tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN November 25, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
absolutely immune from being compelled by congress to testify. absolute immunity is not a thing, she writes, at all. presidents are not kings, she adds. so it's a very busy night. there is also new reporting about acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney's role in the ukraine affair. that and a subpoena linking rudy giuliani to a new and broad federal investigation of his associates and apparently now his company. plus what the lawyer for one of those associates says that could implicate congressman devin nunes, top republican on the intelligence committee, and universities y r -- and the president fires his navy secretary, and the secretary fires back. we begin with the court ruling and cnn's jim acosta live for us at the white house. what has the white house reaction been so far? >> john, this ruling applies to the former white house counsel don mcgahn, but it might as well apply to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. it might as well apply to the
former national security adviser john bolton. but the white house is saying not so fast. stephanie grisham just put out a statement saying essentially this decision contradicts long-standing precedent established by administrations on both political parties. we will appeal and are confident that the important constitutional principle advanced by the administration will be vindicated. this constitutional principle that the administration is advancing is that essentially 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. and the judge pointed to the case of harriet meyers during the george w. bush administration, essentially saying that don mcgahn could go up to capitol hill and say that executive privilege has been asserted here. but, john, obviously this applies to not just don mcgahn, who by the way his attorney says if this ruling is not stayed by a judge pending an appeal, his client will testify. but more importantly, i think more crucially in all of this, mick mulvaney's attorney is
saying this evening, john, that his client will not be participating, will not be testifying no matter what this ruling says. and so the white house is back to the trump administration, is back to where they've been in all of this, which is a position of stonewalling. >> it is interesting. don mcgahn's attorney specifically said that if it not stayed, he will testify. that's very specific language, and we'll talk about why that's significant because he could have said something else. we'll get to that in just a moment. what does this mean for the long list of other white house officials who have defied the subpoenas? >> reporter: i talked to a legal source very close to this case who said, listen, this absolutely applies to mick mulvaney and john bolton. this is the game that has been played throughout all of this. the white house has been gambling on one thing, and that is if they say no to these officials testifying up on capitol hill, that democrats will make the political calculus that they're not going to risk this dragging out in court for months and months and months because they don't want this dragging into the next general election cycle, which we're in
the midst of that right now. so the white house is essentially saying, okay, we're going to stay with that strategy. the problem becomes if this moves very quickly through the courts and this mcgahn ruling is upheld at higher levels, at that point the white house might have no option but to make sure that mick mulvaney and john bolton testifies. but, john, this i think is really the linchpin to all of this because what you're hearing from a lot of people and not just the republican but also in the democratic party, sos are telling us that, listen, 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. if they want to have anything but a partisan impeachment process, they may need john bolton. they may need mick mulvaney to testify in all of this, and that is why all of this may get sorted out in the courts in the weeks to come. the question is whether or not it's sorted out in any kind of reasonable amount of time, john. >> all right. jim acosta at the white house for us tonight, thank you very
much. >> you bet. >> we have our own lawyers on hand to dig through this. cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jennifer rodgers, also a man who had don mcgahn's job in the mix nixon administration, john deans joins. joe jackson writes with respect to senior level congressional aides, absolute immunity from compel the 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's really -- it was such an extraordinary claim by the white house that not only doesn't don mcgahn or any white house official have to, you know, 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. now, however, the complexity 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, john dean, to say it's not just a lawyer. it's not just a domestic policy adviser, not just a foreign policy adviser. any white house employee is covered by this ruling. so if you are john bolton watching this tonight, what do you think he thinks about this, john? >> well, he's got to be doing some serious thinking about it because he is directly involved, and he could easily volunteer to come forward. he could easily say, based on this ruling, i'm now going to go testify. i'm no longer a white house employee. i think i have things to say that are unrelated to executive privilege. he could claim -- he's an
attorney. he knows there is a crime/fraud exception to any of his conversations where 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 this later case that he is connected with and another judge in the same court, and he could proceed. it's an excellent opinion incidentally, john. it's a strong opinion. she says, we've been here, done this before, and we're not going to mess around with it. >> jennifer, i want to read you 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. it's also right from the federalist papers by the way, so she's quoting, you know, high school education to the white house legal team here. what did you make of that? >> well, it's really about separation of powers.
i mean if you cannot, as congress, oversee the executive branch, we don't have co-equal parts of government anymore. i think that's basically what she's saying. he's not a king. he has to be subject to in certain ways pursuant to the constitution the other branches, including the judicial branch, which of course is judge jackson issuing this opinion. so, you know, they better listen. >> now, one thing obviously we know the white house has already said that they will appeal this case. this will be appealed, so this could drag on for some time. but on the issue of don mcgahn, jeffrey, you looked very carefully at the language used by don mcgahn's lawyers, which don mcgahn's legal team didn't say, we're just going to see this through to the bitter end, let the appeals process play out. what don mcgahn's attorney said is he will testify if this decision is not stayed. >> right, and i don't want to bore people with too much civil procedure here. but what's important is that when you appeal something,
usually the underlying decision comes into effect unless you get what's 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's pretty unusual, and i think it's 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's going to testify. and that really changes the calendar in a very dramatic way because if he were going to wait for the appellate process to be resolved, that could be months. this is probably just a couple of weeks. >> not impossible in other words that there is no stay, is what you're saying. >> i think it is likely there is no stay, which means mcgahn would have to testify sooner rather than later, before
impeachment is resolved in the house. >> and that gets to the political issue here, and we're going to have a democratic member of congress on in just a second, john dean. but the democrats face a question here. 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 bolton or mick mulvaney? what do you think about that? >> i don't think they are going to wait. what's 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 moving along, and the issue of stay or no stay will be resolved well before they're about to wrap up their business. so just in the normal course of things, i think that issue will be sorted out. >> jennifer, there is this legal
issue which the judge did carve out but didn't really illuminate in great detail, which is executive privilege. that mcgahn could still exert executive privilege, but what could that cover? do we know? and if in the case of don mcgahn, we already know 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, so it's not very clear what the parameters are. i think what we will see if don mcgahn shows up to testify is a lot of assertions of executive privilege, and that's really the problem there is 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. that's going to be the problem because it's an individual inquiry based on the actual question asked and the likely answer. so it's going to be a big mess frankly because we are going to
have all sorts of assertions, no real way to resolve them, and i'm afraid even if he sits in the chair, the house is not going to get a lot of information out of him for that reason. >> but in theory it would not cover issues of obstruction of justice, actual assertions of a crime, right? >> i think that's right. but again, whether it's a crime or not is subject to a legal analysis and, you know, it's just -- i think it's going to be a mess. i think they're unlikely to get a lot of good information from him beyond what he already testified to or spoke to mueller's team about. >> i agree. however, mcgahn has a lot of power in this himself. i mean he can really decide whether he wants to answer questions or not, and he now, barring a stay, has a real opportunity to do that if he's so inclined. >> great to have you on tonight. thank you very much. jeffrey toobin, stick around. there's more lawyering to be done. one quick note before we take a break. the supreme court late today gave the president a breather, suspending for now the house
subpoena seeking financial reports from his accounting firm. this is not a ruling, but it's a signal that the high court will take up the case. an appeals court upheld the subpoena last month. next, another subpoena potentially connecting the president's tv lawyer, ukraine fixer, and alleged bagman rudy giuliani to a major federal criminal investigation. and later a closer look at why republicans are saying things they have every reason to know simply are not true in order to please a president who believes those falsehoods as well. is it what some are calling cult-like devotion? that and more ahead on "360." she wanted to move someplace warm. but he wanted snow for the holidays. so we built a snow globe. i'll get that later. dylan! but the one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what?
sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her! if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.
hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain?
potential charges. cnn's kara scannell has been doing terrific reporting on this from the beginning. she joins us with the details. what are you learning about this grand jury subpoena? >> john, we've learned that this subpoena tells us two things about this investigation so far. it tells us that is quite broad and that they are exploring a range of potential criminal charges. all we know to date before the subpoena was they were charged with campaign finance violations, now prosecutors are considering money laundering, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators. there's still a lot we don't know but this does show us that this is a very broad investigation, and it could include a range of criminal conduct. >> and where does rudy giuliani fit into that? >> so it's interesting. this subpoena is requesting from the person that received it any communications with lev and igor, but it's also asking for any communications with rudy giuliani, his security consulting business, giuliani partners, and in particular it asks for any communications or records about actual or
potential payments to giuliani or any agreements relating to that. so i think that really indicates here they're looking at the money flow, the business relationship between all of these men. >> his name is all over it. what do giuliani's lawyers have to say about this? >> so rudy giuliani lawyer gave us a statement where he said, i have not seen any subpoena that looks for communications or documents from mayor giuliani or giuliani partners. it would not be surprising given that two of the indicted individuals had a business and legal relationship to mayor giuliani and giuliani partners. of course that relationship had nothing to do with the indictment. costello adds, all the sdny had to do was ask us and we would have given them whatever they wanted because mayor giuliani has nothing to hide and did everything in a legal and proper way. so there have been no subpoenas or even voluntary document requests for information. >> stand by if you will. i want to bring back in jeffrey toobin and jennifer rodgers. jeffrey, his name, rudy
giuliani, is all over the subpoena. how worried should he be? >> to be fair, it's 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, you can google it or something. it is not a good thing to be named in a subpoena. and the fact that his attorney is saying he hasn't seen it, that's bad news. that's not good news because they don't subpoena targets. they subpoena other people to collect evidence about targets. >> jennifer, to that point, giuliani's lawyers put out this statement saying that if the southern district wanted this information, they just could have asked giuliani and his business for it, and they would have turned everything over. do federal investigators typically work like that? do they buy that line? >> yeah, thanks but no thanks, mr. costello. no way are they going to collect these documents from rudy
giuliani, and no way would they trust him honestly to turn over everything that they're looking for. so they're going about this the right way. as jeffrey said, we'll see where it takes us down the road. but if i were rudy giuliani, i would be worrying for sure. >> kara, we still don't know exactly what rudy giuliani did for lev parnas's company, which is actually called fraud guarantee, right? it is. that's the name. it's a laugh line every time. >> it's too on the nose as they say. >> giuliani earned $500,000. we don't know doing what. could that fill in any blanks? >> well, what's interesting is rudy 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. now, what we have also learned is that a lawyer for a plaintiff's attorney who invested in the company -- he says he's the one that paid giuliani, and it was a loan to the company. it was because he thought giuliani would help its credibility. but it's still not clear what business, if any, fraud
guarantee has done, and prosecutors have asked individuals who were approached with 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 on. >> so president trump, jeffrey, keeps on extolling rudy giuliani's virtues as a crime fighter in his long career. reflect for a moment, if you will, on the epic journey of rudy giuliani from u.s. attorney to mayor to now friend of lev and igor. >> u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york which is issues these subpoenas about him. there are former u.s. attorneys who have been prosecuted in the past, very, very rarely, but never, as far as i'm aware, by the office that they used to lead. let's again be clear. he is not accused of anything, and he certainly may never be. but this is certainly an unusual
posture to find himself. by the way, he was also a 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 i mean this was a major national figure. >> jennifer, rudy giuliani, one of the things he keeps on saying -- and he claims it's a joke -- is that he's got an insurance policy in case the president turns on him. now, again, he says he's being sarcastic, but it's kind of weird, right? it does raise a whole bunch of questions of what's going on here. >> it's very strange, and the first time he said it, maybe it was a joke, and then he kept repeating it. listen, if he actually means that he has derogatory information about the president that is so improper on so many levels, it's unethical as a lawyer to say something like that. it could mean real trouble for the president in terms of his criminal liability. it's just so bad on so many fronts, i don't know why mr. giuliani keeps saying that. but, you know, maybe someday
we'll see what he means with this insurance policy if this thing goes far enough. >> and if it is a joke, it's frankly not a very good one. kara, how quickly are investigators working, and is there any time frame here? do they feel compelled to do this before the election? >> that is an actual issue here. they don't want to repeat the situation with james comey where he made a comment about an investigation into hillary clinton on the eve of the election in 2016. so they're very mindful, sources tell us, of the election. and it's interesting because where would you draw the line because of all the different actors in this. they are mindful of that, and i think what we can see from the scope of the subpoenas that we've been reporting that have been sent out to a number of donors and fund-raisers, that they are really canvassing the landscape to talk to people about this. but i think they are mindful of the election, which could mean that they either speed it up or any action occurs after that. but i think a lot of it will also 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. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --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. ♪ we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry.
recapping the breaking news unfolding tonight, 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 the federal prosecutors are investigating business associates of rudy giuliani in what appears to shall a wide-ranging probe that could include criminal charges ranging from obstruction of justice to money laundering. this according to a subpoena sent to at least one witness and
seen by cnn. it means that giuliani's business could also be a subject of their investigation. joining me now is democratic congressman mike quigley, a member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, 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's 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. the immediate reaction is, i think it's a message to all the witnesses who are obstructed and the white house for telling them not to appear. it's 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 rudy 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, consistent, and i think most important courageous voice spoke as one to the american people through their duly elected congress. you know, 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's time to go. >> does this ruling give you and your colleagues any reason to think that, 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's your reaction to this news about rudy giuliani tonight? at this point he hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing, but what's been made very clear is just how many outstanding questions there are surrounding his involvement in all of this. it just 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 this second track out there of profiteers that we apparently sent to ukraine at a horrible time. i think it's time for that investigation to take place as well. so if you're willing to go to ukraine and do something wrong, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't be willing to go there and do other things for personal profit. >> so cnn's reporting tonight that house democrats are focusing on multiple articles of impeachment, and some of your colleagues want to go beyond the ukraine issue to include instances of obstruction of justice from the mueller report while others want things narrowly focused on ukraine. where do you fall personally on this? what do you find to be the best strategy? >> i think it's time for that
strategy discussion to take place. i think it's most important that we do this in the most effective manner possible. i believe the jury is the american people because that drives the forces that perhaps drives the u.s. senate at the same time. it's 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, 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 said, i think we file articles that are most effective, most appropriate no matter how the caucus debates
back and forth on other matters. >> congressman mike quigley, keep us posted. appreciate you being with us tonight. >> happy thanksgiving to all. >> you too. just ahead, president trump's ukraine conspiracy defense scores 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. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief.
as a home instead caregiver, for everything that i give, i get so much in return. hearing all of stanley's stories about his home, and everything that he's learned over the years, it reminds me that this is as much for him as it is for me. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today.
home instead senior care. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.
despite a top white house national security official who testified last week 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?
>> yi don't know, nor do you, nr do any of us. ms. hill -- >> let me just 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" op-ed columnist michael gerson, a former speechwriter for president george w bush, and rick wilson, author of "everything trump touches dies." michael, you wrote an op-ed in the "washington post" today in which you say, quote, loyalty to trump among republicans is proved by the loosening of all other loyalties to truth, to honesty, and to the national good. by this measure, you write, kennedy is profoundly loyal to the president. i just think back to when i
first met you in 2000 when you were a speechwriter for george w. bush. can you even recognize someone like this in your party today? >> no. i mean there's a real irony at work here. it used to be conservatives in the '80s and '90s who defended the idea of absolute truth, who criticized relativism and subjectivism. now in trump world everyone can have their own truth. it means that no one can have the truth at all. >> right. and in some cases there aren't multiple truths, particularly like in this one. there seems to be one truth that russia attacked the u.s. election and ukraine didn't. so in other words, what john kennedy is saying is a lie. 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 that the
things he's been told directly by the u.s. intelligence community and all that all these senators have been briefed on very thoroughly, he kneows he's lying. he's aware that in order to defend trump, he is telling an outrageous lie. he knows who it was. it isn't a matter of opinion. it is russia who hacked the u.s. elections. it is russia who elected to support donald trump. but john kennedy, like most of his republican colleagues, will do absolutely anything to prevent donald trump from being angry at him. he will do anything to feed trump's mob, including lying to his constituents and to the american people. this is a guy who went to oxford. he's not dumb. he's just lying. >> michael, you write about this in your piece today, this whole ukraine did it narrative. it's coming from the russians. this is what vladimir putin wants them to say. you would think if nothing else, the republicans who have been opponents of the soviet union and russia for generations would want to deprive putin of that
victory, yes? >> yeah, the most successful intelligence prags are not only destructive, they have deniability. 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, you know, an indictment was brought against them. but i think that people like kennedy have made the choice they're going to support the president. now it's the president's choice how stupid he makes them look by asking them to defend the indefensible. >> rick, i want to play -- or i want to ask you about something that energy secretary richard perry said. he was asked yesterday -- he compared -- he said something yesterday compared to what he said in 2015. listen to this. >> mr. president, i know there are people that say, you know,
you said you were the chosen one. and i said you were. my fellow republicans, beware of false prophets. do not let itching ears be tickled by messengers who appeal to anger, division, resentment. >> so how do you get from point b there back to point a? >> you know, rick perry, who was a 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, and what they realize once they're deep in the mire is that it's not sufficient to just agree with him or just do what he asks. you have to praise him. you have to describe him as a god. you have to describe him as the smartest, tallest, handsomest man in the room. he's always got to be right.
so they're in this endlessly recursive pattern where they have to do this more and more egregiously, more and more, you know, with greater and greater exaggeration as to trump's qualities. so now you've got rick perry essentially saying he was sent by god. it's an astounding power donald trump has to break people and to cause them to abandon every principle they ever embraced. >> michael, and i do want to ask you about this because you've done some of your most thoughtful and meaningful writing about issues surrounding faith. so what goes through your mind when you hear secretary perry refer to president trump as chosen? >> well, first of all, it's a confusion of theological categories. i mean this is a case where god is sovereign, but that doesn't mean that everyone deserves their job in government. i mean you have to explain mussolini somehow. this is a case where the proper role of christians in public life is not to pronounce some to
be the chosen one. it's to represent the priorities of christ in the world, and that includes taking care of the least and the lost. and by those standards, the president has failed utterly. >> michael gerson, rick wilson, thank you so much for being with us tonight. both of you have a happy thanksgiving. still ahead, more breaking news. the navy secretary forced out, and speaking out in his first television interview. his rebuke of president trump when "360" continues. when we were looking for a roommate, he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save. ♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be.
it has been another busy night to say the least. time to check in with chris to see what he's working on for cuomo prime time at the top of the hour. >> all right, j.b. we're going to take a look at what the judge's decision with the former white house counsel mcgahn means for the other people who don't want to testify or the president wants to keep from testifying.
we'll take that on. good legal minds 0en that because it means more going forward than it does just for mcgahn. then the man everybody is talking about, we will talk to. senator john kennedy. why is he saying this stuff about ukraine? i watched your panel on it. what is his explanation? he's here to be tested. and ronan farrow. perfect timing because david pecker, the head of the enquirer, ami, he's talking to new york prosecutors. what's farrow's take on it? he's got a brand-new podcast starts tomorrow. what's that about? he'll give us an exclusive taste. great to see you tonight. thank you very much. >> the navy s.e.a.l. at the heart of a big battle between the navy secretary who was fired. he ousted secretary richard spencer is speaking out for the first time in a new television interview. what he said in just a moment.
i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --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. ♪ must be hot out there, huh? not especially. -[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking? gasoline. right, but i mean, what's in the cup?
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. only roomba i7+ uses two multi-surface rubber brushes. ♪ and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™.
the navy secretary fired. it has given his first television interview calling out the president for his actions. here's richard spencer with cbs news what were the ramifications of intervening? >> what message does that send to the troops? >> that you can get away with things. it has standards they have to be held to and they hold themselves to. >> eddie gallagher was accused. he was demoted after being found guilty of being discredit to the armed services, for posing with a photo with the body. the president had his rank reinstated. the defense secretary said
spencer was fired for going outside the chain of command proposing a secret agreement with the white house. spencer says that's because esper was overseas. he said that he was not aware of the proposed deal. in his resignation letter, he said he could not in good conscience obey president trump's order that members of the military can get away with it? >> that's part of the mention coming from this. this will be the gift that keeps on giving. having sat on disciplinary boards and see how soldiers or members of the military who have committed acts of discipline might play things. they certainly will. they will see chief eddie gallagher getting away with something. and some will say when they go
before, there's been 150 triedents removed from seize since 2011. those who will go in the future will say you're taking my trident? if i had a dui or i beat my wife or i was before you for some disciplinary action, you will take mine but not his? it will be a recurring theme. the lawyers will have to deal with that. and they should. the second thing is this is now gallagher is now a road s.e.a.l. there will be some in the sea force who will say the president did the right thing. he's standing in front of the soldiers. i guarantee you, there are a lot of s.e.a.l.s out there who are saying he's gone against our training and our values and has interrupt our team work in terms of the things he's done. this is not good for the sea community. >> what do you say specifically? the president made it today. he said he's just sticking up for the armed forces.
>> he's just sticking up for an individual s.e.a.l. is what i would say. this is a strategic issue in nature. when you have all the experts, the folks who are the leaders of the s.e.a.l. community, in the defense department going to the president and literally 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'm going to sound biased when i say this but he is not smarter than generals in these things because he doesn't understand the second and third order effects. what will happen to the teams inside the organization? what will happen to the discipline and the morale of the units when people think they can get away with these things? >> is this another example of the president injecting himself and politics into institutions that are by nature and by design a-political? >> yeah. this concerns me as well. the president has injected sxhifl brought divisions in such
institutions as the justice department, the fbi, the tension community, recently the diplomatic core. there has been concern among the senior leaders of the military that he would eventually bring those same kinds of divisions within the military and between civil military coordination and cooperation. that's what he is doing. there's an ongoing fight between s.e.a.l. community saying, hey, you go get him, president. and the older ones saying this is going to have long term deleterious effects and it won't be good. >> always a pleasure to speak with you. >> thank you. good to be here. >> that's it for us. the news continues. i'll hand it over the chris for cuomo prime time. a president is not a king, said the court. ordering don mcgahn to go before congress. now what does that mean for the other holdouts? plus, we now know some of the
charges rudolph giuliani could be facing and we have a far here trying on give credence to the president's conspiracy theory counter attack. the question is, can anyone believe ukraine and not russia attacked russia? and ronan farrow is here as we get news that mr. pecker from the inquiry is talking to the authorities and an exclusive look. what do you say? let's get after it. >> the big case addresses this the judge crushed it. here's the quote. simply stated, the