Ambassador Philip Reeker Subpoenaed To Testify In Impeachment Inquiry; Judge: House Democrats Can See Mueller Grand Jury Evidence; Trump On Impeachment: "Where's The Whistleblower?"; Attorneys For Whistleblower: Our Client Doesn't Need To Testify
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. All right. This is just in to the newsroom. We have now learned that Ambassador Philip Reeker was issued a subpoena to testify before he appeared on Capitol Hill this morning. This rare Saturday hearing is happening right now as part of the House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Reeker is one of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's deputies. He has been testifying now for about an hour. And this hearing comes amid a major legal victory for Democrats. A federal judge ruling the Justice Department must release redacted documents from Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The decision undercuts a key Republican argument that the impeachment inquiry is invalid. Meanwhile, President Trump is dismissing calls from Republicans to bolster his team as the inquiry unfolds and, again, demanding to learn the identity of the whistleblower who actually triggered the start of this inquiry. The President tweeting this morning, "Where is the whistleblower?" CNN's Jeremy Herb is on Capitol Hill this morning. So, Jeremy - lots of Jeremys. I almost called you Diamond. But anyway, Jeremy Herb now on Capitol Hill. Let's begin with what's happening there. Philip Reeker testifying in front of the three House committees. Are we learning anything more about this subpoena, the circumstances? Was he originally just invited, refused, or sent a signal that he might not come and they had to then subpoena? Explain the sequence of events.</s>JEREMY HERB, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes. So Philip Reeker received a subpoena as part of his deposition today. This is the same procedure that we have seen for all of the current administration officials who have testified so far. The committees are interested in talking to Reeker because he could potentially help corroborate some of the previous testimony they've had. Reeker worked with George Kent and Kurt Volker, two of the witnesses that have already testified on Ukraine policy. And he was part of the effort to try to shield former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, in terms of how and who was fired back in April. He was trying to stop her from the campaign that was being led by Rudy Giuliani to smear her. And so he's part of their emails that he was sending to Kent and Volker trying to protect her from that. And so I think that is one of the key things today that we're going to learn from Reeker's testimony, which is happening behind closed doors.</s>WHITFIELD: And then Former Deputy National Security Advisor Charles Kupperman has filed a lawsuit on Friday asking a federal judge to decide whether he should testify as part of this impeachment inquiry. What more are you learning about that? And a very unusual approach?</s>HERB: It's certainly interesting. And this - it throws into doubt whether Charles Kupperman will appear on Monday when he's scheduled to testify. He's asking a federal judge to say whether he needs to comply with the House subpoena for him to testify, saying that the White House has declared that this impeachment inquiry is invalid and he is caught between the executive and the legislative branches. His subpoena, whether the court rules on this and how fast it does is potentially significant when it comes to the testimony of others who may be less - more reluctant to testify. And it's also worth noting that Kupperman, who was a deputy to John Bolton, has the same attorney as Mr. Bolton. So if the committees try to bring in Bolton, it's possible that we could see a similar legal strategy there.</s>WHITFIELD: Interesting. So, Jeremy, does the filing of that lawsuit come after the federal judge's ruling, federal House ruling that this process is valid?</s>HERB: It will be interesting to see how that ruling that says the House has and should have access to Mr. Mueller's grand jury material, whether that plays into the court process for Mr. Kupperman. I think the biggest problem for the House is going to be time. They are trying to do this impeachment inquiry as quick as they can. That's why we're here on a Saturday. And these lawsuits take time. And so it's not clear whether they would be able to get a ruling compelling Kupperman to come in before they want to move forward on potential articles and public hearings and all of that.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. Jeremy Herb, thank you so much. I'll check back with you. Appreciate it. All right. Meanwhile, a defiant President Trump ignoring Republican calls for the administration to build a team to handle impeachment. The President says he is his own best messenger.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Here's the thing. I don't have teams. Everyone is talking about teams. I'm the team.</s>WHITFIELD: CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House. So, Kristen, Republicans want the President to have a team, something similar to the format of Former President Bill Clinton when he was being impeached. The President saying no. Is he going to maintain that position?</s>KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're going to have to wait and see, Fred, but here's where we stand right now. We know what Bill Clinton had was what was called a war room. This was a team of people who were not involved with the White House. They were separate, just to deal with the impeachment probe. President Trump, for the reason that he himself just said in that clip, doesn't want a war room because he believes he is his own messenger. I mean, look at those words, saying "I am the team," and his Twitter feed would certainly show that that is how he feels. He's been out ranting on Twitter last night as well as today. I'm just going to read you one of the tweets just so you get a gist of what he's saying. "The Ukraine investigation is just as corrupt and fake as all of the other garbage that went on before it. Even shifty Schiff got caught cheating when he made up what I said on the call." Again, this is just one of many tweets. He attacked Nancy Pelosi, the media. He said "Where's the whistleblower?" as I heard you repeat earlier. So this is not the messaging that Republicans want to send. And in fact, they're hoping that he would take an approach where he would just press on the system to talk about the procedure here, to really stress that what Democrats were doing in the process was wrong. But what we're seeing here is what Trump believes is best for Trump. It is attacking. It is on the offensive here. And it is whatever he wants to do.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thank you so much. All right. Let's talk more on all of this now. Joining me right now, Michael Bender, a White House reporter for "The Wall Street Journal" and a CNN Political Analyst. Good to see you. And Karoun Demirjian, a Congressional reporter for "The Washington Post" and CNN Political Analyst. Good to see you as well. OK, Karoun. You're first. How significant is this judge's ruling, Judge Howell's ruling, that the redacted grand jury information from the Mueller report be released to lawmakers who want it?</s>KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, we'll see how significant it is in terms of the substance because they do seem to be focused more on Ukraine right now than the findings in the Mueller report as the epicenter of the impeachment investigation is moving forward. But the fact that this ruling came and treated, it effectively says this impeachment inquiry is legitimate and that's why they need to be provided access to that grand jury information. That's very significant right now, given that you've got this full court press from the Republicans saying it's not legitimate, but pressure from the Congressional Republicans to cast a vote on the floor and the fact that they are now - that there are potential witnesses that are questioning whether they have to comply with these subpoenas, having that ruling that says no, this is an impeachment inquiry and thus we have to treat it as if it is meriting the information that would be given to any impeachment inquiry, could open up doors for these lawmakers who are investigating going forward into these next several critical weeks.</s>WHITFIELD: So, Michael, that ruling twofold, release the documents and that the impeachment inquiry is legitimate. So - the President has been calling this a hoax. He continues to call it a witch hunt, but you have to wonder whether that ruling now - yes, it will further bolster the Democrats, but it - you have to wonder where - how influential it could be now for Republicans who have been trying to defend the President by saying there's something wrong with this process, but then now you've got the judge ruling here.</s>MICHAEL BENDER, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL & CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, definitely. I mean, this is the first time that the judiciary has weighed in on the legality of this impeachment probe. So that's very significant. But if you take a step back and understand that, this has always been more of a political argument for the White House and Trump's allies on the Hill than really a major legal strategy. They've been arguing against this impeachment probe mostly on process grounds. They've just been saying that usually in the past, these impeachments have started with a full vote in the House and wanted one this time. A judge obviously has said that that's not the case. Now, that decision can still be appealed, but - but you're right. This takes away a major plank from the argument that Republicans and the President have been making for the better part of a month now on the argument against this probe.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. So, Karoun, let's talk about the activity happening on Capitol Hill, where you are right now. Ambassador Philip Reeker, the latest member of the State Department to testify in this inquiry, and today your reporter colleagues at "The Washington Post" have an article discussing how outside advisers are frustrated that the White House has not filed an injunction to stop the depositions. Former 2016 Trump Campaign Spokesperson Jason Miller is quoted in the piece as saying, "Many Trump allies are concerned and don't understand the strategy of not filing an injunction. It's a head-scratcher. President Trump and the administration have clearly said they don't want folks participating in this sham process and stepping all over Presidential privilege." But you've got this judge's ruling now, saying the process is legit. Congress has this oversight authority. People can be deposed. So, isn't it too late to try to file any kind of injunction? And is that idea even moot, period, anyway?</s>DEMIRJIAN: Well, I mean, there's the question open right now that if they file the injunction at this point after you've had several witnesses come forward under subpoena to give this testimony, if that would actually convince a judge that that injunction should be met with any sort of a stop on this process. I mean, look, this - but this is the - the push-and-pull between the executive and the legislative branches that we're seeing play out with every single witness. You saw the White House earlier put out that statement of we don't want to cooperate with this at all. There have been individual orders that have come down for the current administration officials from the State Department saying don't go. The committees hear that. They issue these friendly subpoenas in order to enable the witnesses to have a legal defense basically to say, no, I'm not going to flout a subpoena and maybe risk going into a court process for myself. And under that subpoena, they come to testify. And that has been the case for witness after witness after witness, including Mr. Reeker today. He's operating under the same protection of that friendly subpoena. And so I think that this is going to be the grounds upon which the White House has to make these arguments of, well, we don't want to be doing this, basically boil down to executive privilege. And it's difficult for the President. You can't just claim executive privilege over the entire executive branch. And because these are career employees for the most part who are giving this testimony, he will be hard-pressed to make that argument and that may be what's limiting or stopping people from before going to court and trying to make that argument right now.</s>WHITFIELD: Right. And Michael, we're talking about the White House at all angles then, publicly now plotting about concealing. And how is it then the White House doesn't see that that is near tantamount to saying, "cover up?" I mean, if there's nothing there, then just let it all out as opposed to now angling for how do you conceal and make sure that this process does not continue with transparency.</s>BENDER: Yes. It's a really good question and one that the White House - one of many that the White House has to answer. They're really at an inflection point here. I mean, the quote you put up there from Jason Miller, viewers should understand that Jason Miller has been one of the stout Trump defenders for several years here. To hear him on the record questioning the White House strategy is significant. We reported at "The Wall Street Journal" a few days ago that it was the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers who are the staunchest Trump supporters in Congress, had to go to the White House and say, hey, we're not hearing enough from you, we're not having enough messaging, we don't understand the strategy, and that led to a daily phone call between lawmakers and key lawmakers on the Hill and some senior White House aides. So - the White House is really stuck here between trying to say that they did nothing wrong, that they don't want to participate, and their allies saying you have to do more, you have to participate, you have to help us help you.</s>WHITFIELD: Michael Bender, Karoun Demirjian, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.</s>BENDER: Thanks.</s>WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead, the White House is pushing for the whistleblower in this Ukraine scandal to come forward, but is that likely to happen? And John Bolton could be the star witness in the impeachment probe against the President. Will he give damaging information on Trump to House lawmakers?