Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Says Impeachment Report Could Be Out After Thanksgiving; Don McGahn To Testify To Congress. Awaiting For Federal Judge Decision; Federal Subpoenas For Giuliani's Consulting Firm; Trump Defends Decision To Interfere In The Case Of U.S. Navy Seal; Chinese National Convicted Of Sneaking To Trump Florida Mansion. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 25, 2019 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news. After Thanksgiving, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says to expect the impeachment inquiry report shortly after the upcoming holiday and he says the refusal of top administration officials to testify may indicate they have incriminating information about President Trump.

McGahn to testify. We're awaiting the first major court ruling in the fight between House Democrats and the White House over impeachment witnesses. A federal judge is poised to decide today whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify.

Mulvaney e-mails. President Trump voices confidence in Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney a report revealed Mulvaney asked Budget Office officials whether there was legal justification for withholding hundreds of million dollars in military aid to Ukraine.

And forced out. President Trump defends his order to allow a convicted sailor to stay in the Navy SEAL in a controversial case which led to the stunning firing of the Navy secretary by the defense secretary. I'm Wolf Blitzer and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Breaking news, the timeline for the impeachment inquiry taking shape right now. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announcing today that investigators will submit a report summarizing their findings to the Judiciary Committee soon after Thanksgiving.

Schiff is also warning top administration officials that lawmakers are documenting their refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. At least one official, the former White House counsel, Don McGahn, is about to learn from a federal judge whether or not he'll be compelled to testify.

We'll talk about all of that and more with Congressman Gerry Connolly of the Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees, and our correspondents and analysts will have full coverage of the today's top stories. First, let's immediately go to Capitol Hill where we're learning new details about the impeachment inquiry. Our congressional correspondent, Phil Mattingly, is joining us.

Phil, Chairman Schiff says the report will catalogue the White House and administration officials who refuse to comply with subpoenas. Could the president potentially face an article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it is a near certainty at this point. One of the several articles Democrats have been kicking around as a possibility as they continue to move forward in their impeach inquiry, moving on to those next steps beyond just the House Intelligence Committee investigation into the Judiciary Committee where those articles of impeachment will be drafted.

On the issue of obstruction, Democratic leaders have been clear, everybody who chooses not to come in and testify, who chooses not to respond to subpoenas in a way the House would want is now officially on the list to some degree.

As Adam Schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee put it in a lengthy letter to his Democratic colleagues today, "We will be forced to infer from this obstruction that the testimony of these witnesses would tend to incriminate the president further since he would have encouraged rather than block the testimony of senior officials.

Like Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former National Security adviser Ambassador John Bolton, if he believed it would somehow be helpful to him. The fact that the president has uniformly instructed all executive branch agencies and senior officials to obstruct the investigation further demonstrates consciousness of guilt on the part of the president."

And, Wolf, why this is all important beyond just the fact that it will likely make up an article of impeachment, is it also underscores the fact Democrats have made clear over the course of the last several weeks.

They are not willing to delay this to fight this out in court over the subpoenas, over various lawsuits. They are moving forward now, and any official who doesn't comply is likely to find their name in an article of impeachment, Wolf.

BLITZER: As you know Phil, we're awaiting a decision from a federal judge on whether the former White House lawyer Don McGahn must testify before Congress. How consequential potentially will that be?

MATTINGLY: Here is why this matters. The White House over the course of several months has decided to implement a legal strategy of absolute immunity for any senior officials who either used to work or continue to work inside of the White House regarding any of the Democrats' various investigations.

Don McGahn was subpoenaed in April long before the latest kind of central component of the impeachment inquiry became clear. Yet, he was the first official who will now have a judge decide whether that absolute immunity test is really one that can stand in the courts.

Why that matters is because that absolute immunity has also been drawn out with other administration officials. Now, it doesn't mean everybody is going to come racing through the door to testify if the judge rules against the administration on this.

But Democrats are hopeful that perhaps some witnesses related to the current impeachment inquiry might reconsider their obstruction up to this point if it is found in the courts not to be a valid legal theory. We're going to have to wait and see.

[17:04:59]

But this goes in line with Democrats wanting to see how this all plays out in the courts to some degree. Today will be the first test, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, as soon as we get that decision, we'll let our viewers know. Phil Mattingly, thank you very much.

President Trump, you know, is sounding off on the latest developments in the impeachment investigation. Our chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta is joining us right now. Jim, so what are you hearing over there at the White House?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, President Trump continued to voice his support for his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani after the New York City -- former New York City mayor claimed he was joking when he said he had insurance just in case he's thrown under the bus in the impeachment inquiry.

The president also said he still has confidence in his Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney even as do questions are swirling about what White House officials were up to when they were holding up military aid to Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA (voice-over): President Trump insists he's not worried that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, will turn against him in the impeachment inquiry.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know. Rudy is a great guy. Rudy was -- Rudy was the -- and he and he covered that himself, you know that. Rudy is a great crime fighter, corruption fighter, probably the best in 50 years.

I think that maybe the press isn't treating Rudy very well and I think that is unfair.

ACOSTA (voice-over): For the second time this month, Giuliani has suggested he has some kind of insurance policy to make sure he's not made the scapegoat in the Trump administration's alleged dirt for dollars deal with Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: You can assume that I talked to him early and often.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS HOST: Yes.

GIULIANI: And have a very, very good relationship with him and all of these comments, which are totally insulting.

HENRY: Yes.

GIULIANI: I mean I've seen things written like he's going to throw me under the bus.

HENRY: Right.

GIULIANI: When they say that, I say he isn't but I have insurance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA (voice-over): After making those comments, Giuliani maintained he was only kidding, tweeting, "Truth alert, the statement I've made several times of having an insurance policy if thrown under bus is sarcastic."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have confidence in Mick Mulvaney, Mr. President.

TRUMP: Yes, I do. Yes.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Earlier in the day, the president told reporters he continues to have confidence in Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. The "Washington Post" reported Mulvaney and top budget officials were searching for a legal rationale to explain why the administration suddenly put a hold on military aid to Ukraine over the summer. Democrats say it is another reason Mulvaney should testify.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): He told everybody to accept it, to get over that so we know basically what they were up to. He should come forward and speak forthrightly to the committee but, you know, that is obviously going to be tough to do.

ACOSTA (voice-over): But Democrats aren't holding their breath. Pointing out that some Republicans are warming up to the president's bogus conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election contrary to the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that it was the Russians.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Was it Russia or Ukraine.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I don't know nor do you nor do any of us. Miss Hill --

KENNEDY: Well, I mean, let me just interrupt to say the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.

KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Prominent conservatives like outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry are putting their faith in Mr. Trump, entertaining the notion that he may have been chosen by god to be president.

RICK PERRY, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: I said Mr. President, I know there are people that say, you know, you were the chosen one and I said you were. I said if you're a believing Christian, you understand God's plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our government.

ACOSTA (voice-over): The president isn't spending much time second guessing his decision to block disciplinary action taken against Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher who had faced accusations of war crimes.

Mr. Trump defended his actions that resulted in the firing of the secretary of the Navy who wrote a letter stating he could not follow the president's orders.

TRUMP: I think what I'm doing is sticking up for our Armed Forces. I will stick up for the warriors.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA (on camera): A White House source tells CNN Giuliani remains on the president's legal team and reiterates the former New York City mayor was only joking about having an insurance policy.

But it's a reminder of what's happened to the president's last outside attorney, Michael Cohen, who went to prison partly because he was involved in a scheme aimed at covering up Mr. Trump's crimes.

But Wolf, talking about it and joking about an insurance policy seems like an odd joke during an impeachment inquiry.

BLITZER: It certainly does. All right, Jim Acosta, thank you. Let's discuss all the breaking news with Democratic Congressman Gerry Connolly. He sits on the House Oversight Committee as well as the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. Let's get immediately to the lengthy letter --

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): It's good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: -- that the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has now distributed saying that you guys are learning additional information, in his words, almost every day. If that is true, Congressman, how can you hand off a report to the judiciary committee as soon as next week?

CONNOLLY: Well, the fact that we're continuing to learn information doesn't mean that we somehow stop or delay the process that we've undertaken.

[17:10:01]

I think we have plenty of evidence in front of us without requiring additional information or evidence to proceed with the impeachment of this president.

BLITZER: According to the "Washington Post," the White House made the decision to withhold money for Ukraine and then later tried to find ways to justify the decision. Why not try to obtain those documents or testimony once again from people like Mick Mulvaney before you complete your report?

CONNOLLY: Again, Wolf, that would be a legitimate, you know, line of inquiry. And if we had all of the time in the world, this would be an exhaustive, I don't know, multi-year effort. But we have some sense of urgency given the behavior of the president of the United States in the Oval Office.

Many of us are deeply alarmed about allowing him to continue in this behavior and we need to call it out now. We have the evidence we think we need to proceed with impeachment.

And frankly the Senate will have enough evidence to convict him. They won't. But they won't for purely partisan political reasons. But additional evidence is great, but I don't think it is necessary in this case --

BLITZER: All right.

CONNOLLY: -- in order to proceed.

BLITZER: Let's talk about -- we're awaiting this federal judge's decision that could come any minute now. That former White House counsel Don McGahn whether or not he needs to testify before Congress. Would you want Chairman Schiff to slow down the process, push harder for other witnesses if thus U.S. district court federal judge rules that, yes, Don McGahn must appear before Congress?

CONNOLLY: I think we can be on parallel tracks. So there are a list of desirable witnesses, Don McGahn is one of them. John Bolton is another. Obviously, Mick Mulvaney is another that we'd like to hear from. But I don't think it should derail the other track of proceeding with the evidence we have which is compelling.

I will say, you pointed out earlier in the report that we're likely to name people who have refused to cooperate with subpoenas. I think those people are putting themselves in grave legal jeopardy because whatever happens with impeachment, the defiance of the legislative branch with legitimately issued subpoenas is a matter for continued prosecution and I think puts a lot of people in legal jeopardy and hopefully we won't let that go.

BLITZER: We're getting some new reporting, Congressman, and I don't want to read to you what we're learning right now. I'll get your reaction, this from reporters Kara Scannell and Vicky Ward and Paul LeBlanc.

Federal prosecutors investigating associates of Rudy Giuliani they say have launched a broad investigation that could include criminal charges ranging from conspiracy, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and money laundering according to a subpoena sent to at least one witness and seen by CNN.

And then the report continues, the grand jury subpoena describes the range of charges that are being considered and it appears to signal that prosecutors are also looking at the associates' relationship with Rudy Giuliani and specifically Giuliani's business. So "The Wall Street Journal" first reported this. What is your reaction to this?

CONNOLLY: Well, you know, I was listening to that interview with Rudy Giuliani a little while ago that you played and now this information. You know, it is like watching and listening to the fourth sequel of the Godfather saga.

Rudy Giuliani, who was a highly touted prosecutor of organized crime, has now sadly decided to emulate them. And I think it is a very serious state of affairs. Mr. Giuliani has surrounded himself with, you know, criminal elements apparently and I think he could get caught up in that.

And of course, leave it to Donald Trump to praise him as a great lawyer and a great figure when he is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

BLITZER: It is a criminal investigation, but these are alleged crimes. These two individuals, these Giuliani associates have not yet been convicted of any crime. But how much trouble -- we know that Rudy Giuliani himself is being investigated -- how much trouble potentially do you think that the former New York mayor, the president's private attorney is in right now?

CONNOLLY: You know, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not privy to the investigation that is ongoing, but I will note that these two associates of his who were clearly unknown to Donald Trump have been indicted. And Giuliani himself apparently is a subject of criminal investigation, though he has not yet been indicted for a crime. So, we will have to see how this plays out. But I would say that Giuliani is in grave legal jeopardy.

[17:15:02]

BLITZER: We contacted Giuliani and I want to just point out what you pointed out, he has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. He previously told CNN that he has not heard from prosecutors and his attorney, Robert Costello, could not immediately be reached for comment, but we're going to follow these developments very, very closely. Congressman Connolly, thanks so much for joining us.

CONNOLLY: My pleasure, Wolf.

BLITZER: We're going top have a lot more on these late-breaking developments involving the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani insists he was only joking when he spoke about having a so-called insurance policy on President Trump if he were dumped or thrown under the bus. So what is going on? We have more information coming in to "The Situation Room."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:20:00]

BLITZER: Breaking news just coming into THE SITUATION ROOM. CNN has learned new details about a federal investigation involving the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Our Kara Scannell is joining us with late-breaking developments. So walk us through, Kara, what you are learning.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: So, Wolf, we have seen a subpoena that has been sent to one of the potential witnesses in this investigation and from that we've learned a couple of things that federal prosecutors are looking at this as a broad investigation.

They are considering a range of possible criminal charges which include lying to federal investigators, conspiracy against the U.S., wire fraud, money laundering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. That doesn't mean that any charges will necessarily be brought but it does show how broad investigators are looking at this as they investigate Rudy Giuliani's associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

And we also learned from the subpoena that they are asking a lot of questions about Giuliani himself and his security firm Giuliani Partners. As part of the subpoena, they're asking for any communications and documents relating to any actual or potential payments that were made to Giuliani.

So it indicates that investigators are taking a close look at what kind of business relationship Giuliani had with these men or others that are now being part of the potential witness category here that is in this investigation.

And we've also learned that they're asking for any documents and communications relating to political contributions to America First Action -- that is the pro-Trump super-PAC that was set up after the election. That company, that super PAC rather, has told us that they are voluntarily cooperating with investigators and they have not been subpoenaed, Wolf.

BLITZER: I assume they're looking into the money, hundreds of thousands of dollars that Giuliani received from at least one of these individuals. Lev Parnas, is that right?

SCANNELL: Yes, wolf. I mean, that's what seems very clear from the subpoena, that they're asking about any of the actual or potential payments.

And what we reported last week was that prosecutors were interviewing, the FBI agents were knocking on the doors of some donors and fundraisers and one of the questions to one of the individuals that was approached was someone who had been pitched this investment into Fraud Guarantee.

That's the company these men ran that had paid Giuliani half a million dollars. So we know prosecutors have reached out to at least one business man who was approached by these gentlemen to invest in this business which ultimately paid Giuliani. That seems to be a key piece of information that they're pursuing in the subpoena, Wolf.

BLITZER: Are they looking into whether Giuliani should have registered as a foreign agent with the Justice Department? That's one of the charges against these two other individuals.

SCANNELL: Well, Wolf, so in this subpoena what is known as the FARA case, that's not registering as a foreign agent. That is listed as one of the potential crimes that prosecutors are exploring here.

And this does raise questions of who was Giuliani acting for when he was traveling around the world and working with -- to dig up some dirt on Joe Biden, Donald Trump's presidential rival here in the upcoming election.

Now, Giuliani has maintained that his client was the president, that he was not working for any foreign government. And Giuliani has said he has not heard from prosecutors. He said he doesn't know why they would be looking at him for foreign lobbying but he has maintained that he has done nothing wrong, Wolf.

BLITZER: And his attorney I'm told has not yet responded to our request, is that right?

SCANNELL: That is right. We've not yet heard from Giuliani's lawyer, but we have talked to Giuliani about this in the past because it has been something that has been circulating around him and he has denied any wrongdoing.

He's maintained that he was lobbying only for the president, his client, so he couldn't have been violating the foreign lobbying laws. He has maintained that he has done nothing wrong, Wolf.

BLITZER: And the president today voiced his support for Rudy Giuliani rather significantly. All right, Kara Scannell, good reporting. Thanks very much. We've got a lot to follow up on the breaking news. We've got some excellent analysts and reporters here. We're going to continue our coverage of all of this right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

BLITZER: Breaking news. We're standing by for a ruling by a federal judge that could compel the former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress. We'll discuss with our experts and analysts. We're waiting for this decision that could come at any moment. The U.S. district court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, we're awaiting for her decision.

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURIT AND LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, this is going to be a really significant decision in sort of the direction of the impeachment inquiry. This is going to be the first significant test of the White House's claim of this absolute immunity, the idea that former White House officials do not have to comply with congressional subpoenas at all.

[17:29:54]

Now, that is going to be significant not just for McGahn's individual testimony, it might determine whether or not the House of Representatives decides to also look into the issues of obstruction of justice outside of the Ukraine investigations, things related to the Mueller investigation. Or if instead they'll decide just to pursue possible articles of impeachment related to Ukraine.

But of course, whatever decision is reached in the McGahn case, that will also have some significance of sort of showing where courts might be headed for people like Mick Mulvaney and other individuals who might know about the --

(CROSSTALKING)

BLITZER: But if this district court judge rules that McGahn must testify, I assume the White House would go to -- would appeal it to the Court of Appeals and maybe even the Supreme Court. That could drag on for a long time.

HENNESSEY: It could although a little bit. This might -- have the effect of calling the White House's bluff. Don McGahn has said that he doesn't object to testifying. He just wants to know what the courts are going to say. He wants to understand whether or not he has this legal obligation.

And so you do think that if all of a sudden they're appealing again and again this sort of political currency of saying we're just trying to understand the scope of the law here. That is going to be a much harder argument. It's going to look a lot more like the White House is trying to cover something up.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS EDITOR AT LARGE: And just to add, I watched Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee with Jake yesterday. And Jake asked him about this because there is -- there's a "New York Times" op-ed, there is some uneasiness chatter about the idea of are they moving too fast? Should they wait for some of these rulings to come down because, as Susan mentioned, yes this is McGahn but it obviously will have some implication with Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, et cetera, vis-a-vis Ukraine.

His answer essentially was we're not going to let the administration try to run out the clock on this. We know that they want to just delay, delay, delay. They're going to appeal, appeal, appeal. We feel as though we have enough right now.

But that is clearly a strategic decision that if it doesn't wind up playing out the way that Adam Schiff may think it will or wants it to, he will be questioned about it.

BLITZER: Yes. Kylie -- let me read to you from the letter that Adam Schiff circulated today. Among other things he said this. "The investigative work continues and we're learning additional information almost every day. But while we will continue with our investigative work and do not foreclose the possibility of further depositions or hearings, we will not allow the President or others to drag this out for months on end in the courts."

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes.

BLITZER: I guess the criticism of Schiff and company is that, you know, this is so, so important -- why not turn over every stone before a final report is written?

ATWOOD: Well, they have a certain amount of time here, right. This is a politically-driven process. Let's all, you know, recognize it for what it is. And they have only have less than a year before the election gets here. So that is one thing.

But they will make the argument as Chairman Schiff does in this letter that they have done a lot in a short amount of time. It's has been about, what, six weeks. They've talked to 12 witnesses before the public, before the American public. They've had 17 folks come in for depositions behind closed doors.

And what Chairman Schiff says in his letter is that it is clear that there has been wrongdoing by President Trump. And he also says that there is evidence of criminal intent. So they do think that they have a case even though they haven't turned over every stone.

And they will make the argument, as Chris said, that those folks who are not coming forth are doing so because the White House told them not to and that is evidence that they are obstructing --

(CROSSTALKING)

CILLIZZA: And remember part of the Mueller issue, once the Mueller report came out, part of not -- the Democrats' struggle with trying to litigate out, politically speaking, Mueller what so many of the witnesses that they wanted to call simply would not comply.

BLITZER: Sabrina -- let's talk a little bit about Rudy Giuliani. You've seen our breaking news reporting that has been going out that given some of the subpoenas that have been issued involving his two associates who have already been indicted, they potentially could be looking very seriously at potential charges against him?

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, this is the clearest indication yet that federal prosecutors are examining Rudy Giuliani's consulting work. And one of the entities that was listed in these subpoenas is a firm that was founded by Giuliani in 2002 and had multiple foreign clients including in a city in Ukraine.

Now there are several potential charges that are listed in these subpoenas and those include money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud the United States as well as a failure to comply with the laws around registering as a foreign agent.

Those are just some of the potential charges that are under consideration at this point in time. It certainly signals an increasing amount of trouble for Giuliani who so far has said that he has not been contacted by prosecutors. He, of course, maintains his innocence. But he is facing mounting pressure especially as he is also at the center of this impeachment inquiry named explicitly by several former and current administration officials for the very central role he played in this scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine for political investigations sought by the President.

[17:35:00]

SIDDIQUI: So the question now is does President Trump stand by Giuliani or does he go the route that he did with his former personal attorney Michael Cohen and try to distance himself from Giuliani which will of course be difficult to do given there were officials who also made it very clear that a lot of what was happening with Ukraine was in fact at the direction of the President and not just Rudy Giuliani going rogue.

BLITZER: How much trouble, Susan -- potentially is the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in right now?

HENNESSEY: Yes. So all we know for now for sure is that he -- certainly they are investigating very, very serious charges here and that Giuliani should be extremely concerned. Now if Giuliani' affirmative defense here is, hey, I was just doing what the President of the United States asked me to do, that is going to put a lot of pressure on Giuliani to produce evidence of what the President told him, the specifics of their communication.

So it is so significant to see the President saying things today like that Giuliani is a good man but he's been treated unfairly. That is the exact same language that the President used about Michael Flynn and about Paul Manafort. Both of those were instances that Mueller determined where the President dangling a pardon to prevent people or incentivize them from cooperating with investigators.

CILLIZZA: One other comparison -- Michael Cohen that we talked about. Remember Donald Trump spoke glowingly of Michael Cohen. No he won't turn, Michael is a good man.

And what's another commonality? Follow the money. How did Michael Cohen eventually get brought down? Because of the donations to Stormy Daniels. Where did they come from? Where did the money come from? What did you do with it?

There is going to be, and we already see it, a money trail here as it relates to Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and maybe Rudy Giuliani and then they are the first to defect. So that is a problem.

This is not hearsay. You can track. Where did the money come from? And then where did it wind up? And who was in the middle of that?

BLITZER: America First super PAC approach -- Trump political action committee.

All right. Guys -- stand by.

There is more breaking news we're following. President Trump is strongly defending his decision to intervene in the case of the U.S. Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. We'll have more on that and all of the breaking news right after a quick break.

[17:36:55]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Tonight President Trump is weighing in on the controversial case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes and the former Navy Secretary who was forced to resign after trying to demote him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With Eddie Gallagher, you know that story very well. They want to take his pin away and I said no, you're not going to take it away. He was a great fighter. He was one of the ultimate fighters. A tough guy.

These are not weak people. These are tough people. And we're going to protect our war fighters and I've been given a lot of thank yous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr is joining us now.

Barbara -- we're hearing sort of conflicting narratives among the President, the Defense Secretary, and the former Navy secretary. What is going on?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Very conflicting narratives -- Wolf.

President Trump even tweeting that Spencer was essentially fired because of cost overruns in Navy programs. So there may be those cost overruns but that is not fundamentally the reason that Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that the Navy chief had to go.

Esper speaking to reporters today said he simply lost trust and confidence in Spencer and was flabbergasted when he found out last Friday that Spencer had been talking to the White House behind his back about a secret channel to try and get a fix in, if you will, on Eddie Gallagher being able to keep his Navy status upon retirement.

Listen to a little bit of what Esper had to say about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Secretary Spencer broke these rules and thus lost my trust and confidence. Contrary to the narrative that some have put forward in the media, this dismissal is not about Eddie Gallagher. It is about Secretary Spencer and the chain of command.

(END VIDEO CLIP) STARR: Esper feels -- says he feels very strongly that Spencer went behind his back. That he violated the chain of command. He didn't tell anybody what he was doing and that is the reason Esper wanted him terminated.

But we also have Spencer's view of all this. He wrote a letter where he said he was standing on principle and he could no longer serve the President of the United States because of the Gallagher situation and because of him being allowed to keep his Navy status without a review.

But at the end of the day, Gallagher is gone, the President got what he wanted and the Pentagon right now hopes to move on from all of this. The secretary -- the former secretary of the Navy, not acknowledging that he had that back channel communication -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara, the President clearly got what he wanted here but how is this likely to be received among the rank and file?

STARR: Well, to be very blunt, Wolf -- there is a very strong feeling that President Trump, frankly on a factual basis, listened to Fox News commentators on this entire situation and that Gallagher got -- and his lawyers got Fox News' ear.

So the big worry right now is a couple of things. That basically those who have committed misconduct in the military feel if they could just get the President's ear, possibly through Fox News, they can be excused from their misconduct without a processing of their case.

There is a concern also this fundamentally sends mixed signals to the troops. The military operates by the rules, by the book with very strict procedures and very much from the beginning this case was prosecuted in an unusual fashion and the handling of the President's intervention into the military justice system while he has the right to do it as commander-in-chief, an awful lot of folks feel that maybe he shouldn't have done it -- Wolf.

[12:45:07]

BLITZER: All right. Barbara -- thank you. Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.

Comin up, we're standing by for a federal judge to hand down a sentence to the Chinese national convicted of unlawfully enter -- unlawfully entering President Trump's Mar-A-Lago mansion at Palm Beach, Florida.

Stay with us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

[17:45:24]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: All right. We've got breaking news coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.

A Chinese national convicted of sneaking into the President's Mar-A- Lago Palm Beach, Florida resident has just learned her fate as a federal judge prepares -- has already prepared the sentence.

Brian Todd is getting new information for us right now. What's going on?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf -- just learning moments ago from our colleagues in Florida that a federal judge sentenced this woman to eight months in prison. That seems to include time already served so she could be released in about 5 days. That's according to our folks, Rosa Flores and her team, down at that courtroom in Florida. So this woman who committed that breach at Mar-A-Lago still in prison for a few more days.

Still there are serious questions remaining unanswered from this case, including whether this woman was a spy and if some very worrisome security gaps at Mar-A-Lago have been addressed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: It was an audacious broad daylight intrusion at the compound that's now President Trump's permanent residents.

Yujing Zhang, a 33-year-old Chinese national who walked onto President Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort and was convicted of trespassing could soon be on her way to prison.

Prosecutors say one afternoon last March, Zhang gave different excuses at three security checkpoints for why she was at Mar-A-Lago including that she was there to use the pool even though she was wearing an evening gown.

But it's what she had carried with her when she was stopped by the Secret Service that had national security experts concerned.

ANTHONY FERRANTE, FORMER FBI CYBER COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AGENT: She carried into Mar-A-Lago -- or was able to carry into Mar-A-Lago a modern day burglar's tool kit.

TODD: Among the high-tech devices Zhang had with her -- a thumb drive, a laptop, and external hard drive and four cell phones. When they searched her hotel room, investigators found another cell phone, five sim cards to change a phone's number, nine USB drive, thousands of dollars in cash, and a signal detector -- a device for detecting hidden cameras.

The one question that wasn't answered at the trial -- whether Yujing Zhang was a spy for the Chinese. She wasn't charged with espionage but a person familiar with the situation told CNN her case has been connected to a larger federal probe of potential Chinese spying effort.

Former FBI counterintelligence agent Eric O'Neill says it's possible she wasn't a spy or that she could have been an informal operative, someone who was not highly-trained, someone who Chinese officials loosely sent in to test security.

ERIC O'NEILL, SECURITY STRATEGIST, VMWARE CARBON BLACK: To see how easy it is to get into Mar-A-Lago. And if she does get in there she could have a basic knowledge of intelligence gathering to just extract some intelligence such as what kind of people are in Mar-A-Lago? Or how do you get toward where Trump might be?

TODD: President Trump was not on the property at the time of that incident but the intrusion continues to raise serious questions tonight about the security vulnerabilities at Mar-A-Lago.

On the day after Thanksgiving last year, the President and First Lady were at the compound when an 18-year-old college student walked through a tunnel from the beach onto the club grounds. Prosecutors say he was searched for weapons but wasn't stopped from entering. And he reportedly walked around the estate for about 20 minutes before Secret Service agents noticed him acting strangely and apprehended him.

ANTHONY CHAPA, FORMER SECRET SERVICE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: The threat is going to come from someone who trespasses or someone who gets close, someone who wants to come see him.

TODD: Former Secret Service assistant director Anthony Chapa and other experts say the danger at Mar-A-Lago lies in the fact that it's a resort with guests and club members constantly shuttling in and out even when the President is there.

LAURENCE LEARNER, AUTHOR, "MAR-A-LAGO": Look it's a disaster waiting to happen. The family quarters are just off a corridor, that's all. People are walking all around there. It's crazy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: And again, the breaking news. This woman has just been sentenced to eight months in prison but that does seem to include time already served so she could be out in about five days.

Now, more questions here. Has the Secret Service enhanced security at Mar-A-Lago since the two intrusions in March and last November. The Secret Service did not get back to us on that but former assistant director Anthony Chapa says the agency very likely have tightened up security a great deal since those two incidents including tweaking intelligence gathering at the compound -- Wolf.

BLITZER: This woman -- I understand though has sort of behaved strangely during her trial. Is that right?

TODD: That's putting it mildly -- Wolf. She refused to hire a defense attorney. She delayed sentencing today claiming she hasn't had a chance to review documents which the judge said she clearly had had a chance to review. During her trial she said more than one she thought her trial had been canceled when it clearly hadn't been and she even wants to delay the trial when she claims she didn't have the right underwear.

BLITZER: Let's not forget the President and First Lady recently officially moved their residence from New York to Mar-A-Lago in Florida. They are now residents of Florida. All right. Thanks very much to Brian Todd.

[17:54:59]

BLITZER: Coming up, more on the breaking news. Federal prosecutors taking a very close look at a business owned by Rudy Giuliani. Is the President's personal attorney in serious legal jeopardy?

[17:55:10]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)