always a pleasure. one of the best minds in the business. >> that's nice of you. this is going to be a big story with giuliani. talk about bolo, things to look out for, i mean it's not going to end here. you cannot imagine people who are connected to him are just going to be quiet and silent and not try to implicate other people, right? >> i agree with you. let me ask a question to the better mind. in this subpoena, this federal grand jury subpoena, when they start outlining a lot of things they're investigating, they seemed like it wouldn't be about rudy directly. it would be about his knowledge or any paper they can get from him about these other guys. does it read like that to you also? >> you got to cast the widest net. you don't know what you're looking for. it's an investigative state at this point. you want to have a wide enough net to be able to say, i have a full, i have a comprehensive investigation. it may lead to nothing. it may lead to everything. we got to stay tuned. but in a place like washington, d.c., we've seen recently if you cast too narrow and small a net, people criticize you for that as well, right? >> we have seen that. and, look, we'll see how it plays out. we know of at least two investigations that are somehow involving rudy giuliani, but i'll tell you what. the president made an obvious play tonight. he's got to be going to rudy giuliani. the guy knows too much. he's got too much power, and he's a fighter, and we know he will fight if he gets thrown under the bus. >> well, in his words, he's got insurance, right, chris? well, have a good one. >> you too. this is "cnn tonight." i'm laura coates sitting in for don lemon. a big legal defeat for the president tonight. a federal judge ordering former white house counsel don mcgahn to testify to congress, sinking the administration's claim about that thing called absolute immunity. the judge even writing that, quote, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. does not exist. sounds like an awful lot like what the white house tried to do was make up some kind of fake law there. the judge going on to say, stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings. the ruling is a huge win for democrats, but it leaves the door open for white house officials to now refuse to answer questions claiming executive privilege. so the question is going to be what will all this mean for the other white house witnesses who have been stonewalling thus far? we've got a lot more to come on that. and another big ruling today. the supreme court handing the president a win, ruling that the house will not get his financial records -- well, not right now anyway. the court granting an emergency request to block the house subpoena while it considers whether to even hear the case. that comes amid fallout over the forced resignation of the secretary of the navy. richard spencer essentially fired, reportedly for working a white house back channel to try to resolve a standoff over the fate of navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagher. let's remember gallagher was convicted of bringing discredit to the armed forces after posing next to a dead isis fighter's body. now, he was acquitted of more serious war crimes even though several s.e.a.l.s did testify against him. now, the navy wanted to kick him out of the s.e.a.l.s, taking away his trident pin, which is a symbol of the s.e.a.l.s. but the president took his side. >> with eddie gallagher, you know that story very well. they wanted to take his pin away, and i said, no, you're not going to take it away. we're going to protect our war fighters. >> the navy secretary had approached the oval office to try to resolve this standoff, which left defense secretary mark esper and chairman of the joint chiefs general mark milley, quote, flabbergasted, and it led to spencer being forced out. >> we've been thinking about that for a long time. that didn't just happen. and i have to protect my war fighters. >> the president says he has to protect his war fighters. but listen to what richard spencer says about that. >> i don't think he really understands the full definition of a war fighter. a war fighter is a profession of arms. and a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to, and they hold themselves to. >> secretary of the navy goes against the president's wishes and is forced out. if you need further proof of that slavish devotion goes a long way with this president, well, there's this from the departing energy secretary, rick perry. >> mr. president, i know there are people that say, you know, you said you were the chosen one, and i said you were. >> the chosen one? the secretary sure has changed his tune since he said this during the campaign. >> let no one be mistaken. donald trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded. >> yep, things sure have changed. cancer and now the chosen one? well, is that what you have to do to stay on this president's good side, praise the dear leader? well, lots more to come on all of that tonight. let's get to today's big court rulings. joining me now is cnn's own evan perez. good to see you, evan. evan, the judge was blasting the administration's argument for blocking don mcgahn's testimony. how big of a blow is this going to be to the new white house stonewalling strategy? >> it's a big blow. look, laura, one of the things from watching this court hearing, i was there just a few weeks ago when the judge was just ripping apart their arguments from the justice department because these were some very novel arguments. the idea that the president can essentially grant absolute immunity to everybody, not only people who still work for him but people who worked for him in the past, and that's what we're talking about with don mcgahn, who's been fighting this subpoena for now seven months. i'll read you just a part of the ruling from the judge in which he says, this court holds that the executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process, no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years, even if the president expressly directs such officials' noncompliance. she said essentially over 250 years of recorded american history, we've established that presidents are not kings. so what was remarkable about this ruling, she not only answered the question about whether don mcgahn should show up to respond to this subpoena from the house but also other national security officials and even the president himself. >> and of course you point out correctly that don mcgahn no longer works for the white house or the administration. this is somebody who is now a former official. what does this now mean, evan, for other officials who you know have refused to testify? i'm talking about john bolton or mick mulvaney or other officers, officials like charles kupperman? what about them? >> well, you know, it's not clear right now because obviously this is a ruling that the justice department is going to appeal. we expect it's going to go to the appeals court over the next few months and then possibly to the supreme court. keep in mind one of the more interesting thing has been mick mulvaney. one of the things he said or his earlier legal team said was they were going to abide or look at the mcgahn ruling as sort of their guidepost. i'm not sure if they believe that anymore, but certainly what we've heard from all of these officials' lawyers is they're reviewing the ruling. they're going to see what else the justice department does as far as appeals is concerned. but you can bet, laura, everybody who has wanted to show up for these impeachment hearings have done so. the ones who don't want to show up have been doing the opposite. so i think you're going to expect that they're going to keep waiting for these appeals to work their way through. >> evan perez, thank you for your reporting. joining me now is max boot, and kim wehle, author of "how to read the constitution and why." first of all, kim -- great book by the way. i also want to ask you the idea of evan talks about giving cover essentially. those who wanted to testify were able to testify and did testify. did this new ruling now give some cover to those who said, look, i have to. my rock and my hard place has gone away. the judge says we got to do it and mcgahn is a good litmus test for us. >> i'd like to say yes but i have to say no because this ruling was already issued in 2008 by judge john bates who i worked with in ken starr's whitewater independent counsel. and judge bates said in 2008, listen, there is no such thing as immunity for people who work for the president. and in fact, when presidents nixon and president clinton went up to the supreme court challenging subpoenas, they both lost. and so the argument is, listen, if presidents don't have absolute immunity from subpoenas, certainly the advisers, the people that work with the president don't have absolute immunity. this challenge, this claim really was something that was off the edge or on the edge of what is legally even legitimate for a lawyer. so this will be appealed. maybe it will give cover, but i think it's really more of a political than a legal question. legally these subpoenas should be complied with. >> let's here from the ruling. she says with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. indeed, absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level white house aides appears to be a fiction, in other words, kind of a spin on the fake news, fake law at this point. >> and the only authority for this was in internal memos by the office of legal counsel, which of course is the same entity that produced the famous "you cannot indict a president" memorandum. and the judge said, listen, that's the fox guarding the hen house. those are the president's own lawyers saying the president's own advisers don't have to testify. that doesn't count as law. that's not binding. and she said, listen, this 2008 ruling, i'm just going to piggyback on that. >> max, mel brooks said it's good to be the king. but this judge has said now that presidents of course are not kings. so how big of a rebuke is this to the administration to hear this from a judge? >> well, i think it's an important symbolic rebuke even if the practical import of it is not clear as kim suggested. you know, in fact, you may continue to see fights over trying to compel testimony from other aides. but i think the symbolism is important because donald trump is a president who keeps asserting he has an absolute right to do just about anything. he said, i have an absolute to fire comey. i have an absolute right to fire mueller. i have an absolute right to close the border with mexico. i have an absolute right to demand that ukraine investigate joe biden. so in his own mind, donald trump thinks he is the king of america, and the judge is saying, no, you're not. this is still a rule of law republic where even the president is not above the law. and so i think that is an important message to send from the judiciary upholding our liberties, although i'm sad to say of course what you're going to see is trump and his supporters are then going to trash the judge just like they trash anybody else who tries to impose any kind of limitations on what this president can do. >> so will this ruling speak to someone like a john bolton, max? >> well, i don't know that it's going to speak to him directly. again, i think to the point that we were just discussing, i think, you know, ultimately if somebody like john bolton wants to avoid testifying, i suspect he will find a way just by dragging the process out, and democrats have made clear they don't want to hold up the entire impeachment process simply to try to compel testimony from people like bolton. but they should not be hiding behind legalities. what this makes clear is if john bolton is not testifying, it's not because he's not allowed to testify under the law. it's because he has something to hide or because he's waiting to deliver his testimony in return for a $2 million book payment rather than doing his civic duty and actually telling congress what he knows about this impeachment inquiry. >> now, kim, the judge does give a little bit of a way out for mcgahn. he doesn't have to answer questions. he has to show up, is that right? >> well, that's the distinction between immunity and a privilege. you mentioned a privilege. so a privilege like attorney-client privilege that regular people have means, i'm not going to answer that question because it calls for information that's protected. but you still have to show up, and that's really what these witnesses should have done from day one. and then the question of whether it's appropriate to assert the privilege, that would go then to a court. but i think the decision that came down also today that was perhaps even more interesting is the freedom of information act case in which the court said that the government has to turn over records relating to omb's decision to not release the $400 million in aid for ukraine. that's interesting for a couple of reasons. one, it's because that plays into this trump narrative that the president's above the law. congress authorized the aid in september of 2018, and there is scant legal authority for the idea the president can say, you know what? the appropriations clause doesn't bind me. so i think that's really important. number two is that was on a preliminary injunction. the court issued a preliminary injunction, said you have to turn over these records. so the trump administration is losing in the courts. the courts understand there is no king. the courts understand there's a separation of powers. the courts are standing for the rule of law, and i frankly don't think this president is going to have any more luck at the supreme court than the last two presidents that have faced this question in connection with impeachment. >> stay with me, everybody. there's another ruling today that was a win now for the president. well, i mean at least for now. but it means a very big test is going to come up, and what will the supreme court do? we'll try to break that down next. i'm a regular in my neighborhood. i'm a regular at my local coffee shop and my local barber shop. when you shop small you help support your community - from after school programs to the arts! so become a regular, more regularly. because for every dollar you spend at a small business, an average of 67 cents stays in the community. join me and american express on small business saturday, november 30th, and see how shopping small adds up. (man and woman) [burst of t♪lking to animals] (vo) it feels good to give back. (attendant) thank you so much. (woman) oh, you are so welcome. (vo) you can choose the aspca to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru, like the all new outback. (vo 2) get 0.9% during the subaru share the love event. billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. well you remember what happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! the supreme court tonight giving president trump a brief reprieve, granting his emergency request to block a house subpoena from seeing his financial records. the justices are now going to have to decide, though, whether to actually take up the case after lower courts already ruled against the president. back with me, max boot and kim wehle. kim, if the court takes up this case, it would actually be huge to do so. i mean it would be really the first major separation of powers sort of case on the supreme court. now, what is really at stake here? >> so this is a little bit different from what we were just talking about in that the house wasn't asking for documents from the president. so the president doesn't have -- from the office of the president -- can't say listen, these are presidential documents. they're protected that way. this is from a third-party accounting firm. but the wrinkle here for the democrats is that this is not pursuant to an impeachment process. it's general oversight. so the question really is can the president, because he's president, stop the house, stop congress from getting records from his financial history from third parties based on when he wasn't even president? this is him as a private party, a private person, and i think one of the relevant issues -- cases here is the case involving bill clinton, where bill clinton, when he was president, said you know what? i shouldn't have to respond to a subpoena for testimony in a civil action seeking money damages from me for actions that i took as a private citizen. the supreme court said, no, you have to comply even though it means it's going to pull you off the duties of the presidency. so we have that precedent. it will be really interesting to see if the court takes this, if a more conservative court will shore up the president's power, the office of the presidency's power from this kind of oversight. >> max, as she mentioned about the power of the supreme court during the clinton era, about saying, hey, we are a co-equal branch. we're going to flex our power. what do you take from this as the judicial branch? are they really asserting their authority here to let people know they will weigh in potentially on issues that are of political importance? >> well, i mean i think it's not too surprising that the supreme court does want to weigh in at least to decide whether they want to grant full review to the case or not because, again, as you were discussing, this is such a major separation of power case. but i would be very surprised if the supreme court actually stepped in to review it and then to rule in favor of trump because, you know, in the lower court it was not that close of a call. it was a 2-1 decision in the appeals court, and the one, the trump appointee, said the reason why she was ruling in favor of trump was because, you know, the house should not be able to get these documents just as part of their normal legislative oversight. it should be part of an impeachment process. well, guess what? now we actually have an impeachment process, so they could very easily fold that into the impeachment case. i think that makes the case very, very strong. i mean if the supreme court were to rule for trump, it would be really placing him well outside of the normal legal boundaries of previous presidents. but to my mind, this is not a serious legal case from trump just like these other cases, asserting an absolute right. from a legal standpoint, as i think you two would confirm, this is just absurd. there's no real basis for this in the case law, but it makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint because i think what trump is trying to do is basically run out the clock to kick this can down the road and to get past the election on the assumption that whatever horrors are buried in his finances, if he can just keep it quiet until november of 2020, after that it won't matter anymore. >> well, and max boot says he's not a lawyer, kim wehle. i don't know if i believe him right now. i will tell you kicking that can, we know the court has said they only have until december 5th to really actually file the opening briefs. they're well aware of the deadline in the impeachment and the inquiry. thank you both for your time. i appreciate it. you know, what is the impact of president trump's lies? well, join jake tapper as he investigates the truth. cnn special report "all the president's lies" airs tonight at 11:00. we'll be right back. the secretary of the navy actually is forced out over the case of one controversial actual navy s.e.a.l. in the middle of all the turmoil, the secretary is speaking out tonight, and so is the attorney for the s.e.a.l. he's here next. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin, and dermatologist recommended. tide free & gentle. safe for skin with psoriasis and eczema. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. president trump now doubling down today on his decision to reverse the demotion of navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagher. by the way, he was convicted of discrediting the armed forces after posing next to the body of a dead isis fighter. gallagher was facing expulsion from the s.e.a.l.s, but the president put a stop to that and ordered the return of his trident, which is a symbol, a pin that symbolizes membership in the elite force. now, controversy surrounding this case actually led to the secretary of the navy being forced out just yesterday. i want to bring in timothy parlatore, who is gallagher's attorney. welcome to the show, timothy. >> thank you for having me. >> i have to ask you why should your client, eddie gallagher, have received special treatment from the president of the united states instead of letting the military review process actually run its course without any interference? >> that's easy. because the military justice process has demonstrated itself repeatedly in this case to be completely flawed. right from the beginning we had misconduct from investigators, prosecutors. prosecutors and investigators were committing crimes, illegally tracking me, other members of the media, other attorneys. and in fact the lead prosecutor was kicked off the case. so for the president to just sit back and say, okay, let's let the process that has already demonstrated itself to be failing in this case to just play out, i don't think that that's necessarily a call he had to make. >> timothy, it's a little bit foreboding what you just said because one of the critiques people pushed back on is the idea of the military justice system being villainized in this way, and you've just called it essentially this conspiracy-based or this problematic institution. is that fair overall? think about the countries that are hosting the american troops. >> well, i think that in this case we certainly have demonstrated that the ucmj as written is something that was appropriate many years ago but needs to be updated. the way that it was used and abused in this case really shows problems. you had a prosecutor who went completely rogue, and he went out and committed crimes to try and get a wrongful conviction. and in the end, we went through a trial. they presented evidence. they didn't have it. he was convicted of a single count of being in a photo with a terrorist that every single member of his platoon was also in that photo. and every single member of the platoon also went out and took individual photos with that terrorist, including the lieutenant, tom mcneil. and yet eddie gallagher seems to be the only one they want to hold accountable for this. >> the former navy secretary richard spencer was actually on cbs news tonight and he reacted to the president saying he had to protect his war fighters like gallagher. watch this. >> i don't think he really understands the full definition of a war fighter. a war fighter is a profession of arms. and a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to and they hold themselves to. >> so what's your reaction to his statement? does this send a signal by the president that something like posing for a photo with a corpse of an isis fighter, which your clients would convicted of doing and you say others as well were involved -- is that okay? is that the right message? >> i think what it sends is that when you have somebody like chief gallagher who did pose for a photo with a dead body, who had his kids dragged out of their house at gunpoint by ncis, was thrown in a cell for six months, surrounded by pedophiles and child molesters so when his kids came to visit him they had to wear robes so the other inmates wouldn't get aroused, then has his name and face plastered all over the media wild, has his pay taken away, all the president did was give him his rank back so he could retire after he was cleared of these serious charges. so if that is somehow giving him a pass, i think that ignores the facts of this case. he suffered tremendously. >> well, your client was actually on fox yesterday calling out rear admiral colin green. he's the commander who ordered the military review. take a look. >> i just get a feeling of embarrassment for my community that admiral green is letting the ego get the best of him at this point, and he's trying to take my trident because it's all about retaliation. >> now, he also accused spencer of meddling. what about the chain of command that's so inherent in the military. what do you think? >> exactly. that's part of the problem with this case is you had former secretary spencer from back in november of last year reaching out to people personally to peddle a false story about there being a video of this murder, to try and convince them do not assist gallagher, trying to prevent him from getting competent legal counsel, putting his thumb on the scale throughout. ncis, the agency that committed the crimes in the illegal email tracking investigation and the totally failed investigation, they report directly to secretary spencer. they're outside of the military chain of command. so the person who was supposed to hold them responsible is secretary spencer. he failed to do so, and for him to come out now and make this speech where essentially what he's doing is he's repeating canned lines out of a leadership textbook from the naval academy instead of actually identifying specific issues, i mean it's revisionist. it's defensive. it's unbelievable. >> timothy parlatore, thank you for being here. i appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. >> i'm joined now by retired navy rear admiral john kirby. hi, john. i'm glad you're here. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> especially on a night like this where we're hearing about this information. you heard officer gallagher's attorney speaking, and he says his client is really the one who has been victimized here. what's your response? >> there's no question that the navy prosecutorial team did not exactly crown itself with glory, laura, when they conducted a court martial trial for him for this alleged murder. it's clear there was prosecutorial misconduct, and they've paid a price for that, and of course chief gallagher was acquitted on the worst charges. but what's forgotten here is he was convicted of the crime of posing with the corpse of a dead ice fighter which is a violation of uniform code of military justice. there were other s.e.a.l.s, as the lawyer just said who also were posed in that picture and who have also been held to account. as a matter of fact, three of those s.e.a.l.s were with chief gallagher going through this administrative review process to see if they could keep their trident pin. so now those three cases are kind of thrown up in the air because the president has weighed in and said that gallagher can keep his pin. so now the navy is left to figure out what they're going to do with these other three? >> so what's the deal with the pin? i keep hearing about the trident. help us unpack for the american people. it sounds trite. it obviously is not. tell us why. >> no, it's not trite. so there are four main war fighting communities in the navy -- aviators, submariners, surface warfare officers, which i was a long time ago, and navy s.e.a.l.s. each of those warfare communities has a special device that you wear on your chest above your ribbons, a gold device that indicates you are a qualified member in that warfare community. the trident is a very -- it's a very well known very famous warfare device that designates you as a navy s.e.a.l., and it has significance not just from a cultural perspective but also from a performance and capability perspective. it's clearly -- i certainly understand why chief gallagher would want to be able to retire with that trident. any navy s.e.a.l. who has gone through the incredible crucible of training to become a navy s.e.a.l. wants to earn that coveted pin and keep that coveted pin. i would also tell you, laura, that this process he was going through, it's a peer review process that the s.e.a.l.s have been doing for many, many years. and there are, you know, dozens if not hundreds every year of s.e.a.l.s that their trident pins are revoked from them because of poor conduct, ethics violation or other performance issues. this is a very typical process, very normal process. it's a functional process, and it really should have been left to the s.e.a.l.s to determine whether gallagher got to keep his pin or not. >> and yet it was not. the president of the united states has weighed in and has doubled down. admiral kirby, thank you for your time in explaining this to us all. something tells me it's not going to end here. >> no, i don't think it will because, look, i mean not just for the s.e.a.l.s because we've got three others that have to go through this process, we think. but look at the army, laura. he pardoned major goldstein, another one of these individuals who was going through a court martial, hadn't even been through trial yet. his case had not even been heard by a jury. he was alleged to have killed three afghan -- i'm sorry -- another prisoner that was in detention, a taliban prisoner, excuse me. anyway, he had never gone through court martial, and the president pardoned him. now the army is going through a similar review process to see if he can keep the silver star that he won in that engagement as well as his ranger tab, which is a very similar thing to a trident pin. it's a warfare designation inside the army. so the army is watching this navy case very closely because they're next in the chute. >> admiral kirby, thank you for your time as always. >> you bet. you know, congressman devin nunes accused of pursuing his own scheme to dig up dirt on the bidens. we need answers about this, and i'll make my case. that's coming up next. now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. geico would like to take a moment to say thank you to our military service members at home and abroad for all their hard work and sacrifice. we all sleep easier knowing you're out there keeping us safe. and on a personal note... sfx: jet engines ... i just needed to get that off my chest. thank you. geico: proudly supporting the military for over 75 years. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. did congressman devin nunes meet with an ex-ukrainian official to get dirt on the bidens? well, according to the attorney for lev parnas, the indicted rudy giuliani associate, his client is now willing to testify about that very thing to congress, where congressman eric swalwell first raised the allegation during impeachment hearings just last week. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to put into the record "the daily beast" story "lev parnas helped rep devin nunes' investigations" from yesterday. first two paragraphs reading, lev parnas, an indicted associate of rudy giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in europe for rep devin nunes in 2018, parnas' lawyer ed mcmahon told "the daily beast." nunes aide derek harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help nunes' investigative work. >> and now nunes could be facing a potential ethics review and a whole bunch of questions. now, one question is whether or not nunes took a taxpayer-funded trip where parnas' lawyer alleges nunes was looking for the same type of dirt that president trump asked for in that now infamous phone call with the ukrainian president. maybe that's why the congressman led the pack slamming the impeachment hearings maybe? >> whatever drug deal the democrats are cooking up here on the dais, the american people aren't buying it. it's an ambitious attack to deprive the american people of the right to elect a president the democrats don't like. i'm glad you're here. i'm really not glad you're here, but welcome to the fifth day of this circus. you are here today to be smeared. an inquisition victim had more rights than the democrats are giving the president. after all, inquisition victims had the right to know their accuser's name. >> well, nunes says the allegations about this meeting, by the way, are demonstrably false, and he's even threatened to sue media outlets for even reporting it. but listen to how he answered a direct question about it on fox news. >> bottom line, were you in vienna with shokin? >> yeah. so, look, maria, i really want to answer all of these questions, and i promise you i absolutely will come back on the show and answer these questions. but because there is criminal activity here, we're working with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. >> now, that's interesting. i mean if it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. that answer was a dodge, a dodge to the question is the very thing nunes is trying to shield the president from, trying to dig up dirt on the bidens in ukraine. in reality, if the story from lev parnas' attorney is true, wouldn't that be election meddling? the republican talking point during the impeachment hearings, as you know, is that democrats just withheld valuable information that would have helped the public to assess the credibility of the witnesses. that's why they said they wanted to call hunter biden for example. so did nunes have his own conflict of interest, and if so, shouldn't the public have known just how big of an interest he might have had in pushing a false narrative that ukraine meddled back in 2016? shouldn't the public have been informed of that? i mean the impeachment inquiry comes down to questioning the president's motivation in ukraine. shouldn't we perhaps now question nunes' motivation? these are questions congressman nunes promised he would go back on television and answer. don't the american people deserve at least that level of transparency? lavish praise on his way out the trump administration door from energy secretary rick perry. take a listen to this. >> mr. president, i know there are people that say, you know, you said you were the chosen one. and i said you were. >> but the thing is he's not the only one saying that sort of thing. how republicans are amping up their devotion to president trump, next. what's the nfl's competitive edge? it's the sleep number 360 smart bed on sale now. can it help me fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you effortlessly comfortable. will it help me raise my game? yup! so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise, prove. so i can be my best for these guys? yes, and those guys. sleep number. this is not a bed it's proven quality sleep. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. departing energy secretary rick perry's praise for president trump may say more about him than where the republican party is now. than it does about the president. listen to this. >> i said i know there are people that say you sit here with the chosen one. and i said, you were. none of us got here by accident. i'm a big believer that the god of the universe is still very active in the details of the day-to-day lives of government. obama didn't get to be the president of the united states without being ordained by god. neither did trump. >> joining me now to discuss. alice stewart and ali. you're a woman of faith. what was your reaction when you heard rick perry say this about the chosen one and the president of the united states. >> he's 100% correct. >> really? >> as a woman of faith, i truly believe god is sovereign. all authority comes from god. when it came down to who god thought should lead the country at this time. he decided for whatever reason it should be trump. just as he did when it was obama. and george bush and clinton. as a christian this was gods devine choice at this time. people might say how can someone look at trump and say god chose him. that's the way it is. that's how i view it. and i know exactly what he was meaning to say. when he said that. and it is because god is the sovereign god. >> you think he was right. and donald trump is the chosen one. you said you know what meant to say. gods plan. you described gods plan. as opposed to the notion of the chosen one. one has a different connotation. >> he's referring to christians and evangelicals view that terminology. it is god is the great god. he's the one that all knowing, all powerful. and he decides what -- he's the vessel of what happens. whether this country or this world. and for whatever reason trump is a broken person. he a person who has made many mistakes. i'm a broken person. i'm not perfect. trump is not perfect. for whatever reason, god decided he is the one that needs to lead right now. >> this was one separation church and state. former ambassador nikki haily made similar comments in a new interview. listen to this. >> i think it goes to show that things everything happens for a reason. and the way i see it is look at result of trump as president. look at we have more friends and family with jobs than we have ever had before. we have the economy moving in a direction it's hasn't been in a long time. it's doing great. we are acknowledging real truths with the president that had the courage to move the embassy to jerusalem. >> it sound like compartmentalizing because the results are favorable than argument for religion. >> gods plan is give impeachment hearings. and raised to over throw the pharaoh. we could see the ideology. many of the white evangelical leaders who supports trump said in january i will support trump no matter what. franklin graham said he also believes that trump is gods chosen one and those who oppose him are demonically possessed. the ideas ol here of trump being a flawed instrument is for this implementation of a christian nationalist ideology and say trump is the flawed instrument like the pagen persian king. who god uses to do good things. the good things is fight for religious freedom and conservative judges. take out deregulation, roe v wade. less taxes on the rich. and jews will control jerusalem for jesus to return. they don't care about jews. but this is it's a end of times theology. they say he setting up the stage for the rapture. who said this. pompeo. said i believe god chose trump so that israel will be protected from iran. sarah sanders said that. and i say what are we doing as a nation when we see white evangelical leaders say he can do no wrong. and no matter what we will support trump. united states of america. >> this is a longer conversation. you have great points to make. i wish i had more time. not tonight. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. well you remember what happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in. phase it in? super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin, and dermatologist recommended. tide free & gentle. safe for skin with psoriasis and eczema. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. welcome to our viewers from the united states. and all around the world. coming up on cnn "newsroom" a judge rules in the former white house counsel must testify. what it could mean for other witnesses who refuse to cooperate. scramble to help after a strong quake strikes outside the albania capitol. lt thieves who grabbed priceless treasures in a brazen heist.

Related Keywords

Mexico , Afghanistan , United States , Israel , Iran , Washington , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , France , Ukraine , America , Afghan , French , Ukrainian , American , Mel Brooks , L Eddie Gallagher , Alice Stewart , Sarah Sanders , George Bush , Ken Starr Whitewater , John Bates , Tom Mcneil , Rick Perry , Evan Perez , Eddie Gallagher , Franklin Graham , John Bolton , Evan , Lev Parnas , John Kirby , Rudy Giuliani , Laura Coates ,