Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Is Interviewed About Whether or Not There Will Be Witnesses On The Senate Floor; GOP Senator So Eager To Bring The Whistleblower's Name; GOP Leadership Says They Have The Votes; Senators Wrap Up First Day Of Impeachment Trial Questions; Lev Parnas Claims To Have Another Recording Of President Trump. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired January 29, 2020 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: And so, this plays in to some of the ideas that the House managers have presented that somehow this was terrible, it sent a signal to the Russians.
Part of the whole point, Ambassador Volker explained, was that there was concern that it not become public because it would then not send a signal and that is what happened until the Politico article came out August 28th.
And I think that's the best way to understand the difference in an approach there. Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Indiana?
YOUNG: I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Braun.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The Senators from Indiana ask both parties the following question. We were promised by House managers that the evidence supporting each article of impeachment would be overwhelming and uncontested. Virtually, every day, House managers have insisted that the Senate cannot have a trial without witnesses.
Do both parties agree that the Senate has included in evidence in this trial the testimony of every single witness from which the House heard before the voted, except for the intelligence community, I.G. report, that Chairman Schiff kept secret?
We begin with the House managers.
SCHIFF: Let me take this opportunity if I can to answer a few questions. But first is the fact that the testimony of the witnesses before the House sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial, and the answer is no.
There's no reason, and indeed, every other senate trial, impeachment trial in history has involved the witnesses who didn't testify before the house. This would be the first departure. It shouldn't be, if it's to be a fair trial.
I want to quickly respond to a couple other points.
A question was asked why didn't we charge bribery? And the answer is we could have charged bribery. In fact, we outlined the facts that constitute bribery in the article.
But abuse of power is the highest crime. The framers had that in mind as the highest crime. The facts is we allege within that do constitute bribery.
But had we charge bribery within the abuse of power article, I can assure you the counsel here would be arguing you have charged two offenses within the same particle. That makes that invalid and I wouldn't have had Alan Dershowitz making that argument because he says abuse of power is not impeachable.
Then we have Jonathan Turley here making that argument. If we split them into two separate articles, one for abuse of power and one for bribery, they would have argued you have taken one crime and made it into two. The important constitutional point here is not that the acts within abuse of power constitute bribery, although they do.
The important point is we charged a constitutional crime, the most serious crime. The founders gave the president enormous powers, and their most important consideration was that the president not abuse that power and they provided a remedy and that remedy is impeachment.
One final point. Mr. Sekulow said that's not how the Constitution works. The constitution doesn't allow the chief justice to make those decisions. But he didn't say the constitution prohibits it.
The constitution permits it, if they will agree, but they won't. And he said it's the same as in the House, and it is the same as in the House, and it's the same in this way. If they were operating in good faith, if they really wanted a fair resolution, if they weren't just shooting for a delay, they would allow the chief justice to make these decisions.
But what they do not want is they do not want you to hear John Bolton. And why? Because when you hear graphically a man say the President of the United States told me to hold aid from our ally, to coerce foreign assistance in his election, when the American people hear that firsthand, not filtered through our statements, they will recognize impeachable conduct when they see it.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: Mr. Sekulow, you have two and a half minutes. SEKULOW: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. With regard to the last statement, I'm just going to say, asked and answered. I have answered the question about the issue of moving forward if there were witnesses and our view on that. I don't have to say anything else.
Now, with regard to the question that was actually presented, 29 times, 29 times the House managers have used the phrase overwhelming, uncontested, sufficient. Proved, they said 31 times. Now, that's just what the record says.
It is true that the record from the House was accepted, provisionally, subject to evidentiary objections. But they are the ones who have said overwhelmingly improved.
Now, we, of course, disagree with their conclusions as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. But for them to come up here and argue proved and overwhelmingly a total of, I guess, 64 times in a couple of days tells me a lot about what they want.
What we're asking for is this proceeding to continue, and with that, we are done.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
The majority leader is recognized.
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m. Thursday, tomorrow, January 30th. And this order also constitutes the adjournment of the Senate.
J. ROBERTS: Without objection, so ordered.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And the day is done. Good evening.
After another late night in the impeachment trial the Senate wrapping up the first of two days of questions for both sides. Some of the answers have made news.
Alan Dershowitz today advancing the claim that, quote, "if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
As you might imagine, his argument did not go without rebuttal. Also, today, the question of John Bolton's manuscript now being reviewed by lawyers and perhaps others at the White House.
Do the parts that might be relevant to the trial also contain information too secret to reveal, too classified? A clash over that today. And, of course, the question of Bolton's testimony or any testimony for that matter. That battle is still being waged. That vote still uncertain.
Plus, from two moderate Republicans, a question that appeared to stump one of the president's attorneys, namely, had the president ever shown any interest in the Bidens before Joe Biden launched his presidential run?
There's plenty to talk about with some of the players as well as our own political and legal team. But first, though, we want to catch you up on the highlights from a very long, very consequential day.
Here's CNN's Athena Jones.
ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senators apparently haven't heard enough, as day one of questions and answers slid into the late hours Wednesday.
The three Republican senators who have publicly said they could support calling witnesses, setting the tone for the day. Asking Trump's lawyers --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article one?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Their response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: Once you're into mixed motive land, it's clear that their case fails.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: After days of strategizing, both parties used dozens of leading, often loaded questions to push their side's case. Republicans honing in on Hunter Biden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: What did Hunter Biden do for the money that Burisma holdings paid him?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Hunter Biden did attend one board meeting in Monaco.
(END VIDEO CLIP) JONES: But one question Trump's lawyers couldn't answer, whether
Trump ever mentioned concerns about the Bidens to Ukrainian or American officials before the formatter vice president entered the 2020 race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILBIN: I'm limited to what's in the record and what's in the record is determined by what the House of Representatives sought. So, I can't point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Democrats stressing the need to hear from witnesses, like former national security advisor John Bolton, who has said he is willing to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): If you have any lingering questions about direct evidence, any thoughts about anything we just talked about, anything I just relayed, or that we've talked about the last week, there is a way to shed additional light on it. You can subpoena Ambassador Bolton and ask him that question directly.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The Senate can get to the truth. You can get to the truth by calling witnesses who can testify.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: The Trump team's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILBIN: The idea that the House can do an incomplete job in trying to find out what witnesses there are, having them come testify, trying to find out the facts, just rush something through and bring it here is an impeachment, and then start trying to call all the witnesses, and it would forever change the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate in terms of the way impeachments operate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: While in a particularly fiery moment, listing the witnesses they would call.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want Adam Schiff. I want Hunter Biden. I want Joe Biden. I want, I want the whistleblower.
[23:10:04] I want, I want to also understand there may be additional people within the House intelligence committee that have had conversations with that whistleblower. I get anybody we want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: And delivering a stark warning to the senators.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEKULOW: By the way, if we get anybody we want, we will be here for a very long time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Trump's team also making the case for protecting executive privilege.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILBIN: To suggest that the national security advisor -- we'll just subpoena him, he'll come in and that will be easy. There won't be any problem. That's not the way it would work because there is a vital constitutional privilege at stake there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Democrats arguing Trump waived that privilege with this tweet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): He cannot characterize the conversation and that -- and put it into the public domain, and then claim executive privilege against it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Trump's team also urging senators to let the voters decide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILBIN: The president is the one who gets to determine policy because he's been elected by the people to do that. And we're right now only a few months away from another election where the people can decide for themselves whether they like what the president has done with that authority or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Schiff spelling out the consequence of not removing Trump from office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Bear in mind that efforts to cheat an election are always going to be in proximity to an election. And if you say you can't hold the president accountable in an election year where they're trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: Athena Jones, CNN, Washington.
COOPER: Long day, another one tomorrow. Hours of questions including from moderate Republican senators today who say they want to hear from witnesses. Hours of answers as well arguing both sides of the matter.
CNN's Phil Mattingly was there in the chamber for us. He joins us now. Did anyone you heard move the needle on either side when it comes to witnesses?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think, Anderson, you hit on the point, it's the question from the moderate Republican senators. There's the question from Senator Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski related to whether or not the president showed any interest in Ukraine issues specifically before Vice President Joe Biden decided to run for president.
Patrick Philbin, the White House counsel did not have an answer to that, saying it wasn't within the record and he didn't feel like he could go into that. Also, Mitt Romney who clearly wants witnesses at this point in time asking if there was a specific date on when the president decided to put a hold on the Ukraine security assistance. Philbin also not able to answer that question specifically. I think those are what we keyed on.
But in terms of moving the needle, Anderson, I will tell you behind the scenes, the movement here has been towards Mitch McConnell having the votes to block witnesses. It's not locked up yet, I'm told.
But over the course of the last 24 hours there's been a clear move by Republicans to get those votes in place, to be able to essentially move this trial to an end by the end of this week. And that seems to be the direction it's headed. Obviously, we have another big day of questions tomorrow, but that's where it's going right now.
COOPER: I know this is a minor point, but it is fascinating to me that after all of this, Mitt Romney's question I thought was really interesting. They can't -- we still don't know when the president decided to withhold aid and whom he talked to.
Like, we've seen -- there's been no documents -- I mean, it's kind of remarkable that a foreign policy decision was made and we still have no idea when it was actually made.
MATTINGLY: Yes, that's exactly right. I think for those of us -- I know you were covering it every step of the way, the House impeachment inquiry, the documents that we were able to see, the witnesses that we were able to hear from.
You heard various dates over the course of when the president may have gotten interested in this, when the Office of Management and Budget informed other agencies and departments that the hold was actually in place at times between July when the Ukrainians actually found out about it and no firm date.
But I think it also underscores another point. This is what Democrats are pointing to throughout the course of the day.
As, if you want answers to these questions, there's a way to get them. Bring in witnesses. And I'm not sure that's moved the needle to actually get them the votes to make that case.
But Democrats have also made the point, look, if we don't hear witnesses and these questions remain unanswered, you will pay for this politically in the future. We will be able to point to this as a trial that just simply wasn't fulsome and therefore this is on you kind of either way at this point, Anderson.
COOPER: You've got some reporting about Senator Rand Paul's question was rejected that name of the whistleblower. What more do you know?
MATTINGLY: Yes. This was a fascinating behind the scenes kind of series of events that were going on. Nobody was really able to see it unless you paid attention to Senator Rand Paul during the first break.
During that first break, Senator Rand Paul walked off to a Republican staffer and was very clearly frustrated essentially saying, if I have to force my way to get my question asked, I will.
Here's what was actually happening. I'm told behind the scenes Rand Paul has a question about the quote, unquote, "origins of the investigation." And in that question, he explicitly names the alleged whistleblower, a name that's been out there for a period of time.
Now here's the back story. Over the course of the last couple of days it has been communicated to senators in both parties that John Roberts, the chief justice will not entertain or read because he has to read all of the questions submitted by senators, any questions that names or discloses enough information to be able -- to be able to identify the whistleblower.
[23:14:59]
That's where Rand Paul ran afoul. Essentially the red line the chief justice drew. And why that's extraordinary is we haven't really seen this before. Obviously, only the third impeachment trial we've had. But the chief justice traditionally plays a very reluctant role here, more of a traffic cop and a procedural cop that actually weighing in on things.
What I can tell you right now is this isn't over yet. Senator Paul has made clear he is very frustrated. He believes he has every right to ask his question even if the chief justice doesn't want to read it aloud.
And there is still a chance he may try and ask it again tomorrow. It hasn't been resolved. But kind of a fascinating back story that was going on as these eight hours of questions were going throughout the day, Anderson.
COOPER: We're seeing house managers, we saw Hakeem Jeffries, Congressman Nadler as well leaving earlier. We saw Senator Lankford.
Phil Mattingly, thanks.
Joining us right now one of the jurors, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat of Connecticut. Senator Blumenthal, Minority Leader Schumer said today that at least at this point it seems like there won't be witnesses. Do you think he's right?
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Still an uphill battle to get witnesses. But I feel those kinds of questions that we saw today from the moderates, when was the hold put on this aid? When was interest first expressed about Biden? Couldn't be answered because we don't have witnesses who could testify to it or documents, black and white, and the documents don't lie. That the American people deserve to see.
That's the kind of evidence that is basic to any trial. And I think any moderate, really any juror would demand that kind of evidence. And very strikingly, those two questions were only a couple of the questions that couldn't really be adequately answered based on this record because of the defiance, the blanket blocking of those documents, not just now, but repeatedly in the past in the course of this investigation.
And my Republican colleagues can't complain about not seeing anything if they put blinders on and history will haunt them.
COOPER: Senators largely used their question and answer time to ask questions of their own side, Republicans to Republicans, Democrats to Democrats. Why that approach though? Why not use the time to challenge the other side's argument?
BLUMENTHAL: Well, one of my questions was to the other side about when they knew, in effect, about the Bolton book and whether they were discouraged from telling us about it, what they did in response. I think that's still an area where we need further questioning, and they were, in my view, possibly vague in their response.
They said there was no consultation between the NSC staff and the White House counsel, but I am going to be demanding further answers.
I asked about also a statement by the other side, which was really astonishing, that a candidate for political office can accept aid from a foreign government or individual, anything of value under the current law is really prohibited.
And yet, of course, the president said he would accept it and, in fact, has invited China and Ukraine to investigate a political rival. And yet they were saying, and we challenged them through the House managers on this point, which is so fundamental because we know foreign interference in our elections is a real threat, an ongoing and increasing threat in the next election.
COOPER: I want to get back to that in just a moment. But just alluding to something you just said a moment ago, do you worry that the White House, President Trump, others around him are putting -- would put pressure or are putting pressure on the national Security Council staff to slow walk any classified examination of Bolton's book?
BLUMENTHAL: I deeply worry about it. I am alarmed because of the polarization, in fact, the weaponization of national security for political purposes by this White House.
And we've seen from this investigation and others that the national security staff is subject to pressure on matters less consequential to the president than this one, the so-called publishing date is March 17, and I would not be surprised at all if the censorship by the White House and its review extend well beyond that date and Bolton is forced to go to court to challenge the review and the censorship and the delay.
So, they're going to keep it under wraps as long as possible. But that's just one element, of course, of the cover up that we're seeing unfolding in real time.
COOPER: Professor Dershowitz his argument today that, quote, "If the president does something he thinks will get him elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
If -- I mean, I'm no -- I'm not a lawyer at all. I do not understand that argument. If that is the standard, what does that open the door to? If you can do anything just because you believe it's so important that you get elected and that it's in the public interest, isn't that opening the door to kind of all sorts of potentially inappropriate behavior?
[23:20:06]
BLUMENTHAL: It's more than opening the door. It is kind of throwing it wide for all kinds of views. Anything that's done for reelection purposes is OK? That can't be the law. And, in fact, it isn't the law.
And yet, Professor Dershowitz is, in effect, arguing if there is an abuse of power and it aids in reelection and it doesn't violate a specific technical criminal law, it's OK. And I think that is one of the most astonishing statements I have seen on the floor of the United States Senate whether an impeachment trial or any other kind of proceeding.
But let me just express my alarm, where it goes and the lowering of the bar, the expectations, the standards to which it leads because I think the bar already has been set low enough for political campaigns and this kind of statement is deeply damaging to our democracy. It's why we're challenging on it.
Granted there is no specific charge of bribery in the article of impeachment on abuse of power, but the elements of bribery have all been charged. I have urged that bribery be regarded as having been proved already
because the president clearly sought something of value, an investigation and smear of his political opponent in return for something that he had the power to do, namely, the release of these hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer military funds to a foreign government struggling to survive.
And I think that saying that there's no abuse of power, nothing wrong as long as the president feels it aids him in his reelection is absolutely reprehensible and irresponsible.
COOPER: Senator Blumenthal, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
COOPER: We got much more ahead tonight including more of the president's words for John Bolton, choice words for Bolton, lot of them.
Plus, there's a second recording of the president. That's just one headline from our exclusive interview with Lev Parnas. He joins me ahead.
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: President Trump spent much of the day tweeting about the impeachment trial and trashing the man he once called his security counsel John Bolton.
Quoting now and it's quite a long sentence. Quote, "For a guy who couldn't get approved for the ambassador to the united -- to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get approved for anything since begged -- since, begged me for a non-Senate approved job which I gave him despite many saying, don't do it, sir. He takes the job, mistakenly says Libyan model on TV and many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listen to him, we would be in World War 6 by now, and goes out and immediately writes a nasty and untrue book, all classified national security. Who would do this?"
The commander-in-chief's assessment of his former top national security official.
Joining us now with more of the reaction at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is CNN's Kaitlan Collins. What does the day look like there, Kaitlan?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, essentially, it's been the president and his aides lashing out at John Bolton trying to discredit him. And given that tweet from the president it's worth pointing out he just had one in November where he called John Bolton a patriot and said he did not think he would tie the military aid freeze to those investigations he wanted on the Democrats which, of course, is now what the New York Times is saying that Bolton is doing in his manuscript. So essentially what they're doing is trying to discredit him --
telling the Republicans that he doesn't need to be called as a witness. It's going to drag out this trial happening on Capitol Hill if he does.
And you saw the president's attorney arguing there as they were closing out these questions for tonight, saying that it's not as easy as just issuing a subpoena for John Bolton and having him show up. He was essentially sending a message to those senators who were on the fence about having witnesses that if they do that, there is still going to be a fight coming from this side of Washington if they do.
COOPER: The White House counsel was asked about the president soliciting foreign interference, gave an answer that we really hadn't heard before. What was that?
COLLINS: Yes. That was Pat Philbin, he's Pat Cipollone's deputy. He's been the one answering a lot of these questions here today. And he was asked by Senator Chris Coons about the president's public and apparent attempts to try to solicit information from foreign governments on his political rivals.
You'll remember the ABC News interview where the president said he didn't think it was a problem to take information from foreign governments on rivals or when he was on the South Lawn of the White House and called on China to investigate the Bidens.
And Pat Philbin gave a pretty broad defense. And the Democrats in the room were not happy about that, at least the ones sitting at that table. The ones that had been prosecuting and making their case this week.
Pat Philbin said mere information is not something that would violate campaign finance law. He said that taking a foreign contribution of course would violate that law, but said that getting information -- having -- he said, quote, "it's not campaign interference for credible information to be brought to light."
Now, that is something that really stunned those Democrats because surely after you saw Zoe Lofgren, one of the House managers get up and say that it was news to her for the president to now be able to get information from foreign governments on his domestic rivals and that be OK.
So that was really an interesting moment. It's really in lockstep with what you've heard from the president saying he thinks it's OK. But it will be really interesting to see what Republicans have to say about that answer from the deputy White House counsel.
COOPER: Yes. Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much.
I want to bring the political and legal and historical team. Tim Naftali, Carl Bernstein, Elliot Williams, Kirsten Powers, and Mike Shields.
Elliott, what she was just alluding to also kind of backs up what Dershowitz's argument was, which was that, essentially the president can do -- as long as the president thinks what he's doing is in the public interest and the public interest is him getting re-elected, he can do virtually anything.
I want to play the -- I don't want to misquote Dershowitz. So, let's play what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DERSHOWITZ: Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Does that argument make sense to you?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. So, here's the thing. You know what was also in the public interest according to a candidate? Wiretapping the Democratic National Committee as Richard Nixon did.
You know what a president could also say was in the political interest or in the public interest based on his election? Lying about an affair that could have harmed the Democratic Party. You know, obviously President Clinton wasn't running for reelection in 2000.
COOPER: Right.
WILLIAMS: But it would have been certainly embarrassing for the Democratic Party and he could have made the argument that it is in our interest for me as the leader of the nation to lie -- you know, to engage in this conduct.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I mean, it essentially makes Donald Trump the state.
[23:30:00]
WILLIAMS: It is a march to monarchy. It is literally behavior that would allow the president to say that anything, any kind of misconduct he engages in, if he thinks well, it's good for the country because I am the state, that he can go --
COOPER: Schiff made that argument. WILLIAMS: Right.
COOPER: I mean, Mike, does -- did you believe that argument?
MIKE SHIELDS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. I think that when President Obama said to Medvedev, just lay off me for a while in a hot mic moment, lay off me for a while, and I'll have a better negotiating position after the election. He said, I'll communicate that to Mr. Putin. The same thing applies. That's why Dershowitz is wrong about Trump on this because Barack Obama was wrong to do that as well.
I think that the Obama administration was wrong to open up an investigation on their political rival. They could have said that was in the public interest as well. So, no, I disagree with Dershowitz on that. You can't say that your own election is the public interest. That is not -- that is your -- that is a campaign thing. There has to be a separation of that.
I think that -- I do think that if I was to go in there and tell him how he should phrase this argument, it would be, we have to be very careful when people do acts on behalf of the government that are also politically advantageous to them because every leader does that. Every leader carries out an act of foreign policy act that the public likes and so you can say, was that a political decision and motive to help me get re-elected? That's a fair argument.
COOPER: Kirsten, I found it interesting that nobody can answer when the president decided -- which allegedly was something which is, according to Republicans, in the national interest and is a national policy decision, which is to hold off aid to Ukraine that was voted by Congress. The fact -- I mean, that's like a -- you would think --
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, COLUMNIST FOR USA TODAY: Yeah.
COOPER: -- there is a historical record that that would be -- it was known on June 5th that decision was made. We have no idea.
POWERS: Yeah. That would be information that you would want. That would be the kind of information you would get if you had witnesses. But the Republicans aren't really interested in getting more information. I think -- I just want to say quickly, Barack Obama didn't do anything wrong in that situation. He was just negotiating foreign policy.
So to try to compare that to what Donald Trump has done, you know, where he has, again, trying to get another country to do his dirty work so he can get re-elected and attack a political rival is not the same thing as what Barack Obama did.
SHIELDS: He referenced the election.
POWERS: It's not --
SHIELDS: Donald Trump never referenced the election.
POWERS: It's not --
SHIELDS: He said, I'll have more negotiating room after the election. In a sense, back off, Russia, don't mess with me --
COOPER: They actually used that example today. Do we have -- let's play that if we have it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): President Obama, on an open mic, says to Medvedev, hey, Medvedev, I know you don't want me to send this military money to Ukraine because they're fighting and killing your people. I want you to do me a favor, though. I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney. And I want you to announce you found dirt on Mitt Romney. And if you're willing to do that, quid pro quo, I won't give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line.
Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHIELDS: I think that's a great argument because he's not saying get dirt on my rival. He's saying lay off of me during the election. Don't make me look bad to the American people in my foreign policy until the election is over and then we can --
POWERS: He's negotiating.
SHIELDS: The point is that's a rabbit hole that when you start going down, that is very dangerous. I think it doesn't apply to this.
POWERS: Nobody in this country was voting for Barack Obama or not voting for Barack Obama based on Russia policy. That didn't happen, OK? What he was doing is basically saying I will have more flexibility after the election. That is a totally normal thing for a president to say. It is not the same thing as saying, do this for me or I will not give you your aid. It's just not --
SHIELDS: That's what Biden did with the judge.
POWERS: No, that's not what Biden did. This is the crazy making thing of this. We've had to listen to this all day long over and over, claiming that Biden, you know, basically put pressure on the Ukrainians --
SHIELDS: What did he say? Explain what he said.
POWERS: -- to try to get them to not investigate a company that his son works for when it was the position of the United States, it was the position of every international entity involved. I mean, it's just crazy making.
COOPER: It does make it sound as if Biden is the only one who kind of pushing for this thing. The U.N. was -- I mean, this was --
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Europeans were pushing --
COOPER: What did you make of today's arguments? Particularly Dershowitz saying --
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Well --
COOPER: -- that anything the president does is in the public interest.
BERNSTEIN: Absolutely. Look, I think we are watching in real time a cover up by the Republicans in the Senate, enabling the president to cover up his abuse of power. First of all, let's go to the phrase abuse of power which Professor Dershowitz says is not -- it's never been grounds for impeachment. It's Article Two of the Nixon impeachment. I am right, guys?
NAFTALI: Yes.
BERNSTEIN: Is abuse of power. But more than that, we now have in Bolton for the first time -- let's look at him being perhaps the equivalent of John Dean.
[23:35:04]
BERNSTEIN: Meaning, he was in the Oval Office. We now have the ability to find out the truth and to have a real trial. All along, the Republicans have been telling us, we don't have any witnesses. Here we have the ultimate witness who can give us the information we need. And one of the reasons that the president is so frightened of John Bolton is maybe John Bolton knows about other instances, as did John Dean. But we need to hear from him. But this is a cover up.
COOPER: Tim Naftali, you were in the Nixon library. I'm wondering, in the Trump library, will there be any documents? Because there seems to be no historical record that we're going to be able to look back on to know when things actually happened.
NAFTALI: I'm just thinking about what the museum exhibit is going to be for this particular event for the trial. I just actually wanted to say something about the letter that we found out about today from the White House. The letter was signed by the senior director of the directorate in the White House that oversees the management of records. It's signed by Ellen Knight.
I know Ellen Knight. I don't know her personally and I haven't talked to her for nine years, but she worked for me in the sense that she was supervised by my supervisor. She worked on the Nixon tapes. She did a brilliant job. She is committed to openness and transparency.
After she worked for the Nixon library, she went to an entity created by Congress called the Public Information Declassification Board, which is dedicated to try to widening access to information. So she's involved in this narrative, but she's someone who is committed --
COOPER: Blumenthal said he's worried about the pressure the president will put on national security.
NAFTALI: With all due respect to Senator Blumenthal, I heard that question today, and it was way too vague. The determination of whether something is top secret or secret can be made by the directorate, but it's also made by the senior directors in the National Security Council. And the question that has to be asked is whether the office of general counselor, the council's office, played any role whatsoever in the determination and the timetable of review. According to the letter, Mr. Cooper, who is Bolton's attorney, should be getting a timetable in the next few -- very shortly. The key for the Senate is to ask when is the timetable for review to come to the lawyers. That's --
COOPER: We'll have more on this. We're going to take a quick break. There is a lot more to discuss about what we heard today from both House managers and the president's defense team, also the latest on whether we will hear from witnesses when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Before the break, presidential historian Tim Naftali has given us a look inside the process by which John Bolton's manuscript will be cleared for publication or won't be, such as the case may be, with the concerns over new cover up being voiced by Carl Bernstein and others today on the Senate floor.
Back with me now are political and legal analysts. Just in the time we have, I just want to quickly run through for everybody. Mike, do you think witnesses are actually going to happen?
SHIELDS: I don't think they'll happen, and I think shortly thereafter there will be a vote for acquittal.
COOPER: So you think it could be done on Friday?
SHIELDS: I don't know the procedural votes are that allow that. As long as you don't have witnesses, this thing is effectively over. I think both parties are going to say, get me out of here.
COOPER: Kirsten, what do you think?
POWERS: Yeah. I mean, from the beginning, I think it's been unlikely that they were going to get witnesses. With the John Bolton news, it looked like maybe possibly there would be, but it just seems like the Republicans don't have the appetite to see this through and they don't have the interest in really getting to the bottom of this and having a legitimate trial.
WILLIAMS: You know that Cory Gardner is not voting for witnesses. He announced it today. So basically, based on what we heard today, it sounded like Collins, Murkowski, Romney might be even amenable to it. But even there, it wasn't clear if they were just asking questions for the purpose of senatorial Socratic dialogue or not. It doesn't look like you're going to get the four that would be needed to move it.
COOPER: What do you think the impact of that is, Carl, for Democrats and Republicans?
BERNSTEIN: I think the impact of this is going to be that Republicans, if they shut this down, are going to have to live with this for a very, very long time. There is the ability even now to have a nonpartisan trial by admitting witnesses.
Let's see what those witnesses say, and then perhaps given the explosive nature of what Bolton and others and documents might show, some of these Republicans might become offended at the president's behavior and there might be some votes for conviction.
Not convict him altogether, but it's possible to have a nonpartisan trial if Mitch McConnell and the Republicans stop covering up for the president.
COOPER: Tim, documents that are now not being sent over to Congress, will they ever see the light of day? How does that work?
NAFTALI: Well, yes, and this is one reason why this -- they will, but this is one reason why this has to be done so carefully. This is why subpoenas still are important. You've got to protect those documents. And there is -- the House should consider a special law similar to the Nixon law, even though it won't pass the Senate. But one more thing, because the Bolton manuscript exists, I'm not sure that this is done.
BERNSTEIN: That's right.
NAFTALI: So I think that that is such a problem for the swing senators that this isn't over yet.
WILLIAMS: They can now say it's out there, read it, you don't need to call him as a witness. That's the argument they're making.
NAFTALI: It's not out there. The point is it's a paraphrase of a paraphrase.
WILLIAMS: That's the argument they're using. I'm with you on this.
COOPER: Normally, the classification is done by this office, this part of the National Security Council, correct?
NAFTALI: Yes.
COOPER: But is it outside pressure? Are they -- is there outside pressure maybe?
NAFTALI: First of all, very quickly, just because they said there's top secret stuff doesn't mean it is top secret stuff about Ukraine.
COOPER: Right.
NAFTALI: There's a lot of stuff that falls below that level. Sure, he might have talked about Turkey, might have talked about the Kurds, for goodness sake, that's top secret. So, we don't know yet. But what I can tell you is a document is going to be going to Bolton's lawyers, which is going to stipulate what he has to do. And I bet you he can do that and still have material that would be useful in this trial.
COOPER: He also knew so much about classified information. It surprises me that he would even put stuff in there, which is going to get the book mucked up. Thanks to everybody. My interview with Lev Parnas, the former associate of Rudy Giuliani, he and his attorneys were in Washington today, kind of wandering around on Capitol Hill, trying to get attention. We'll talk to them about what they were doing, their thoughts about republican arguments against witnesses and more just ahead.
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Lev Parnas was in Washington today for the impeachment trial. The former associate of president's TV lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had to get permission to be there from the federal prosecutors. He got tickets from the office of Senator Chuck Schumer, but his court ordered GPS ankle bracelet, the monitor he wears, prevented him entry to the room where the testimony was being given. Electric devices are prohibited.
Still, he says he wanted to be in Washington today. I spoke to him and his attorney earlier about why, also about other evidence and another recording they said they have of the president in their possession.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER (on camera): Mr. Parnas, I know you had to get special permission from a judge to go to Washington today to try to attend the trial. Why did you want to be there?
LEV PARNAS, FORMER ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: Well, I think it's important that the truth gets out, witnesses get called. And I thought that it would just put a little extra pressure on some of the senators if they see me there, knowing that, you know, I'm one of the crucial witnesses to this whole thing.
COOPER (on camera): Did you speak to any Republican senators? Did you happen to run into any? And if you didn't, what would you say to Republican senators?
PARNAS: I didn't get a chance to speak to any of the Republican senators. I didn't get a chance to bump into them because I was not able to go into the actual Senate.
[23:50:02]
PARNAS: But I was hoping to. If I would bump into especially some of them that I've known over the years, I would definitely tell them to vote with their conscience.
COOPER (on camera): Have you donated money to any of the senators who are deliberating on this?
PARNAS: Absolutely. One of the senators is Rick Scott. He was our hometown senator. He was running for Senate in Florida. And through some of the Super PACs I know. We have been on the campaign trail with Senator Braun. Me and Rudy Giuliani went to visit him in Indiana for -- when he was running for office. Who else? Senator Lindsey Graham. I haven't had any contact with but because of my relationship with Rudy Giuliani, I have a lot of information about his dealings. It was like surreal then to watch Lindsey Graham up there, sitting there. He is out there talking about all the stuff that this is a sham, this should go away.
At the end of the day, he was in the loop just like everybody else. He was very good at the relationship with Rudy Giuliani. He was aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018, maybe earlier.
And then a few -- if you recall, he was supposed to be the one that Rudy Giuliani was supposed to bring Viktor Shokin to when the visa got denied. And I think he was even, if we check the records, involved in getting the request for the visa somehow.
COOPER (on camera): So you're saying Senator Graham -- Lindsey Graham knew about you and Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine?
PARNAS: Absolutely, just like I said. First of all, Senator Graham was involved before even I got involved with Mayor Giuliani. So he had to have been in the loop and he had to know what's going on. Otherwise, you know, I was with Giuliani every day. I mean, that was what was happening.
COOPER (on camera): You firmly believe that Lindsey Graham knew that you and Giuliani or at least Giuliani was undertaking this effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine?
PARNAS: One million percent. Rudy told me not once but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation, that Lindsey was always aware. Again, I don't know how deeply involved. I didn't speak to Lindsey Graham. I don't have text messages with him. We didn't interact. So I can only speak from what Rudy told me.
COOPER (on camera): As of now, we don't know if there are enough votes on the republican side to call witnesses in this trial. Do you have more evidence that you could release or will release or turn over to House investigators that might change the calculus at all?
JOSEPH BONDY, ATTORNEY FOR LEV PARNAS: We turned over some more material recently. There was another round of production. Including in that round of production is another little less than 40-minute recording of the president at Mar-a-Lago with Pete Sessions and with Lev.
I'm not sure what the House might make public. We might make another recording public to the extent that we have any other information that comes in, that is responsive to Lev's congressional subpoena. Our intent is always to comply, Anderson.
COOPER (on camera): You're saying another recording in addition to the one that you just mentioned at Mar-a-Lago that you turned over House investigators?
BONDY: There's the Mar-a-Lago that we turned over. This is one of the recordings. The one that was publicized last week was the dinner recording of April 30, 2018. So, yes, there is another recording that is out there. I think the date of that is about Aril 20th, 2018.
COOPER (on camera): I assume though if there was something significant on the recording, you would have already made it public.
BONDY: That's correct, absolutely. Interesting response there are other recordings. There is another recording we might release. I don't know if the Intel Community will make it public. And there is a trove of other materials that we have given over to the Intel Committee. That has not yet been made public. I'm not sure whether those have been incorporated into the record or not.
COOPER (on camera): Do you have any recordings of Giuliani?
PARNAS: There are several recordings I just haven't gone through yet. You know, I have been going through a lot of stuff right now that I have just been finding. But --
COOPER (on camera): Are those things you turned over to investigators?
PARNAS: Yes.
COOPER (on camera): Do you think -- is there anything of significance of Giuliani?
PARNAS: I mean -- I don't know what you mean significance. It was every day conversation of things just like our text messages.
[23:55:00]
PARNAS: Same thing we have voice mails and butt dials and recordings. I mean, when you say recordings, I've never recorded anybody. I want to make it very clear. I've never recorded the president. I've never recorded any of these. These recordings were done by my partner, Igor Fruman, and they were sent to me. I found them on my iCloud account when I was searching through it.
So, it is not like I recorded anybody. I don't have recordings of personally of me. I do have text messages. I have butt dials, plenty of butt dials. When I say recordings that Rudy sent me and he has several different conversations on there, when he's not realizing it that he butt dialled me like for one minute, stuff like that.
COOPER (voice-over): He's a big butt dialler, it seems.
(LAUGHTER)
PARNAS: Yeah, you can say that again.
COOPER (voice-over): But, would you -- is it fair to say that you believe the most significant material is material you have already publicly discussed or released?
BONDY: I think that's fair to say. And the big question is really can we somehow manage to have a fair trial, where the evidence comes out, it's heard by both side, witnesses are cross examined under oath about that evidence, and then a vote is taken.
COOPER (voice-over): Lev Parnas, Joseph Bondy, thank you very much.
BONDY: Thank you.
PARNAS: Thank you, Anderson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Our impeachment trial coverage continues.
