Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal Limits Over Soleimani Killing; Iran's Foreign Minister Taunts On Twitter During Soleimani Mourning; Huge Crowd Mourn Iranian Commander Killed By U.S.; John Bolton Willing To Testify In Impeachment Trial If Subpoenaed; Donald Trump Threatens Sanctions On Iraq If U.S. Troops Expelled. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired January 06, 2020 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --during the impeachment inquiry. So what is that information of course he asked to go to court to get a court ruling to the Trump and whether or not he should testify before the House, but that ruling is essentially moot according to the judge in that case? And now he is saying now that, that moot he is willing to testify in the Senate if he stays with the subpoena the question is will he be subpoenaed? Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: Yes. There are very big questions now this shifts the focus entirely almost I believe now could really be shifting the focus and the conversation right now. Thank you so much, Manu, I really appreciate it. Thank you all so much, everyone, for joining me "Inside Politics" with John King will pick up this breaking news right now.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to "Inside Politics." I'm John King. We begin the hour with the just breaking major news related to the Trump Impeachment Inquiry. The Former National Security Adviser John Bolton issuing a statement just moments ago saying he's now willing and ready to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if - if - the Senate issues a subpoena demanding his testimony.

Let's get straight to the State Department. Our Correspondent Kylie Atwood joins us live. Kylie, what do we know about this dramatic development?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: This is a major development because it really going to be the thing we focus on for the next few days. John Bolton, the Former Security Adviser to President Trump, who was in the meetings, who was pushing back on the fact that President Trump and the White House were withholding the Ukraine aid he knows things about that decision to withhold that aid. He is now saying that he's willing to testify if he is subpoenaed by the Senate.

Now, of course, the House, in their investigation that they led at the end of last year, they did call for John Bolton to come and talk to them, to provide them with testimony about what he knew. But he didn't show up. What he points to in this statement that he just released on Twitter moments ago is the fact that they never actually subpoenaed him.

So he is saying now that he's not going to put up a fight if the Senate moves to subpoena him, he will provide testimony. One of the most important things to consider here is the fact that he's come out with some statements that are a little bit telling. He has taunted the fact that he knows things about this Ukraine situation that have not yet come to fruition.

So he knows things that could very well change the calculation and the story line that we know at this point, John. So it's going to be interesting to see, however, if Senate Republicans decide now that they are going to have people come up and provide testimony in their trial, because they have not yet made a formal decision on that front.

KING: A giant "If." Kylie Atwood, continue your reporting come back to us if more comes in. That "If" will be answered on Capitol Hill that's where we find CNN's Manu Raju. Manu, one of the big pressing questions had been will Mitch McConnell allow witnesses? We know his inclination is no, does John Bolton coming forward and saying if you subpoena me I'm willing to testify. A, does it change McConnell's mind, and B, does it change the mind of three or four Republican Senators so McConnell has no choice?

RAJU: I think you can bet that it probably does not change McConnell's mind about the way this should be handled initially. The question will be will it change those three or four Republican Senator's minds? That is a different question. Well, McConnell has argued he has made the claim that he is not ruling out the possibility of go having witnesses but he wants an agreement up front that there should be - they should have the opening arguments in the case and then deal with a question of witnesses later after the opening arguments.

That's similar to the way the Clinton trial played out. So even if John Bolton wants to testify, that's really not an issue for Mitch McConnell. He believes deal with that later. Now the question ultimately will be if John Bolton's decision to come and testify, if he is subpoenaed, if that does affect those four Republicans who could change the calculus in the Senate?

Because just 51 Senators likely 47 Democrats and Four Republicans could join ranks and vote to compel testimony. So how does that impact things? I'm getting really - we expect that Senators will come back to Washington after spending the last two weeks on recess back home. They come back today. This will be the question before every Republican Senator, particularly the ones who have not ruled out bringing forward witnesses, the people who are in the middle, the people who have faced the most amount of pressure.

That includes people like Mitt Romney who have not ruled out calling pushing for witnesses, also Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Those two individuals in the middle often time swing votes. How do they come down on the question of wanting John Bolton to testify? Will there be one of those members, particularly ones in difficult re-election races, who may be reticent to looking like they're stepping - covering up or not or being accused of covering up witness testimony, particularly a witness who has information that they're willing to present.

That makes it a much more difficult calculation for these Republican Senators who want to just move forward and dismiss the case when you have someone of this magnitude willing to come and testify. To just simply say no, let's move to dismiss and acquit the President, that's going to be a difficult decision for Republicans to make. So I do expect it to ultimately change some Senators' minds, but I think at the outset Mitch McConnell will probably still say, let's move to the trial, let's have the opening arguments and let's worry about John Bolton later. And of course, that is not going to be enough for Democrats who want that agreement up front, John.

KING: It certainly a surprising and giant twist Manu, again come back to us if there is any incoming during the hour ahead. With me in the studio to share their reporting and their insights Julie Pace of the "The Associated Press" Jackie Kucinich with "The Daily Beast" Rachael Bade with "The Washington Post" and CNN's Abby Phillip.

[12:05:00]

KING: My question is and happy New Year, everyone. We have a military confrontation with Iran. The first votes in 2020 are four weeks from tonight. We thought the Impeachment trial would begin this week. It looks like probably next week or somewhere in that period of time.

Now John Bolton decides to raise his hand at a time when we thought there would be no witnesses and a quick Senate trial. He says, oh, by the way, I'm willing to testify. One of the Republican arguments in saying, we're going to dismiss this, is that the House Democrats had nobody in the room with the President, only Ambassador Sondland who spoke to the President.

But nobody in the room with the President as this played out. Here is somebody in the room with the President saying, I'm willing to testify. How do they say no?

JULIE PACE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ASSOCIATED PRESS: I think that's a great question of how they say no. John Bolton is a complicated witness. I don't think he's certainly a slam-dunk witness for the Democrats even though he was in the room. He is a Republican, he served this President obviously had big disagreements.

But if you're Republicans and you get the question and you say well, if you don't think the President did anything wrong wouldn't you want John Bolton to come forward and tell you that? It's hard for them to say no to this, it doesn't mean they're going to say no to this, but that has been the President's argument all along. Talk to who you want, I did nothing wrong. Well, here's somebody who can go up there and prove that.

KING: And to that point remember this, too. There's politics, there is gambling in the casino and politics in Washington. Mitch McConnell is on the ballot this year. Mitch McConnell held to open a Supreme Court vacancy during the Obama Administration for more than a year until we had an election and you had a Presidential Election. So Mitch McConnell is not afraid to play hardball. However, to the wide listen to the John Bolton his Deputy, one of his key Deputies, Fiona Hill, did testify in the House impeachment inquiry. Republicans have said this was Trump being Trump. Sure, he brought up Joe Biden, maybe he wasn't articulate, but it wasn't corrupt, it wasn't an abuse of power. Fiona Hill said she and her boss thought it was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIONA HILL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: --Ambassador Bolton told me that I am not part of this whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?

HILL: I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you go speak to the lawyers?

HILL: I certainly did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Isn't it now incumbent, if we care about transparency, and if you care about this issue, that the Senate should subpoena John Bolton, say, what did you mean by drug deal, sir, let's get it firsthand. You were in the room with the President. What did you mean by drug deal?

RACHAEL BADE, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: This is going to make it so much harder for Mitch McConnell to say no witnesses. I mean, John Bolton, clearly he had concerns about this not only from Fiona Hill's testimony, but she also said that John Bolton was the one who instructed her to go to the White House Counsel and tell them this is going on. He clearly thought perhaps something illegal was going on.

How did they not call him? He's one of the top firsthand witnesses. Republicans have said over and over again, oh, these Democratic witnesses that they brought in, these people never spoke to Trump. This is someone who spoke to Trump. It is just going to be so much harder for McConnell to hold out.

Now I do think there is a question about what Pelosi does right now? She still has the articles of impeachment in the House, and over the weekend we were hearing from sources that a lot of people thought she would just send those over without an agreement with McConnell on witnesses.

Now that Bolton has come out, she might want some reassurances from McConnell that he will be heard otherwise maybe she calls him into the House.

JACKIE KUCINICH, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE DAILY BEAST: John Bolton's own lawyer, I think Manu mentioned this, said that John Bolton had information that wasn't out there yet. Now, we can't assume that's necessarily negative for the President.

Don't forget, John Bolton is a very known entity in Republican circles. A lot of those Senators know him very well, both from his role in previous and administrations and from being an A.I. for a number of years. So there is also that and this might not be bad for the President. It might fill in some blanks, but we just don't know.

KING: That's why this is so curious. John Bolton I think he used the word interesting and controversial. He is one of the most interesting and controversial figures as a career staffer if you will up to the Ambassador level but in Washington D.C. in that why now? This train was headed toward a short Senate trial and a dismissal in favor of the President.

He knows we start this week with the big question mark when will Speaker Pelosi send over the articles? Will, whether it's Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Corey Gardner of Colorado, Tom Tillis of North Carolina all on the ballot this year. That's all the Democrats who need this four to at least get some agreement on the rule, some agreement to call witnesses.

You also have Mitt Romney the Senator from Utah who has not been a fan of this President who has a very good relationship by the way with John Bolton. And Lamar Alexander who was aide to Howard Baker back in his young days during the Nixon impeachment who is retiring and who has shown zero indication to get in the President's face on this one, but then you raise something like this.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And here is what John Bolton has been doing for the last several months since he left the White House. He has been beating the drum about his foreign policy priorities outside of the White House, making it very clear that he has his own world view that is separate from the President's in some ways, and even recently, with this Iran business, he's been saying, I'm happy that we went in this direction.

[12:10:00]

PHILLIP: So I think he's been trying to really establish himself as someone of principle on his own merits so that at a moment like this, he can't be accused of being this sort of never Trumper.

Now, the question I think everybody has right now is does the White House even know what Bolton has to offer? Do they know what he wants to say? And if they don't, are they confident that it won't really throw the President under the bus? I think that can have some ripple effects, potentially even opening the door for other witnesses that the White House might be a little more confident in what they have to say to balance out a John Bolton.

I think this really opens the door wide because Bolton is such a wild card, the White House, as a smart defense strategy, is going to want to protect themselves in some way. They may not want to have it to be John Bolton is the only person going out there saying what he has to say given what we know Fiona Hill has testified about her feelings at the time. KING: If the problem for the White House in their perspective is, though, A, would Republicans agree that he wants to call up Hinter Biden? He wants to call up the whistleblower. Would any Republicans agree to that?

And B, if the President wanted to have other people with firsthand knowledge the Democrats have said we would love the Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney who gave a White House briefing in which he said, yes, there was a quid pro quo, get over it. They would love to have the Deputy, Mr. Blair. They would love to have the Michael Duffey of the Office of Management and Budget to come in who all had firsthand knowledge of holding the aid, who ordered it? How did it go down? Who raised questions about whether it was illegal?

That's the problem for the White House. But John Bolton a dramatic bolt today, you might call it, out of the blue saying he is now willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if the Senate issues subpoena more of our breaking news coverage in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

KING: Welcome back. We're tracking very major breaking news this hour. The Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton now says he's prepared to testify at the Senate impeachment trial of the President if the Senate subpoenas him.

Bolton of course has spent his post administration life he is hinting that he has a story to tell. From tweets in November, glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months for the back story stay tuned. And this, we now have liberated the Twitter account previously suppressed unfairly in the aftermath of my resignation as National Security Adviser.

More to come those are the teasers last month, now the statement today, John Bolton saying he is willing to testify if he is subpoenaed by the United States Senate. Let's go straight to CNN's Kaitlan Collins live at the White House for us any reactions from inside 1600 to this startling news?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Not yet, John King. So far the officials we have spoken with seem to be caught off guard by this announcement. They are now aware of it and essentially we're waiting to see what it is they're going to say in response. Because we've heard the President say time and time again he would love for people like the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to go testify but he thought the House process was unfair and that's why they didn't.

And now we have this Former National Security Adviser saying he is willing to go before the Senate if he gets a subpoena. And of course if he does, John, he is the closest person to the President in all of this - he would be the closest person to the President in all of this to come guard. Forward. Now, in the months since he's been teasing those tweets there where he ended up getting into a dispute with the White House, saying they locked him out of his Twitter account when he left his job as National Security Adviser, the relationship has not been good between the White House and Bolton.

And the assumption among the officials who worked for him at the National Security Council thought if he did speak, it would not be good for the administration. The question is what would he say about the President? Of course we know that the relationship between Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton was very bad near the end.

You've seen what they said in the past, and you saw there from Fiona Hill testify and what John Bolton told her to do during those meetings, so that's going to be the big question here. If there was a subpoena for John Bolton, would the White House order him to not testify, and how would he respond to that?

So essentially still a lot of questions, but this is not likely to be welcome news, because John Bolton, if this does come to fruition, if this does happen, and there are a lot of steps in between where we are now and that actually happening, the White House has generally not thought that would be in their favor.

And John, right before the break, it's notable because we reported that essentially people inside the White House who have been working on the President's impeachment strategy have said, the longer it is before the trial, the more potential there is for trouble.

They worried they didn't know what could happen, but they feared that something could pop up, and this seems to be right up that alley of what they feared could happen, someone like John Bolton saying pretty clearly they are willing to come forward with no legal battles, nothing like that, as long as the Senate subpoenas him. Of course, there are lot of questions about whether or not that would happen.

KING: A wild card is not something the President wants waiting for an impeachment trial. Kaitlan Collins, live reporting at the White House I appreciate it very much. Let's bring in our Senior Legal Analyst Michael Zeldin. Michael, help me here in the sense and if you read the statement from Ambassador Bolton, he essentially acknowledges this for those who follow this closely one of his deputies had gone to court and asked the court, essentially, the House has subpoenaed me.

The President doesn't want me to go. Let the courts tell me what to do? That all became tangled up and at one point it became moot because the White House said never mind. John Bolton is saying, well, since that questions not going to be answered I'm willing now but only if you subpoena me, your take?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. And the Kupperman case was dismissed was held out as the reason for Bolton not to testify. Now that case has gone away and the only case law that exists out there say that there's no such thing as absolute immunity. So his defense of I don't know what to do between two mates pulling at me is gone. So now he has the opportunity to come and testify if McConnell will subpoena him. It is the Republicans who have subpoena power here. Schumer does not have that power. Once he agrees to testify, the question will be, if he's subpoenaed, will the President assert Executive Privilege? That is, he shows up and the President says to him, you can't tell anybody about any of our conversations. That's another whole court battle that we don't know how that will play out?

[12:20:00]

ZELDIN: Depending on what the White House says once they understand what it is that the testimony will be about, because we don't know whether or not this testimony will invoke the notion of a quid pro quo. We don't know what he says. We know he said there was a drug deal, we know he said that Giuliani was a hand grenade, we know that his Deputy said that she went to the Legal Counsel at his suggestion once he heard the Zelensky call, but quid pro quo is the key testimony they want from Bolton.

KING: And help me on this legal question. I don't believe the founders could have for seen such a situation, but Nancy Pelosi still has the articles of impeachment in the House. Can she reopen the case, or has the House voted therefore if she wanted to subpoena Bolton saying, you said you would go to the Senate we want you over here in the House, where the Democrats of course have the votes. Is there anything she can do in the existing impeachment environment to add Bolton's testimony or the Democrats have to open a new case?

ZELDIN: No, I think that she has the authority to do that, once she has oversight authority, to the articles of impeachment. Talk about a continuing pattern of behavior. Both articles of impeachment say he did these specific things, and this was a pattern of behavior. So in this pattern of behavior language within those articles of impeachment, they could call Bolton, I believe, as a supplemental witness to that, and it would be further evidence of that which they've already impeached him on.

I don't believe they need a third article of impeachment of any kind. I think the way they were drafted was clever and Bolton's testimony could fall within the obstruction of Congress and abuse of authority, and that testimony would then be relevant to trial if Mitch McConnell was willing to hold a real trial.

KING: If he is willing. I just want to note that John Bolton, a veteran of Washington understands, the Democrats control the House, the Republicans control the Senate. His statement says I have concluded that if Senate issues a subpoena, I'm prepared to testify. It doesn't answer the question of what he would do if the House came back with one. We may get that answer in the days ahead.

Michael Zeldin, I appreciate your insights here. When we come back, all of this playing out as the President is in a military stare down with Iran.

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We turn now to other breaking news, the skyrocketing tension, fear and threats between the United States and Iran. In Iran today, look here huge crowds. This is the third day of mourning after the death of the country's top Military Commander, Qassem Soleimani.

Iran's Foreign Minister using these images to seemingly taunt President Trump, asking the President if he's ever seen such a crowd. Adding, "Do you still want to listen to the clowns advising you on our region?"

Iran repeatedly vowing revenge in recent days a senior adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader even threatening the United States to leave the entire region or "Face another Vietnam" Tehran also says it now plans to abandon the limits it agreed to in the 2015 Nuclear Deal with the Obama Administration.

Meanwhile in Iraq parliament voting essentially to expel U.S. troops from that country President Trump responding with threats, "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there we're not leaving unless they pay us back for it. If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it on a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before. I'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame".

We'll get to the President's words and his tone in a moment. First let's go straight to Tehran, and CNN's Frederik Pleitgen joins us live. Fred, we see the crowds, we see the words from the Foreign Minister and the threats of retaliation. Take us more inside the reaction in Iran.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The demonstrations that we saw there on the ground in Tehran there was certainly something that's really remarkable. I've been at a lot of these protests over the past couple years. I've been in Iran many, many times, and I've never seen something of that size and of that scale in Tehran.

There were literally hundreds of thousands of people who were on the street there, and the mood was also a lot different than I've seen in the past. The people there were extremely angry at the Trump Administration, at the United States, and one of the placards that many people were holding just had two words on it. It said "Harsh Revenge", and that's what people were calling for on the ground.

They said they want their government to take revenge for the killing of Qassem Soleimani. And of course I talked to a Senior Adviser of the Supreme Leader of Iran just yesterday, and he was telling me there was definitely going to be a retaliation on the part of the Iranians, it is going to be a military retaliation against military targets.

The Iranians are saying they don't want a full-on war with the United States, although they say they claim that they're ready for a full-on war, but they also say that despite the killing of Qassem Soleimani, their revolutionary guards Kurds force, their elite unit of the revolutionary guard is still very much able to operate anywhere in the Middle East, John.

KING: Fred Pleitgen for us live in Tehran. I appreciate your reporting there at this very delicate time. Joining the conversation now the Former State Department Middle East Negotiator Aaron David Millers he is also a senior fellow with "The Carnegie Endowment".

I want to focus - there are a lot of words being thrown around from our President, from their leaders. It's more important what's being done as opposed to what's being said, I think, but when you step back, from your perspective, the Trump Administration says, what's all the fuss about? This is a man with a blood of hundreds of American on his hands. He is a threat to our allies in the region. They say he was planning new attacks against the United States and they've essentially taking a terrorist off the battlefield.

DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Yes. That will be true the question would be-

[12:30:00]