterization, most people will look at that setup that he was describing and very much describe it as a quid pro quo.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes, so Margaret, let's talk about, you know, some cracks in the Republican support. Republican congressman Francis Rooney recently announced he won't be running for reelection. Perhaps that's why he has felt more catty about his points of view on things. Listen to what he said today about Mulvaney's quid pro quo.</s>REP. FRANCIS ROONEY (R-FL): I don't see how you walk back something that's clear. I would say game, set, match on that.</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Is that impeachable?</s>ROONEY: I don't know. That's the question. The question is, is it of a great enough magnitude to justify impeachment? And I want to learn a little more about that. I want to get more counsel. And I want to talk quite frankly some leadership, Democratic leadership about what they have in mind. I think that this is a very egregious situation in the Ukraine and Syria is even worse.</s>WHITFIELD: Margaret, he said a lot there. I mean, a lot was said there about meeting of the minds among Republicans and even, you know, crossing the aisle with Democrats.</s>TALEV: He said a lot, but it's that last part that I think in the final analysis, it seems to be the most important. It is actually the president's moves to pull the U.S. out of northern Syria, to kind of almost invite Turkey to come in and then to try and undo it -- you know, everything that's happened in the last few days on that policy is really what's created this major riff with the president and the Republicans. And it is ultimately Republicans in the Senate who are going to be much more important than the Republicans in the House for the President's fate if the house were to vote on impeachment. But even though if what happened in Syria is not centrally tied to happened in Ukraine. It is the Syria policy that is really undercutting his support. It is affecting his standing inside the ranks in the military. It is affecting his standing with former pentagon chiefs, joint chief of staff, important military voices. And it is shaking the confidence of even folks like Mitch McConnell. Most of those Republicans in the Senate not saying that they support the impeachment investigation, but the major, major erosion of goodwill and support and any level of trust or consultative process is a real thing and it is important to watch in the days to come.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes. And Sabrina, you know, it is interesting. It's Syria and it is the G- 7, you know, being hosted, at least for a hot second, you know, at a Trump Doral property in Miami that really kind of touched a nerve with a lot of Republicans. And now there is this stunning reversal by the President that says next year's G-7 summit will not be at Trump Doral. And in a tweet he said this based on both media and Democrat-crazed and irrational hostility, we will no longer consider Trump national Doral, Miami, as the host site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of camp David, immediately. So, which is it? I mean, first, there were about dozen location, you know, that were in the running but it was Doral that kind of, you know, went above and beyond. So now, now camp David is a possibility?</s>SIDDIQUI: It's a possibility. It's a place where president Obama hosted a summit. And we know this president has a tendency to want to do the opposite of his predecessor. But I think what's more striking in the tweet is that he pinned the blame, as he always does, on the media and on outrage from Democrats, but he heard pushback from a lot of members of his own party --</s>WHITFIELD: About the emoluments clause.</s>SIDDIQUI: He said that his is a clear violation of emoluments clause. And notably also from FOX News that president preferred television network which is also a big booster of his administration because it would be really difficult for any members of his party to defend what would clearly be an example of the president in some way profiting from the office he holds, although he denies he would profit from holding the summit there. It would certainly be a good deal of publicity for one of his properties. And there are certain fees and costs that these foreign governments would obviously have to incur that would go toward his business. And this has been a prevailing theme of his presidency, one that clearly members of his own party are now raising concerns about.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes, Margaret.</s>TALEV: It would open up new layers of investigation, an inquiry for him, also new hearings, new requests for information, perhaps audits --</s>WHITFIELD: But then why wouldn't he have thought of that beforehand?</s>TALEV: I think they probably did, but in their strategy at that point was to show they were going to double down on their strategy. And the feedback from republicans and probably some lawyers inside has been, you know what, that's maybe not a greatest idea.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes. Because, you know, he launched that balloon publicly, you know,</s>SIDDIQUI: Thank you.</s>TALEV: Thank you.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. We could learn a lot this week as several key witnesses ahead to Capitol Hill as part of impeachment probe into President Trump. Could they bolster the whistleblower's claims?