House Democrats Subpoena US Ambassador To European Union After White House Blocks His Testimony
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Tonight, a stonewall goes up. Lawyers for President Trump telling Congress there will be no cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry. Also, public opinion coming to focus with new polling on impeachment. It shows Republican support rising for the impeachment inquiry now at 28 percent. It's up 21 points since July. And perhaps most importantly, the story itself, what happened is coming into focus. We have extensive new reporting tonight about how problematic the people close to the president thought his phone call with Ukraine's president was. Multiple sources detailing the scramble just moments after the president hung up to assess and contain the damage. New reporting as well on a memo written by the whistleblower who first raised the alarm in which we're learning tonight a White House official used the words crazy and frightening to describe the call. And after that July 25th call, according to multiple sources, a freak- out ensues. National security officials began talking about whether the president crossed the line. White House lawyers were notified that transcript of the call was later put onto the highly classified server. Again, this is new reporting that fleshes out what we know about the call and the efforts that followed to secure what the key players either seem to know or had reason to fear was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. Reporting that adds context to the text messages among the American players and their Ukrainian counterparts over what was expected of Ukraine, namely investigating the Bidens and a conspiracy theory about the 2006 campaign. And now tonight, we know more about what went on at a crucial moment which begun playing out in the 1st of September shortly after about -- more than a with month after that July 25th call. Bill Taylor, the charges d'affaires in Ukraine, the top diplomat, messaging Gordon Sondland, the ambassador for the European Union and a major Trump campaign donor, not a career foreign service officer. Taylor says, quote: Are we now saying security assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations? Ambassador Sondland reporting, quote, call me. About a week later, Ambassador Taylor tries against. Quote, as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withheld security assistance for help with a political campaign. And then importantly, there is a gap of nearly five hours in the conversation after which Ambassador Gordon Sondland replies, quote: Bill, I believe you were correct about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign, end quote. He then adds, quote, I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. Tonight, a source with knowledge tells CNN that before he sent that text, which sounds a lot like the president's talking points, Sondland, in fact, spoke with the president who told him exactly that, no quid pro quo, which ironically the president somehow suggested somehow exonerates him, tweeting: Ambassador Sondland's tweet which few reports stated I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intention, the president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind, that says it all. Certainly says something that the president is citing the restatement of his own talking points which he gave Ambassador Sondland as evidence. In addition, he blocked Sondland's testimony before Congress today which also says something. CNN's Jim Acosta starts us off tonight at the White House. Jim, clearly, the White House thinks they have a political argument. Does the president's team think this letter has legal merit, though?</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They do, Anderson. I talked to a source close to the impeachment deliberations inside the White House and the legal team who says the president's legal team is prepared to take this battle to the courts, that, quote, all options on the table. They're declining to describe this at this point as a war in terms of the letter that was fired off to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier today. But the source did agree that this is an escalating skirmish. Anderson, we are now approaching the way life was during the Bill Clinton impeachment saga and Watergate. Remember during Watergate, a federal judge forced the Nixon administration to cooperate with that investigation. We are near that constitutional crisis at this point.</s>COOPER: If, in fact, the full House does vote on authorizing the impeachment inquiry, I mean, is there any reason to think the White House would cooperate? Because the letter from the White House calls on House Democrats to, quote, abandon the entire thing.</s>ACOSTA: Right, there is no indication that the White House will cooperate. As a matter of fact, senior administration officials held a conference with reporters earlier this evening to talk about this letter after it was fired off up to Capitol Hill. And one administration officials was asked, well, what criteria would House Democrats have to meet in order to trigger White House cooperation in this matter? And this official responded by saying that they're not going to get into hypotheticals or a hypothetical situation. That is a clear signal at this point, Anderson, that they are ready to fight this out. And so, the question becomes as it always has been with President Trump is, who is willing in this nation's capital to try to curb his behavior? As we saw during the Mueller investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller wasn't willing to insist that the president sit down for a live in person interview. They took written answers from the president instead. And you get the sense again that the president's legal team is try trying to box in the opposition in terms of the options they'll agree to, and at this point, they're not agreeing to anything -- Anderson.</s>COOPER: Jim Acosta, Jim, thanks very much. One item the White House not raising objections to, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham says he plans to invite Rudy Giuliani to speak to the committee about in his words corruption in Ukraine. Perspective now on a big day from committee member and Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker. I spoke with him just before air.</s>COOPER: Senator Booker, what happens now? I mean, if the White House continues to stone wall Congress, what are Democrats going to do about it if anything?</s>SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we're heading towards a constitutional showdown. And some of the reasons that they're talking about make no sense to me. It seems not like stonewalling by slow walking or stall tactics. The American public deserves the truth. And I'm sure that we will push for that, and God willing, the courts will be on our side. Starting the impeachment inquiry give us a higher constitutional standard to get information from the president of the United States. But he has to answer to the checks and balances of the constitution or else he is undermining the very foundations of our government, that no one is above the law, above oversight. And his behavior right now to me is unacceptable, reckless, and it's undermining what I believe our country -- the foundation our country stands on.</s>COOPER: There are a lot of Democrats who hoped to sort of try to finish this by the end of October if this does go to courts as seems likely based on -- I mean, if stonewalling is their idea, then dragging it through the courts is the way to go. That could take months, couldn't it?</s>BOOKER: It absolutely could. Again, these are tactics that are not like somebody who should be the leader of the free world. He is acting more like an authoritarian figure who doesn't think they are subject to oversight, checked and balances designed by the Constitution. So, this is a troubling moment. But we must persist in holding him accountable and I think the public deserves to know the truth. It will only come from a thorough investigation.</s>COOPER: Is there enough evidence in your mind already out there based on the partial transcript, the president's statements, whatever other testimony may be possible or the testimony that folks in Congress have already heard? Is there enough for the House to actually move forward with an impeachment if they decided to?</s>BOOKER: Well, I believe there is. But I think that they have to go through their processes. They are a large body with many different members, Republican and Democrat that have a lot of different views on this. And I think the more information comes out, the more people who will stand firmly on moving forward and writing up articles of impeachment.</s>COOPER: If a formal impeachment inquiry, if a vote in the house would prompt more cooperation from the White House, which is what their -- you know, one of the things they are claiming from the entire House, should Speaker Pelosi go ahead and do that?</s>BOOKER: Well, I've been really respectful of the leadership of Speaker Pelosi. I think she is dealing with a lot of the challenges that they're facing in the House in an incredible manner. And I know this is something she is talking about. So, far be it from me to direct her. But, clearly, I think that they need to take strong steps possible to get compliance from the executive. We are the Article I branch of government. We have a sworn obligation. We all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and that means the constitutional mandates to provide oversight of the executive. And he's not cooperating with that. We must do everything necessary to make sure he does, because he is not dictator in chief, the authoritarian in charge of our government. That is an office of the people. And he is subject to the people's house, the House of Representatives.</s>COOPER: You're a member of the judiciary committee. Do you think Rudy Giuliani -- do you think Rudy Giuliani should in fact come and testify in front of your committee? If so, what would you want to hear from him?</s>BOOKER: First of all, I would savor the opportunity, I would, and especially if it's done publicly. And I know Rudy Giuliani is, you know, from New York, very close to Broadway, he loves the theatrics. But there are real things he has to answer for. And the conduct he has been doing, the direction he has been taking from the president, his intervention in areas where there are critical national security interests, yes. There is a lot I'd like to know from him. And I believe his behavior has been despicable, and the lies and half truths, the deception he has been doing at the direction of this president and beyond is unbecoming. And he should step -- stand before Congress and answer for it. So, again, I would be happy to -- as a member of the Judiciary Committee -- to ask him publicly to answer for it. And it may end up being, you know -- he may not be cooperative. He may be obstructionist. But I do not see a problem having a public hearing with him.</s>COOPER: Senator Booker, I appreciate your time. Thank you.</s>BOOKER: Thank you, Anderson.</s>COOPER: Don't forget that Senator Booker will be among the nine Democrats at a town hall this week, on Thursday, focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues. I'll be one of the interviewers of the town hall. Event kicks off at 7:30 p.m. this Thursday night. Much more ahead, including some late new reporting on what we're now learning about who else was working with Rudy Giuliani on the Ukrainians? Also, our legal and political team joins us next to talk about the White House letter, all the new reporting and more. And later, Republican senator who's trying hard not to say much about all of this, like many Republicans. Let's see what happens when we ask her the same question about where her constituents are about where she really stands.