But cnn has learned that hes privately trying to hunt down the legendary journalist sources and likely punish them. And kavanaugh under fire. All of this comes as mr. Trumps Supreme Court nominee is facing contentious questioning by democratic senators, democrats pressing him about his views on executive power and whether the president could pardon himself or if the president could be subpoenaed. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Im wolf blitzer. Youre in the situation room. Were following major breaking news. A Senior Trump Administration official admits to being part of a battle inside the white house to frustrate the president s agenda and his worst impulses until he leaves office. The New York Times publishing the unprecedented oped anonymously. The author, delivering a blistering assessment of the president that echoes themes in the new bob woodward book, portraying mr. Trump as amoral, impulsive, misguided, and detrimental to the United States of america. Tonight, mr. Trump is lashing out at the New York Times and claiming that Bob Woodwards book is all fiction, timed to interfere with the confirmation hearings of his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. This hour, ill talk to republican senator Lindsey Graham. Hes a key member of the Judiciary Committee questioning kavanaugh. And our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. First, lets go to our senior white house correspondent, jeff zele zeleny. Jeff, first the woodward book b bombshell and now this extraordinary oped. Reporter good evening, wolf. Its an extraordinary backtoback blistering assessment of this president by someone inside his own white house. And they make the same point. They believe the president is not must be protected from doing his own impulses of what he would do to the country. Now, wolf, we already know the president has been enraged and on something of a witch hunt over who was talking to bob woodward. Now he wonders whos writing about him in the New York Times. New signs tonight of a war within President Trumps white house. An anonymous oped in the New York Times written by a senior trump official offers a blistering look at how people inside the government are trying to protect the nation from the president. We believe our first duty is to this country and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic, the person writes. That is why many trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions, while thwarting mr. Trumps more misguided impulses until he is out of office. An extraordinary claim, and tonight the president is blasting the newspaper. If the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial can you believe it . Anonymous. Meaning gutless. A gutless editorial, were doing a great job. Reporter yet it rocked the white house, amplifying and echoing the same overarching theme of a bombshell new book by bob woodward. The book means nothing. Its a work of fiction. Reporter President Trump tonight, trying to downplay and discredit Bob Woodwards new book, which offers a devastating portrait of deep dysfunction inside his white house. In the oval office, the president settling on one word again and again to describe the explosive book. Fiction. Fiction. Fiction. Fiction. Fiction. Fiction. Its fiction. Its more fiction. Reporter but behind the scenes, cnn has learned hes enraged and on a mission to find out who cooperated with woodward for his book. Fear, trump in the white house. Its his own west wing witch hunt, with one official telling cnn, he wants to know who talked to woodward. But now theres another mystery sure to outrage the president. The official who wrote this anonymously in the times. The dilemma, which he does not fully grasp, is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. The official, who insist they want trump to succeed, also writes, the root of the problem is the president s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible First Principles that guide his decision making. The legendary Washington Post journalist of watergate fame defending his book in five simple words. I stand by my reporting. In the president s first Public Comments about the book, he denied ever ordering or even considering the assassination of the syrian leader, as woodward reported. That was never even contemplated, nor would it be contemplated. Reporter trump made clear hes trying to discredit woodward, who he assailed on twitter as a dem operative. If you look back at woodwards past, he had the same problem with other president s. He likes to get publicity and sell some books. Reporter but the president once called woodward great in 2013 when he wrote a book critical of the obama administration. Then he came toed woodwards defense tweeting, only the Obama White House can get away with attacking bob woodward. And the post released a recording o record ing of a call between the president and woodward last month saying this. I think youve always been fair, but well see what happens. Reporter inside the tense west wing today, the president made clear he was keeping track of which current and former officials issued denials. Already, general mattis came out very, very strongly. He was insulted by the remarks that were attributed to him. Reporter in the book, woodward said that the president had the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader during a discussion about north korea. Mattis denied that account. General john kelly, the same exact thing. He was insulted by what they said. He couldnt believe what they said. Reporter and kelly is portrayed as describing the president as unhinged and an idiot. He, too, denied it. Yet there was notable silence from other former officials. White house chief of staff, reince priebus, chief economic adviser, gary cohn, and rob porter. All of whom were depicted in the book as trying to protect the nation from the president. And the New York Times is failing. Reporter while the president also rails against it, he often cares deeply whats inside his old hometown newspaper. In fridays edition, it will be this blistering assessment of his presidency, from someone who works from him. Senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chiefs comments and actions. Most are working to isolate their operations from his whims. Now, wolf, tonight, the white house is clearly trying to digest all of this and frankly trying to see who it may have been who actually wrote this blistering assessment. Theyre wondering if someone here in the building, someone in a nearby agency, someone at the top of another agency without the government. Only described by the times as a senior Administration Official. But, wolf, we are getting also a statement from White House Press secretary, Sarah Sanders, late today. She says this. She said, the individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive rather than support the dually elected president of the United States. He is not putting country first, but put himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American People. This coward should do the right thing and resign. But notable, wolf, Sarah Sanders did not say the paper made this up. That, of course, is one of their claims always, that its fake news, that is not one of their assessments. We should also point out, wolf, that we do not necessarily know if it is a he. The New York Times mentioned on social media earlier, used the word he, but then a spokeswoman for the newspaper said that that was not necessarily accurate. Someone did not know the identity who wrote that. So we do not know tonight if its a he or a she, but we know their feelings about the president and his impulses. Wolf . Very interesting. A lot of people are speculating. We might know sooner rather than later who this individual is. Jeff zeleny at the white house, thank you very much. Lets bring in our cnn political director, david chalian. David, this is truly another bombshell. First, the woodward book and now this. And i know, wolf, that sometimes it is hard for us inside the newsroom to deal with each days developments and sort of calibrate them. It must be hard for the viewers at home. But that double whammy of the woodward book and then this unprecedented takedown of a presidency from inside is simply astonishing. And no doubt sending a chill down the spine of Many Americans tonight. Weve not seen anything like this. So as youre assessing each sort of daily development, let me assure you, this is a big one. And dont just trust me when i say that, look at the president s reaction himself, wolf. When the president in the white house today went and stared right into the camera, not only could you see his visible anger, but you see the unraveling, you see a president who sort of is losing it right before the American People in many ways, thrashing out that he is so unable to get control of his own narrative here, as commander in chief. Yeah, he was really, really seething. You could see that when he began to defend himself in the aftermath of this article being posted. David chalian, thank you very much. I want to bring in our senior media correspondent, brian stelter. Brian, i understand you just had a chance to speak with a source at the New York Times. What are you picking up . Yeah, jim dell is the oped page editor at the New York Times. He just told me about how this oped came together, this extraordinary document from a senior official in the government. Dow said just a few days ago, this senior official contacted him through an intermediary, through a gobetween, and expressed interest in writing this oped. Dow said his response was the same thing he said to anybody who wants to write an on pedestrian. Go ahead and write it, submit it, well see what it says. An understated response from the New York Times, obviously given the gravity of this situation. Now, dow, obviously will not talk about who this senior official was, whether its a man or a woman, where in the government they work. We all know, theres a lot of people within the administration that could be called senior and dow would not go into details about whether this person works in the west wing or works in an agency, et cetera. But he did say the times had taken a number of special precautions to protect the persons identity. He also said only a very small number of people within the New York Times know the persons identity. Wolf, the detail that stands out most to me is the detail about the cabinet. This oped writer said there was talk within the cabinet about trying to invoke the 25 tth amendment, but the cabinet officials decided not to, because they didnt want to provoke a constitutional crisis. That suggests to me that this person had some visibility into cabinetlevel discussions, at least early on in the administration. So as all of this fallout continues, just keep in mind, of all of the places this senior official could have gone, with of all the outlets they could have chosen to try to blow the proverbial whistle, they chose the newspaper that trump loves and hates the most. They chose the socalled failing New York Times, that, of course, is not failing at all. Im sure when the president sees this in print, hell be even angrier than he has been reading it online. Brian stelter, good reporting. Thank you very much. Joining us now, republican senator Lindsey Graham. Hes a member of the Judiciary Committee, the committee thats been questioning the president s Supreme Court nominee all day. And thank you so much, senator, for coming over. I know its a incredibly busy day, but these are extraordinary developments. And youre shaking your head. The woodward book yesterday and now this oped, anonymously written in the New York Times. This person writes that theres confirmation that theres people within the Trump Administration, within the president s cabinet who are actually considering going to the 25th amendment, to the constitution, to try to remove this president , because they fear he was a threat to u. S. National security. Ive never heard that before. This palace intrigue. I dont mean to bust a bubble here, but most people in South Carolina are not going to take the oped in the New York Times very seriously. Bob woodward is a good journalist. Theres no doubt in my mind that whatever he wrote in that book, he had sources for. But at the end of the day, hes going to be judged by results. President trump, in my world, where i live, in South Carolina, most people are very pleased with what the president s doing. Because this individual who wrote this article in the New York Times clearly is the New York Times, you believe the New York Times would not have published it if they had not confirmed it was a Senior Trump Administration official. Im sure that it could be one of a bunch of people. All i can say is ive never heard this before. Im going to judge the president by the results. And i like what hes doing with judges, what hes doing with the military, what he did with taxes. And that will matter in my world. In my world, when the New York Times speak, most of us dont listen. Nothing against the paper, but its sort of seen as the voice of the left. Because the author of this article because it is. Talks about successes, and you refer to successes of the trump presidency, and according to this senior Administration Official have come despite, not because of the president s leadership style. Yeah. And this also author says, this president represents a danger to the u. S. And i know youre interested in Foreign Policy. In public and in private, the author writes, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators such as president Vladimir Putin of russia and north koreas leader kim jongun and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allylike nations. Well, all i can say is that i agree remember, that isnt the New York Times saying that, this is a senior Administration Official, a political appointee, someone who has come in, maybe he works in National Security or someplace, whos blasting the president , saying hes a threat to u. S. National security. Right. I think this president has done more to rebuild a broken military than anybody since ronald reagan. I think this president has taken it to our enemies much better than the last president. I think withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement was a good decision. I think cutting taxes is benefiting the average american. What they will say, in the white house, palace intrigue is one thing results or another. All i can say is that there will be an election in 2020. And i dont know who this person is, but i got a call from the president at 8 00 energy. He sounded really fine to me. Talked to john kelly at 7 30 this morning. Ive conducted business all day, believing that john kelly is going nowhere. The president was actually in a pretty good mood about kavanaugh, and well you know, i dont know who this person is, but what i see coming out of the white house, i like. I dont know how they get to where they get, but theyre getting to the right places, in my view. You know, when i read this article in the New York Times, it was pretty stunning knowing that its not a New York Times editorial, this was not written by a writer for the yeah, yeah. This was a senior Administration Official. I knew you were coming on the show, and immediately in my mind, i remember what you said about donald trump in 2016. You remember, and im paraphrasing, but i think you used the word, hes a kook, hes unfit for office. A bunch of things. Hes crazy. Yeah. You really went after him at the time. Yeah. What has changed . Well, he won, i lost. So i owe it to him to try to help him where i can. Say no when i must. The people of South Carolina expect me to do that. All i can say is that people listen to me about as much as were going to listen to the New York Times. I said a lot of things, nobody cared. And at the end of the day, he won in states we hadnt won in 30 years. I like what hes doing as president. I dont like all of the things he says and does. But this is palace intrigue that will matter more on cable tv than anywhere else. In the world in which i live in, in South Carolina, this is going to matter zero. Heres what the president of the United States just tweeted, only a few minutes ago. And you can see it right there. We put it up on the screen in all caps. Treason . Treason . Hes obviously furious right now at this author of this article in the New York Times. Hes clearly enraged about who leaked stuff to bob woodward, a man you and i know and hes a good journalist. Clearly he spoke with you at one point, you passed on a request to the president to sit down with bob woodward. Can i tell you about that . I talked to bob, so im sure hell quote me accurately. The bottom line, i talked to bob about obama and almost every other president since ive been here. The bottom line is, i told the president playing golf that woodward was writing a book about him like he does every president , im sure hed like to talk to you, he said, thats interesting, it literally took a minute, and we moved on to whether or not i was going to give him the putt. So heres what i think, the book by bob woodward is not going to determine the outcome of the 2020 election. Its something for people to consider. The anonymous editorial would piss me off, if somebody in my office wrote it about me. Put yourself in the president s shoes. Wouldnt you be upset . Hes very upset. Well, i dont blame him. He used the word treason just now. And all of a sudden i remember, john brennan, the former cia director, spoke about treasonous. Is it appropriate for the president to be suggesting treason, which is a crime right. Potentially the death penalty, for the president of the United States to raise the issue of treason referring either to the author of this article who works for him, maybe inside his own cabinet, or for other sources who cooperated with bob woodward for this book . Its not a this is not treason under the constitution. This is not a treasonous act against the nation. Its a disloyal and cowardly act against the president. So i wouldnt say treason, but if i were him, i would really be upset that somebody wrote this, come to him and, you know, at the end of the day, the president has every right to be upset. And this will matter nothing in 2020. Hes either going to win or lose based on what he does for average people, not based on articles or books. I think. You know i know youre obviously very interested in National Security. Yes. In the bob woodward book, he reports that the defense secretary, general james mattis, retired, described the president as having the understanding on critical National Security issues of a, quote, fifth or a sixth grader. The Washington Post reporting today that there have now been talks about who could eventually replace james mattis, talks that maybe accelerated by the woodward book. You saw james mattis putting out a statement, denying it. Your name, by the way, has come up as a possible replacement for james mattis. Are you interested . Well, one, thats the first ive heard of this and the answer is no. And general mattis, i think, is committed to staying, at least, i hope he is. If he leaves, that would be a loss for this white house, be a loss for the country. I have never ive never heard general mattis talk that way. So bob woodward is a good journalist. But i can say, ive never heard a disrespectful word come out of general mattis mouth about the president. If the president asked you to serve as the secretary of defense, would you . No. Why . Because i like being a senator from South Carolina. I can do a bunch of things as a senator from South Carolina. But you could do a lot as secretary of defense too. Yeah. You know, he asked me to be ambassador to pakistan. And i said, thank you very much, no thank you. Thats the only time weve ever talked about a particular job. I like what im doing. I want to help him where i can. And, you know, what would happen if he withdrew from afghanistan tomorrow and did not listen to his generals . What would happen if he left syria and did not listen to his generals . I would be his biggest critic. I like what the president is doing militarily. He seems to listen to people who have made it their lifes work to defend the nation. As long as hell do that, its his ultimate decision, im going to be with this guy, because i think he really is making us safer. Would you serve as attorney general of the United States . No. I maybe id do both. I hear if i could have both jobs no, wolf. No. Its not because i dont like the president. Its because i like being a senator. A cabinet official has never intrigued me at all. You, you but what about the way the president of the United States humiliates, berates i hate that. I hate that. Talks so awful about the sitting attorney general of the United States. Yeah, i you know, some of these quotes from the president , whether he says it publicly or tweets about it yeah. Are simply you know, senator, Jeff Sessions. Yeah, whatever you think about jeff, hes a good man. If you dont want him to be your attorney general, you have a right to replace him, but youre going to have to replace him with somebody who gets confirmed. Nobodys going to how do you explain that he berates his own attorney general, repeatedly, almost day after day after day. Its awful. He does it with everybody. He went after the pope. He goes after me. But heres what i would say. I would is this a stable individual who does that to the sitting attorney general of the United States . I think most americans believe that he was the answer better than hillary clinton. Well, she got 3 million more votes. I know, but he won the electoral college. He is the dually elected president of the United States. But dont you think everybody in the country understood who donald trump was . I dont like a lot of things he says about jeff or other people, but most People Factor that into the equation. They believe that they had nothing to lose and that donald trump would change things for the better. And heres what i thinks happening. I think hes delivering on his campaign promises. Hes going to win in 2020, unless something really dramatically changes. And i want to help him. Well, you know, because a lot of the people surrounding him, apparently, are not very happy. If you believe the bob woodward book, if you believe this article in the New York Times, by this senior Administration Official. Theyre not very happy, but they stay put, theyre doing their job, because they think they have a higher calling to the people of the United States and the National Security of the United States. And theyre willing to go along. Theyre afraid if they leave, they dont know what he would do. Well, i talked to general kelly this morning. He said its challenging working for President Trump, and it is. I mean, President Trump is a handful, at times. But he understands the American People better than anybody else that ran for president. And hes doing things that i approve of for the military, that i approve of for the economy, that hes picking judges that i would have picked. Whatever differences i have with the president , i like what hes doing and the people working for him, i think, feel like theyre doing the country a Great Service by being part of the Trump Administration, to those who believe that this man is a fool, that this man is crazy, that theres something wrong with donald trump and its just the people around him that keep us safe, you dont know what youre talking about. Those were your words at one point in your life, not too long ago, you were thinking he was crazy. He ran a campaign that i didnt i didnt like at all. Im telling you, i lost, he won. And from the time hes been sworn in until now, he says a lot of things i dont like, but hes doing things i respect. The president really dislikes Jeff Sessions. And i think thats pretty obvious. Maybe he hates Jeff Sessions. He hasnt fired him. He could fire him if he wants to, because he recused himself from involvement in the russia probe its unfair to jeff. Did Jeff Sessions do the right thing . He had to. Ive been a lawyer all my adult life. You cant investigate a campaign of which you are a part. So he had to recuse himself, but theres a lot deeper stuff than just that. All i would tell the president , if you want to replace Jeff Sessions after the election, there are people that could take this job that i think would get confirmed. But heres the bottom line. Nobody is going to replace Jeff Sessions unless they promise the nation to protect mueller and let him do his job. Thats the price of admission to be the next attorney general. Well, the only reason he wants to fire him is because he recused himself from the russia probe. He wants him to protect him, to do what maybe a rio cohn would do to protect him. But thats not the role of the attorney general of the United States. Right. Its not the president s lawyer, but theres a lot more going on than that. And i think youll hear about some of it later. What else is going on . I think performance. What do you mean . Well, youll theres some decisions that the department of justice have made that the president feels like were not good decisions. You mean the two republican congressmen who have been charged . No, im not talking about that. Im talking about the zero tolerance policy, a few other things like that. Because yesterday the president went after Jeff Sessions because of those two republican congressmen who have been accused now, and he said, what are you doing, Jeff Sessions . What are you doing . Yeah. Its going to be a close race, we need these republican they had an easy reelection, and look what youve done. Was that appropriate for the president to weigh in on what a u. S. Attorney has done in the Southern District of new york, appointed by the president , and what a u. S. Attorney has done in southern california, appointed by the president of the United States . No, wii dont think thats appropriate to say that a republican you know, what are you doing prosecuting a republican. The point is, political figures are not above the law. But i remember when ted stevens got indicted shortly before his election and wound up losing and eventually was cleared, all i can say is that theres been a longstanding policy when it comes to prosecuting public officials, dont try to interfere with the election. I think thats what the president s main point but its not appropriate to suggest that, you know, you cant be prosecuted because youre a republican. Im just curious, what did you mean by performance issues . Zero tolerance. I have found, quite frankly, that there have been times at the department of justice where i thought this whole family separation policy with the children being separated from their mothers . Yeah. Think this thing through, you know . But who do you who do you blame i mean, it sounds like the president of the United States supported that policy, spoke about that policy. The president of the United States changed that policy. Yeah. So i like Jeff Sessions. My view is that this is deeper than just one thing and its not whether or not i like him, its whether or not this president can work with him. Its pretty clear to me that this is a broken relationship. You know, can it be repaired . I hope so. But after the election, if the president chooses to have an attorney general that he has more confidence in, i will support that choice with the understanding, ethey have to be highly qualified, confirmable, and well make sure that mueller is not impeded. You know, im going to play a clip. This is what you said a little bit more than a year ago about firing Jeff Sessions and what you said more recently and then ill give you a chance to elaborate. Right. If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay. Clearly, attorney general sessions doesnt have the confidence of the president. After the election, i think there will be some serious discussions about a new attorney general. All right. Go ahead and yeah, so, he was thinking about firing sessions because he recused himself. He had no choice. I told you, mr. President , this man youre not a lawyer, i am theres no way Jeff Sessions could oversee the investigation but hes still always complaining about the fact that Jeff Sessions recused himself. He thinks thats the biggest mistake. He cant get over that. Well, all i can say is that now its 2018 and muellers investigation is very mature. Im sure hes on path to issue a report, probably after the election. Im committed to him doing his job without political interference. But in the last year, things have transpired to the point now that its not about recusal, its deeper, in my view, and if the president wants to choose an attorney general he has a better working relationship, he has that i want to be precise. Does he blame Jeff Sessions for that disastrous family separation policy . These little kids separated from their moms and dads and about 500, apparently, are stillparen . Heres what i would say. This didnt come from the president. This came from the department of justice, and when i heard about it, it was pretty ill conceived. Nobody thought this thing through and the president correctly changed that policy. Weve got a broken immigration system. But that decision, i think, hurt all of us. Because i remember, john kelly was on this program a year ago i dont have the exact quote, but he spoke about the need to separate, if people come in illegally, theyve got children, you know what, this is going to be a get tough policy and were going to separate these kids from their so did that was more than a year ago that kelly did it. And then earlier this year, the policy unfolded at the department of Homeland Security and the justice department, they all got onboard. So obama talked about this. Jeh johnson talked about it on his watch, but youve got this albadoss decision, i think thats the name of the decision, that theres a time period that you can hold a minor. And the law is the law. So you have to rely upon the justice department, if they change a policy, to make sure it doesnt run into existing law. What happened here . The policy change ran into longstanding legal principles that were pretty obvious, if you wanted to look. Is it the role of the attorney general of the United States to cover up crimes committed by republicans who supported the president . No. But you saw the tweets from the president on that . Heres what i saw. I saw the president because some people, some legal experts have already suggested, already suggested that that and ill read the tweet to you, to remind you what the president said. Two long running obama era investigations of two very popular republican congressmen have brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff Sessions justice department. Too easy wins, now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job, jeff. Ahead of the midterms is the key deal here. And i dont know what the laws of those states are about replacing somebody, but i think the beef of the president is that these were prosecutions brought very close to an election and theres been a general view not to do that. You know, were talking about Chris Collins of new york, Duncan Hunter of california. The first and the second republicans to members of congress im not saying theyre above the law. To support the president of the United States. Im not saying the theyre above the law, but when you bring a prosecution within 90 days of an election because some have already suggested, that tweet alone is an impeachable offense. Well, well see. Let me read to you something that a member of Congress Said about impeachment years ago. Mmhmm. You dont even have to be convicted o eed of a crime to your job in this constitutional republic, if this body denser that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office. Mmhmm. I agree with that. And no democrat agreed with me. All of them because those were your words, 1999, when you were in favor of impeaching bill clinton, who was president of the United States. And i lost the case. And every democrat he was impeached in the house, he was not convicted in the senate. So i made those statements on the floor of the senate as an impeachment manager. My democratic colleagues thought that impeachment was not an appropriate punishment for the crimes of bill clinton. This is the one thing that would really break me when it came to the Trump Administration. If theres credible evidence that this president or his team, and he should have known about it, colluded with the russians, to get a benefit from their attack on our democracy, that would be hit. We dont know what mueller, Robert Mueller has no, but ive seen you want him to finish the investigation and you would prefer that the president of the United States stop going after him, calling it a witch hunt and all of that. Hes not going to stop. They went after ken starr. But heres my promise well, there was a difference, because i covered ken starr. Administration officials went after ken starr, but the president , bill clinton at the time, he stayed pretty much silent about ken starr. He probably took a pass it worked for him. All i can say about mueller, i dont know what hes going to find. I have saw no evidence of collusion, that this president and his team sat down with the russians in an inappropriate way to actually collude with them. But mueller will tell us, all i can promise you and your audience, is that when it comes to mueller, im dead set on him finishing his job. When it comes to this president , im going to help in every turn. The New York Times oped piece will mean nothing over time. Bob woodwards book is a great read, im sure. I havent read it yet. Theres drama around every event. But none of this will matter if the president can produce for the people of the country. And time will tell. Well, lets say mueller does bring, what you would agree to be credible evidence of conspiracy with the russians or obstruction of justice. Would you at that point consider it appropriate for the house of representatives to begin impeachment proceedings . If this president or any other president , as a candidate, colluded with a foreign power who compromised the other party, that would be a nonstarter for me. I dont believe he did. He cant collude with his own government, so why should he collude with the russians . Hes a force of nature. He won the white house. He beat me. Everything i said before is in my rearview mirror. I owe it to the people of South Carolina to try to help this man, if i can, and i will. And heres what i think. Kavanaughs a great choice and hes going to be confirmed soon. You think hes going to be confirmed with some democrats onboard . Four or five. And lisa murkowski, and susan collins, theyre going to be onboard . I think so. Republicans . I think so. So you think this is a done deal . I think so. Hes done so well, you could no have chosen a better person, highly qualified, 12 years on the bench. Just an epitome of what a conservative judge should look like. So im well pleased with this choice and i want to compliment the president , youve done really good with gorsuch and kavanaugh, doing good with the military, you cut our ing the g. Some of the things you say, i wish you wouldnt say. Neil gorsuch, hell be on the Supreme Court for decades, maybe 30 years to come. Brett kavanaugh, hes going to be on there, if confirmed. Clearly, these elections have sequences. Sotomayor and kagan will be around for quite a while. I voted for both of them, because theyre qualified. If youre worried about the kind of court were going to have, you need to turn out and vote in 2020. People need to turn out and vote in 2018, first. Midterms matter. But if you really want a new president or if you like the one weve got, youve got a chance to say how it comes out. Not a book, not a news article. This is the beauty of a democracy. You decide. Senator Lindsey Graham, its been very nice of you to spend so much time with us. Good to have you. We always want to welcome you back into this situation room. Theres another one down the street, but we welcome you here in the situation room. Lindsey graham of South Carolina. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right, lets get some more on all of this, including the oped published anonymously in the New York Times by a senior Administration Official. Were joined by senator dick durbin. Hes a member of the democratic leadership. He serves on the senate Judiciary Committee. Senator durbin, thanks so much for joining us. Good to be with you, wolf. How shocking is it to you that a Senior Member of the Trump Administration would write this article and outline the extensive efforts this person says is happening inside the Trump Administration right now to undermine President Trump . Many of us are hoping that there are steady hands in the white house and throughout this administration that will stop this president , if he does something that is really the best interest of the United States. I am surprised that theres a declaration, even by an anonymous source, it must be somewhat reliable if the New York Times is republic it, but its an indication to me of how serious this is. They call themselves the steady state as opposed to the secret state. But it basically says that when it comes to this president , its like the basic rule that parents follow. Dont leave sharp objects near small children. This person writes that the trump cabinet or at least some members of the trump cabinet were so concerned by what this person describes as the president s instability that they considered invoking the 25th amendment to the u. S. Constitution to try to remove him from office. Whats your reaction to that . Well, its almost tragic comic, except if you consider the possibilities here. We have a possibility who is commander in chief of the United States of america. He has the power to initiate a nuclear war. He is making Foreign Policy and military decisions every single day. And when you read in woodwards book, as i havent read personally, but there have been everyone els to it, or this article in the New York Times, you basically have people who are snatching papers off of his desk for fear that hell sign them. I mean, if that is the case, at the highest level of government in the United States of america, were in a very perilous situation. If the concerns are so great, does this anonymously written article, from your perspective, senator, go far enough to address these concerns . Well, of course, it just alerts us to the reality in the white house. The president s instability, some of the erratic things he continues to do on a daytoday basis are well documented. The question is, how are the American People being protected under these circumstances . I will tell you that among democrats, even among some republicans, in privacy, we talk about some members of the administration were counting on to make sure that theres a steady hand in place, a good mind, someone that will keep the president from doing some terrible things to this country. It follows this article follows Bob Woodwards reporting that Top White House staffers were so fearful of President Trumps impact on National Security and you know this, you mentioned it, that they would actually go into the oval office, steal documents from his desk, to prevent him from signing those orders. That is i havent heard of anything like that. Have you ever heard anything like that . Never. Never. And to think that it occurs, under this administration, is an indication of how dangerous this president can be. And we dont have to rely on whispered secrets. We just read his tweets on a daytoday basis. We know the workings of his mind. We know how he thinks and how he quickly reacts and overreacts. And i can imagine if you are in the white house, close to the president , and see him in action on a daytoday basis, theres a genuine, real concern. Take us behind the scenes. I know you speak with your republican colleagues. Do you hear their fears, their concerns about all of this . Sometimes. Seldom. Theyll tell us that theyre embarrassed by things the president has said and done. They think theyre inconsistent with basic republican principles. But then after a moment, they quickly add, but 85 of my republicans back home would march over a cliff for this president. So they see the political reality and the net result is the silence of the lambs. Very few senators speak out. You just had one on the program, Lindsey Graham. I respect him very much, hes a good friend. But very few are willing to speak out candidly about what the president is saying and doing. Well, with the republicans who are speaking out are those that are not seeking reelection, by and large. But a few of them, Lindsey Graham one of them who is blunt on several of these issues. All of this news comes, as you know, as the president is poised to get another Supreme Court justice confirmed. It looks like Brett Kavanaugh has got the votes. He only needs a simple majority. He needs 50 votes if its a tie. Then, of course, the Vice President will break that tie. What are your thoughts on how Brett Kavanaugh did in his testimony today . Well, i can tell you that he avoided some of the tougher questions. Senator blumenthal and others who really confronted him with the fact that his nomination by this president at this moment in history places a special burden on him. What will he do, if hes on the Supreme Court, and this president s case comes before the Supreme Court. Now, thats several jumps ahead, but its not an unreasonable question in light of what were facing, what happened with the guilty pleas and the finding of guilty in the case of his Campaign Manager and attorney. I mean, these are the realities. So try as he might, Justice Kavanaugh or judge kavanaugh cannot avoid the fact that the shadow of this investigation and the shadow of the criminal investigation thats going full force is really over his nomination hearing. But he has a good reason why he doesnt want to speculate about what he might do if the president were to pardon himself or if the president ignored a subpoena from mueller, the special counsel. Because he might have to consider that if it went all the way up to the Supreme Court, like the other justices, the eight justices who sit on the Supreme Court right now. They didnt want to talk about potential hypothetical cases that could reach that level. So he has a good excuse, right . He does. He does. But those Unanswered Questions are haunting his nomination. Theres a simple fact, its not just the president said, ill have a litmus test of repealing roe versus wade and the Affordable Care act and let people with preexisting conditions suffer the consequences, it is also the looming possibility that therell be a case before the Supreme Court involving the criminal investigation of this president. You know, you questioned kavanaugh back in 2006 when he was nominated for his position as a judge on the d. C. Federal appeals court. And in 2007, you told npr that you felt, quote, perilously close to being lied to by kavanaugh when he said he wasnt involved in questions about detained combatants. Today he told you that answer was 100 accurate. Do you feel that his testimony today was 100 accurate . No, i dont. Quite honestly, he gave me an answer which doesnt square with the evidence. I cited three specific examples where he had been involved in the formation of policy when it came to the detention of combatants and suspects. Three specific examples that are public already. And yet, the fact that they contradict those examples contradict his express statement didnt change his position again today. Unfortunately, we only have 10 of the documents from his Public Service and none from this period of time when he was serving in the white house. So, had we been given the documentation, im sure there would be a different conclusion. Yeah, what he points out and what the republicans point out is that the white house, the justice department, they make those kinds of decisions on executive privilege, Attorney Client privilege, on occasion, what can be released, what cant be released. So that debate is clearly going to continue. Bottom line, though, he looks like hes got the votes, right . Its hard to say. And as Lindsey Graham noted to you, with jon kyl returning to the senate, were dealing with 5149, an advantage clearly for the republicans with this nomination. I dont know i havent counted our own side of the aisle to see exactly how Many Democrats will vote for or against judge kavanaugh. But clearly, the numbers are on their side, as we go into the final week before the vote. Senator durbin, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks, wolf. Just ahead, well have more on the New York Times oped and what it says about the president , as a member of his own administration is exposing what this person describes as the resistance inside the white house, the commander in chief. And its a disturbing account that squares with the reporting by bob woodward about the urgent concerns in the white house about the president s state of mind. Where will all of this lead . Our analysts are standing by. All the tools you need for every step of the way. Make it, squarespace uhp. I didnt believe it. Again. Ooh, baby, do you know what thats worth . I want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ooh im not hearing the confidence. Okay, hold the name your price tool. Power of options based on your budget and well make heaven a place on earth yeah oh, my angels ooh, heaven is a place on earth [ sobs quietly ] were following breaking news on an unprecedented firsthand account from within the Trump Administration of internal efforts to thwart the president by people he appointed to serve. A senior official writing anonymously in the New York Times, citing the president s lack of morality as the root of many misguided actions that are detrimental to the nation. Theres a lot to dissect with our legal and political experts and gloria borger, the person, writes this, among other things. Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know, i am one of them. This is perhaps unprecedented. Well, and it sounds a lot like what was in Bob Woodwards book. And you know, woodward spoke about an administrative cue day detat, and thats effectively what this is. Not only does the author talk about the president s immorality, and how this president is not really a conservative, and also praises somebody like john mccain in this, which i thought was kind of interesting, but also confirms the whispers that we were hearing early on this administration about members of the cabinet talking about invoking the 25th amendment early on to find a way to tell the american public, you know, this person should not be president , but decided not to proceed with it, because these people did not want to create a constitutional so as bad as a lot of the reporting was, in reading this persons view of this, its shocking to me because i think it was actually worse than many of us even suspected or reported. Double whammy. The book and now this article. Jeffrey toobin, the author of this op ed in the New York Times also writes this. Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president but no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis so we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another its over. As you know for those at home. Who dont know, theres the impeachment process, but theres also the 25th amendment. Which has never been invoked. It is a provision basically designed for when the president gets too sick to serve in office where the cabinet begins a process that also eventually includes congress that says this president can no longer serve. And it involves at least initially a vote of the cabinet. It is certainly not something that a single cabinet member has suggested is remotely possible, but given, you know, the lunacy described in this piece and in the woodward book and, you know, the incredible narcissism, ignorance, racism, just, you know, terrible behavior, its not surprising that people have talked about it but, you know, look, this all is shocking but its not surprising. The portrait that has emerged is one that has come out in these other books, that has come out in the journalists who cover the white house every day. So the idea that everybodys lying, you know, about, you know, whats going on here is really just preposterous. David swerlig, watch this. Ill play the clip. This is how the president responded to the article in the New York Times. Can you imagine it . We have somebody in what i call the failing New York Times thats talking about hes part of the resistance within the Trump Administration. This is what we have to deal with and, you know, the Dishonest Media because you people deal with it as well as i do, but its really a disgrace. I will say this, nobody has done what this administrations done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through. If the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it, anonymous, meaning gutless. Were doing a great job. The poll numbers are through the roof. Our poll numbers are great and guess what, nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020. The author of this article of the New York Times says the president , quote, does not fully grasp the effort by his own advisors to control him. Hes clearly seathing and you can see that in that reaction. Hes seathing and i think he seathes at everything. He responds to criticism as someone who cant absorb it, cant respond to it. Just lashes out at the media, et cetera, et cetera. The other thing about this, wolf, is its either that he doesnt understand the degree to which people are trying to restrain him or he just doesnt want to acknowledge it. Throughout his career hes never backtracked, apologized. He doesnt have a reverse gear. I dont expect him to back off. If i can just make one more point about the author of this article. They said towards the end, the author, he or she, said that the country has been brought low to the president s level, not true. 66 Million People voted not for president donald trump. Those people havent been brought low by him. Those people at the beginning saw what this op ed writer now apparently sees. You know, the writer wanted his or her name not to be mentioned in the New York Times nearly almost unprecedented agreed with that to protect this writer because presumably if this individuals name was out there, he or she would be fired. Thats right, wolf. And so the president , of course, could use that to his advantage. Weve seen how President Trump treats Anonymous Sources in the past. He says what they say are made up, that the source red wings t are made up. We know thats not true but the supporters hear what he says and that resonates with them. Of course, the New York Times has exceptionally high standards for anonymity in general and you can imagine the conversation that would have transpired in approving this story. You have to imagine, wolf, that this is a very senior official, very important official for the New York Times to have agreed to do this. Certainly from the perspective of the writer, for them to take this leap and to decide to come forward with their story, you can see by the president s reaction on twitter just what a risk they are taking. They could certainly lose their jobs. The president is calling this treason and so this was a big risk for whoever wrote this. Doesnt the president have a point though, that its gutless . I mean, whats up with this person . Why are they working there . Because as they say, theyre trying to sort of walk back bad decisions and you ought to know there are real patriots that are working there. I can criticize somebody for not putting their name on this. Im not going to criticize the New York Times for not publishing it because its clear to me they know who this person is and this person is clearly someone of some significance, you know, within the administration. Yeah, you put your name on it and then you resign but i think why did this person go to work for donald trump in the first place . Who did he think he was, George Herbert walker bush . Theres nothing surprising here. First of all, we dont know necessarily that this wasnt someone already working in government. I mean, it could have been someone no, it was a political based on the article it was clearly a political theyre trying to have their cake and eat it too. Theyre saying as you say gloria theyre protecting democracy but at the same time they want in this op ed to list all of the good things the president has done except that if the good things are a tax cut and regulations being stripped away, jeb bush could have done that. Marco rubio could have done that. I want to know where the republicans are. You read Something Like this and you just interviewed lindsey gra graham about this. Where are the republicans responding to the criticisms in this saying, for example, we have whats our Foreign Policy . We have a two track Foreign Policy. You have what the president wants to do on russia and you have what the rest of us want to do on russia. Shouldnt republicans be responding to that . And where are they . Where are they on this . And are they waiting for a constitutional crisis to be created by bob mueller perhaps and so where is the Tipping Point here for the republicans . I dont really know the answer to that. We certainly havent reached it yet. Yeah, exactly. Because the republicans are completely subservient to trump. They havent held any oversight hearings. They havent the only people who ever criticize them, we wear out poor old jeff flake and cordor because they are leaving, theyre not running for reelection. Anybody who is running for reelection is terrified of trump. John boehner said the other day, this isnt the Republican Party anymore, its the trump party. Richard burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, has worked closely with mark warner. They are investigating a lot of this. They havent stopped as the House Intelligence Committee has done. Take your point. One senator. Members of congress are lagging indicators. Theyre not leaders like they used to being so if there is a blue wave, for example, in the house of representatives and trump loses, you know, 50 or 60 seats and if there seems to be some trouble in the senate, then i think in their own self interest, in their own self interest you might see republicans peeling off, but theyre not going to do it of their own accord right now precisely for the reason that youre talking about, jeff, which is that theyre afraid. Theyre afraid of donald trump because his popularity within the party is isnt that admirable . No, as i say, theyre lagging indicators. Theyre not leaders. Theyre not leaders. John kennedy wrote a book called profiles in courage and they were all a long time ago because you dont see much of it now. The remainder of this article says there are a lot of officials in the administration who get hammered by the news media but they are really doing a lot to protect the American People from this president. Right. I take that writer at their word that they sincerely are trying to raib ein in the president s t excesses. If what theyre writing, yes, its true, its a good thing there are some people there to rein in the president but to jeffreys point though, who did these people think the president was when they first started working for him . He has been at least temperamentally the same as he ever was. This writer seems to be more conservative than the president. This writer and is not a conservative. And its clear to me this writer is. Were going to continue our special coverage right now. Erin burnett out front starts. Out front next, breaking news. The trump resistance. An unnamed senior Administration Official revealing that people close to the president are actively working to undermine him. Plus, a real witch hunt in the white house. How the president is on a mission to track down aides who spoke to bob woodward. And another major upset in the democratic party. Long time congressman unseated the woman who started the trend. Good evening, everyone. Im kate bolduan in for erin ber net. The
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.