Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Billionaire & Former NYC Mayor Joins The 2020 Race; Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) Is Interviewed About the Ukraine Aid Hold Up; Supreme Court: Ginsburg Now "Home And Doing Well". Aired 6-7p ET

Aired November 24, 2019 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANA CABRERA, CNN NEWSROOM: -- over his handling of a war crimes case.

[18:00:02]

And a new candidate for 2020, a big name billionaire making it official and entering the race.

But, first, back to the new revelations from The Washington Post. A confidential White House review has turned up hundreds of emails showing extensive efforts to justice President Trump's decision to freeze military aid to Ukraine after the fact the delay of aid to Ukraine is at the center, of course, this ongoing impeachment inquiry in the House.

And according to The Post, the documents include email exchanges are between acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials from early August. Remember, Trump ordered the hold in mid- July.

The reporting also says White House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could, at a minimum, embarrass the president. The White House Counsel's review of documents was triggered by the ongoing House impeachment inquiry. And earlier today, Intel Chairman Adam Schiff talked about the importance of linking the president's decision to freeze Ukrainian aid to his efforts to dig up dirt about the Bidens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Yes, the president's own chief of staff, the person who meets with the president every day on live camera, admitted exactly that vis-a-vis the most serious and that is the military aid.

But, look, what Ambassador Sondland did say is everyone was in loop on the preconditioning of the meeting that Ukraine desperately sought for its recognition that the United States had its back, that everyone was in the loop on this, there was a clear quid pro quo.

And with respect to the military aid in the absence of any other explanation and in light of the president's own record of pressing for these investigations, two plus two equals four. What every judge tells every jury, and it's no different here, is you don't leave your common sense at the door. Everyone understood this was merely pressure to get the president's investigations.

And even more, and I thought this was notable about Ambassador Sondland's testimony, he wasn't even as interested in the investigations as he was the announcement of the investigations. And that gives the lie to the whole idea that this was ever about corruption. It wasn't. It was about the re-election campaign of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now, one of The Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, Carl Bernstein.

Carl, I'm so glad you could join us. Last hour, I spoke with former White House Counsel to Richard Nixon, John Dean, and I asked him, is this reporting the smoking gun? Here's his answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not sure it's a smoking gun, because I think we already have seen the smoking gun in the memorandum of conversation that Trump had with Zelensky asking him to do him a favor and clearly mentioning Biden and 2016. So that's, to me, always been we started with the smoking gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Carl, do you agree with John Dean's assessment that we're already beyond a smoking gun?

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think I first said, in fact, a couple weeks ago that the smoking gun was there at the beginning when the president of the United States released his own conversation. The July 25th conversation is the smoking gun. And what we have surrounding it is a massive cover-up of which this latest report is more evidence.

And what is the cover-up for? It is to cover up a conspiracy led by the president of the United States and his private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to undermine the president of the United States attempting to undermine the free electoral process of the United States by engaging a foreign power to dig up dirt on his most strong opponent, on the person that President Trump did not want to run against.

And then we have in these impeachment hearings pieces of evidence building and building, block after block after block. We see the whole conspiracy and we also see the conspiracy to cover it up, evidenced even more apparently by this report today in my former newspaper, The Washington Post.

The question really is, are Republicans, as they did in Watergate, willing to look at the truth and be open to the truth and judge the president of the United States on the basis of principle over party.

CABRERA: You just got through a lot right there. So let me back up for just a second. On this reporting, this new reporting today, do you think it is proof that these emails showing an after the fact effort to justify holding up Ukraine's aid, proof of a cover-up?

BERNSTEIN: I don't want to jump out in front before I see the emails and read the emails. But it would appear, from the description in The Post, that it looks like, from The Post's description, another element of the cover-up. I don't think we need too many more elements of the cover-up.

What we need is some open mindedness by members of the Republican Party and the Senate of the United States to say, look, this president's conduct and words and lies and attempt to undermine the constitutional basis of our democracy, free elections, is unacceptable.

[18:05:07]

It also rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and make a judgment, and we'll see.

CABRERA: As you know, the Republicans have said there is the seed of doubt. They have talked about how there has not been a witness who has testified directly that the president told me the aid will not move forward unless Ukraine investigates.

And bottom line here, as we're learning in this reporting, Congress wasn't notified the Ukraine aid was held up. The Pentagon didn't know why it was held up. The people in the office of OMB didn't know why either, only that Mulvaney said it was at the direction of the president.

What if the president is the only one who can answer that question as to why the aid was held up?

BERNSTEIN: I think we saw from the hearings what the story is here. I don't think that we need to tie ourselves into knots about the president being the only one, et cetera, et cetera. It is a massive evidentiary case, both circumstantial evidence and direct evidence with witnesses, such as Sondland, who testified about who else was in the loop, as he put it.

I don't think there is much question in terms of open minded people about what occurred here. The question is how are politicians who have the authority and the responsibility to judge whether or not the president of the United States should be impeached and then whether or not he should be convicted in a Senate trail. That's the real question at this point.

The evidentiary points, and we'll see in the trial -- look, there could be more evidence that's developed. There can be more evidence introduced at trial. If there's exculpatory evidence that the president has, he has the opportunity to introduce it at trial. And I have every confidence that they'll do that. We have further witnesses we'd like to hear from, John Bolton among them, who might have exculpatory evidence, who might have condemnatory evidence.

But so far, we have a huge case. I'm repeating myself here. It's been demonstrated. CABRERA: But you can overemphasize what is already out there in plain view.

Given all the evidence that has turned up in the last couple of weeks, I'm wondering if you ever felt during Watergate like, come on, we handed this thing all to you on a silver platter. Will these Republicans ever stop defending the president and take the evidence seriously? Did you have a moment like that?

BERNSTEIN: Well, yes. First of all, I hope we had a little more humility than to say we, we meaning The Washington Post and others, handed them on a silver platter. I think that it took a very long time for the consensus to develop among citizens of the country and among Republicans in Congress that the president was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. And it took the votes of Republicans.

Let's look at what Republicans did in Watergate. First, in the Senate Watergate committee hearings, what did the president know and when did he know it. That question was raised by a Republican senator, Howard Baker of Tennessee, the vice chairman. And then it was answered in the Watergate hearings. And then we had an impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that drew up articles of impeachment. And the key votes for those articles were cast by courageous Republicans.

And when it was evident that Nixon would be impeached and that the Senate trial was forthcoming, a delegation of courageous Republican leaders led by Barry Goldwater, the 1964 nominee of his party to be president, marched to the White House to meet with President Nixon. The Republican leader of the House was with them.

And Nixon looked at Goldwater and he was very confident that he thought he would be able to win a Senate trial. When he looked at Goldwater and said, Barry, how many votes do I have in the Senate trial in terms of being able to stay in office? And he was expecting that Goldwater would tell him he had enough votes. And Goldwater said, you have four votes as of now and you don't have mine. And the next day, Nixon decided he had to resign.

It's a very different era of the Republican Party. That era, Republican Party was -- look, we are looking at a war on truth. That is really the story of this presidency.

And if the Republicans are willing to go along and endorse and be part of a war on truth, they're on trial too in the Senate. And whether or not it will be decades that they are tarred with being part of this war on truth, we'll have to wait and see if they go down the line and are unwilling to look at the evidence based on merit.

CABRERA: Let me ask you a question about Adam Schiff, because he, of course, is the chairman of the House Intel Committee that's leading this probe and has conducted all these hearings. And he said today when he was speaking with our Jake Tapper that what's been put out there is worse than Nixon, but he won't say he's ready to impeach.

[18:10:09] Does that make sense?

BERNSTEIN: Yes. I think it's a formality, but he doesn't want to appear to be prejudging. I think he's made up his mind. I don't take him too much of face value there.

CABRERA: But how can you expect Republicans to say it's time to impeach if even the chairman -- Democratic chairman of the committee won't say it's time?

BERNSTEIN: Again, I think if we saw some expression of concern about the president's conduct and what are already very clear matters of evidence, and we didn't see that, what we saw was a down the line defense of the president of the United States contrary to the facts.

But getting back to this question about worse than Watergate, what distinguishes this in terms of elements that are worse than Watergate is that Richard Nixon never endangered the national security of the United States by engaging with a foreign power to undermine our electoral system.

What Nixon did was to undermine our electoral system at home through a massive campaign of political espionage and sabotage, intended to do the same thing that Trump has done here, to damage Nixon's strongest opponent, who was Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine. Substitute Muskie for Vice President Biden have a similar kind of situation except there's no foreign power involved.

And always, everything we are watching comes back to this president and Russia and Putin. Why is it that constantly from Helsinki to the Ukraine that the president of the United States -- and this is the underlying question of these hearings -- continues to do the bidding of Russia and Vladimir Putin and his interests as opposed to the national security interests of the United States?

And that's what McMaster, what Tillerson, what Kelly, what Mattis all concluded. They concluded that we have a president of the United States who is a danger to the national security of the United States. We've never had a situation like that where the president's closest aides concluded that the president himself was the danger to our national security.

CABRERA: Carl Bernstein --

BERNSTEIN: And this Ukraine story is part of that.

You've got to go?

CABRERA: I've got to leave it there. You're a wealth of knowledge and we really appreciate you being here to be part our experts weighing in. Thank you so much.

What is the impact of President Trump's lies? Join Jake Tapper as he investigates the truth. The CNN special report, All The President's Lies airs tonight at 9:00 here on CNN. We're also following breaking news this hour in the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. The defense secretary has now ordered the resignation of the Navy's top civilian leader for his handling of the war crimes case. We'll have all the details on this just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

CABRERA: Breaking news, in the controversial case of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, a senior defense official telling CNN Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer has been fired for proposing a secret agreement with the White House. According to the official, Spencer was proposing a review with a secret guarantee that Gallagher would be allowed to keep his status as a Navy SEAL.

Remember that Gallagher was convicted of posing with the body of an ISIS detainee. President Trump reinstated his rank after he was demoted as punishment.

For more on these stunning developments, I'm joined by CNN Military Analyst and retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby. Admiral, these are not household names. Can you explain the enormity of what's going on here?

JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: This is very significant, Ana. You're talking about the head civilian leader of the United States Navy and the Marine Corps, the secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, who was well regarded by admirals and Marine Corps generals in the Pentagon for his administration of the Navy Department, seen as a very level-headed, straight-shooting kind of guy.

It looks like, according to Esper's spokesman, that Mr. Spencer, the secretary of the Navy, was having conversations with the White House unbeknownst to the secretary of defense about the potential outcome for Chief Gallagher in this administrative review process. And if that's true, then you could certainly understand why the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, would lose his trust and confidence in the secretary of the Navy.

Again, all of this is just happening. We don't know much more than what we've seen in these accounts by spokespeople. But if it is as reported, that's a very significant event in this entire process and it's a very significant event just in terms of civilian and military control.

CABRERA: As you point out, according to the senior official, Spencer, again, went around his chain of command, namely Defense Secretary Mark Esper, in order to have that direct line to the White House. Why would he do that?

KIRBY: I don't know. I mean, that seems so unorthodox. And, frankly, based on -- and I don't know Mr. Spencer personally but I know people around him, it doesn't comport with the reputation I have heard he had in terms of being a guy who can color inside the line and follow processes, even trying to do things by the book. If this allegation is true, then it certainly would warrant Mr. Esper's deep concern and loss of his trust and confidence.

The only thing that I can -- just in terms of trying to make sense of this is that he was trying to get the Gallagher case resolved as quietly and effectively and as quickly and effectively as possible, because it has been -- as you and I talked about last night, it has been this incredible public spectacle.

And maybe he was trying to wrap this thing up in a way that he could comport with the president and get it done quietly and maybe that's why he was having these direct conversations. But it befuddles me why, at that level, you would have conversations with the White House about something that is so controversial and so public without including your boss, in this case, the secretary of defense.

CABRERA: And I just want to remind our viewers about when this started, which was on Thursday, and the president tweeted out, the Navy will not be taking away war fighter and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's trident pen. This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business. That was on Thursday. And so there's been a lot of back and forth since then. And here we are now on Sunday night and the Navy secretary is resigning.

I want to read a part of fired Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer's resignation letter the president.

[18:20:00]

He writes, I cannot, in good conscience, obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in front of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Admiral, these are not just words to military professionals. And Spencer clearly did not see his position as just a job. What do you read into that?

KIRBY: No. Again, I think it comports with the kind of man I've heard Mr. Spencer to be. Yet, it is a confusing line, because as you and I were talking last night, the Navy had been public yesterday about saying that they had been given permission by the White House to continue this administrative review of Chief Gallagher in terms of whether he gets to keep his trident SEAL pin or not.

So as we left this morning -- last night, the Navy was moving ahead and thought they had permission by the White House to go ahead with this process. And then for Mr. Spencer to put in his letter tonight that I can longer comport with this decision. I don't have the same view of good order and discipline with the president, either something changed over the course of today that the Navy got word about this review process that didn't comport with their understanding, and that was the break, or Mr. Spencer clearly didn't have the same understanding that other Navy officials had in terms of their ability to move forward. Because I have to think, Ana, that if they felt they could move forward with this processes, there would be no reason for him to throw down the way he did.

And also, there's a little bit of a difference in the way his letter is worded from what the secretary of defense's spokesman termed his termination. In one case, he's being fired for having these conversations behind our back, and in Spencer's words it's I'm quitting because I don't agree with the president about good order and discipline. So there is an awful lot we still need to sort out about what happened here.

CABRERA: And we are continuing to dig on that. Rear Admiral John Kirby, thank you very much.

KIRBY: My pleasure.

CABRERA: While the impeachment inquiry consumes Washington's attention and even more revelations come to light this evening, it's a new week, and that means yet another Democrat is throwing their hat into the 2020 ring. Hear why Michael Bloomberg says he is jumping into the race and what some candidates are saying about it.

But first, here is today's Before the Bell. Christine?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. Growing uncertainty over the outlook for a phase one trade deal with China. Last week, the major stock market averages hit new record highs, but stocks slumped midweek when U.S./China trade talks appeared to hit an impasse.

Now, some strategists say investors need to ignore the noise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that cooler heads on Wall Street have decided the president will come to some sort of an agreement because he needs an agreement and the Chinese need an agreement. So rather than trade off the headlines, I think it's an opportunity for long- term investors to go in and pick away at high quality companies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMANS: Keep in mind it's a short week on Wall Street. U.S. markets are closed on Thanksgiving Day and they close early on Friday. That's Black Friday when investors are hoping for signs the consumer is strong. The National Retail Federation predicts more than 165 million people will shop over the five-day Thanksgiving weekend. Holiday sales for 2019 are expected to rise by about 4 percent over last year.

In New York, I'm Christine Romans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

CABRERA: More breaking news now on CNN. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, makes it official, he is running for president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After building a business that created thousands of jobs, he took charge of a city still reeling from 9/11. A three- term mayor who helped bring it back from the ashes, bringing jobs and thousands of affordable housing units with it.

After witnessing the terrible toll of gun violence, he helped create a movement to protect families across America and stood up to the coal lobby and this administration to protect this planet from climate change.

And now, he's taking on him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Bloomberg announced today that he has been, really, what he's been telegraphing for several weeks, even though he said many times this year that he wasn't interested in running. In fact, here's part of Bloomberg's formal statement today where he made the focus of his campaign clear.

I am running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America. We cannot afford four more years of President Trump's reckless and unethical actions.

Other Democrats in the race for a long time are reacting today. Here is Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections. That is why we are going to overturn Citizens United. That is why multibillionaires, like Mr. Bloomberg, are not going to get very far in this election. That is why we're going to end voter suppression in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: With us now to discuss is Washington Post Opinion Columnist Catherine Rampell and former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings.

Catherine, will this Bloomberg announcement shake up the field? What do you see changing?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think very little will change at this point. It's not clear that the Democratic primary voter base is really clamoring for a billionaire with a sprawling business empire worldwide that could present lots of conflicts of interest who has sort of a dubious criminal justice record that that's what they are demanding.

Look, Bloomberg does have a strong philanthropic record. He does have -- on gun control, for example, on climate change issues that are important to Democrats.

He has given a lot of money to Democrats, particularly in 2018. But it's not clear that his entry into this race is really going to shake things up.

[18:30:00]

CABRERA: But here's the fact, this guy has a lot of money. Bloomberg is richer than President Trump. Scott, is he the guy who can take on Trump when it comes to the economy? Could he appeal to voters that were maybe behind Trump because of his business background but now have an option without all the circus?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I don't know about that. I'm, you know, I think all these candidates who are hoping to get the Democratic nomination, now Bloomberg included, are all going to wind up heading to take positions that would take what you just said off the table. What you just said is extremely reasonable and they're all having to take a lot of, what I would regard as unreasonable positions, in an effort to get left leaning voters in this primary.

I don't know if he's going to have a chance to do this or not. I mean he's spending a heck of a lot of money. I mean it's, you know, money he finds in the couch cushions. But it's real money. And we're going to see an advertising blitz right out of the gate that will certainly let people know that he's in the race.

But, you know, there's already elderly white males in this race. There's already a billionaire in this race. And now there's already mayors in this race, if you talk about --

CABRERA: Right.

JENNINGS: -- former Mayor Sanders and current Mayor Buttigieg. So there's already people with his kind of record in the race or at least his background, although he sort of puts it all into one interesting package. So I'm dubious that that he can get the nomination. But I think with the amount of money he's planning to spend, you can certainly royal the waters

CABRERA: But when he, you know, when you just compare him to Trump, does Bloomberg appeal to you? Would you consider voting for him?

JENNINGS: Oh, no. I think Bloomberg has -- I mean look, this guy has spent a heck of a lot of his own fortune trying to inhibit the constitutionally protected liberties of Americans, whether Second Amendment, whether it's, you know, how much soda, you can buy. I mean this is a guy who has proven time and again that he would like to use the government to inhibit personal freedoms. And that bothers me. And although I think he may be more conservative than some of the rest of the Democrats who were running --

CABRERA: He's a former Republican.

JENNINGS: -- in this primary. Overall, I think he's basically a liberal. And he's going to have to take even more liberal positions if he hopes to make any dent in this primary process. So no, I'm not ready to turn the country over to socialists and I think whoever wins this primary is likely going to have to get bid with him, so no thanks. RAMPELL: I would be very doubtful of the idea that Bloomberg is going

to turn into a socialist. But do I agree with Scott that I don't think that Bloomberg is going to siphon off a lot of Republican votes.

CABRERA: And he doesn't have a lot of time, right, because we're exactly 100 days out from Super Tuesday where Bloomberg is focusing his efforts. He needs to get support and get it fast. And there is a passion in the Democratic Party that is fueling that progressive wing that you both have just talked about. Catherine, can Bloomberg tap into that passion when in many respects he represents what they're fighting against?

RAMPELL: Yes. I mean the asset that he has going for him, his wealth, that could project his campaign forward, namely through getting campaign ads and whatnot is also the thing that is likely to hold him back. Because in this election, as I said, there is not a lot of appetite amongst Democratic voters for putting another billionaire in office, rightly or wrongly, right. Whether that should be held against him or held as an asset, I don't know.

But if you look at what Democratic voters are looking for, it does not appear that they're really hungering for Michael Bloomberg in this race even if actually they are in line with him probably on a lot of policy issues.

CABRERA: Right. Catherine Rampell and Scott Jennings we've got to leave it there guys, busy breaking news night. Thank you very much.

[18:33:33]

Our other breaking news this hour, a new Washington Post report detailing how the White House sought an after the fact justification for the holding up of military aid to Ukraine, we'll get reaction from member of the House Judiciary Committee, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: We are back with the breaking news from "The Washington Post" that after President Trump halted the aid to Ukraine, there was an extensive effort within the administration to justify that decision and a debate even among budget National Security Council and State Department Officials over whether this delay in aid was legal. Again, this was all after the fact, after the aid had been halted. Now, "The Washington Post" reports, according to documents turned up in a confidential White House review.

White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, asked budget officials in early August for an update on the legal rationale and how long it could be delayed. That was about a month after Trump had made the decision to withhold the Ukrainian aid without an assessment of the legality or reasoning.

With us now to discuss is Congressman Cedric Richmond who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thanks for being here. Will this put more fire now in the belly of Democrats to get Mulvaney to testify? REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND (D-LA): Well, look, I can just say this, Ana, that if you look at all the evidence and all the witnesses that have testified publicly or in the private sessions, it looks very bad for the President and it looks damning. But we have an open mind and we would just implore that President to let Mulvaney, to let Bolton, to let Pompeo, come and testify under oath in front of Congress to who knew what and when, and what did they do, and why they did it. And of course, there's always an open invitation to the President to take an oath and testify under oath about what he did and why he did it.

And the truth of the matter is this report just sheds more light on the fact that there was an attempted coverup to why the Ukraine money was being held up. And we know why it was being held up because the witnesses testified to it. They were holding up the $400 million in aid and they were holding up a White House meeting until the Ukraine President would publicly announce that there would be an investigation into Burisma and both Bidens.

CABRERA: As you know, Republicans have said, no, wait a minute, you're only presuming that's why the aid was being held up. That's what we kept hearing over and over again during these impeachment hearings.

[18:40:04]

But as you point out, there have been multiple additional developments just this weekend, in fact, in this Ukraine scandal, "The Washington Post" reporting just being the latest. There were also developments with Pompeo and Giuliani and conversations they had.

Also Congressman Devin Nunes in reporting that he may have been talking with Ukrainians as well that wasn't disclosed. Right now, we're left with more questions than answers. If you push forward with articles of impeachment now, are you worried voters may view this investigation as incomplete?

RICHMOND: Well, I think that there's still work to do. In fact, Judiciary Committee which I'm on, we still have work to do. And I think that we will do a case of laying it out to the American people the facts. And, yes, we get new facts every day.

But like I said before, the facts we have before us, some of which are from aides that worked for the President, appointed by the President, some of their testimony comes from Republican called witnesses. And so, right now, it is absolutely a one-sided story that Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Nunes, I mean Nunes is so far out there that I'm surprised there's not an ethics investigation into him by now. One for leaking classified information and now for taking a trip in between the time that they lost the House and the time we were sworn in, in the majority of going over and having meetings to dig up dirt on presidential campaigns.

And so it's -- this stinks and it's really an embarrassment for the country. And I believe that we have an obligation to shed light on all of the facts of this. And I think that Ranking Member Nunes should have to testify under oath or before the Ethics Committee on what he was doing and why he was doing it.

CABRERA: So when you talk about shedding light, that's what the last couple of weeks have been about, right, with these public impeachment hearings. When we heard as the American public was listening from these witnesses who had already been disposed behind closed doors and you had said previously as well as other Democrats that that's what it would take in order to turn the tide. That's when bipartisanship would emerge, just listen to the witnesses, let the facts lead the way. But bipartisanship has not emerged. Why hasn't that happened?

RICHMOND: Well, I think the Republicans, unfortunately, have traded in their courage and their conscience because they are afraid of the President of the United States and he can single-handedly give them a primary opponent or affect their reelection. We see it with Lindsey Graham.

Lindsey Graham was the strongest, most independent Republican senator and he has just shriveled up like a wet noodle. And so I believe that this is nothing unique. They're scared of this president because he is such a bully, because he is so petty, and that he will seek retribution, and so we will continue to do our job. And look, I don't profess that this is easy on Democrats.

However, when we took the oath and we were sworn in, we didn't say we would only do things that were easy or convenient. We said we would protect the constitution. And right now the constitution calls for us to rein in this out of control President that abuses his power and breaks the law. And so if there are political consequences that we have to pay for doing that, then we'll pay those consequences. But we swore an oath to the constitution and the people of this country.

CABRERA: Speaking of politics, you're also the national co-chair for Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. There's a new candidate in the race as of this morning, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I spoke to Bloomberg actually in August, some 106 days ago, about running and I want to play that exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: When is the last time you thought about running for president?

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Long time ago.

CABRERA: Have you completely ruled it out for 2020?

BLOOMBERG: I think that the only thing I'm considering, somebody suggested that I should think about 2024 and run in then. So I'll consider that one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I guess that timeline moved up by four years. Is that because Bloomberg's sees your guy, Biden, as politically weaker now versus then? RICHMOND: Well. I don't know. Look, I think this narrative that is portrayed mostly by the media, and I'm not slamming the media, but I think that it is a media narrative that Joe Biden somehow is slumping in the polls or having a hard time running a campaign.

Look, in three, depending on which poll in three other four early states, we're up with double digit leads in Nevada and South Carolina, in battleground states against Trump we're up five out of the seven were raising great money for the last two months. And so I think we are doing extremely well. Now, why Governor Bloomberg -- I mean Mayor Bloomberg entered the race, you'd have to ask him.

[18:45:02]

But, look, the more the merrier. We're fighting for the soul of this country. I believe in Joe Biden. I believe in his ability. I see him every day. And he has never been more motivated in the time that I've known him for a goal because he knows what's at stake. And so we look forward to debating the mayor if he makes the debate stage.

We look forward to seeing him in Nevada or South Carolina if he decides to campaign in Nevada or South Carolina. We look forward to seeing him in Iowa and New Hampshire. But the truth of the matter is people have been campaigning for a long time and the Democratic --

CABRERA: Right.

RICHMOND: -- voters are happy with the field that they have.

CABRERA: Congressman Cedric Richmond, thank you for joining us tonight.

RICHMOND: Thank you having me, Ana.

CABRERA: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is back home from the hospital this hour following yet another health scare. The details on her condition, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: The Supreme Court says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is recovering at home and doing well following her latest health scare. The 86-year-old was admitted to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore Friday night after she experienced chills and a high fever. The court says Ginsburg symptoms improved after she was given IV, antibiotic, and fluids.

[18:50:09]

Supreme Court reporter, Ariane de Vogue, joins us now. Ariane, what more do we know about her condition at this point and when might she return to the bench?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right. We know she's back at home on Friday. She was actually at court. She participated in a closed door conference but later started feeling ill. She took herself to a local hospital but then was taken by ambulance to Baltimore about an hour and a half away.

There they thought it was an infection. They gave her antibiotics and she did respond and was released this morning. But the one thing that's important to note is she is tough. Four time cancer survivor. She had diagnoses lung cancer last year that caused her to miss some arguments on the bench and then just before this term began she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

But what's incredible here is that in between the end of that treatment and the beginning of the term she went on a speaking tour, Ana, across the country. She appeared with President Clinton at one point. So she is tough. She said she doesn't want to sit home and feel sorry for herself. And she said in the past that if she's going to do this job as long as she feels like she can, and she takes it year by year.

But it's coming. Her illness is coming at an important time. The court is not on the bench right now. They're on a brief recess, but behind the scenes they are considering a major petition from President Trump who's trying to block the release of a House subpoena of his financial records, so a lot going on right now. And she's back at home and will have to grapple with all of that.

CABRERA: Such a tough, tough lady. Thank you, Ariane de Vogue. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:12]

CABRERA: Saturday night live return this week with focus on the impeachment inquiry. Will Ferrell appears as Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Alec Baldwin is back as President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: It's so great to finally meet you for the first time by the way.

WILL FERRELL, ACTOR: Oh, right, right, right. Keep the old quid pro quo on the low-low, got it.

BALDWIN: I think I just was leaving right now.

FERRELL: Hang on, I just want to go on the record and say you guys need to layoff my boy. Everyone loves his ass.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

FERRELL: Ukraine, Russia.

BALDWIN: That's enough. That's enough.

FERRELL: They'll do anything for this man. I know, I asked.

BALDWIN: All right. I got to go in conclusion, no quid pro quo. FERRELL: Oh, there definitely was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: More on our breaking news this evening when we come back, "The Washington Post" reports tonight that the White House developed an after-the-fact justification for withholding military aid to Ukraine. One of the journalists who broke this story joins us live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: We're live in the CNN newsroom. Good evening to you. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. And we are following breaking developments right now related to President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, details that are central to his impeachment inquiry.

[19:00:03]

Right now, a confidential White House review has turned up hundreds of e-mails showing extensive efforts --