White House Officials Testify Quid Pro Quo Was Coordinated By Mulvaney; Mick Mulvaney Defies Subpoena And Refuses To Testify; Bolton Lawyers Say Client Has Relevant Information To Share
WHITFIELD: Soon the president will be leaving the White House and everyone's waiting to see if he'll be addressing reporters on his way to the Alabama/LSU football game today. All of this comes ahead of what's expected to be another busy week in Washington as the impeachment hearings go public. First up, on Wednesday, lawmakers will question the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor. CNN's Jessica Schneider looks at this week's biggest developments in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Testimony unveiled from two key witnesses point to White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as the one who coordinated the quid pro quo demand with Ukraine. Fiona Hill, the White House's former top Russia adviser telling lawmakers last month that E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland made Mulvaney's instructions clear when they met with Ukrainian officials July 10th at the White House. Hill testifying, Ambassador Sondland in front of the Ukrainians as I came in was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. The White House's top expert on Ukraine, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, echoed that. Saying investigations by Ukraine were the deliverable coordinated by Mulvaney. Sondland just said that he had a conversation with Mr. Mulvaney and this is what was required in order to get a meeting. Vindman adding, "There was no ambiguity that a White House meeting was contingent on Ukraine opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter." Several witnesses have testified that the holdup of military aid for Ukraine was also directed by Mulvaney. Hill recounted how the proposed deal alarmed then-National Security Adviser John Bolton, who she said immediately stiffened and ended the July 10th meeting. Last month, Mulvaney admitted there was indeed a quid pro quo before he later walked it back.</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Vindman discussed how he drafted talking points ahead of that July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky and said his suggestions definitely did not include anything about investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens or Burisma. When Fiona Hill finally read the rough transcript of the president's call with Zelensky, she said she was very shocked and very saddened about Trump's pretty blatant push for politically motivated investigations. Hill also recounted how Gordon Sondland made clear he was in charge of Ukraine affairs describing a blowup with him. When she later asked, who put him in charge, he said the president, Hill testified. Well, that shut me up because you can't really argue with that. (on camera) Fiona Hill also disclosed that she received death threats and hateful calls during her year at the National Security Council before she left in August and she says many of those threats have now continued now that she is front and center as a key voice in the impeachment inquiry. Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, with me right now, Michael Zeldin, a former federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst. Always good to see you, Michael. So, let's talk about the White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney. He's claiming he has absolute immunity when it comes to testifying in this impeachment probe. Is the law on his side?</s>MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think so. There's been very little law that addressed this issue. The most recent case was a case where the House asked for the testimony of former White House counsel under George Herbert Walker Bush -- George W. Bush rather, Harriet Miers, and the court there rejecting this absolute immunity argument said that it would make the branch of government the non-co- equal. I'm trying to think of the exact language. He said it would put the House at a disadvantage to the executive branch, and he rejected that argument. So the only law on this rejects the executive branch's absolute immunity position. I think Mulvaney is in a worse case than Harriet Miers was because this is in the context of an impeachment where the House has even more powers than it did under the other scenario.</s>WHITFIELD: So that is the opinion that if there was that kind of absolute immunity, then that really undermines congressional oversight authority. I mean, the whole checks and balances, if that body cannot talk to people around the president.</s>ZELDIN: Exactly. And especially so in an impeachment context where the House is, you know, essentially proceeding as if it were a judicial body. So that gives even more impetus to the House's argument.</s>WHITFIELD: Interesting. All right, so far, you know, no one has testified that they received orders directly from President Trump, but there is this. Take a listen.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened to China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.</s>MULVANEY: 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>WHITFIELD: All right, so with that, in addition, you know, do lawmakers need, Michael, you know, direct orders from the president in order to establish an abuse of powers?</s>ZELDIN: No. They can get that information derivatively from the president through his advisers. You know, it was quite clear in the Nixon impeachment that Nixon spoke to Ehrlichman and other advisers, Mitchell and Haldeman to give the directions and there was no immunity from President Nixon for that criminal behavior. And so likewise here. If the president is behind this scheme to extract a favor from Ukraine before anything would proceed militarily or as a matter of White House appearance, then it doesn't make a difference that it didn't come directly out of the mouth of the president.</s>WHITFIELD: OK. And that perfect call transcript, I mean, he used the words, you know, do me this favor. So attorneys for the president's former national security adviser, John Bolton, you know, are dropping hints to the White House and to lawmakers saying, you know, that Bolton has relevant information to share but he'll only testify if forced to. So how important, a, could, you know, Bolton testimony be, and, you know, can he set this kind of conditions like that?</s>ZELDIN: Well, he shouldn't be able to set these sorts of conditions. Bolton who's an honorable guy, a conservative thinker but nonetheless honorable, should understand that the president's adviser does not enjoy absolute immunity as we just discussed, and in the context of impeachment he should come forward. That said, if he doesn't choose to do so, the House should enforce a subpoena against him and try to require his testimony. I think that this gambit of waiting for the judiciary to decide is a delay tactic and should not be acceptable.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, Michael Zeldin, thank you so much.</s>ZELDIN: Thanks, Fred.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, coming up next, Berlin celebrates 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. CNN is near what is left of that wall.