tv CNN Newsroom With Fredricka Whitfield CNN December 14, 2019 8:00am-9:00am PST
it is 11:00 on the east coast, 8:00 a.m. in the west. i'm martin savidge in for fredricka whitfield. president trump on the brink of impeachment. one day after the house voted to advance articles of impeachment along party lines, all eyes have turned to the full house which expects to vote on impeachment perhaps as soon as wednesday. if passed, president trump will become just the third president in u.s. history to be impeached. with the senate trial likely to begin in january, the president is already plotting his defense, setting up a campaign christmas rally and settihoping for a lon trial preferring witnesses. the president may prefer a long senate trial but what about fellow republicans?
what do they feel in the senate? >> that's certainly not the preference of majority leader mitch mcconnell who has made that clear to rank and file members who are coming around to the idea of a shorter trial. essentially there is a concern that once you get into a fight about witnesses, including whether hunter biden would testify, the whistle-blower, joe biden perhaps, that puts some of those moderate republicans up for re-election next year in a tough position. people like susan collins, people like thom tillis and cory gardner but essentially they'll have to decide whether or not to vote with the president or against him in the wishes he has on the witness list. so that is one of the potential obstacles for moderate republicans looking forward in this senate trial. now, majority leader mitch mcconnell has been very clear that he is in close coordination with the white house and that has been very concerning for some democrats who argue that's really not appropriate given the
fact that he is supposed to be a juror. if you look back to the clinton impeachment, tom daschle, who was the majority leader back when clinton was impeached said that he didn't have conversations with president clinton about how it should go but his staff did coordinate with the white house. this is clearly a different level for mitch mcconnell. all of the senate trial drama will unfold in january once the senate returns from their holiday break. >> all right, lauren fox, thank you very much for that update. with me now is congressman mike johnson. he is a republican representative from louisiana and a member of the house judiciary committee. congressman, thanks for joining us this morning. >> hey, martin, thanks for joining us. >> so the president says or indicated that he'd like to have a long trial in the senate complete with witnesses as we just mentioned, such as hunter biden, maybe even the whistle-blower testifying. do you agree with that strategy? >> well, i understand the president's thoughts there. he's really been upset.
he feels like he's not been afforded due process. we certainly agree with that sentiment. and i think he wants to air his side of this case. you know, at every stage of this with the secret hearings in the basement that were championed by adam schiff and then as it was taken over by chairman nadler and our house judiciary committee, the republican side or the republican defense, the president's defense side has not been heard. we requested nine witnesses originally, we were only given three. we were given no fact witness in the judiciary committee, which is the one that actually has jurisdiction over impeachment so the president has been frustrated by this, we have as well. i understand why he would want to put on that case. but again as was said, they'll get to make that decision in the senate. >> just as you outlined there, isn't this a perfect opportunity for the president and his supporters to make his case on his behalf? and calling these witnesses and following those procedures would all go a long way in apparently addressing the grievances you seem to have? >> no, i agree.
i mean i would be an advocate of having a lengthy trial in the senate. i understand the arguments and the concerns on both sides. but i do think there are a number of witnesses that we would certainly like to hear from. it was mentioned a few moments ago that the whistle-blower is someone even if the whistle-blower was to testify behind the screen or in camera as we would say in the courts, that would be fine but we'd like to cross examine the whistle-blower. we'd like to hear from hunter biden because i do believe that's at the center of this whole controversy. so we'd have to see how that would progress and how long it would take. but under the constitution, of course, the senate has broad discretion and authority on how they want to handle that. i think that's the discussions they're having right now. >> what about calling other witnesses, such as, say, mike pence, let's talk about mulvaney, pompeo, all of those to testify. they could be critical witnesses here. they have been denied so far so why not bring them on in the senate? >> that's the sector of their second claim, their second article of impeachment that they brought is that somehow the
president is obstructing congress. that's just simply a crazy allegation. it really is. >> why do you say it's crazy if they have denied any of the testimony coming from what are clearly key members of administration who have insight? >> well, the reason we say that is because it's a very customary thing. it's a very common thing. in fact every administration, virtually everyone in the modern era has done exactly the same thing. the previous administration, president obama, during the fast and furious investigation of congress, he denied subpoenas -- >> that was not an impeachment inquiry. this is a very different animal we're talking about here. asking those who are in charge of this administration or directly involved with either the calls or the claims of what the president did or did not do seem to be perfect witnesses to have and come forward rather than deny them. >> this is a very unusual set of circumstances and it should be the highest level of transparency and due process. in fact the democrats famously
said back during the nixon impeachment that it should be due process graquadrupled. they have done exactly the opposite. they have not afforded the president all of those rules and procedures and what the constitution really is supposed to guarantee for him. that's the reason they have been very reluctant. i'm an attorney. if i was advising the president, i would have told him not to participate in this charade either. these seem like hyperbolic terms but that's the best way to describe what happened in the early part of this. >> let me ask you about mitch mcconnell and he as a member of the senate and there dby he is supposed to be impartial. he's made it clear that he's going to coordinate closely with the white house on this impeachment trial. just listen to what he said. >> everything i do during this i'm coordinating with white house counsel. we'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the white house counsel's office and the
people who are representing the president in the well of the senate. >> where is the impartiality there? and it has to be a concern because as you point out you are an attorney and you would be worried if a member of the jury had already stated how they were going to consider. >> yeah, we heard those comments yesterday, as everyone did. you know, i've actually talked about this with some of my democrat colleagues, those who are very much in favor of impeachment. i said isn't it a fair description of what he said? the way i heard that, mitch mcconnell is talking about the scheduling of the trial, what length of trial or what would be involved with that with the white house which is not unprecedented. that's what happened in the clinton proceedings as well, they coordinated with the white house on scheduling. i don't think he's talking about the merits of the case. i think he's talking about how long will be allowed for this to go forward so i don't think there's anything inappropriate about that. >> so you see it different than a juror who's made up their
mind? >> i think that's a fair representation of those comments. democrats hear it differently, of course. they interpret it differently. but i think it would be up to mitch mcconnell to explain further what he meant and i'm sure he'll do that in the days ahead. >> i've asked this of many of our guests and i'd like to ask it of you because this is the first time you and i have had a chance to have this conversation. the president has described that july phone call with ukraine's president as perfect. do you think it was perfect? do you think it's appropriate for the leader of the free world, essentially the president of the united states, to ask for a political favor in exchange for financial aid? >> well, i don't think that's a fair interpretation of what happened there. what we know by the evidence, and believe me we reviewed for 14 straight hours this week. >> why do you say that? i've got the quote right here from the president. i would like you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole
situation of ukraine, they say crowdstrike. the dnc serber, they say ukraine has it. that's a pretense that's already been debunked. the president said i'd like to ask you for a favor. >> for us he said, for the country. >> he didn't say for the country. he says for us, i granti you that. >> if you look at it all in context and look at the evidence that was gathered and there's only one fact witness, ambassador sondland who had direct knowledge of this, everything else is hearsay, conjecture and speculation. what we know is four very simple facts. number one, there was no pressure exerted because both president trump and president zelensky said that. >> do you really believe that president zelensky, a man facing an invasion by a russian military force is going to honestly push back against the one true funder of their defense which is the united states? in other words, do you believe he's really being genuine when he says that? >> i do. to say otherwise would be to question his integrity and i don't think that is something
anybody in this country wants to do. we also know the other important fact is there was no conditionality the president didn't condition the military aid and assistance with that investigation. the investigation never happened. they never started one. ukraine did get the aid and the ukrainians said they didn't know about the delay. >> well, there is this fact. the president, same call, says the other thing. there's a lot of talk about biden's son, biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people wanting to find out. this implies that he is seeking information on a man he believes he's likely to run against for re-election. >> well, again, i don't think that's a fair summation of all the facts. they never talked about -- zelensky and president trump, there's nothing in the record ever that they were talking about or even implying or thinking about 2020. this is about the controversies that erupted in 2016. that's what the president had in mind. he talks all the time about his
great concern of american taxpayers' treasure being squandered overseas and being misused. you've got to remember the full context. ukraine is regarded by everyone to be the third most corrupt nation in the world. so the president had a very well documented concern. >> it is acknowledged that there is a corruption problem that ukraine had prior to this new administration. hopefully that's going to change. but he doesn't mention all of the corruption, he mentions a specific aspect, which in this case is the vice president's son and joe biden, who is likely to be a candidate he'll run again. >> well, right. but again, if you look at the context, of course that's waft greatest scandals in the history of ukraine. hunter biden was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to serve on a corrupt company owned by an oligarch. >> why would the president seek that investigation? why wasn't it handled by the appropriate means in the united states? why did it require the president calling up on a phone call and saying i'd like you to do us a
favor? it doesn't seem the right process, does it? >> well, look. the president is a hands-on leader. he is -- this is one of his chief concerns. he talks about it all the time. he has since before he ran for president. the misuse and the squandering of american taxpayer dollars overseas and in corrupt countries. it's always been a top concern. go back and look at his twitter feed, he talks about it all the time. this is completely appropriate. and i think it's applauded by many american people. america first is what he ran on and that's what he does consistently. i think people appreciate that. i don't think they want our taxpayer dollars being sent over to corrupt countries and being misused and this was a glaring example of that. >> i do appreciate you coming on, congressman. i thank you very much for taking part. we will look forward to what comes next week. >> thank you, martin. appreciate it. >> thank you, sir. still ahead, senator lindsey graham with the staunchest
defense yet of the president. but is it appropriate for graham to defend president trump if he's a juror in the upcoming trial? cnn asked him that very question, next. plus rudy giuliani doubling down. the president's personal attorney escalating his push for ukraine to investigate joe biden and his son traveling to the country just this week. is he putting himself in increased legal jeopardy? i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby!
that will makeout washington insiders very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington. a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. it's specially-designed with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. cascade platinum's unique actionpacs dissolve quickly... ...to remove stuck-on food. . . for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time.
choose the detergent that lets your dishwasher do the dishes! cascade platinum. the number one recommended brand in north america. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com.
gop senator lindsey graham is taking his defense for president trump to new levels this morning. in a lengthy interview with our becky anderson, graham says that he's already made up his mind on impeachment and he says that he plans to vote to acquit the president in the senate even though the trial hasn't even started yet. watch. >> i don't know where this goes, but i know impeachment will be over soon. i supported the mueller investigation, by the way, for those who care about domestic politics. i didn't know what trump had done with the russians. what have i come to believe? there is no collusion between the trump campaign and the russians. if you're not colluding with your own government, why do you think you're colluding with the russians? the president is not much of a colluder. so the bottom line here is that mueller spent two years and $25 million looking at all things trump and russia and now we're impeaching the president of the
united states by partisan people, no outside counsel involved. this thing will come to the senate and it will die quickly and i will do everything i can to make it die quickly. >> i just wonder how quickly. let's do a little bit on procedure. there's a debate ongoing about how a trial should be held in the senate, including whether to have live witnesses. you don't support live witnesses. why? >> i want this to end as quick as possible for the good of the senate, for the good of the country, and i think the best thing for america to do is get this behind us. we know how it's going to end so we can focus on the problems we talked about today. if you don't like president trump, you can vote against him in less than a year. it's not like a politician who's unaccountable if you don't impeach them. so i think impeachment is going to end quickly in the senate.
i would prefer it to end as quickly as possible. use the record that was assembled in the house to pass impeachment articles as your trial record. i don't want to call anybody. i don't need to hear from hunter biden, i don't need to hear from joe biden. we can deal with that outside of impeachment. i don't want to talk to pompeo, i don't want to talk to pence. i want to hear the house make their case based on the record they established in the house and i want to vote. >> so joining me now to talk about all of this is reuters white house correspondent jeff mason and cnn political commentator and "washington post" editor david swerdlick. thank you both for joining us. david, let me start with you. your reaction to graham here, especially, you know, he is saying he doesn't want any witnesses. yet we know when all of this was taking place in the house, republicans were demanding witnesses of their own. >> right, good morning, martin. i think on the one hand give senator graham credit for laying
out the facts as they basically are. most republicans have made up their minds in the senate and in congress generally. most republicans in the senate seemingly want to make this short. most republicans have gone with this line that there's an election in less than a year, so why are we even bothering with this. he's not wrong on all of those points. on the other hand, it is jarring to see someone who is voting in a senate trial, a constitutional legal proceeding, essentially saying that before the proceeding even takes place, he's already made up his mind and i will just note on that whole thing about this -- there being an election in less than a year, nothing in the constitution says that impeachment only applies in years one through three of a presidential term. it just says that the senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. >> jeff, to david's point, let's listen to graham on what he had to say about whether he's being appropriate stating his opinion ahead of this trial. >> but you are, along with the rest of your senate fellows,
jurors. is it appropriate to be voicing your opinion even before this gets to the senate as a trial? >> well, i must think so because i'm doing it. >> so i'm wondering, jeff, what do you make of this kind of demeanor? it seems to be a total abrupt affront to this whole impartiality thing. >> well, he's certainly not holding back in that answer to becky. you know, i think republicans and to some extent democrats have viewed this process as partisan, certainly more republicans are seeing it as partisan. democrats have said that they're doing this because they're supporting impeachment because of their need to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. republicans see it as a partisan issue. the president has dismissed it as a witch hunt and as a sham, which he did yesterday in the oval office. and senator graham, i guess, is just saying, look, we've seen
the evidence. we disagree that this has led to impeachment and i've already made up my mind. he will be open to some criticism for having said that, but i don't think it's a big surprise that senator graham's position on this is that president trump will be acquitted in the senate. if you look at the numbers, it's not hard to draw that conclusions even without senator graham's comment. >> don't senators take an oath that they swear to be impartial? won't he be breaking that oath? >> certainly they take an oath and it's not for me to say whether he'd be breaking it or not. i think if you look broadly at how this has gone over the last couple months, the democrats and the republicans are very sharply divided. there aren't -- it does not look like there will be any republicans supporting the impeachment vote in the house next week. once we get to the senate trial where the president is expecting to have a much friendlier audience because the senate is controlled by republicans, it is likely to continue to be partisan in that same way. >> as we pointed out here,
david, the republican party has rallied around this president to defend him in an almost unprecedented way. what do you think the long-term effects are going to be on the gop party beyond this administration? >> well, just in terms of impeachment, i think we could get to a point as the democratic race heats up in 2020 where this is already in the rear-view mirror. democrats will likely vote to impeach on wednesday. there will be a democratic debate thursday night. then the holidays, the senate trial. presumably republicans want it to be short, maybe two weeks, we don't know. that obviously could change. once you get into the iowa caucuses and beyond, i do think eventually people will move on from this. not because they'll forget but because there will be a campaign afoot and because the president won't be removed, as jeff said. there's no republican votes that anybody is aware of in the house for impeachment and i'm skeptical that there are republican votes for removal in the senate. so as time goes on, this will
have been an intense chapter but one that probably ultimately doesn't change the entire landscape. >> so, jeff, instead of calling witnesses to either defend or refute the charges that have been made against this president, it seems that the senate wants to rush through this so, what, hopefully voters will forget all about it come next fall? >> well, a couple of different answers to that question. number one, i don't think that's 100% clear yet. i was in the oval office with the president yesterday when we asked for his reaction to the vote in the committee. and he went on to say -- we went on to ask him how he felt about a long trial versus a short one and he said i'll do whatever i want. he said he saw some value in having a longer trial because he'd like to put on witnesses like the whistle-blower. but he also specifically mentioned he had seen what senator graham had said and was taking all of that into account as well. so we'll see. but broadly i think it's correct to say that certainly some senators would like to just get
this done quickly and move on. >> jeff mason, david swerdlick, thank you both for being on the program today. >> thanks, martin. and next, rudy giuliani, he's doubling down as he pushes for dirt on the bidens, but could his crusade across ukraine lead to criminal charges back here? the potential legal jeopardy. we'll talk about that next.
we're just days away from a historic full house vote on the impeachment of president trump. one of the central figures in the ukraine scandal isn't shying away from the spotlight. we're just learning that rudy giuliani met with the president during a visit to the white house yesterday. that meeting follows his trip to ukraine this week aimed at digging up dirt on the bidens. joining me now is harry litman, a former u.s. attorney and contributing columnist for "the washington post." good to see you. >> you too, martin, thanks for having me. >> what do you make of guiliani pressing ahead on the very same issue that has pruesident trump
on the verge of being impeached. >> it's remarkable and there's a theme the democrats have begun to sound that the election of 2020 is at reach if this isn't an impeachment and nobody illustrates that better for them than guiliani. even bill barr has informed the president this guy isn't really doing you any favors. and nothing says more plainly that the business in ukraine was for trump's personal interests, not that of the country, than the fact that guiliani was spearheading it. he's obviously not there for any national purpose. he's there for his client, as he said. he's there to get dirt on the bidens. so it's a bad image for the president, but there you have it. >> and the next question is what does it mean for rudy giuliani? i mean as we heard, witnesses in the impeachment investigation accused him of running a shadow foreign policy operation while he was also apparently looking into his own personal business
dealings overseas. could he be in any more political trouble if he keeps this up? >> political trouble is just half of it or really smaller than half. he is in legal trouble. the sdny is really looking very carefully into him. as you say, he's both a trump soldier, but a soldier of fortune for himself. but he is really playing fast and loose while he's in the cross hairs from his old office. so there's even kind of a brazenness or just a cluele cluelessness to the peril he is in. but you're absolutely right, he forges ahead and neither trump nor he look like they'll come out of it well as a result. he really would be well advised to take a little vacation here. >> president trump seems to have been eager to finding out whatever guiliani supposedly uncovered in ukraine, that according to "the wall street journal" reporting. could this most recent trip to
ukraine and what's being described as a secret assignment impact the president's impeachment trial in the senate? >> it's just hard to see. the dye seems so firmly cast and i think the thrust from the republicans as you just heard from senator graham is to keep away from the whole sideshow of hunter biden and joe biden. it's true, though, that that's what guiliani is doing there. he's sifting for little bits of information. and again, the people he's speaking with are pretty much kind of two-bit, really almost a criminal element in ukraine, but he's hoping to get some info. but i don't think, a, it will figure largely in the impeachment trial or, b, any votes will vary as a result. it's just a sort of obsession and itch that the president can't help but scratch it seems. >> he won't let it go. harry litman, good to see you this morning, thank you. >> thank you, martin.
thanks for your time. still ahead, kentucky governor matt bevin pardons hundreds of people before leaving office. the backlash over his decision to set free murderers and rapists. that's up next. when we see you enter through our doors, we don't see who you're against, or for, whether tomorrow will be light or dark, all we see in you, is a spark we see your spark in each nod, each smile, we see sparks in every aisle. we see you find a hidden gem, and buying diapers at 3am. we see your kindness and humanity.
the strength of each community. we've seen more sparks than we can say. about 20 million just yesterday. the more we look the more we find, the sparks that make america shine. i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy ♪ the power of 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy man: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition
or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3. ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 man: save at trelegy.com. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week.
it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.
in kentucky, there's mounting outrage this morning after former kentucky governor matt bevin issued more than 400 pardons in his final days in office. but it's the list of convicted criminals this bevin is forgiving that is drawing criticism on both sides of the political aisle. the list includes a mother who serves a life sentence for throwing her newborn in a septic tank, a man who killed his parents and a child rapist. natasha chen is following the developments for us. now there is a call these pardons be investigated, and no wonder given the way that list sounds. >> state lawmakers are asking for an investigation into these decisions. former governor matt bevin took to twitter last night to defend
his decisions. he issued a series of 20 tweets. here is one of them. he said not one person receiving a pardon would i not welcome as a co-worker, neighbor or to sit beside me or any member of my family in a church pew or at a public event. before walking out of the governor's mansion this week, kentucky republican matt bevin pardoned this man who sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy, a drunk driver who killed a pastor and his wife, a man who decapitated a woman and left her body in a barrel, a woman who threw her newborn in a septic tank, a man at age 16 killed his parents and left their bodies in a basement and this man who raped a 9-year-old girl and served less than 18 months out of his 23-year sentence. the victim's mother says it's a slap in the face. >> it feels like we're going through it all over again. we just got to the point where we felt safe leaving the house.
>> reporter: prosecutor rob sanders told cnn the man hadn't served enough time to even begin sex offender treatment. >> it shocks the conscience. it's offensive. it's mind boggling how any governor could be this irresponsible. >> reporter: now there's also a question of political favoritism. >> we have someone who was convicted of killing someone in front of his wife at his home, who pulled the trigger. >> reporter: stay lawmakers say they want to investigate this case because the family of the man pardoned raised more than $20,000 last year to help bevin. >> bottom line, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, you've got to look into whether or not it's a duck. >> spoke with a family member of one of the people pardoned. the man who killed his parents when he was a teenager. that man ended up serving 17 years in prison before his pardon, and his cousin tells me that he has shown great promise in rehabilitation. the cousin said that if his mother were able to see what was happening today, she would be
the happiest to see her son back in family and in a safe place. martin. >> there's bound to be mixed emotions on both sides but still many questions. >> absolutely. >> thank you, natasha. bevin's pardons may be as senator mcconnell calls them completely appropriate. but the real question is are they legal? i want to bring in commonwealth attorney rob sanders. welcome, sir, first of all. thank you. and let me say this. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> you're welcome. kentucky gives the governor the right to pardon. so i guess the question now is can anything be done about bevin's pardons or are they a done deal? >> unfortunately, i think the pardons themselves are a done deal. there's nothing we can do about the inmates, most of whom are already free. what's being looked into now is whether there was anything that broke the law, anything that was illegal in the manner in which the pardons came about.
there's going to be an investigation in my county. i know there's investigations starting in other counties. we heard the kentucky senate president call for a federal investigation into how these pardons came about. there's certainly a few of them that smell. it's unfortunate for the people that rightfully received a pardon because there are several people who have earned a pardon and deserved a pardon. it's unfortunate for them that they're not being celebrated right now because their pardons have been camouflaged by all these horrible, heinous criminals that matt bevin has let out of prison. >> right. and that's a very good point to bring up. we know that these pardons are often political, and one of the people that bevin pardoned is a convicted killer whose brother i hosted a campaign fund-raiser for him and donated to his campaign. if an investigation is called for and anything turns up, what action can be taken then? >> it depends.
there's any number of scenarios that could play out. if there's some sort of quid pro quo and i hate to use that phrase because it's been thrown around so much on the federal level these days. but literally if there was a trade of campaign dollars or donations or contributions for pardons, that could very well be illegal. i don't want to quote any one kentucky statute because it could fit a number of different kentucky statutes. it could fit a number of different federal statutes, but the calls for these investigations are coming from both sides of the aisle. there are a lot of people that just don't think this is right, doesn't look right, doesn't smell right. and certainly nobody believes that the people that matt bevin set free, the ones being talked about right now at least are worty of pardons. these are the kinds of people we build prisons to hold. they should be in prison as long as possible and serve their entire sentence and not be let out a day early. >> so much of this investigation is going to rely on the new state attorney general coming
in. do you think he's up to the task? will he pursue these? >> i think there's no doubt daniel cameron is up for the task. now, there is an issue with the fact that daniel cameron has hired some people from the bevin administration so there might be a conflict of interest. he might have to look for a special prosecutor. he might defer to the federal prosecutors. or he could leave it to the 57 commonwealth attorneys all around the state to do our own investigations. if that's what it comes down to, i'm fine with that. i'm very well capable of conducting my own investigation. i know all of my brethren across the state are capable of doing the same thing. i've already been in touch with many of them. the only question is, is there going to be one big investigation or several smaller investigations that all add up to one giant case. it could ending up in federal t as well, we just have to wait and see. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your insights this morning. >> my pleasure. >> we'll be right back.
up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness. it can cause damage to the enamel. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. with pronamel repair, more minerals are able to enter deep into the enamel's surface. the fact that you have an opportunity to repair
what's already been damaged...it's amazing. i think my go-to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. and my side super soft? i think my go-to toothpaste with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and snoring? no problem. ...and done. and will it keep me in the holiday spirit? yes! with comfort and joy so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. and now, 48-month financing on all smart beds. plus free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday. even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la
seoul this is a further deterioration. relationship between president trump and north korean dictator kim jong-un. >> reporter: a second test from north korea in just one week. now, we've heard from pyongyang through state-run media that it just like last week's test was very important, it was crucial, it was successful. this particular one, although pyongyang hasn't specified what they tested have said it is a nuclear deterrent. this is an area that the u.s. president donald trump when he met with kim jong-un in singapore said that kim jong-un had told him he would dismantle the area. satellite imagery showed that he had dismantled some of it but earlier this year there was evidence that it was being rebuilt once again. so what we understand from last weekend, according to experts and south korean officials is
they believe it was an engine test, that could power an intercontinental ballistic missile which could hit the united states or could be used for a satellite launcher. now, we don't know at this point what was tested this weekend. we do know, though, that north korea has threatened a christmas gift, a year-end deadline, a new path to the united states, depending on, it said, what the united states was going to do with negotiations with north korea. we also know that we are expecting as well the u.s. special envoy for north korea, steve beacon, arriving here in seoul so this test comes just before he arrives here where he is going to have talks about south korean officials. it was seen potentially as a last-ditch effort before the end of the year to try to re-engage north korea, but clearly north korea at this point is focusing on its testing. paula hancocks, >> thank you, paula. it is america's most special
sporting event and it is happening in just a matter of hours. we're live from the army navy game, next. (paul) wireless network claims are so confusing. america's best network. the best network is even better. the best deals on the best network. how can everyone be the best? well, sprint's doing things differently. they're offering a 100% total satisfaction guarantee. while i think their network and savings are great, you don't just have to take my word for it. try it out, decide for yourself. hurry in for exciting holiday deals and save your family money. get both an unlimited plan and one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com
mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you say "bring my own phone" into your voice remote. that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today. save hundreds of thousands of lives. but after the emergency, time and again, insurance companies deny coverage, second guessing doctors, nurses and first responders... now "big insurance" is lobbying congress. asking for restrictions on air medical services. eliminating patients' access to life-saving care and destroying jobs all in exchange for bigger profits for insurance companies. tell congress, put patients first, not big insurance.
tell congress, put patients first, wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa president trump is expected to attend the 120th edition of america's game this afternoon. and of course, bragging rights,
coy wire is joining me now. >> yes, good to see you, martin, it will be packed. it is starting to rain on us a little bit, millions more are watching at home. this is the 88th commandant, how are these students prepared for service. >> it is a 32 month extensive program, they spend a year developing the types of skills we ask of them. we test their moral fortitude, physical courage, and mental toughness. in the end we develop and train these mid shipmen so they're ready to serve in our navy and
marine corps. >> it is a special individual to do what you have done. today's game has special meaning in the wake of some of the recent tragedies. >> yes, here in the last 14 days the navy has dealt with two significant tragedies. the first was in pearl harbor. so out to them, number one in keeping with that, our hearts go out to the pearl harborship yard tragedy, and also the member of the navel academy class 219 that we lost. >> and today they will be honoring them with patches you will see on jerseys worn around the stadium. one last thing, the army and
navy hug each other as neighbors. why is winning this rivalry so important? >> we won 14 years year straight, and it is awesome to be here today. >> thank you for your service, kick off is. 3:00 p.m., martin, i know you wish you were here, it will be a great one. >> great to see you both, sheer to a great game. still ahead, senator lindsey graham is not backing down in the face of criticism, defending the president's so called right to ask foreign leaders to investigate political rivals, his rationale in a cnn interview, next.