tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 25, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
cookie. give him one. make tail wag even more. cnn, new york. >> thanks so much for joining us. "ac360" starts right now. a federal judge hands president trump a major defeat. gives impeachment investigators a big boost, and sends a clear signal to anyone who is thinking about testifying but holding back for now. looking at you, john bolton. john berman here for anderson. late today, different judge brown jackson ruled the former white house counsel and mueller star witness don mcgahn must comply with the house subpoena. and he must exert executive privilege at appropriate moments, it makes very clear, there is no basis for the white house claim mcgahn is absolutely immune from being compelled by congress to testify. absolute immune is not a thing, she writes. at all. presidents are not kings, she
adds. so it is a very busy night. there is also new reporting about acting white house chief of staff nick mulvaney's role. and linking to associates and apparently now his company. plus, what the lawyer for one of the associates says that could implicate devin nunes, top republican on the intelligence community, in effort to get dirt on jbd. and the president fires his navy secretary and the navy secretary fires back. we begin the court ruling and jim acosta live for us at the white house. what has the white house reaction been so far? >> reporter: well, john, this ruling applies to the former white house counsel don mcgahn. it might as well apply to nick mulvaney and john bolton. the white house is saying not so fast. there was a statement in the last couple minutes saying this decision contradicts longstanding precedent
established by administrations on both political parties. we will appeal and are confident that it will be vindicated. this constitutional principle the administration is advancing is that they can say no to anybody testifying up on capitol hill. and what the judge said in that ruling is, no, that's not the case. the judge pointed to the case of harriet meyers during the george w. bush administration. essentially saying don mcgahn could be to capitol hill and say that executive privilege has been asserted here. but john, obviously this applies to not just don mcgahn whose attorney says, if this ruling is not stayed by a judge pending an appeal, his client will testify. more importantly, more crucially than all this, mulvaney's attorney is saying that his client will not be participating, will not be testifying no matter what this ruling says. so the white house is back to the trump administration, back to where they've been in all of
this which is the position of stonewalling. >> it is interesting. don mcgahn's attorney specifically said if it is not stayed, he will testify. very specific language and we'll talk about that. we'll get to it. what does this mean in the list of other white house officials who have tea identified subpoenas? >> i talked to a legal source who said listen, this absolutely applies to nick mulvaney and john bolton and it has been played throughout all this. you know this all too well. the white house has been gambling on one thing. and that is if they say no to these officials testifying on capitol hill, that democrats will make the political us which that they're not going to risk this dragging out in court for months and months because they don't want it dragging into the next general election cycle which we're in the midst of that right now. the white house is saying, we'll
stick with that strategy. if this moves through courts and this hearing is upheld at higher levels, if that point the white house might have no option but to make sure that mulvaney and bolton testify. but i think this is really the lynchpin to all of this. what you're hearing from a lot of people, not just the republican party but the democratic party. sources are telling us that the democrats may not have a case. they might have a case to impeach the president in the house where they have the numbers but not necessarily in the senate. and if they want to have anything but a partisan impeachment process, they may need john bolton, nick mulvaney to testify in all of this. and that's why it may get sorted out in the weeks to come. >> all right. jim acosta at the white house for us. thank you very much. we have our own lawyers on hand to dig through this. chief analyst jeffrey toobin,
also, jennifer rodgers who had don mcgahn's job. i want to read a little bit of this ruling. put it on the screen. joe jackson writes, with respect to senior level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. as the kids would say, absolute immunity is not a thing. how stark of a ruling is this? >> it is really such an extraordinary claim by the white house. that not only doesn't don mcgahn or any white house official have to protect individual conversations with the president, the white house argued they don't even have to show up. they are absolutely immune from congressional oversight. judge jackson could not be more explicit as that passage illustrates. there is no such thing as absolute immunity. however, the come mexico at this here is that what is covered by executive privilege remains
somewhat ambiguous. but does don mcgahn if this ruling is upheld, have to show up and answer at least some questions? absolutely. >> and the judge goes on to say it is not just a lawyer. not just a domestic policy adviser. not just a foreign policy adviser. any white house employee is covered by this ruling. if you are john bolton watching this, what do you think he's thinking? >> he has to be doing some serious thinking about it. he is directly involved. he could easily say based on this ruling, i am now going to go testify. i'm no longer a white house employee. i think i have things to say that are unrelated to the executive privilege. he could claim, he is an attorney. he knows there's a crime-fraud exception to any of his conversations. if he has knowledge of criminal activity, he can go in and
testify about it. so if he wants to, he can come forward and do so without the later case that he is connected with and another judge in the same court. and he can proceed. it is an excellent opinion, incidentally. a strong opinion. she says we've been here, done this before and we won't mess around with it. >> another quote from this opinion. she writes, stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings. now, that is stark. also right from the federalist payments, by the way. she's quoting high school education to the white house legal team here. what did you make of that? >> well, it is really about separation of powers. if you cannot as congress oversee the executive branch, if you cannot engage in impeachment hearings and gather evidence as part of that process, he with
don't have co-equal parts of government. he is not a king. he has to be subject to in certain ways pursuant to the constitution, chug the judicial, which is judge jackson issuing this subpoena. so they'd better listen. >> obviously we know the white house has said that they will appeal this case. this will be appealed. so this could drag on for some time. on the issue used by don mcgahn, you looked at it. the legal team didn't say we'll see it through to the bitter end. what the attorney said is, he will testify if the decision is not stayed. >> right. what is important is when you appeal something, usually the appeal, the underlying decision comes into effect. unless you get what is called a stay. and that means the d.c. circuit,
the appellate court says, you, white house, have a likelihood of success on the merits. you are so likely to win on appeal that we're going to hold off on this ruling. it is pretty unusual. and i think it is unusual in this case. so what don mcgahn's lawyer william burke means, is that unless he gets, the white house gets a stay, and that should be known within a week or two, mcgahn will testify. and that really changes the calendar in a very drama way. if he were going to wait for the appellate process to be resolved, that could be months. >> it's not impossible that there is no stick. >> i think i think like will you. which means mcgahn would have to testify sooner rather than hear. >> and that gets to the political issue here. we'll have a democratic member of congress on in just a second, john dean. the democrats face a question.
now that this judge has ruled as she ruled, is it worth waiting to see if they can get their hands on don mcgahn or john bolt honor nick mulvany? what do you think? >> i don't think they are going to wait. what is happening is the house intelligence committee is going forward and writing up its report which it will send to the house judiciary committee. this ruling was a verdict for the house judiciary committee which filed the action and had subpoenaed mcgahn. so i think they can keep rolling along and the issue of stay or no stay will be resolved well before they're about to wrap up their business. in the normal course of things, i think this issue and that issue will be sorted out. >> then there is this legal issue which the judge did carve out. but at any time really illuminate in great detail. executive privilege. that a witness could still exert executive or assert executive
privilege. i guess it would be the white house. what could that cover? do we know? if in fact in the case of don mcgahn, we know about these issues surround whether or not the president was telling him to fire people and obstruct justice, would it cover testimony about that? >> executive privilege is an area very unlike attorney-client privilege that is not well litigated. it's not very cheer what the parameters are. i think what we will see if don mcgahn shows up to testify is a lot of xergss of executive privilege. and that's the problem. the congressional testimony doesn't give a lot of ways to have that issue resolved immediately on the spot the way you would in a criminal trial. with a judge presiding. so that will be the problem. an individual inquiry based on the actual question asked and the likely answer. it will be a big mess, frankly. we'll have all sorts of assertions. no real way. the house won't get a lot of information out of him.
>> but in theory, it won't cover actual exertions of a crime. >> again whether it is a crime or not is subject to a legal analysis. i think it will be a mess. i think they're unlikely to get a lot of good information from them beyond what he testified to or spoke to mueller's team. >> i agree. mcgahn can really decide where he wants to answer questions or not and he now barring a stay has a real opportunity to do that. if he's so inchilined. >> thank you for being on. there's more lawyering to be done. one quick break, the supreme court gave the president a breather suspendsing for now the house subpoena seeking financial records from his accounting firm. this is not a ruling but a signal the high court will take up the case. an appeals court upheld the subpoena last month.
next, another subpoena potentially covering the alleged bag man rudolph giuliani to a major criminal investigation. and later, why republicans are saying things they have every reason to know simply are not true to please a president who believes the falsehoods as well. is what it some are calling cult-like devotion? that and more on "360." --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪
another big legal development tonight, this one from the grangd. part of a probe targeting associates of rudolph giuliani. his ukraine lieutenants and linking him to serious potential charges. there's terrific reporting on this. new reporting tonight. what are you learning about this grand jury subpoena? >> we learned that the subpoena tells us two things about this investigation so far.
it tells us that it is quite broad and that they are exploring a range of potential criminal charges. all we know to date, before the subpoena, was that they returned to campaign finance violations. now we know they are considering wire fraud, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators. there's a lot that we don't know. this does show us that there is a very broad investigation and it could include a range of criminal conduct. >> and where does rudy giuliani fit into that? >> it's interesting. this subpoena is requesting from the person that received it any communications. but it is also asking for any communications with rudolph giuliani, his security consulting business giuliani partners, and it asks for any communications or records about any actions or potential payments to jue or any agreements relaigt to that. so they're looking at the money flow, the business relationship between all of these men. >> his name is all over it. what did they have to say?
>> his attorney robert costello, a criminal defense lawyer, he gave us a statement where he said i did not receive any documents from giuliani or giuliani partners. it would not be surprising given that two of the individuals had a relationship with giuliani or giuliani partners. all the sdny had to do was asked us and we would have given them whatever they wanted because mayor giuliani has nothing to hide and did everything in a proper and legal way. so he is saying they haven't heard from the prosecutor's office and no subpoenas or voluntary requests for information. >> all right. stand by. jeffrey, his name, rudolph giuliani, is all over this subpoena. how worried should he be? >> well, to be fair, it is important to point out a subpoena is very far from an indictment. so he is not charged with anything. and he certainly may never be. but as the judge i used to clerk for liked to say, they don't
pick these people's names out of the phone book. if people don't know what a phone book is, google it or something. but it is not a good thing to be named in a subpoena. the fact that his attorney is saying he hasn't seen it, that's bad news. that's not good news. they don't subpoena targets. they subpoena other people to collect evidence about targets. >> to that point, giuliani's lawyers put out this statement saying if the southern district wanted this information, they could have just asked giuliani and they would have turned everything over. do federal investigators typically work like that? do they buy line? >> thanks but no thanks, mr. costello. no way will they collect these documents from rudy giuliani and no way would they check him to turn over everything they're looking for. they're going about it the right way. and as he said, we'll see where it takes us down the road. if i were rudy giuliani, i would be worrying for sure.
>> we still don't know exactly what rudolph giuliani did for l lev's company. it is called fraud guarantee. a last line every time. >> too on the nose. giuliani earned $500,000. we don't know doing what. could that fill in any blanks? >> rudolph giuliani has only said that he has done legal advice for this company for half a million dollars and he was paid in august of 2018. what we've also learned is that a lawyer for a plaintiff's attorney who invested in the company, he said he's the one that paid giuliani and it was a loan to the company of the he thought would it help credibility. it's not clear what business they've done. and prosecutors have asked individuals who were broexd this deal for any communications and information about this. so you can tell that they're really digging into this and it may not be the only business
relationship that they're poking around in. >> so president trump keeps and tolling rudolph giuliani's virtues as a crime fighter. reflect for a moment if you will, the epic journey of rudy giuliani from u.s. attorney to mayor to now friend of lev and igor. >> there are former u.s. attorneys who have been prosecuted in the past, very, very rarely but never by the office that they used to lead. let's be clear. he is not accused of anything. this is certainly an unusual he's always two-term mayor of new york city. a person who led the polls for the republican presidential primary for some time. didn't win but this was a major figure.
>> rudy giuliani, one of the things he keeps saying, he claims it's a joke, that he has an insurance policy in case the president turns on him. he says he's being sarcastic but it is kind of weird. right? it does raise a bunch of questions. what is going on here? >> it's very strange. the first time he said it, maybe it was a joke and then he kept repeating it. if he actually means that he has derogatory information about the president that is so improper on so many levels. it is unethical as a lawyer to say something like that. it could mean real trouble for the president in terms of his criminal liability. it is so bad on so many fronts, i don't know why he keeps saying that. maybe someday we'll see what he means with this insurance policy if this goes far enough. >> if it is a joke, it's not a very good one. how quickly are investigators working?
do they feel compelled to do this before the election? >> that's an actual issue. they don't want to repeat the situation with james comey where he made comment about hillary clinton on the eve of the election in 2016. so they're very mindful of the election. where would you draw the line because of all the different actors in this? they are mindful of that. i think what we can see from the scope of the subpoena that's we've been reporting sent out to a number of donors and fund-raisers, they are really canvassing the landscape to talk to people with this. i think they are mindful of the election. it could mean they either speed it up or any action occurs after that, a lot of it will depend on the evidence they collect. >> thank you all very much. up next, i'll talk more about this case. the mcgahn ruling and more with a member of the house intelligence committee. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis,
little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different.
recapping the breaking news unfolding, a federal judge rules that former white house counsel don mcgahn must comply with a house subpoena to testify before a house committee. and late word that federal prosecutors are investigating business associates of rudolph giuliani in what appears to be a wide ranging probe that could include criminal charges ranging from obstruction of justice to money laundering. this according to a subpoena send to at least one witness and seen by cnn. it means that giuliani's business could be a subject of their investigation. joining me now, democratic congressman mike quigley, thanks so much for being with us. i want to start with this ruling from judge jackson that white
house counsel don mcgahn must testify before congress in the impeachment probe. how significant do you see that? >> look, i think it is critical. not just for this case but for the future of congressional oversight. part of what i would tell my republican colleagues is, do you really want to live in the world where any president has absolute immunity over any congressional oversight? i don't think you have to look too far in the future where that could be of great concern for you. and the immediate reaction is, i think it is a message to all the witnesses who obstructed in the white house for telling them not to appear. it is time to show up. >> do you think this ruling gives cover to someone like former national security adviser john bolton to testify in the impeachment inquiry? >> i think he might use it for that. but i'm not sure why he feels like he needs it. if this was what he was described as saying, a drug deal, if rudolph giuliani was a
hand grenade, if indeed he stiffened at that meeting and abruptly ended it. if he felt as strong as i think he does about defending ukraine as a u.s. ally, why would he even need a subpoena? look at the people who in a clear, skin, and i think most important courageous voice, spoke as one to the american people through their duly elected congress, if this is about selling books, i guess, take your time, mr. bolton. if this is about stepping up at a time when it mattered most, it is time to go. >> does this ruling give and you your colleagues any reason to think, hey, maybe we should wait for the legal process to play out? maybe we could get bolton, mulvaney and others to testify if we wanted to? >> look, it sounds inviting and i think we can do more than one thing at the same time.
obviously, the report is being written. we're deliberating on all other matters relating to this. we continue to get these documents. i think that it leaves time and room open as this happens at the same time we're writing these reports, that we may take additional depositions, seeing what the documents are first, what they tell us and where we should go from here. >> what is your reaction to this news about rudolph giuliani document? at this point he hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing but what has been made very cheer, how many outstanding questions there are regarding his involvement in all of this. it seems like all roads lead to him, from him or through him. >> well, rudy was the issue we care about most. the quarterback of the president soliciting one of our closest allies for a bribe. i think he quarterbacked it in ukraine. i don't know if there was a
second track out there of profiteers that we apparently sent to ukraine at a horrible time. i think it is time for that investigation to take place as well. so if you're willing to go to ukraine and do something wrong, it is hard to imagine that you wouldn't be willing to go there and do other things for personal profit. >> so cnn is reporting that house democrats are focusing on multiple articles of impeachment. some of your colleagues want to go beyond the ukraine issue to include instances of obstruction of justice from the mueller report. others want things narrowly focused on ukraine. where do you fall on this? what do you finds to be the best strategy? >> i think it is time for that strategy discussion to take place. i think it is most important that we do this in the most effective manner possible. i believe the jury is the american people. that drives the forces that perhaps drive the u.s. senate at the same time. it is really hard to overlook
the mueller report. it is pretty clear to me that special counsel was hindered in indicting the president for obstruction. simply because the department of justice doesn't allow such things in its regulations. i also think that if we don't hold this president accountable for all this, look. we have to look at what took place the day after the special counsel testified. that was the day the president called president zelensky. when he's not held accountable, i think he goes on to higher crimes and misdemeanors. all that being. i think we file articles that are most effective, most appropriate no matter how the caucus debates back and forth on other matters. >> all right. keep us posted. appreciate you being with us tonight. >> happy thanksgiving to all. >> you too. just ahead, president trump's conspiracy theory support a new supporter in the senate.
the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, or up to a family of four. keep your family connected, and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to four iphone 11's on us. only at t-mobile.
♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. despite a top white house national security official who testified that russia, not ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election, she called the ukraine theory a russian cover story, despite that, despite the fact that this is also the consensus of the entire u.s. intelligence community including the cia, fbi, justice department, and
both intelligence committees, at least one republican senator has decided to back president trump, that maybe it was ukraine. here's john kennedy. >> reporter: senator kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the dnc and clinton campaign computers? their emails? was it russia? or ukraine? >> i don't know. nor do you. nor do any of us. miss hill -- >> let me interrupt to say, the entire intelligence community says it was russia. >> right. but it could also be ukraine. >> see what he did there? i don't know. you don't either. clever, huh? so it bears repeating, there is no as in zero evidence ukraine interfered in the election. not only that, members of congress were briefed that it was russia pushing that nonsense. joining us now, "washington post" columnist, for george w.
bush and republican strategist rick wilson author of everything trump touches, dies. i want to start. but you wrote an op ed in which you say loyalty to trump among republicans is proved by the loosening of all other loyalties to truth, to honesty, to the national good. by this measure you write, kenlds is pro foundly loyal to the president. i think back to when i first met knew 2000 when you were a speech writer to george w. bush. can you even recognize someone like this in your party today? >> no. there is a real irony at work. it used to be conservatives in the '80s and '90s who defended the idea of absolute truthful criticized relativism and subjectivism. now in trump world, everyone can have their own truth. and that i think is an invitation to chaos. it means that no one can have the truth at all.
>> right. and in some cases, there are multiple truths like in this one. there seems to be one truth that russia attacked the u.s. election and ukraine did not. so what john kennedy is saying is a lie. and rick, to you, do you think john kennedy actually believes it? >> john kennedy absolutely does not believe it. he is being a mendacious, low human being. he is demonstrating, the things he's been told directly by the u.s. intelligence community and all these senators have been briefed on thoroughly. he knows he's lying. he is abundantly aware that to defend trump, he has to tell an shoot lie. it is not matter of opinion. it is russia who hacked the u.s. elections. russia who elected to support donald trump. but john kenlds like his republican colleagues will do absolutely anything to prevent donald trump from being angry at him. anything to feed trump's mob
including lying to his constituents. he went to oxford. he's not dumb. he's just lying. >> you write about this in your piece today. the whole ukraine did it narrative. it is coming from the russians. this is what vladimir putin wants them to say. if you think of nothing else, republican who's have been opponents of the soviet union and russia for generations would want to deprive putin of that victory. yes? >> the most successful operations are not only destructive, they have deniability. and putin has tried to blame his victim in a war for this interference in american elections. you can see the truth of it on the fbi most wanted list. there are 12 russians on that list now who, an indictment was brought against them. i think that people like kennedy have made the choice they're going to support the president.
now it is the president's choice, how stupid he makes them look by asking them to defend the indefensible. >> i want to ask you about something that richard perry said. he was asked yesterday. he compared, he said something compared to what nemd 2015. listen to this. >> mr. president, i know there are people who say, you said you were the chosen one. and i said you were. >> my fellow republicans, beware of false profits. do not let itching ears be tickled by messengers who feel anger, division, resentment. >> so how do you get from point b there back to point a? >> you know, rick perry who was the guy who was respected as the governor of texas has followed
the same arc far too many republicans have followed. they believe they can enter trump's world and not experience the thing that happens to everyone. he is both corrupt and corrupting. what they realize once they're deep in the meyer is that it i not sufficient to just agree with him or just do what he asks. you have to praise him. describe him as a god. as the smartest, tallest, most handsome man in the room. he always has to be right. so they're in this endslessly recursive pattern where they have to do this more and more, egregiously more and more, greater and greater exaggeration to trump's qualities. now you have rick perry saying he was send by god. an astounding power donald trump has to break people and to cause them on abandon every principle they ever embraced. >> and i do want to ask but this. you've done your most thought l
thoughtful, what goes through your mind when you hear him referring to him as chosen in. >> first, it is confusion in the categories. this is a case where god is sovereign but that doesn't mean that everyone deserves their job in government. you have to explain mussolini somehow. and this is a case where the role, the proper role of christians in public life is not to pronounce some to be the chosen one. it is to represent the priorities of christ in the world. and that includes taking care of the least and the lost. by those standards, the president has failed utterly. >> thank you so much for being with us tonight. both of you have a happy thanksgiving. still ahead for us, more breaking news. the navy secretary forced out and speaking out in his first television interview. his rebuke of president trump when "360" continues. geico makes it easy to get help when i need it.
with licensed agents available 24-7, it's not just easy. it's having-jerome-bettis- on-your-flag-football-team easy. go get 'em, bus! ohhhh! [laughing] c'mon bus, c'mon! hey, wait, wait, wait! hey man, i got your flag! i got your flag, man! i got your flag! it's geico easy. with licensed agents available 24/7. 49 - nothing! woo!
it has been another busy night to say the least. type to check if with chris to see what he's working on. >> all right. we'll take a look at what the judge's decision with the former white house counsel mcgahn means for the other people who dome want to testify or the president wants to keep from testifying. we'll take that on. good legal minds on that. it means more going then the man everyone is talking about, we will talk to. senator john kennedy. why is he saying this stuff about ukraine. and ronan pharoah, he's talking to new york prosecutors, what's his take on it, he's got a brand new podcast starts tomorrow. he'll give us an exclusive
more breaking news tonight. the navy secretary fired after he and president trump disagreed over the reinstatement of a navy seal has given his first television interview calling out the president for his actions. here's richard spencer with cbs news david martin. >> what message does that send to the troops? >> reporter: what message does it send? >> that you can get away with things. a warfire is a profession of arms and a profession of arms as
standards that they have to be held to and that they hold themselves to. >> he was accused of murdering a captive isis member but was demoted for posing for a photo with the body, which is against regulations. the president, however, had his rank reinstated. mark mark esper said he was fired for going outside the chain of command. in his resignation letter, the ousted navy secretary says he could not in good conscience, obey president trump's order. joining me for his take on all this, retired lieutenant general mark hertling. general, is that the message that this sends, do you think, that members of the military can, quote, get away with
things? >> that's certainly part of the message coming from this, john. this is going to be the gift that keeps on going, having sat on disciplinary boards and see how soldiers or members of the military who have committed ac s s and been disciplined might play things, they certainly will. they will see chief eddie gallagher getting away with something. there's been 150 tried edents removed from seals since 2011. those in the future will say you're taking my trident yet you let gallagher get away with it based on what he did? if i had a dui or i beat my wife, you're going to take my trident but you didn't take his? it will be a recurring theme and the lawyers will have to deal with that and they should. the second thing is this is now -- gallagher is now a rogue seal. there will be some in the military in the seal force who will say the president did the right thing by this guy standing
in front of the soldiers. i guarantee you a lot of seals are saying this guy has gone against our training and our values and has interrupted our teamwork in terms of the things he's done and this is just not good for the seal community. >> what do you say to that argument specifically, though? the president made it today saying he's just sticking up for the armed forces. >> he's just sticking up for an individual seal i would say. this is strategic in naturnatur. when you have all of the experts, the experts in the seal community and going to the president and trying to beg him not to do this, not to interfere with this action, it tells a story. and truthfully, that's the biggest concern i have. president trump, i know i'ming if -- i know i'm going to sound biased when i say these, he doesn't understand the first and second order effects.
what is going to happen to the teams and discipline and morale of the units when people think they can get away with these kind of things? >> is this another example of the president injecting himself and politics into institutions that are by nature and by design apolitical? >> yeah, this concerns me as well. the president has injected himself and brought divisions in such institutions as the justice department, the fbi, the intelligence community, recently the diplomacy being corps. there has always been concern among the senior leaders of the military that he would eventually bring those same divisions within the military and between civil military coordination and cooperation. that's what he's doing now. there's an ongoing fight right now between the young sailors in the seal community sapinying, h go get him, president, stand up for our own and others who are saying it's going to have long-term, deletorious effects.
it's not good. >> thank you. we'll hand it over to chris cuomo for "prime time." the president is not a king, the judge said. what does that mean for the other holdouts? plus, we now now some of the charges rudy giuliani could be facing and we have a senator here trying to give credence to the president's conspiracy theory counterattack. the question is can anyone reasonably believe ukraine and not russia hacked our election? we get news that mr. pecker from "the enquirer" is talking to authorities in yet another case against trump. what do you say, let's get after it. so the big case