Trump Ukraine transcript release, watch live coverage

[0:00] It says, in part, the inspector general's letter cited a conversation between the president [0:05] and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as a potential violation of federal campaign finance law. [0:11] Jeff Begays and other reporters were allowed to see the phone call transcript this morning. [0:15] Jeff, this was a July 25th call. It was about 30 minutes in length. What did you see in that [0:20] transcript? Yeah, we didn't get a lot of time with a transcript. We weren't allowed to take [0:26] it outside of DOJ, but we took some of the inserts. We took notes. This was a five-page document. [0:33] And, you know, as you might imagine, it starts out like any other call with a foreign leader would [0:38] start. There's a congratulations on the election victory. But President Trump did allude to Europe [0:44] not doing enough to help Ukraine. But then he seems to veer into the DNC server. He mentioned [0:52] CrowdStrike, which is a company that investigated the Russian hack of the DNC server. And then from [0:59] there, he progresses to ask the Ukrainian president about Joe Biden. And let me put this quote up on [1:08] the screen for you to see. This is what the president said, according to the transcript, which [1:13] according to senior DOJ officials is not verbatim, but this is what they have quote. The other thing, [1:19] there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution. And a lot of people want [1:25] to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went [1:31] around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me. [1:38] And so that's one excerpt of something the president said to the president Zelenskyy, [1:44] the president of Ukraine. Now, whether that is an example of a quid pro quo, that's obviously what [1:51] Democrats are going to be looking into. But it is important to mention that DOJ, senior officials [1:56] here say that their criminal division took a look at this. They don't believe there were any [2:01] violations of the law. What is alleged here is that there was a violation of campaign finance laws. [2:10] But according to senior DOJ officials, they just don't see that in this document. But of course, [2:17] members of Congress will eventually get this document and they will have to decide for themselves. [2:23] And that's why this is important. Again, it was a five page document. We didn't have a lot of time to [2:27] look at it. But we did get some quotes. Let me go through another one, because what we saw throughout [2:32] the document is this mention of Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, as well as [2:38] Attorney General William Barr. And that was surprising because we knew that Rudy Giuliani would [2:44] be mentioned in this document. But we did not know that the attorney general would be mentioned. [2:49] Here's one excerpt. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call. And I'm also going to have [2:54] Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. So this is what we have gathered [3:02] from this document. We're still going through it. But so far, it shows that there was this repeated [3:09] mention of Rudy Giuliani and also Attorney General Barr. Back to you. All right, Jeff, thank you very [3:15] much. Paula Reid covers the White House for us and she joins us now. Paula, good morning. It's an [3:19] extraordinary document. We're all sitting here digesting it kind of on the fly. Exactly. It's not a [3:23] perfect transcript, apparently more like notes. We should say at the outset that there is no evidence, [3:28] nothing to substantiate the claims that President Trump made in that call to the Ukrainian president [3:32] about Joe Biden and Joe Biden's son. That's right. It also appears from the notes that there is not [3:38] what we would call an explicit quid pro quo. If you do this, I'll do this exchange. Does it matter [3:45] that it's not that explicit? It does matter legally. We know the president is very good about this. He's [3:50] very good at putting pressure on people or getting his point across without saying something explicit [3:54] that in court could be established as extortion or a bribe. We saw this repeatedly in the Russia [3:59] investigation, the way he would dangle pardons without making an explicit promise. What's so [4:04] significant to me here is we were looking for exactly how did the president pressure his Ukrainian [4:09] counterpart in relation to the Biden investigation. And what we see here is he's suggesting that his [4:14] personal attorney will reach out. He's suggesting the attorney general of the United States [4:19] will reach out. And that's where things get a little tricky for President Trump, [4:23] because the question is, why would you entangle your attorney general? Why would you entangle [4:27] yourself in something having to do with a political rival? That's significant. But again, [4:31] he goes right up to the line. He doesn't make any explicit threat. [4:35] We should point out here that the Justice Department says in a statement the president has not spoken [4:39] with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President [4:44] Biden or his son. Exactly. So according to this statement, it appears that the president never [4:49] followed up on this with his attorney general. I want to draw some parallels, though, here with [4:53] what the attorney general is doing on behalf of the president. We saw it with the Mueller report. [4:57] William Barr came out. He gave a press conference. He released statements before we got to see the [5:01] report. He helped the president in that he helped sort of put a positive spin on everything that was [5:05] going to come out. And here we see him doing that again. He's clearing himself. He's trying to get the facts [5:09] out. But the fact that we have a statement here right now at the same time we have a transcript, [5:13] it does help the president because it's like, well, he said this to the Ukrainian leader, [5:17] but now he can turn around and said, well, I never really talked about it to the attorney general, [5:20] so clearly I wasn't serious. But there still is not an explicit quid pro quo here. [5:25] Exactly. Is this a big bowl of nothing or is there really something here? What will be the process [5:29] now to determine how significant this is? Legally, it's important to note that the Justice [5:34] Department has looked at what happened in this phone call and they did not clear him on all violations [5:38] of law, but they said we don't see a campaign finance violation here, right? So it seems going [5:43] forward, this will be like so many other things in the Trump administration, a political fight [5:47] on Capitol Hill. And it'll be up to Democrats and Republicans to decide if they believe this rises [5:53] to the level of conduct that should support articles of impeachment. It's an open question. It's murky. [5:58] I agree with you completely. There's no quid pro quo. There's no explicit promise or threat here. [6:04] That's great for the president's attorneys. That's what they'll argue. But I think a lot of folks, [6:08] a lot of voters in the Midwest may ask, why would you, why on earth would you go to a foreign [6:12] leader to talk about your political rival? Haven't we been through this for two years? [6:15] But it does seem depending on your feelings about President Trump will depend on how you [6:19] feel about this statement. Exactly. It's a Rorschach test for how you feel about President Trump. [6:23] Exactly right, Paula. Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill where we first learned about this [6:28] whistleblower complaint. Nancy, so what's the reaction there to this transcript? I know everything is [6:33] still in flux. Well, I can tell you, Gail, that even before the transcript came out, Democrats were [6:39] very skeptical that it was going to be complete, that it would be an exhaustive readout of exactly [6:46] everything that went down on this call, the exact number of times that the president asked the [6:51] president of Ukraine to look into the vice president. And so that's why the House intelligence chairman, [6:57] Adam Schiff, told me this morning, even before the transcript was released, that he still wanted to [7:03] talk to anyone else who was on that call to make sure that the readout reflects the entire conversation [7:09] that the president had with Zelensky about Biden. But Democrats also argue, and remember that [7:16] impeachment is a political process. It's not a legal process. Democrats argue that they already [7:22] have enough evidence to establish that there was a likely quid pro quo here, even if the president [7:28] wasn't explicit about that on that phone call. Because if you widen out and look at the timeline [7:33] here, about a week before the president had that conversation with the new president of Ukraine, [7:39] his first conversation ever with the new president, he suddenly, unexpectedly, withheld about $400 [7:45] million in military aid to Ukraine. No one outside of his inner circle knew why he was doing it. [7:52] Even the Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, was kept in the dark about the [7:58] reasoning. Then a week later, while that money is withheld, the president has this conversation [8:03] with the president of Ukraine, asking him to help him in clearly political ways. And so Democrats say [8:11] that that shows that the leader of Ukraine knew that his military aid was on the line if he didn't do [8:18] what the president wanted him to do. Nancy, Congress has heard from the whistleblower's attorney, [8:23] but are they going to hear from the whistleblower? And are they going to get a copy of this report? [8:28] They are deep in negotiations over that right now, Anthony. The House and Senate Intelligence [8:33] Committees are hoping to interview this whistleblower as soon as tomorrow and Friday, before Congress goes [8:40] on a two-week recess. But they are in negotiations with the director of national intelligence. He held [8:46] this whistleblower's complaint because there were concerns that the whistleblower was discussing [8:51] privileged information. If he was willing to withhold the complaint, why would he then allow the [8:56] whistleblower himself or herself to come to Capitol Hill and tell members of Congress everything? Those are [9:02] the talks that are going on right now. All right, Nancy. Thank you. CBS News legal analyst [9:06] Jonathan Turley is with us from Washington. He's a constitutional law professor at George Washington [9:11] University and has criticized the push towards impeachment. Jonathan, good morning. [9:15] All right. Jonathan, you can argue that what the president did is inappropriate. Is it [9:20] impeachable? It could be. You know, part of the problem with the past impeachment allegations is [9:26] there were very strong defenses that could be raised. This one would be an impeachable offense if proven. [9:32] Self-dealing is something that can constitute a form of public corruption, an abuse of office. [9:38] And so this is the real McCoy. You just have to prove it. The problem is with this transcript is that [9:44] there's plenty here that helps the president on his defense. Not only are they a quid short of a pro quo, [9:50] there's no express promise, but it also contains his initial discussion, that is, President Trump's [9:57] discussion about why he wants other countries, European countries, to also put money into the Ukraine. [10:03] Trump is insisting that he withheld that 400 million to try to put pressure on the Europeans to pony up. [10:11] So the transcript will help him there. But there's also material here that will concern Congress and [10:18] is a legitimate subject of investigation. You know, there could be a quid pro quo. They just need [10:23] someone that can connect those dots. And so it's not going to come from this whistleblower, I don't [10:28] think. The whistleblower apparently heard this third hand. I don't, I'm not too sure how he's going [10:33] to move the ball. It's more likely to come from someone in the inner circle, including someone [10:37] like John Bolton, who might have been, have access to statements that would support the theory. [10:43] You know, Attorney General Barr very well. What do you make of his involvement in this? His name [10:47] is mentioned in the transcript. I'm not surprised at all that there was no contact with, with Bill Barr. [10:56] The chances that Bill Barr would get involved in something like this is roughly the same as the [11:01] president winning the Nobel Prize. You know, Barr apparently never was told about the call. He [11:08] was informed that his name came up once the referral was made. And so this is part and parcel that what [11:15] we've seen before, where the president says things that, quite frankly, are reckless and disturbing. [11:21] And what follows is crickets. No one does anything. And that seems to be the case here. But Congress [11:28] has a right to find out if something more concrete was done. All right, Jonathan, thank you very much [11:34] for being with us. Once again, that with the remarks that the president made with the with the president [11:39] of Ukraine have been released. We've got our first read of it. Details still coming out. But there was, [11:45] the president did directly raise the question of investigating Vice President Biden with the [11:50] president of Ukraine. Our coverage will continue on our 24-hour streaming network, CBSN. You can watch [11:56] it at cbsnews.com or on our CBS News app. There will be more to come on your local news on this CBS [12:02] station and tonight on the CBS Evening News. Many of you will return now to CBS This Morning. This has [12:09] been a CBS News special report. I'm Anthony Mason with Gayle King and Tony DeCoppel, CBS News. [12:15] New York. For news 24 hours a day, go to cbsnews.com. All right. Welcome back, everyone. I'm Anne-Marie [12:29] Green. And I am Vladimir Dutit. We are following the breaking news this hour. President Trump [12:33] has released what the White House is calling the full transcript of his July phone call with [12:38] Ukraine's leader. This comes as House Democrats intensify their official impeachment inquiry [12:43] against the president. So for more on this, we want to bring in CBS News intelligence and national [12:48] security reporter Olivia Gazes. Alongside her is CBS News political correspondent Ed O'Keefe, [12:54] CBS News legal analyst Kim Whaley. I'm not sure if we have everyone joins us now from the Washington [12:58] Bureau. I think we're getting everyone bit by bit, right? We're going to get those folks. We're going to get [13:02] those people bit by bit. We got Olivia. And we have the transcript of this phone conversation. So we've [13:09] been sort of feverishly going through it. And it, you know, it does mention what the president says [13:15] he brought up. He brought up Joe Biden and Joe Biden's son and Joe Biden shutting down a prosecutor [13:22] that was looking into his son's activities. I actually don't see, Olivia, any mention of money. [13:30] It's true. The quid pro quo, as we just heard, is absent from the transcript. But there are a lot [13:36] of things that the president in his style has brought up in a way that you could see would [13:40] raise eyebrows. He said, I counted, I think, four times that he said he wanted to put the president [13:45] of Ukraine, his people directly in touch with the attorney general and with Rudy Giuliani, [13:50] the president's personal attorney, which, you know, to discuss those questions involving Biden. [13:56] The president also mentions CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm that first drew the link [14:01] between the DNC hack and Russia, kind of a nebulous allusion to some of their involvement there. [14:07] He also mentions a former ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post after [14:14] sort of some concern, political concerns about her were raised by conservative media outlets [14:19] and Mr. Giuliani. So it is a very Trumpian conversation in style in that it's [14:25] you know, there's, there's allusions to a lot of things without a direct ask. I agree with you [14:29] there. And then let's bring in Kim Whaley. She's our legal analyst, law professor. She's joining us [14:36] now also from Washington, D.C. Kim, I'm guessing you've looked at this transcript and has it. Okay, [14:43] stand by. Kim, let's go to the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy. Could they be different this time? [14:47] That they'd work to solve problems? At the same time, I watched Congressman Nadler run for a [14:56] chairmanship of judiciary. He promised his conference that he would impeach the president. [15:03] The Democrats lied to the American public, but Chairman Nadler kept his promise to the Democratic [15:09] conference. Make no mistake, yesterday was a dark day for America. It was a dark day for the rule of [15:18] law that the Speaker of the House would claim a president violated the law without ever having [15:23] any information to judge it on. It was a dark day for national security, that you were willing [15:32] to jeopardize the national security of our country today and in the future because of [15:38] your own political bias. Name me one world leader, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. [15:45] Thank you very much. [15:46] Let's bring in from Kevin McCarthy making a speech there on Capitol Hill to take you now [15:50] to New York City where the President of the United States... [15:51] I'm honored to be here today among so many terrific leaders dedicated to the future of democracy, [15:57] prosperity, and freedom for the people of Venezuela. We are behind you. For this deeply important event, [16:05] we are grateful to be joined by Secretary Mike Pompeo, Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Secretary Wilbur Ross, [16:12] and Administrator Mark Green. Thank you all for being here. Thank you very much. [16:16] I want to extend my profound appreciation to every representative with us from across the Western [16:23] hemisphere. Each of you is part of a historic coalition of 55 countries that recognize the legitimate [16:31] constitutional government of Venezuela. We are especially grateful to be joined by representatives [16:41] of the people of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru for their leadership and assistance in [16:51] the face of an unprecedented political, economic, and humanitarian disaster which has been going on [16:57] for a long time. And we're helping a lot. We are helping a lot. Let me also recognize two leaders from the [17:06] government of Venezuela's legitimate interim government. Presidential Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Julio Borges. [17:16] Where's Julio? Julio? Please stand up, Julio. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Venezuela's Ambassador to the United States, [17:29] Carlos Vecchio. Where's Carlos? Thank you, Carlos. Please. It's very nice. Thank you. Thank you very much. [17:39] As everyone in this room knows, the situation in Venezuela is a tragedy of historic proportions. [17:45] The Maduro regime does not care about the welfare of their own people. They care about their own power. [17:51] It's what they want is power and money. They want the money too, not just power. Socialism has destroyed what was once [18:01] among the most prosperous countries anywhere in the world. You go back 20 years ago and you look, [18:07] one of the wealthiest countries in the world, relatively speaking. And now they don't have [18:11] water, they don't have food, they don't have medicine, they don't have anything. Today, Venezuelans [18:17] are starving and they're dying from lack of medicine, doctors, help. According to UN Human Rights [18:26] Commissioner Madero's Cuban-trained death squads have murdered up to 10,000 Venezuelans. And they [18:33] think that number is extremely low. Citizens since all since 2018, that's over a very short period of time. [18:42] These atrocities are an outrage to all and everything that we hold dear. As president of the United [18:50] States, I am committed to the future of stability, prosperity and liberty for Venezuela. We will stand [18:56] with the Venezuelan people every single day until they are finally freed from this horrible and brutal [19:05] oppression. They will be freed. It will happen. Our first objective is to ensure a peaceful and [19:12] constitutional transition, paving the way for free and fair elections. That's why we at the United [19:20] States and in the United States are doing everything we can to isolate Maduro and his cronies. Over the [19:27] past year, the U.S. Treasury Department has imposed very tough sanctions to prevent Maduro and his enablers [19:34] sanctions from accessing the U.S. financial system. Last month, I issued an executive order to completely [19:41] freeze the assets of the Maduro regime in the United States. Our sanctions have been tightly focused on [19:48] closing down every avenue by which Maduro sustains his criminal and totalitarian rule. And he has been [19:58] vicious. He's been corrupt. He's been as bad as you get. At the same time, we have undertaken significant [20:07] efforts to ensure that the Venezuelan people have access to food, medicine and other humanitarian [20:14] supplies, despite the regime's efforts to stop aid from coming into Venezuela. They are making it very, [20:22] very hard to get aid into Venezuela. We are getting aid into Venezuela, but it's a very difficult thing. [20:27] You would think, frankly, that would be to their benefit to let aid get in instead of letting [20:33] people die from lack of medicine or food. But they don't make it easy, but we get it in anyway. [20:39] We call on Maduro to immediately allow his life-saving humanitarian aid. This has to be [20:46] allowed to come into Venezuela for the long-suffering Venezuelan people. Unfortunately, a few countries outside [20:54] of this hemisphere continue to enable this depraved regime with military and technological support. [21:03] The most significant factor propping up the Venezuelan regime is the communist dictatorship in Cuba. [21:10] Maduro allows Cuba to plunder Venezuelan oil, raid its wealth and rob its people. Venezuelan oil is at a low [21:19] point. Not much is being taken out. Not many people are in there because of the dangers involved. But [21:28] nevertheless, there's some money coming out and it goes into Cuba. He's allowed thousands of Cuban [21:34] agents to infiltrate Venezuela's security forces and other institutions. In other words, Maduro has sold [21:41] out his nation to a foreign dictatorship, and it has been that way a long time. The civilized world must [21:48] pressure the Cuban regime to leave Venezuela immediately. The United States is ready to [21:53] support a democratic transition government. And we know that our partners around the world... [21:59] All right, you're listening to the president of the United States there at the United Nations, [22:04] making some comments there with some of the leaders of Latin American countries. Let's keep an eye on [22:09] what the president is doing and saying. If he takes questions from members of the press, [22:13] we'll go back to it. But let's get to the breaking news right now. The unclassified, [22:18] now report transcript of that July 25th call with the president of the United States and the leader [22:25] of Ukraine. CBS News Chief Justice and Homeland Security Correspondent Jeff Pegues is outside [22:29] Justice Department headquarters in Washington. He got a firsthand look at the five-page transcript [22:35] initially even before it came out. Jeff, break it down for us. What do we know? [22:39] Well, listen, we didn't have a lot of time with the transcript. It was, what, a matter of minutes, [22:48] really to get a good look at it. We couldn't take it out of the Department of Justice. We quoted from [22:54] it in our previous reports. But, you know, it starts out like any other call with a foreign leader [23:01] would. There is this congratulations to President Zelensky of Ukraine. And then there is a progression [23:07] from there. The president lobs criticism at the European Union leaders. Angela Merkel is mentioned. [23:17] He says that Germany isn't doing enough for Ukraine, something that he alluded to in his remarks [23:22] yesterday at the U.N. But then from there, and keep in mind, this is a July 25th call. It comes a day [23:30] after Mueller testified. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, testified before Congress, [23:36] essentially wrapping up the Russia investigation. And the president was critical in the call with [23:42] Zelensky of Robert Mueller. And from there, there is this mention of Joe Biden and his son. And what [23:49] the president believes is a need to investigate. And so it goes on from there. There are repeated [23:55] mentions of Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney. And this is something that really came [24:01] as a surprise to us, was this mention of Attorney General William Barr. We knew that Giuliani would [24:07] be mentioned in his transcript going into it, but we did not know that the attorney general was mentioned [24:12] as well. And in really the same vein, the president was encouraging Zelensky to reach out or to get in [24:19] contact with both Giuliani and the attorney general. So there are a lot of interesting tidbits in there, [24:25] whether there was a quid pro quo that depends on, you know, who you believe, who's looking at it. [24:31] The Democrats obviously want to look at this transcript. They have their own opinions. [24:35] But of course, senior DOJ officials tell us that they don't believe there was any violation of any [24:41] laws here. There was this allegation in their words of potential violation of campaign finance laws. [24:48] They just don't see it in this transcript or in these allegations. All right. And in fact, [24:54] we've got a statement from at least a senior DOJ official that says that the AG was not asked [24:59] by the president to speak with Ukraine, which is the suggestion that he makes over and over again [25:06] throughout this conversation. Jeff, I want to thank you. We might be coming back to you. But for now, [25:11] I want to bring in Ed O'Keefe, CBS News political correspondent. And of course, Olivia, [25:15] you are with us. So listen, Ed, the thing that keeps jumping out at me about this is, yes, you know, [25:20] much of what the president already sort of agreed to is in here, right? He does talk about corruption [25:26] and his concern about corruption. He does talk about the fact that he's concerned that European [25:30] nations are not doing their fair share. What I can't understand is why Rudy Giuliani is involved in [25:35] any of this at all. He's supposed to be the, not the president, Donald Trump's private attorney. [25:41] Right. Why is he, what would he be doing that would be the people's work if his primary function [25:51] is to serve as Donald Trump's attorney? Nothing. Right. I mean, what he was doing was Donald Trump [25:58] person his bidding and was essentially deployed to Ukraine and to Europe. We know this already [26:06] to to try to dig up this stuff on the Bidens. And so the fact now, now you almost have two things. [26:12] You have a conversation that the president had with another world leader about a political rival. [26:18] And you have the mere fact that the president's personal attorney, not White House counsel, [26:22] but personal attorney was over there doing this work and apparently engaging government [26:27] officials at the same time who may or may not have been going along with this. Some have raised [26:33] objections. We know others may have been willing participants who have been reporting on this. [26:37] So that adds another layer to this as if we need another one. But, you know, it's a reminder that [26:42] Giuliani has been deeply involved in a lot of what the president has been up to over the past two [26:48] years and clearly was deployed to try to dig up dirt on potential opponents. And I think when you hear [26:54] from the DOJ that the attorney general was not asked, according to the DOJ, to get involved in [26:59] any of this. That's what they're saying so far this morning. That's what they're saying so far this [27:02] morning. So at least the snapshot that we have now is it's really just Rudy Giuliani who's going over [27:06] to the Ukraine. But though it seems odd, is it illegal? Well, that's why we have Kim Whaley, [27:13] who's joining us from our D.C. Bureau to talk about all of this. It's interesting to me, [27:19] Kim. You're hearing now, as we've pointed out earlier, that a lot of these documents, [27:24] at least until we get the full whistleblower complaint, we're going to be seen through the [27:27] eyes of the beholder, that it was sort of a Rorschach test, as you pointed out, Anne-Marie, [27:31] earlier. I want to read from the transcript the one note that jumped out at me of what the president [27:37] said to President Zelensky. He says, quote, the other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, [27:44] that Biden stopped the prosecution. And a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever [27:49] you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he [27:53] stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. [27:58] My question is, given the the the whiff of impeachment, the threat of impeachment that [28:03] brought down the Nixon presidency, the bar here seems to be, look, the president didn't explicitly [28:09] ask Zelensky in this transcript to do something to help him get reelected. But just the idea to me, [28:17] I'm curious from a legal standpoint, that a president of the United States would ask a foreign head of [28:22] state to look into the allegations of his main political rival, the one that in all the polls, [28:29] up until this point, showed beating President Trump in 2020. Is that not something? [28:35] Yeah, I mean, this is actually in in a way easier for the American public to understand, [28:41] because we are not into legal standards and technicalities like we would be in a criminal [28:47] courtroom. The impeachment process is a political judgment. The law is not limiting there. You do not [28:54] need to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And the question here isn't really whether there was [29:00] a quid pro quo. That would make it worse. But as you point out, the issue is whether we're comfortable [29:07] as a society having a president or the office of the president be able to use the power and influence [29:14] of the office, even if there's not a direct quid pro quo. It's a very important position on the planet, [29:19] right, to basically get a foreign power to maybe dig up, whether it's accurate or not, [29:26] information on political rivals and their children. That is, I think, as a matter of logic, something [29:33] that is deeply, deeply troubling, that—because the idea is the next day it could be you or me. [29:39] If their presidency has that kind of power to basically use the office to enhance and entrench [29:46] his own power, potentially, even if it doesn't violate a law, that is really concerning for the [29:51] overall structure of the separation of powers, which is, I think, why we're even hearing some [29:57] Republicans not necessarily rush to Trump's defense here. We're hearing Democrats say, [30:02] you know what, if I don't make it the next round, if I'm voted out, that's okay, [30:07] because I'm here for the institution, not for myself. And I think that's the right [30:11] lens for all of us in this moment. I want to keep talking to you about that, [30:15] because what I like about you, Kim, is that you sort of, like, [30:18] elevate us to our sort of higher ideals about what this is all about. But I also want to bring in [30:23] Nancy Cordes, chief congressional correspondent. Nancy, the Democrats wasted pretty much no time [30:29] issuing a statement. What's their take on this? Well, their take is that, first of all, [30:35] they have serious questions about whether this transcript is complete. They say what they've seen [30:41] so far is damning enough, but they want to be reassured that there wasn't more that was discussed [30:47] here that was left out of the transcript. And so the House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, [30:52] for example, told me this morning he wants to speak to officials who were on that call [30:58] and get assurances from them that the readout reflects the entire conversation. [31:03] But beyond that, Democrats argue that what they've seen is enough to convince many of them [31:10] that the president has committed an impeachable offense. They say, first of all, [31:15] he asked a foreign power to manufacture evidence against his political opponent. And at the same [31:22] time, he withheld aid to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated. They say there doesn't have to be [31:29] an explicit quid pro quo in that conversation to make what the president did wrong. In fact, [31:36] they argue even if he hadn't withheld the military aid at all, even if that wasn't hanging over the [31:43] president of Ukraine during that conversation, they say that it was still well outside of the [31:51] bounds of the presidency for Mr. Trump to ask a foreign power to assist him in the U.S. election. [31:58] And so Democrats say that what they had known even before they saw this transcript was serious. [32:05] They think it's even more serious now. And Speaker Pelosi has said more than once, [32:10] Anne-Marie and Vlad, that she wants the party and the House more broadly to work very expeditiously. [32:17] Democrats don't necessarily want this dragging on for a year. In fact, some of them have told me they [32:21] think that the House could produce articles of impeachment within the month if minds are focused [32:28] on this. Okay. Nancy, Kim, stand by. I want to come back to our guests here at the table with us. [32:35] Olivia, first to you. I just want to point out to our audience here that in this five-page document [32:40] that we received from the White House, which is the transcript of the telephone conversation [32:46] with President Zelensky of Ukraine, at the very bottom it says a memorandum of telephone [32:50] conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. I don't know if that means anything, [32:55] but Hogan Gidley was on Fox News. He's the president's, one of the president's assistant [33:00] press secretaries. He said they would be releasing a verbatim document. Should that call into question [33:04] anything we're reading here? I don't know that it would call it into question other than the fact [33:07] that this may be an incomplete picture of what other people, of what everybody wants to ultimately [33:12] understand about this call. But remember that the complaint itself we know to involve something beyond [33:17] just this one transcript. Correct. I'm actually also looking over the OLC, the Office of Legal [33:21] Counsel opinion that the Department of Justice released alongside all of this transcript, [33:26] and it gives us some insight into the complaint itself. It says that the complainant is describing [33:32] a hearsay report. In other words, this is a second-hand information, citing White House officials [33:38] who had raised concerns about the nature of these communications. It's saying that the ICIG, [33:43] the inspector general, had deemed it to be credible after finding some indicia of arguable political [33:50] bias, something no doubt the president and some of his allies are going to pick up on. The whistleblower. [33:55] In other words, they found that the whistleblower may have a slight political bias, but... No, [33:59] no, no. Well, this is something that the ICIG had noted in his report, right? And this is what the [34:05] DNI had consulted with the DOJ about. And this is what DOJ has sort of listed out in this opinion, [34:10] in which it determined that this doesn't fall in the DNI's lane because it doesn't have to do with [34:15] a member of the intelligence community or an ongoing intelligence activity. It has to do with [34:19] confidential diplomatic conversation that the president had. But I think that these are [34:24] interesting things about the complaint itself, which Democrats are still pushing to have made [34:29] available to Congress that we still want to find out more about. So just to clarify, it was somebody [34:33] who was secondhand, meaning they weren't on the call. The whistleblower. The whistleblower was not on [34:38] the call, but they were told about it secondhand or heard about it from White House officials, [34:42] right? White House officials is what it says. This is what it says. The complainant alleged that he or [34:45] she had heard reports from, quote, White House officials that in the course of a routine diplomatic [34:50] communication between the president and a foreign leader, the president had made statements that [34:53] the complainant viewed as seeking to pressure that leader to take an official action to help the [34:57] president's 2020 re-election candidate. And then the watchdog figured out that this [35:03] that this whistleblower, using all the right words here, had a potential political bias? It says, [35:09] it's it's preliminary preliminary review found some indicia of an arguable political bias. So let's [35:14] not overstate that. But the ICIG nevertheless concluded that the complaints allegations nonetheless [35:20] appeared credible. So so the question becomes now for members of Congress. And you know, [35:25] as you know, Mitt Romney yesterday said that perhaps the Democrats may have gotten ahead of their [35:30] skis. There's going to be some who are going to suggest that that look, they hadn't even seen this. [35:34] Right. And because of, you know, what the president's supporters have said. Look, [35:39] they've been after this president since the election that maybe Mitt Romney was onto something. But as you [35:45] hear from your interview with Adam Schiff, they don't think so. They don't because they've they just the [35:49] fact that the president said what he said, admitting to this, they believe now is an impeachable enough [35:55] offense or worthy of impeachment. But now reading the details, you know, this does suggest that this [36:02] wasn't, you know, a principal, wasn't a top senior aide to the president. It may have been somebody who [36:08] heard it secondhand. The inference here that this might be somebody with a political bias. I'd love to [36:13] know more about that. Is that something the president has been saying he had been saying that all week long. [36:17] That could mean that this is somebody who's worked in government since the Obama administration. [36:20] It could be somebody who was a holdover from the administration, could be somebody who maybe [36:24] is known among members of the president's inner circle to be someone who's been critical of the [36:28] president before. And to put that in there. All true. But remember, this is coming from DOJ, [36:33] which cited, I mean, the DNI cited with the DOJ in this sort of lawyerly dispute as to whether this was [36:39] properly in the DNI's lane and whether this complaint actually needed to go to the intelligence [36:43] committees for oversight purposes. So there's still the ICIG's belief in all of this and the committee's [36:49] belief in all of this. And we've got to wait until, well, he's already testified before the House [36:54] intel. He's going before Senate until tomorrow. And more importantly, I think it now becomes [36:58] absolutely essential that the whistleblower him or herself testifies before each of those. [37:03] And they're working on that, right? House and Senate Intelligence Committee are working [37:06] with that person's attorney and the DNI to figure out exactly when and how that could happen. [37:10] All right. So we still got Kim Whaley and Nancy Cordes available to us standing by. Kim, [37:14] first to you. I think it's interesting that per senior DOJ official, they say this. The AG has not [37:22] been asked to investigate Biden and the AG was not asked by the president to speak with Ukraine. [37:27] Attorney General Barr did not know about the call until weeks later and never spoke to Giuliani about [37:33] Ukraine. The question that I and Anne-Marie and I were looking through this transcript and we're like, [37:37] why is Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, on these sort of missions to other [37:44] countries at the behest of the president? And why is the president saying that the AG and Rudy are [37:49] going to be involved in this? And now the AG is saying, oh, I had nothing to do with anything. I didn't [37:53] even know that the president had this call. Rudy Giuliani is the president's personal attorney, [37:59] not the attorney for the presidency, but for Donald J. Trump. [38:02] And I think just to add to that, the accusation is that, you know, the president was doing this [38:08] deliberately to stymie his political opponent. And so here you have the president's personal attorney [38:14] doing presumably his personal bidding, which would not be what's happening with his administration, [38:20] but perhaps what's happening with his campaign. Yeah. So sort of back to basics, [38:25] foreign policy is important and confidentiality in foreign policy is important. The president [38:29] has to have communications that aren't made public and aren't handed off to Congress. But that's not [38:34] what happened here. And to your point, Rudy Giuliani is not in sort of on team American public. [38:42] He is on team Trump. And so we don't, as I said before, for purposes of impeachment, [38:48] we don't need a lot of additional information to know this is problematic for a president to do. [38:54] Legally speaking, I mean, to the point on the DOJ's memo on the IG report, I also looked at that [39:00] report. I, as a lawyer also, I think their argument that this does not fall within the statute is quite [39:06] slim or thin in that the president of the United States is the head of the Department of Justice. [39:12] He is the head of the executive branch and all the intelligence agencies. So to suggest that the [39:17] president of the United States' conversations with foreign leaders somehow fall outside of the scope [39:23] of intelligence is a real stretch. I haven't gotten through all of it. But I would just take that [39:28] with a grain of salt, in addition to this notion that somehow the whistleblower is biased. The issue [39:33] is, what are the facts? We have a lot of facts that have come out. And we'll have to hear from the [39:38] whistleblower. We'll have to hear probably from Giuliani. Ideally, we'd also hear from the attorney [39:43] general of the United States. This is not a one-call story. This is not a five-page transcript story. [39:50] It's a much bigger story with much broader implications. Kim, stand by. We want to go to [39:55] the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Senate, Lindsey Graham. He's speaking. Let's listen. [39:58] I should look at here. The Ukrainian president did not feel threatened. [40:02] He was the target of the phone call. He felt fine with what happened. I've read it just like you have. [40:08] You can make your own decision. But from a quid pro quo aspect of the phone call, there's nothing there [40:15] suggesting that the prosecutor may have been fired because of a conflict of interest. [40:20] It's something I hope somebody will look at over here, not the firing of the prosecutor. [40:24] But Vice President Biden is a good man. I've enjoyed a good relationship with him. [40:30] But I can assure you that if any Republican family member was engaged in conduct like this, [40:36] they would raise questions. You can ask for the prosecutor to be fired if you think he's corrupt and [40:41] it's in the national interest of the United States. A lot of people felt the guy was corrupt. But the [40:46] one thing that I think has to be dealt with here is that the son of the Vice President was receiving [40:53] a lot of money from the Ukraine. And some of the sources of the funds were under investigation [40:59] by the prosecutor. I don't know what the right answer is. I just hope somebody will look at it. [41:04] And I don't mind the president bringing up the idea maybe the guy was fired because of a conflict of [41:10] interest. But how was it not inappropriate that the president asked the president of another [41:15] country to look into a political rival who's running for election possibly against him if he wins the [41:19] primary next year? I don't know what you looked at. I think it's very appropriate for the president [41:24] of the United States to suggest that you've got a corruption problem and this prosecutor that was [41:29] fired maybe it was because he was corrupt or maybe because he was looking at something close [41:36] to America here. The vice president's son was receiving money from the Ukraine was on a board of [41:43] a company that was the subject of investigation. The question that got me going was did the pros of [41:50] the United States suggest to the Ukraine I will withhold money unless you go after my political rival. [41:56] The answer is absolutely not. That's why I wanted the phone call to be released. I wanted Mueller to do [42:02] his job and he was able to do his job. The phone calls released. Now I want to know from the whistleblower, [42:07] who told you about the phone call if you were not on it yourself? Who is it in the system that went to [42:13] this person? Why did they pick this person to tell about a phone call? And why did the whistleblower [42:19] file a complaint about something you had no direct knowledge of? Do you want the Senate Judiciary [42:24] committee to be involved at all? The Senate sent it all to the Intel committee. Okay. Democrats have [42:32] asked you to bring in Attorney General Bill Barr to ask him about all of this and the whistleblower [42:36] complaint and the whole process behind the scenes. Will you invite him to rectify? It's my understanding [42:41] that the case has been referred to the Intel committee but I will look at what happened here. I mean before [42:47] I knew what was in the phone call I said it's a privilege matter clearly but the aura around the phone call [42:55] was disturbing. Did the president of the United States take money that was going to the Ukraine [43:02] and threatened to withhold it if he did not get help in his reelection? The answer is no. Did Joe [43:08] Biden threaten to withhold money if you don't fire somebody in the Ukraine? Yes. Maybe there's a good [43:14] reason to do that but here's the elephant in the room. The person you asked to be fired was [43:19] investigating companies that your son was part of. Now somebody needs to look at that. I don't care to look [43:25] at it. Somebody outside of politics. From my point of view Joe Biden's an honorable decent guy but [43:30] there's an obvious conflict here and it's okay to talk about an obvious conflict. But many Western [43:36] allies and people like International Monetary Fund also wanted a prosecutor removed. Yeah did any of them [43:42] have a family member working in the Ukraine? So it may be justified that this guy was corrupt. I don't [43:48] know but I do know this that the person arguing for him to be fired had a conflict of interest and if you [43:54] don't see that conflict you're blind. If you don't see that there's a double standard here when it [43:59] comes to Trump and everybody else you're blind. You're willfully blind. If this had been a Republican [44:05] you would be asking what relationship did your son's involvement in the Ukraine have to your [44:10] decision to call for the guy to be fired. Did the New York Times tip off the vice president? There's [44:15] an investigation that involves companies that your son may be part of. I'm not accusing them of anything [44:21] but there is plenty of conflict here that somebody should look at. The whistleblower's complaint [44:26] though according to reporting is not just about this one phone call so when you say get it all out [44:30] get it all out. What did you know? Tell us everything you want to tell us do you think something untoward [44:36] is going on. Come forward if you want to. But right now that whistleblower is being blocked [44:41] from our reporting from coming up here on the Hill. I am offering the whistleblower a chance to come [44:48] to my committee. If you want to tell the story about what bothers you come to this committee and [44:54] I'll dare everybody in the Senate to stop me because I believe that phone call speaks for itself. The [45:02] accusation leveled by certain people before they read the phone call has fallen flat on its face. [45:09] They started impeachment based on a phone call they knew nothing about. Now the phone calls out. If [45:15] this is going to result in impeachment of a president, God help future presidents. This is ridiculous. [45:21] But as to the whistleblower, is there more there? Come forward. I am not afraid of hearing from you. [45:28] You know, if President Trump did something wrong, let's find out about it. The phone call to me was [45:33] nothing wrong. Do you think that the administration should let the whistleblower testify? You know, [45:37] I'm just making an offer. I don't think they can stop it. Right now they seem to be doing that. [45:43] Yeah. I don't think they seem to be doing anything other than being transparent. I don't know what the [45:48] law is. When we wrote the law about intelligence whistleblowers, they never envisioned a conversation [45:53] with the president. This is probably the most privileged thing any president could do, talk to a foreign [45:58] leader. Now going forward, forward leaders are going to be reluctant to talk to our president if you wind up [46:03] having it in the paper. But this was a unique moment, I thought. This was something that needed [46:07] to be looked at, and it's being looked at. You've got the transcript of the phone call. You can read [46:12] it for yourself. I've determined there's nothing there, that this is not remotely an impeachable [46:17] offense. I have determined there is a conflict with the vice president that somebody needs to look at. [46:23] I'm not accusing him of doing anything. All right, we're going to take you to the floor of the [46:26] Senate where Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is speaking. If each of us acted as a solemn juror [46:32] of democracy who placed fidelity to the Constitution and our system of government above the narrow [46:40] considerations of partisan politics. Now on another issue, not directly related, but with the same [46:50] cause, with the same worry, with the same concern, an overreaching executive, the emergency declaration. [46:57] The commencing of the impeachment inquiry in the House, while significant, is not the only significant [47:03] action Congress will take today, nor is it the only action dealing with the president's overreach. [47:10] Today, the Senate will vote on President Trump's national emergency declaration, [47:16] which he is using to steal money from our military in order to fund a border wall. [47:23] Rather than accept the reality that a bipartisan majority has repeatedly rejected this idea, [47:29] and after dragging the country through the longest government shutdown in American history when [47:34] he didn't get his way, President Trump deliberately circumvented Congress. Democrats universally opposed [47:43] the president's outrageous decision to declare a national emergency. So let me direct my remarks this [47:49] morning to my Republican colleagues. There are two crucial reasons for my Republican colleagues to vote to [47:58] terminate this emergency. First, the vote today is the surest and likely the only way to restore funding. [48:06] The president has stolen from our troops and military projects across the country. President Trump [48:13] promised Mexico would pay for the wall, not American taxpayers and certainly not the military, [48:19] the men and women and their families involved in keeping our nation secure. President Trump broke that [48:27] promise. And now with us, like it's a political war. They shouldn't have done that. That should be [48:34] an impeachable event, I guess, based on what you're saying. The Democrats just came out. They went down [48:39] there. A group of people, some of whom I was dealing with in the gun issue, and they went down, put [48:44] tremendous pressure on Ukraine. The president himself just came out with a statement saying there was [48:49] absolutely no pressure put on him. And there wasn't. What I do want to see is I want to see other [48:55] countries helping Ukraine also, not just us. As usual, the United States helps and nobody else is [49:01] there. So I want to see other countries help. Just so you understand, it's the single greatest [49:07] witch hunt in American history, probably in history, but in American history. It's a disgraceful thing. [49:14] The letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of [49:21] myself and other people that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way [49:26] you had that built up, that call, it was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing [49:31] call other than a lot of people said, I never knew you could be so nice. So part of the problem you [49:38] have is you have the fake news. You have a lot of corrupt reporting. You have some very fine reporters [49:43] and journalists, but you have a lot of corrupt reporters, a lot of corrupt journalists. I would rate you [49:48] right in there, by the way. And, and excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. So we're having, [49:56] if you notice, the stock market went up when they saw the nonsense. All of a sudden, the stock market [50:02] went down very substantially yesterday when they saw a charge. After they read the charge, the stock [50:06] market went up very substantially. We have created the greatest economy in the history of our country, [50:15] the greatest economy in the world. Had my opponent won, China would right now be the number one economy [50:22] by far. And right now, China is way behind us and they'll never catch us if we have smart leadership [50:28] way behind. We've picked up trillions of dollars and they've lost trillions of dollars. And they want [50:34] to make a deal very badly. And it could happen, could happen. It could happen. It could happen sooner [50:40] than you think. Our military is rebuilt. Our military has never been stronger. When I came in, [50:45] it was depleted. Our vets are happy. So many great things are happening. And the Democrats feel they're [50:52] going to lose. We had the highest poll number, Rasmussen, 53, but they say you could add 10 to it. [50:58] A lot of people say you can add more than 10 to it because a lot of people just don't want to talk [51:02] about it, but they want to vote for Trump. So I just say this, we have the strongest country we've ever [51:08] had. We have the best economy we've ever had. We have the best unemployment numbers we've ever had. [51:13] We have the best employment numbers we've ever had. We have now almost 160 million people working. [51:20] That's far more than we've ever had working in our country before. [51:24] Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. [51:26] Well, hearing from the president and reinforcing what we heard from him before, [51:53] the key for him is that the president of Ukraine did not feel any pressure at all. [51:57] Right. [51:57] So thus, I guess, suggesting that there was no quid pro quo. [52:00] The president saying that, as usual, he's the target of a witch hunt. [52:05] And you just heard Senator Lindsey Graham speaking to reporters before we went to the president, [52:10] saying that as far as he can tell, based on his reading of this now, [52:14] transcript of this phone call between the president and the leader of Ukraine, [52:17] that there is nothing that troubles him. Couple that with Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate [52:22] saying there is an impeachable offense happening just based off of this transcript. So let's try to [52:27] break it down. We've got Kim Whaley in D.C. We've got Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. [52:32] We've got Ed O'Keefe here along with Olivier Gazzas. First to you, Nancy. So we were talking [52:38] about this earlier, that this transcript, at least in the early stages of this process, [52:44] was going to be seen through the eyes of the beholder. In other words, Republicans coming out and [52:48] saying, look, they don't see anything that worries them here. And Senate Democrats and [52:56] representatives saying that this does constitute an impeachable offense. Interestingly enough, [53:01] Ed O'Keefe, who's here, just pointed out to me that Mitt Romney may have made a comment earlier [53:05] to some reporters that what he's reading in this transcript is troubling. [53:11] Sure. And I think that there are more Republicans who find it troubling who have chosen not to say [53:17] anything for that very reason. Yes, you do have some very vigorous defenders of the president, [53:23] like Lindsey Graham, who we heard from just a few minutes ago, who said that he saw nothing [53:28] in this call that was problematic because the president of Ukraine has said that he didn't [53:34] have any concerns about it. Well, a couple of things in reference to that claim. First of all, [53:38] this is a president, the president of Ukraine, who is highly dependent on the U.S. for political help [53:45] and for financial help. So it is not in his interest to say that he felt pressured, badgered, [53:51] bullied, what have you, by the president of the United States. Beyond that, we know that when he met [53:56] with Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut in Ukraine just a few weeks ago, he said something quite [54:01] different in a private conversation. He told Murphy that actually he was very worried about the fact that [54:07] this military aid, $400 million worth, was mysteriously being held up and that at the same [54:13] time he was very concerned about the pressure that he was getting from the president and Rudy Giuliani [54:19] about looking into Vice President Joe Biden and his son. So I think the question of how pressured the [54:28] president of Ukraine felt and when is sort of still an open question. And the reality is that yes, this [54:36] is going to be to some degree, he said, she said, you know, it is going to depend on your political [54:43] persuasion to some degree. But the political reality is that Democrats control the House and therefore [54:49] they control the impeachment process. And our latest numbers show that more than 200 Democrats in the [54:57] House now say that they are open to impeachment. So they're getting very close to that magical 218 [55:03] number that would enable them to pass any articles of impeachment that were to come before the House [55:10] of Representatives. Kim, I want to ask you a question. The, you know, we've been hearing a lot about [55:16] impeachment, if it's not an inquiry or articles or whatever, the conversation has come up a lot in the [55:21] news. And I'm wondering, you know, some have said that this may be a risk if the Democrats cannot [55:27] eventually get to the point where they're impeaching the president, right? That people will be become [55:32] exhausted with this conversation that kind of feels to go nowhere. But I want to ask Kim Whaley, [55:36] is there value in the process of moving forward value for the American people, even if it doesn't result in [55:43] an impeachment? Absolutely no question. I mean, so impeachment is just the actual indictment, [55:49] so to speak, in the House of Representatives. It's the list of potential reasons to remove a [55:54] president. And then that list goes to the Senate, and the Senate would actually hold a trial presided [56:00] over by the chief justice of the United States. But historically, there's never been removal at the [56:05] at the Senate level. But we have seen, you know, President Nixon feel pressured to resign as a result of [56:13] that. So it can have effects, even if there's not an ultimate impeachment. But the bigger issue is, [56:18] if we cannot hold a president accountable for wrongdoing in the courts because of the DOJ memo [56:24] banning prosecution of a president, it has to be in the Congress. And I hear Lindsey Graham talking [56:29] about Joe Biden, talking about the whistleblower. Those are distractions. The issue is the office of [56:35] the presidency, is the person in that office, that person's conduct, and whether that person's [56:40] conduct warrants politically a different person in office. We're not talking about putting someone in [56:45] jail. We're talking about, is this the kind of person that's safe to lead this country for a [56:49] number of reasons? And also, without any sort of speed limits and tickets on the office of the [56:55] presidency, if this kind of behavior, regardless of whether it's a quid pro quo, that's another [57:00] distraction. That's not required to justify impeachment. Maybe that gets the president off [57:07] the hook based on these five pages of extortion, which would be even more serious. But if we don't have [57:13] limits on the office of the presidency, we are creating an unlimited presidency that looks more [57:18] like a monarchy. And people without any limits on their power tend to abuse it, whether it's this [57:24] president or the next president. That's the question. And it's really unfortunate that our elected [57:28] members can't keep their eye on the ball and understand the process itself has value, even if [57:33] he stays in office. All right. So it is the top of the hour here. So we want to say hi, [57:38] everyone. I'm Anne-Marie Greene, alongside Vladimir Dutier. [57:41] We are continuing to follow the response after the White House released a transcript [57:45] of President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's leader. In that call, the president [57:50] asked for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and suggests a meeting with [57:55] his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, should happen. And we're talking about President Trump's personal [58:01] attorney, Mr. Trump's personal attorney. The document is not verbatim. It's an interpretation of [58:06] the call by a White House aide. And it's not slowing down Democrats at all who just yesterday [58:10] convened an official impeachment inquiry. This is all based around a whistleblower complaint. [58:16] That complaint has not yet been made public. The president, as you can imagine, [58:21] is calling this a witch hunt. All right. So for more on this, [58:24] let's bring in CBS News intelligence and national security reporter Olivia Gazas. [58:28] Alongside her is CBS News political correspondent Ed O'Keefe. CBS News legal analyst Kim Whaley joins us [58:34] from our Washington bureau. And our CBS News chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on [58:41] Capitol Hill. So first, Nancy, let's begin with you. The question that we've been posing all morning [58:47] long is sort of what is next for Democrats? I know that tomorrow is going to be a big day on Capitol Hill [58:53] with all the testimony that is expected to happen. What are you hearing about the potential, [58:58] the possibility of having this whistleblower come forward? They are scrambling. They're [59:04] still hoping that the whistleblower will be able to come and testify behind closed doors with the [59:09] House Intelligence Committee tomorrow. But that is contingent on striking some kind of agreement with [59:15] the director of national intelligence that the whistleblower will be legally protected if he or she [59:21] does so. The House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff told me this morning that the whistleblower is [59:26] eager to talk both to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. And time is really of the of the [59:33] essence here for those committees because Congress is set to take a two week break starting on Friday. And [59:40] so Democrats would very much like to get this interview done before they leave, before the momentum slows. [59:47] Beyond that, what Pelosi laid out in her announcement that she was now embracing a formal impeachment [59:55] inquiry was the fact that the six congressional committees that have been investigating various [1:00:02] potential acts of wrongdoing, they will continue on those paths. There will not be a separate committee [1:00:08] established to look at the Ukraine controversy or any other potential impeachable offense. The [1:00:15] determination was made that these committees are already pretty far down the road and that you'd only [1:00:19] be slowing the process down if you were to create an entirely new Watergate style select committee. [1:00:26] So those committees will continue to investigate. And as Pelosi put it, she wants them to work [1:00:32] expeditiously. Many Democrats tell us they do not want this process to drag on for a year and enable [1:00:40] Republicans to argue that the only thing that Democrats care about in an election year is [1:00:45] impeachment. They want to move quickly, expeditiously, as Nancy Pelosi put it, more than once. So the [1:00:50] House Judiciary Committee will run point at the end of the day, will decide whether to initiate charges [1:00:58] against this president, whether to vote on articles of impeachment. And once they do so in the committee, [1:01:04] then those articles of impeachment would be brought to the full House of Representatives. What happens [1:01:10] after that is an even bigger question mark. Because as you know, as of right now, there are no Republican [1:01:16] senators and Republicans control the Senate who are on board with the notion of impeachment right now. [1:01:22] So, Olivia, for the people who are just tuning in, let's just go back to this five-page document, [1:01:29] which is being called a transcript of the conversation that the president had with the [1:01:34] president of Ukraine. It's not word for word. It's not verbatim. Right. It's not verbatim. It's [1:01:40] not like, you know, people might see on TV, you get the closed captions as it's happening. That's not what [1:01:45] this is. But I want to ask you the biggest things that jumped out when you went through this. [1:01:49] It's interesting because it's already being discussed as a sort of eye of the beholder Rorschach test on [1:01:54] whether you believe the president is conducting himself appropriately or whether his conduct [1:01:59] merits an impeachment inquiry. I mean, just looking at the words, I think it is striking to me, even [1:02:04] though you might not be able to put your finger on a quid pro quo, you know, the president says, [1:02:09] asks, you know, the president of Ukraine saying, you know, whatever you can do, it's very important [1:02:15] that you do it if that's possible. The president of Ukraine, you know, responds, [1:02:19] I guarantee that as president of Ukraine, that all the investigations will be done openly and candid [1:02:24] candidly. You know, again, the president says, you know, if you can look into it, that sounds [1:02:28] horrible to me. I'm sure you will figure it all out. You know, it's not saying, you know, I will give [1:02:34] you X if you do Y. But there's there's clearly a very there's there's a there's a level of pressure [1:02:41] there that I think is not is beyond dispute. When you read it, you know, the president said, [1:02:45] listen, he said two things. He said, listen, I was concerned about corruption. [1:02:48] And he also said I was concerned about other European countries paying their fair share. [1:02:51] And he does mention that. But he mentions that once each, those two things once each. [1:02:56] But he keeps coming back around to Biden and investigating Biden. And please talk to Rudy [1:03:01] Giuliani and the AG. And the question, of course, becomes the president's interest all of a sudden [1:03:06] in corruption and why specifically Ukraine? There are a lot of countries that the United States deals [1:03:11] with that are corrupt. And the president doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with Kim Jong-un. [1:03:16] He doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with Vladimir Putin. He doesn't seem to have a problem [1:03:19] dealing with a lot of unsavory people. Mohammed bin Salman, who is accused by our intelligence [1:03:23] agencies of having murdered a journalist. And yet here in this particular case, he's very concerned [1:03:29] about corruption and specifically how it relates to his political rival. And so I guess for Democrats [1:03:35] on Capitol Hill, that is what they're looking at. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be going [1:03:40] by the letter of the law, whether there was a quid pro quo. Well, the president, [1:03:44] based on this transcript, didn't ask for something in exchange for something else. And as we've been [1:03:50] pointing out, it's going to depend on how you read it. Yeah, absolutely. And it's going to depend on [1:03:55] who this whistleblower is, how the House and Senate Intelligence Committee get to talk to that person, [1:04:00] if at all. And, you know, and just how Democrats in general handle these allegations in the next few [1:04:07] years. I've been pressing people. I know Nancy has, too. How quickly could this happen? When will it [1:04:10] happen? You have a two week recess that starts at the end of the week, primarily because of the [1:04:15] upcoming Jewish holidays that they're trying to account for that. One eight I talked to last night [1:04:20] said this is a great opportunity for members to go home and explain the gravity of the situation to [1:04:25] constituents and build support in their districts for this and build awareness of it. But I said, [1:04:33] doesn't this also potentially leave open the opportunity for this to just sort of fester and [1:04:37] go away and for people to forget about it? And he said, sure. But this time, given how many Democrats [1:04:42] now are on board with this, they're going to have to go home and talk about this, explain it, defend it, [1:04:47] and see if support builds up. But, you know, it's telling. And we also know, remember now, [1:04:53] that the president and the speaker spoke yesterday, that he seemed to be trying to ward this off and [1:04:58] that they were somewhat shocked, the president was, that she did what she did last night by saying, [1:05:03] we're not going to do this. It's been released. This shows you how quickly all of this has transpired [1:05:11] and how grave many lawmakers thought it was and how grave potentially the White House thought it was, [1:05:16] that they thought they should just put it out there and allow people to interpret it. [1:05:19] But what you're hearing the president and his supporters now do is say, okay, [1:05:24] here's all the information from the president on Ukraine. [1:05:26] Now let's go ask Joe Biden what he and his son were up to in Ukraine. This morning, [1:05:30] the head of the Republican National Committee saying, perhaps Vice President Biden should [1:05:33] release the transcripts of all his conversations with the Ukrainian leaders when he was vice president. [1:05:37] I'm just going to pipe up to say that, again, that the call is just one part of the whistleblower complaint. [1:05:42] We understand that there may be more, which is why I think it becomes essential for the whistleblower, [1:05:46] him or herself to be made available to the committees and to sort of give more of the story [1:05:50] as to what else might have been happening that was of concern. [1:05:53] We've got Nancy Cordes and Kim Whaley in D.C. Nancy, over to you before you run. [1:05:58] What are you hearing? We just heard from Lindsey Graham. We heard from Chuck Schumer. [1:06:03] But I'm curious what some Senate Republicans are saying or perhaps not saying. [1:06:09] I know that Lindsey Graham yesterday seemed to distance himself from all of what was happening on the Hill. [1:06:16] Right. Well, I'm just looking at my phone for a second because our producer, Alan, [1:06:21] he was able to catch up with Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah. As you know, [1:06:26] he is one of the Republicans who has been most critical of the president. But at the same time, [1:06:31] he said last night that he felt that perhaps Nancy Pelosi had gotten a little out over her skis [1:06:37] on the impeachment front. Well, he was saying something different today after reading that [1:06:43] transcript. And let me tell you what he said. He said, I did read the transcript. [1:06:47] It remains troubling in the extreme. It's deeply troubling. He says there's a process that the [1:06:54] House is pursuing. The Senate is also looking at the testimony of the whistleblower. So there is an [1:07:01] evaluation of gathering more facts. And this is along the lines of what you are hearing from many [1:07:06] Democrats as well. They say clear away all the noise, clear away all the politics. What you see [1:07:12] in this summary of the phone call is exactly what they expected to see. The president pressuring [1:07:18] the leader of a foreign nation to gather dirt about the president's political opponent. The [1:07:25] president is not telling the president of Ukraine to crack down on corruption in his country more [1:07:30] broadly, as the president initially claimed. The president of the United States is solely asking [1:07:36] him to dig up dirt on a political opponent to investigate his potential 2020 rival. And Democrats [1:07:44] say you don't need to know any more than that. You know, Kim, I'm reminded of the smoking gun tape [1:07:55] during the Watergate crisis, where leading up to that moment, there was investigation after [1:08:02] investigation. And on Capitol Hill, they were struggling with what to do. And all of a sudden, [1:08:07] this smoking gun tape comes out where Nixon is in the Oval Office with Handelman. And Nixon [1:08:13] barely acknowledges a comment that Handelman makes about obstruction and possible conspiracy. [1:08:19] I think he grunts a response. And that was enough for the threat of impeachment back in 1972. [1:08:25] Here, you have this document. And we don't even have the full story yet because we don't have the [1:08:30] whistleblower. But the process and the separation of the three co-equal branches of government is, [1:08:36] I think, at the heart of what we're talking about here. The president's ability to conduct [1:08:42] his responsibility as the president, for sure, and conduct national security conversations with [1:08:46] foreign leaders, for sure. But what he's asking in the conversation is really what the Congress is [1:08:52] looking at as far as their oversight over the executive branch. Yeah. And there's a bit of a, [1:08:57] I think, smoke and mirrors in making this about the Lindsey Graham, making this about the president's [1:09:02] ability to have confidential communications with foreign leaders. The Congress did not ask for the [1:09:07] for the actual transcript here, unlike in Watergate, where Congress actually had to fight all [1:09:12] the way to the United States Supreme Court to get the tapes. And as you suggested, [1:09:16] once the tapes became clear, came to light, then it was a house of cards. Things quickly fell [1:09:23] against Nixon politically. But here, we basically have the whistleblower complaint. We still don't [1:09:30] have it. It was supposed to be turned over seven days. As I said, I don't think that the analysis in [1:09:36] the DOJ memo is particularly solid. They can make that call, and they did make that call. But in this [1:09:43] moment, the issue is we still don't have that. What we have is what the White House decided to make an [1:09:50] issue out of by putting it out as the transcript when no one asked for that. And it's true that that [1:09:56] is the core of executive power. That's in Article 2. But that's not really at stake here. I disagree [1:10:03] with Lindsey Graham in suggesting that's what that what this is about. That's shifting the narrative. [1:10:08] What this is about is accountability for the office of the presidency, the office of the presidency. [1:10:14] If these kinds of things go unchecked, which I think Olivia did a great job walking through, [1:10:21] why there are some real concerns in this transcript. If these things go unchecked, [1:10:26] what we will get as an American populace is an unchecked office of the presidency. It's precisely [1:10:32] what the framers of the Constitution and the revolutionaries fought and died to prevent. They [1:10:37] did not want a King George anymore bullying them and having unlimited power. That's what this is [1:10:43] about, not about whether the whistleblower had a bias or this piece of detail, that piece of detail. [1:10:51] It's the overall picture that I think we all need to really keep our eye on in this moment. [1:10:55] So you don't care, Kim, if, as some Republicans are pointing out, that the [1:11:01] discussions that Vice President Biden had with Ukrainian officials come out because of the [1:11:07] fact that they were forced to release this so-called transcript. That doesn't matter to you as far as [1:11:13] the office of the presidency and the way the president is conducting himself? [1:11:17] Well, I'm not sure I would make that leap because, again, the White House decided to make an issue out [1:11:22] of the transcripts. They said, we won't release the transcripts. There was never a request for the [1:11:27] transcripts. There was a request for the whistleblower complaint. And so, to the extent to which [1:11:32] there's something waived as far as the White House's prerogative to have these kinds of transcripts [1:11:39] confidential, that's on the White House. That was their unilateral decision to do that. That's not to [1:11:43] say that Congress at some point would not have asked for it. But it doesn't necessarily mean, [1:11:49] because the White House did this unilaterally, that the Obama administration has to follow suit, [1:11:55] or the determination should be made with respect to the Obama administration. But I think the thing [1:12:00] to keep in mind with respect to Mr. Biden, we don't know the details, but it sounds like that was [1:12:07] a foreign policy diplomatic discussion. It was for a policy prerogative on behalf of the United States. [1:12:15] It was not, hey, do something for my son. We don't have anything even remotely [1:12:20] looking like that. And of course, Joe Biden's not president. If he is president and he does stuff [1:12:27] like this, he should be under the same kind of scrutiny. Because again, it's about the office, [1:12:31] not the man or the woman. I want to head back to Nancy Cordes. Nancy, Adam Schiff just tweeted. [1:12:37] And what he tweeted was something that we've heard the president's critics suggest about him before, [1:12:43] and the way that he speaks. Right. And this is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. So [1:12:51] the fact that this is the person who's tweeting this comment makes it even more significant. Here's [1:12:56] what he says after reading the transcript or really a summary of the call between the president [1:13:02] and the president of Ukraine. He says the transcript of the call reads like a classic mob shakedown. [1:13:08] We do a lot for Ukraine. There's not much reciprocity. I have a favor to ask. Investigate my opponent. [1:13:15] My people will be in touch. Nice country you got there. Would be a shame if something happened to her. [1:13:21] So the point that he's making colorfully is that you don't need to have an explicit quid pro quo. [1:13:29] You don't need to have the president saying, I won't give you your military aid unless you do this for me. [1:13:36] What Schiff is saying and what many Democrats have also argued is that the threat was implicit [1:13:44] because the president, one week before this phone call, one week before his first phone call [1:13:49] with the president of Ukraine ever, had suddenly, mysteriously, unexpectedly decided to withhold [1:13:57] $400 million in military aid. And that fact was hanging over the entire phone call. [1:14:03] But still, you know, what he's asking voters to do is read between the lines and go along with him [1:14:08] on this ride. And part of the sort of political calculation for Democrats is whether or not [1:14:15] people are going to want to go along for this ride without some clear cut proof, Nancy. [1:14:19] Correct. And what Republicans are arguing is that this is going to be very politically damaging for [1:14:25] Democrats in the same way that impeaching Bill Clinton was damaging back in the late 1990s for [1:14:32] Republicans because voters will feel sorry for the president. Voters will view the opposition party [1:14:38] as having overreached what Democrats argue. And they're certainly hoping that they're right. [1:14:43] It's hard to prove anything ahead of time. But what they're what they believe is the case is that this [1:14:49] is very different from Bill Clinton in the 1990s. First of all, this is a matter of national security, [1:14:56] they argue that impeachment case was decidedly not at the heart of that impeachment case was an [1:15:02] affair and perjury. Furthermore, they argue that President Clinton was a lot more popular back in [1:15:08] the late 90s with approval ratings in the 50s, 60s, even 70s at some points, [1:15:13] than President Trump is now. His approval ratings are quite a bit lower and they believe that will [1:15:20] continue. They believe he has a ceiling of support that he has never been able to get beyond. And they [1:15:26] think that is going to be the case now. But that is the reason, and Ed mentioned this a short time ago, [1:15:32] that that very tension is the reason that so many Democrats believe that it would be better to [1:15:39] complete these this process sooner rather than later. They don't want to drag it out, even if [1:15:44] there's a possibility that they could get more documentation, more evidence if they waited and [1:15:50] worked and went through the courts. They want to get this done and get it over with because they fear [1:15:55] that the longer this drags on, the easier it is for Republicans to argue that the only thing that [1:16:00] Democrats care about is impeachment. And Nancy, isn't there a debate now about why not just proceed on [1:16:06] impeachment on this specific matter and not on all the other ones? Sure. In fact, I had a Democrat [1:16:13] argue to me yesterday that they could bring articles of impeachment before the House by the end of the [1:16:19] week if they really wanted to. That's how badly some Democrats, particularly Democrats from swing [1:16:25] districts, would like to do this and get it behind them. You know, what they really fear is sending a [1:16:32] message to independent and Republican voters in their districts, the kind of voters they need to [1:16:38] win over a sliver of those voters in order to get reelected. They don't want to send a message that [1:16:43] rather than working on behalf of their district or their state, what they're really focused on [1:16:49] is trying to find various ways to punish the president. They say, look, even if we impeach him for [1:16:54] obstruction of justice because we're not getting our hands on the documents that we want, fine, [1:16:59] let's do it and let's move on. And we can put it another way that maybe people understand. [1:17:03] This one's a lot easier to digest because we got tapes and we're in the process of getting the [1:17:07] receipts. That's right. And you know, and all the other ones, emoluments, wrongdoing by the family, [1:17:14] election interference in 2016, harder to explain. Harder to explain. The Mueller report didn't deliver [1:17:19] what Democrats thought it might. Right. This one's easier, [1:17:21] which is why you've seen so many of them suggest that why don't you just proceed on this one article. [1:17:26] So let's play the president's reaction to the release of this so-called transcript, [1:17:30] this memorandum. He was speaking at the United Nations just moments ago. Let's play that. [1:17:34] There's no pressure whatsoever. And if you take a look at the Democrats, [1:17:39] they went down to see the president of Ukraine and they asked him for all sorts of things and [1:17:44] don't go with the Republicans and stay with us. And like, it's a political war. They shouldn't have [1:17:49] done that. That should be an impeachable event, I guess, based on what you're saying. [1:17:54] The Democrats just came out. They went down. They're a group of people, [1:17:57] some of whom I was dealing with on the gun issue. And they went down, put tremendous pressure on [1:18:02] Ukraine. The president himself just came out with a statement saying there was absolutely no pressure [1:18:07] put on him. And there wasn't. What I do want to see is I want to see other countries helping Ukraine [1:18:13] also, not just us. As usual, the United States helps and nobody else is there. So I want to see other [1:18:19] countries help. Just so you understand, it's the single greatest witch hunt in American history, [1:18:26] probably in history, but in American history. It's a disgraceful thing. The letter was a great letter, [1:18:32] meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of myself and other people [1:18:39] that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way you had that built up, [1:18:44] that call, it was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call other than a lot [1:18:50] of people said, I never knew you could be so nice. All right. So we have been. I missed that part. [1:18:55] Yeah. When I first heard it. We've [1:18:57] been getting sort of reaction responses from lawmakers. We have something from Senator Mitt Romney. I think [1:19:03] what's significant is that Nancy Cordes said that he was asked about this before. Yesterday, he said Nancy [1:19:08] Pelosi got ahead of her skis yesterday. Now this is what he's saying. I did read the transcript. [1:19:15] It remains troubling in the extreme. It's deeply troubling. At this stage, the process is to [1:19:20] continue gathering information. But clearly what we've seen from the transcript itself is deeply [1:19:25] troubling. What questions do you have, sir? Keep listening. Keep listening. [1:19:28] Okay. There's more to it. There was more to it. Okay. What more to it? Because I know you've been... [1:19:32] He essentially was asked, well, does this mean we should, [1:19:35] the House should move forward with impeachment? He said, no, Nancy Pelosi can figure that out. [1:19:40] I'm not in the business of giving her advice. But obviously the House and the Senate need to [1:19:45] need to continue pursuing what they're doing and the intelligence committees, [1:19:49] and then reiterates, but this is deeply troubling. So what do you take from that? [1:19:52] And also the fact that the Senate voted unanimously to get this whistleblower document. [1:19:56] Yeah. But that's like voting unanimously to make sure the sun comes up today. [1:20:00] And that's kind of what Mitch McConnell said yesterday. Look, we're going to get this. [1:20:03] Right. The intelligence committees were already working on it. [1:20:05] If you need us to hold this show vote, Democrats, fine, we will. [1:20:08] Maybe it's an insurance policy because if things go one way, [1:20:10] they'll be on the right side of history. Maybe it's a chance to say, well, look, [1:20:13] there's not much here. You really wanted to do that. Okay, fine. But you're wasting our time. [1:20:19] Look, Romney saying it's deeply troubling. There's this kind of strain of thought on Capitol Hill [1:20:25] that you asked someone like Susan Collins back in the day, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, [1:20:29] about something the president said, and they're going to say, well, that's really concerning. [1:20:31] That's deeply troubling. And then ultimately come on board with the rest of the Republicans and hold [1:20:35] back. So Romney can say this today. Let's see where he is in a few weeks. That's the bigger test. [1:20:41] And it's a sign that at least some of them now publicly are willing to go out there and say, [1:20:45] there's something wrong about what happened here. And remember senators, given their stature, [1:20:50] given their constitutional obligations on foreign policy and other issues like that, [1:20:54] are going to be troubled by this. They're supposed to be, because this isn't something that the president [1:21:00] should be doing in the minds of many lawmakers. And the fact that the whistleblower complaint [1:21:03] is being withheld so far is another troubling issue, especially for senators, because those [1:21:08] matters are supposed to be seen by Congress if necessary. But ultimately, if it shakes out that [1:21:12] this isn't much ado about nothing, we'll see where people like Romney are. [1:21:16] By the way, we should let everyone know that if you want to read the memorandum, [1:21:21] so-called transcript, you've got to know that it's not verbatim, [1:21:24] but it's sort of a summary of the conversation. Of people who were in the meeting and who may have [1:21:30] taken notes. Right. Yeah. It's sort of a secondhand version of the conversation. [1:21:35] We'll ask you a little bit more about that, but we want people to know that they can read it for [1:21:38] themselves if they head to our website. So you have additional details to give us context, right? [1:21:43] And that's one of the little points that you've read about. Right. So alongside the so-called [1:21:49] transcript that was released today was this OLC opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel from the DOJ, [1:21:53] laying out its decision-making as to why it didn't determine this to be in the DNI's lane and why [1:21:59] the DNI couldn't transmit the entirety of the complaint to Congress. It essentially said it [1:22:04] doesn't involve somebody within the intelligence community and it doesn't involve an ongoing [1:22:09] intelligence activity. So that's its sort of legal rationale there. We do have some details, [1:22:15] again, via DOJ about the nature of the whistleblower complaint. It's described as a hearsay [1:22:20] account as somebody who heard from White House officials about communications the president was [1:22:26] having with a foreign leader that raised concerns in this person's mind about political prospects [1:22:32] for 2020, et cetera. We also know, of course, that the ICIG disagreed with the DOJ and DNI. He [1:22:40] was evaluating this for himself, found it to be credible, found it to be an urgent concern, [1:22:47] found it to be properly in the DNI's lane. So there's just an impasse, a diversion of legal [1:22:52] opinion there that's going to be rectified, I think, as more information comes out from the whistleblower, [1:22:56] him or herself. Right. Okay. So let's go around the [1:23:00] horn real quickly and get everybody's final thoughts on this. And I'm intrigued by something that Ed and Nancy [1:23:06] were talking about earlier, which is the fact that, look, at the end of the day, this has got to be [1:23:13] sold to the American people. The American people have to come around this impeachment inquiry. And [1:23:17] as Ed pointed out, and I apologize for the drilling that is happening as we are live on the air right [1:23:21] now in the CBS This Morning newsroom. I apologize to our viewers. That, look, it's much easier to point [1:23:29] to something like this and say the president may have asked the leader of a foreign country to [1:23:34] investigate the former vice president, his political rival, than it is, for example, to talk about [1:23:38] emoluments or it is to talk about a whitewater land deal. If you're looking at historical antecedents [1:23:44] with Bill Clinton, a land deal that nobody can understand what it really means. This, people can [1:23:49] understand what it really means. The question becomes, what is Congress going to do about it, [1:23:53] especially those who are not Democrats, Republicans? That's why that Mitt Romney soundbite, and kudos to [1:23:58] our Alan He, who asked, I think, the big question, which is what everybody wants to know, [1:24:02] what are you going to do about it beyond being troubled? That was the question that Alan asked [1:24:07] Senator Romney. So, Nancy, first to you. I guess the question becomes your final thoughts on all [1:24:13] this, and is it your sense that Democrats feel that this is the moment, this is the time to strike [1:24:19] while the irons are hot, because people can very clearly understand that they may not, they may still [1:24:25] be supporters of the president, but it is not normal for the head of state of this country to ask another [1:24:30] head of state to look into his political rival. Yes, and I think that Ed put it so well before. [1:24:37] This is a situation that is easy for people to understand, and it is easy to convey why it is [1:24:45] problematic for a U.S. president to be asking the president of any foreign country for help with his [1:24:53] reelection bid. I mean, you heard from Mitt Romney earlier. Mitt Romney ran for president. Let's try to [1:24:58] imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. And you had a case where President Obama in a phone call [1:25:05] with the president of France said, hey, can you dig up dirt on this guy Mitt Romney who's running [1:25:10] against me? I think in that case, Republicans would universally find a conversation like that [1:25:16] extremely problematic, even the Republicans who are out there defending the president now. But what's [1:25:23] been very telling to me is the number of Republicans who actually aren't defending the president right [1:25:30] now, most notably the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who has shown time and time again that he [1:25:36] will stand by this president whenever he can. It is not universal. There are times where he has [1:25:43] scolded gently this president or sought distance. In this case, he has refused to throw the president a [1:25:49] lifeline whatsoever. Instead, he turned around and allowed that vote, calling for the whistleblower's [1:25:56] report to be sent to Congress yesterday. Maybe symbolic, but still it was a sign that he is open [1:26:03] to further investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. And as he put it, the Senate is going to [1:26:10] get to the bottom of this. So he is not excusing the president in any way. And furthermore, [1:26:15] he's saying that he himself, a top ally of the administration, was left in the dark about why [1:26:22] the military aid to Ukraine was being withheld despite his repeated questions about it to the [1:26:28] secretaries of state and defense. And just to sort of add on to that, [1:26:31] is it also significant that the AG's office came out very, very quickly and said, you know, the AG [1:26:37] didn't have any conversations with the president of Ukraine. In fact, we don't know anything about this. [1:26:41] Yeah, it is. Because undoubtedly, there will be members of Congress who want to learn more about [1:26:46] that. And Barr will have to explain himself or his potential involvement. Also someone, I mean, [1:26:50] that many people, you know, they watched his performance in front of congressional committees. [1:26:55] And, you know, he's Trump's guy. And remember, in fact, Kamala Harris's team tweeted this out [1:27:01] earlier today. Back in May, it was, she asked him, point blank, have you ever been asked by the [1:27:07] president to investigate somebody? And remember, he kind of stumbled through that answer? He revived [1:27:11] that on Twitter, at least today, saying, well, maybe there are questions about this attorney [1:27:15] general after all. Although, as he said, in this specific case, he did not reach out to Ukrainian [1:27:19] leaders. And then to that, and we'll go ahead. Well, no, I mean, just you have in black and white, [1:27:25] in this, you know, sort of loosely documented transcript, the president himself four times saying, [1:27:32] I'm going to connect you with the attorney general and Rudy Giuliani four times. So what was the [1:27:37] follow-up there? I mean, did he just stop there? I mean, there are going to be questions about [1:27:41] what the president may have even solicited the AG to do, whether that was declined. I mean, [1:27:45] there, there's more dimension here to just, I'm going to ask him, no, I wasn't asked. Right. And, [1:27:49] and as we need to, I think, keep pointing out, because this, this so-called transcript isn't really [1:27:55] a transcript. It's a, and I'm just going to read what it says at the very bottom of it. It's not a secret. [1:27:59] It says a memorandum of a telephone conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. [1:28:05] The text in this document records the notes and recollections of situation room duty officers [1:28:11] and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form. [1:28:17] As the conversation takes place, a number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, [1:28:21] including poor telecommunications and variations in accent and or interpretation. So you can check out [1:28:28] the full, uh, memorandum on our website. Um, Kim, I guess the question that I have, um, as we have [1:28:34] been talking about all of this, and already you're starting to see some Republicans saying, well, [1:28:38] you could see there was no quid pro quo, even though Olivia just pointed out the number of instances [1:28:42] where the president, uh, either talks about Joe Biden or talks about connecting his guy with somebody [1:28:48] in Ukraine. Um, this is, I think that in the time that we live in now, people want a smoking gun, [1:28:55] but there are no smoking guns in life. There are just a series of things that happen that is left up [1:29:01] to our leaders, the people who we've elected to, uh, look out after our best interests to connect the [1:29:07] dots for us and to take all of what is out there in the public record and then come to a conclusion based [1:29:13] on their investigation. You know, when you talk about a smoking gun, I think people want to see [1:29:17] a crime. They want to see the quid pro quo. You're already seeing that. When you associate it with, [1:29:20] with, uh, with impeachment, right? Right. But, but Kim, the truth of the matter is not all crimes rise [1:29:24] to the level of impeachment worthy. Um, and you don't need a crime in order to pursue an impeachment. [1:29:31] Absolutely. And even crimes, I mean, for those of us who lived through the OJ criminal trial and the [1:29:37] bloody footprint, a lot of people thought, you know, even with something that you would think is a smoking [1:29:41] gun, good lawyers, good, good mental, uh, gymnastics can, can get people thinking about a scenario in [1:29:48] a different way. And so the narrative is a critical element right now. Who's going to dominate it? [1:29:53] Can the Democrats hang on to the key issue, which is what did the president do? Um, and have the, [1:29:59] the additional information, the bigger picture unfold in a way that's, that's thoughtful and fair, [1:30:06] so that the American public can see what, what, what happened here? [1:30:09] Uh, we, um, we just received a, uh, Trump campaign statement on the release of what [1:30:17] they are calling a phone call transcript. Uh, and it's small, so I'm going to try to read it here, [1:30:22] but because of their pure hatred for president Trump, desperate Democrats and the salivating [1:30:28] media already had determined their mission, take out the president. The fact is that the president [1:30:32] wants to fight the corruption in Washington, where the Bidens, the Clintons and other career [1:30:37] politicians have abused their power for personal gain for decades. The facts prove the president [1:30:42] did nothing wrong. This is just another hoax from Democrats and the media contributing to the [1:30:47] landslide reelection of president Trump in 2020. That comes from Brad Parscale, the Trump 2020 campaign [1:30:55] manager. [1:30:56] Uh, yes, it's a new one for, for the press. Uh, um, okay. Uh, want to thank very, very much, [1:31:04] uh, all of our contributors that, uh, stood alongside us as we got this news and including, uh, Jeff [1:31:10] Pegues, who first received, um, an inkling of what was in this memorandum, uh, alongside our CBS [1:31:15] News political correspondent, Ed O'Keefe, CBS News legal analyst, Kim Whaley, who's in our Washington bureau, [1:31:19] uh, uh, Nancy Cordes, our chief congressional correspondent there standing by to take us [1:31:25] through all of this. Um, and Olivia Gazas, always great to have you here in New York. Um, [1:31:32] it's just so great that you guys were here to help us walk through all of this. [1:31:35] You can see the papers spread out across the desk. There's a lot of stuff that we're going through. [1:31:40] Yes. Thank you so much, guys. We appreciate it. [1:31:41] So for now, we're going to take a quick break, but we've got a lot of news ahead. You're streaming [1:31:45] CBSN. In Climate Watch, a new UN report is raising alarms over massive changes to the world's oceans [1:35:22] due to climate change. More than a hundred scientists spent the last three years looking [1:35:26] at how the earth's warming is impacting people and the environment. They say severe damage from [1:35:31] rising sea levels and melting glaciers is all but inevitable. Mark Phillips joins us now with more on [1:35:37] this from Monaco, where scientists gathered to release the report. Not a bad place to gather, [1:35:42] just as a side note, if you're going to get some pretty heavy information. So what did this report [1:35:47] focus on and how is it different from previous reports that we've seen from the IPCC? This report [1:35:58] concentrated on the oceans, which is, I suppose, one of the reasons they held the announcement of it [1:36:04] here in Monaco, that and the fact that the Prince Albert wanted it to be here and spent some money for [1:36:08] it. And it concentrated as well on what they call the the cryosphere, which is the Earth's frozen [1:36:14] regions, the North Pole, the South Pole and high mountain tops. And its its main conclusions were [1:36:21] that although these areas have been subject to climate change over over the decades and centuries, [1:36:28] they've reached the point now where they can't take the change anymore and the severe consequences [1:36:33] for humanity and for the rest of the world, low-lying coastal regions and people who who work on the sea [1:36:39] and people who even work on the land, because there will be effects on drinking water and irrigation [1:36:43] water as well, a lot of those are already in the system. How severe those consequences are will [1:36:49] depend on how much carbon dioxide we continue to pump into the atmosphere. And the report talks in [1:36:54] terms of high emission scenarios and lower emission scenarios. But basically, there's [1:36:59] there's a lot of interest in the klept정이 Kalim. How about there's could some difference here [1:37:19] in this country?