Trump Aware Of The Whistleblower Complaint Prior To Ukraine Bombshell
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Ten percent say she's the one to beat Trump -- same number for Sanders by the way. Biden much higher than that. Its 69 days from the first votes in the Iowa caucuses but this isn't what Warren wants to see, especially with Bloomberg now in the race and looking to make a lane. So be on the lookout. Thank you for watching. Want to get you quickly to "CNN TONIGHT" with Laura Coates, the upgrade for D. Lemon. And tonight especially, Laura, this timeline, you cannot like it, and it's one reason that the president may keep his defenders out of this judiciary proceeding because they have to have an answer. Why did you release the aid when you did because it looks like you released the aid because you knew you had to?</s>LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: If it looks like a green cheetah print blouse, it is in fact a green cheetah print blouse. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck. It looks like that, Chris, we're seeing more and more because you have eyes, you have ears, you have observational skills and we've got a great panel of people today to talk about why precisely this might in fact be an Achilles' heel. The obvious turn of events here. All this and that you got to wonder how much longer are people honestly going to be able to say it's pure coincidence, right?</s>CUOMO: And also, they kept complaining about the process. Now they have more rights than Clinton ever had. Still at this basic investigatory indictment basic phase and they're not going to take the option? Perfect show for you tonight.</s>COATES: Well, thank you and thank you for being a part of this experience in my green python dress. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Laura Coates sitting in for Don Lemon. And we're learning a whole lot more tonight about the shakedown on Ukraine and how all these dots are now connecting. The "New York Times" reporting that the president already knew about the whistleblower complaint, that complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, before he ever released the aid to Ukraine. That's right around the time the president told Ambassador Gordon Sondland there was no quid pro quo, using that term, before people started using that phrase even publicly. It's in one of his favorite talking points ever since. He brought it up at his campaign rally in Florida this evening, the crowd chanting "no quid pro quo" along with him.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want nothing. This is a quote. I want no quid pro quo. I want nothing.</s>COATES: We're also getting brand new information tonight from never- before-seen transcripts including this new detail. The White House never actually asked its own budget office about other countries contributing aid to Ukraine until September, which doesn't exactly jive with the president's claims that he held up the aid because he wanted other countries to pony up. We'll tell you what else is in those transcripts in a moment. But you've got to wonder, with all this new information still coming out, would it be smart for Democrats to slow down and see where all of this takes us? That as the House Judiciary Committee is taking over and holding its first hearing next Wednesday. And it sounds they're calling the president's bluff here, I mean, inviting him and his lawyers to participate and to question witnesses. You remember that's been an obsession for the president and his defenders, demanding to be able to question witnesses. A senior administration official telling CNN that the idea is under consideration and "likely to come up for discussion during the president's trip to Florida for Thanksgiving." I'll bet it will. Listen to this from the president tonight.</s>TRUMP: They're pushing that impeachment witch hunt and a lot of bad things are happening to them because you see what's happening in the polls? Everybody said that's really bullshit.</s>COATES: Not exactly presidential language, we know. And frankly, the fact is half of the American people think the president should be impeached and removed from office. You see it right there in the new CNN poll. And that comes on the day First Lady Melania Trump was booed by an audience of mostly middle and high school students at a youth opioid summit in Baltimore. A mix of boos and cheers as the First Lady finished her speech and left the stage. And she did respond later that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but let's remember this -- this is Baltimore, the city the president called, "a disgusting rat and rodent-infested mess" and going on to tweet, "no human being would want to live there." So, is it really any surprise that civility is losing out? We've got a lot of news on impeachment tonight and joining me now, Frank Bruni, Philip Bump, and Elie Honig. I'm glad that you're all here right now. Elie, I've got to start with you here because this new "New York Times" reporting is giving us a timeline that essentially says the jig is up, that you didn't just coincidentally insert the words quid pro quo in a conversation with Gordon Sondland, did he?</s>ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So much for no quid pro quo, so much for I want nothing. I mean, I think it was five days ago that was what Donald Trump seemed to think that was the silver bullet defense, game over. He just said it in the rally. But now we know, as Adam Schiff told us by the way. Remember, Adad Schiff said he only said that after he got caught. Now it seems we're getting confirmation of that. That kind of denial after the fact carries no weight. If anything, it tends to be incriminating.</s>COATES: I mean after the fact conversations here, Frank, I mean, the idea of saying, hold on, let's figure out a way to make what has happened look good. Listen to what Ambassador Gordon Sondland had to say.</s>GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: I finally called the president. I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me. But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want? And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood, and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.</s>COATES: All right. We got a bad mood. We got the no quid pro quo. Do we think we might know why he was a little bit angry?</s>FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Well, he's doing damage control by (inaudible). To your point, Elie he's doing damage control when he's saying no quid pro quo. He believes that he's been found out. You know, he believes that the scheme has been unveiled. He knows Congress may be getting involved at some point. He's probably turning to the news every day wondering when it's going to come out, and so he needs to be able to say, oh, I said to Gordon Sondland no quid pro quo. But this is directly contradicted by the transcript of the July 25th phone call.</s>COATES: That they provided of course, right.</s>BRUNI: So nobody -- that they provided. It's contradicted by so much other evidence. You talked about connecting dots before. We're at a point now where you don't need to connect dots. You need to just let the dots wash over you. The picture is very clear. So, I mean, that no quid pro quo, that is damage control. That is because we now know that in late August, he had been told about the whistleblower complaint, and he knew that this was ultimately going to bubble into the public light.</s>COATES: You know, Philip, I want to read this from the "Times" reporting. They talk about how the intelligence I.G., Michael Atkinson, concluded the complaint needed to be sent to Congress. He said this, "But the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone and his deputy John a. Eisenberg disagreed. They decided that the administration could withhold from Congress the whistleblower's accusations because they were protected by executive privilege. The lawyers told Mr. Trump they planned to ask the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether they had to disclose the complaint to lawmakers. A week later, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the administration did not have to hand over the complaint." So, Philip, are we thinking that they were trying to get ahead of it and just wanted to nip it in the bud before it ever got out?</s>PHILIP BUMP, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON POST: Yes, I mean clearly. I mean, this is actually how this all came to light, was there was -- it was known there was this whistleblower complaint that was actually being held back from Congress. Congress found out about it and then Adam Schiff actually sent a letter demanding that this be released. And that was all shortly around the time they actually ended up releasing the aid. I mean, I think that there are a couple points I'd make on that. The first is that Eisenberg himself had twice already been contacted with concerns about this by Alex Vindman. Alone he had been contacted twice, including immediately after the July 25th call, saying, hey, I'm concerned about this conversation that has happened --</s>COATES: That was the lieutenant colonel who said, look, I have a problem with what is being asked of here --</s>BUMP: That's right.</s>COATES: -- a quid pro quo. You might have a bipartisan issue for financial support for Ukraine. I mean, he was up on it immediately.</s>BUMP: That's right. Yes, and that was his second time going to Eisenberg with concerns about how the administration was handling Ukraine. The second thing I'd say is to this new timeline with President Trump having known, the "Washington Post" editorial board actually on September 5th came out and said we are hearing from reliable sources that there is a connection between this aid and the fact that Donald Trump wants these investigations in Ukraine. So Donald Trump was already, no matter when he spoke with Gordon Sondland, it's not clear if it was the 7th or the 9th. Donald Trump was already aware and he was already public and out there that this was something of concern to him. So I think this is just sort of a complication factor.</s>COATES: Elie, where does Attorney General Barr come into this, because, I mean, he is somebody who essentially weighed in through the Justice Department about the idea of handing over the complaint.</s>HONIG: Yes. Let's not forget the legal contortions they went through to try to keep that complaint under wraps. The law says if the complaint is found to be credible and urgent, which the I.G. did find, it shall be submitted to Congress -- shall, not negotiable, mandatory. Shall -- and so they went through this whole legal wrangling, and Laura, you and I know something -- lawyers -- unscrupulous lawyers can reach any conclusion that they want. It seems like that's what Bill Barr did here. Surprise, surprise. Guess how he came out the way of suppressing information that might damage the president? Oh Barr, could you delete it?</s>COATES: I'm going to move past the word unscrupulous as you looked me in the eye because I am not unscrupulous. How dare you --</s>HONIG: No, in contrast to us.</s>COATES: Of course, now that's clear. But Frank, why is this story not clear to other people? I mean is it a matter of people not understanding the nuanced timeline here, or is there something more to it? People's inability or refusal to say these dots are connecting or they're washing over us?</s>BRUNI: Well, first of all, people are not paying nearly as close attention to the fine grain analysis of this as we are, right. A lot of people are tuned out. But I think the big thing to remember is we live in a time of such sharp political tribalism that most people decide what they want to believe before any of these hearings begin, and they do their level best to cling to that belief. And it becomes easy for them in our current news media ecosystem because they can watch, say, Fox news if they only want to hear stuff that flatters the president. They can set up their twitter feeds and their Facebook, everything they can do to curate information so that their beliefs are validated and echoed back at them. And so, we may be living in this sort of age of fixed opinion that's nothing like what the situation was in previous impeachment scenarios.</s>COATES: So, that's a great point. If he's right, Philip, I mean the idea that people have this entrenched tribalism when you need public opinion going forward in an impeachment inquiry, what are they to do now? Is that the reason we're going to have these hearings on next Wednesday to essentially illuminate and define what impeachment is about and how you define a high crime and misdemeanor?</s>BUMP: Well, I don't want to get too ahead of the CNN poll results today but they were very illustrative of this exact point. Obviously, we saw the numbers up a little while ago saying that 50 percent support impeachment or removal. But what wasn't shown was that it was exact same number that we saw in October before the public hearings actually began.</s>COATES: Why is that so important?</s>BUMP: Because the entire point of the Democrats holding these public hearings -- not the entire point, but a large part of the point was they wanted to move public opinion and what they saw is they didn't really move public opinion. They certainly got Democrats slightly more onboard. Republicans moved slightly more away. But I think one detail of the CNN polling that is really, really telling is CNN also shared past polling data from November 2014 when they actually asked the same question, should Barack Obama be impeached and remove from office. Now, Barack Obama in November 2014, nothing even close to this Ukraine issue. I mean, on the same page, Republicans were five times as supportive of impeachment in November 2014 as they are now.</s>COATES: At your same point, of course you got to think about the idea that we're talking about the Senate as jurors and the founding fathers said that they thought they'd be more sophisticated than the average juror, who you and I both know, Elie, are going to be a little bit fickle and not particularly precise in how they do the issues. But we have to keep going forward. I'll have you guys another day. I certainly hope because your minds collectively are great for this topic in particular. Thank you all. Appreciate it. New revelations in just the past few hours in the impeachment investigation, including testimony that despite the president's claims, the White House never actually asked its own budget office about other countries contributing aid to Ukraine until September.