Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Lawyers Say Democrats Want To Overturn An Election; House Impeachment Managers Use Trump's Words Against Him; Lev Parnas Releases Tape Of Trump Ordering Ukraine Ambassador's Firing; Sanders Leads With New Hampshire Democrats; New Hampshire Republicans Overwhelmingly Back The President. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired January 26, 2020 - 08:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:00:28]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN HOST (voice-over): The president on trial.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): This is Trump first. Not American first, and the result has and will continue to be grave harm to our nation.

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: They have the burden of proof and they have not come close to meeting it.

KING: Plus, the debate over new witnesses.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You can't have somebody who's at national security -- if you think about it, he knows some of my thoughts.

KING: And one week before the first 2020 votes, new polls in Iowa and New Hampshire send a clear message.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When we stand together by the millions, there is nothing that can stop us.

KING: INSIDE POLITICS, the biggest stories sourced by the best reporters, now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. To our viewers in the United States and around the world, thank you for sharing your Sunday.

The Trump impeachment trial resumes Monday and it could be over by week's end. The president's defense began Saturday. His team can take up to two more days if they like. Its argument so far, that the president did nothing wrong, that Democrats are distorting the facts, and that Democrats were in such a rush to impeach the president, they denied him a fair process and took short cuts that called their work and their motives into question. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The Democrats' entire quid pro quo theory is based on nothing more than the initial speculation of one person, Ambassador Sondland.

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: They think you can read minds. I think you look at the words.

PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The speaker had already said articles of impeachment are going to be drafted and where there are no claims to hear from any fact witnesses, that's not due process.

CIPOLLONE: They're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history, and we can't allow that to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The House Democrats prosecuting the president say no, it is the White House that has no choice but to distort and distract. Over three days, the Democrats painted a damning picture of corruption, withholding a White House meeting and then military aid from Ukraine, unless it announced investigations the president wanted, and then defiantly refusing to provide Congress with any witnesses and documents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): President Trump tried to cover it all up and hide it from the American people and obstruct Congress. That's an extraordinary attack on our character. America is a great nation. We can handle adversity better than any other country in the world, but what are we going to do about our character?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Part of the Democrats' challenge is arguing their case is rock solid, yet not complete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: There's a written record of this. There's a written record of what President Trump told Ambassador Sondland right after that call? Would you like to see that record? It's called Mr. Morrison's notes. It's right there for the asking.

Would you like to see them? I can tell you in any courtroom in America, you'd get to see them. This should be no different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: With us this hour to share their reporting and their insights, Maggie Haberman of "The New York Times," Michael Shear of "The New York Times", Paul Kane of "The Washington Post", and Seung Min Kim of "The Washington Post." Where are we this Sunday? The president has up to two days. One of the

questions is, will they take it all? They began yesterday trying to give Republicans a safe place to stick with the president.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that's right. I think they also were trying to send the public a message which I think they did pretty effectively which is, this is taking away elections, this is taking away a vote from you. And as long as they can stick to that argument, it helps them.

I would be very surprised if they use all the time they have. They have 24 hours. They've telegraphed pretty clearly that's not going to happen.

I do think that we're going to see the most interesting aspects so far of their defense which will be likely Ken Starr and definitely Alan Dershowitz. Those are not people who are part of the White House firmament and who have been involved in this daily meetings that their team is having. So, it will be interesting to see how they present.

KING: Do you think the president will -- he has two more -- he can do this over two more days. But my question is, does he give up a day of TV time? You think he will? You think he thinks he's winning and they can convince him --

HABERMAN: Yes.

KING: -- lock it in on Monday and go as fast as possible.

[08:05:00]

HABERMAN: McConnell has convinced him to go along with what McConnell wants this entire way. It has taken some time, some back and forth. The president had to be allowed to believe this was his idea or at least that he wasn't being led along.

He has generally wanted what McConnell wanted. McConnell wants this over quick.

KING: And to that point, one of the things McConnell said was please minimize attacks on the Bidens, please minimize going way outside into conspiracy land, because we have the votes right now. We have the votes right now. Don't do anything to anger people.

So, one of the points, a more low key point, but Jay Sekulow tried to make this point. Just because the Democrats disagree with how the president did this or what the end result was doesn't make it impeachable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEKULOW: Let me be clear: disagreeing with the president's decision on foreign policy matters or whose advice he's going to take is in no way an impeachable offense.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Now, Jay Sekulow -- we're waiting for Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, Mr. Ray, names that are more known in the Fox News universe and television Republican circles, Mr. Sekulow himself can mix it up when he wants to. He has in the hallways gone after Biden quite a bit. But on the floor of the Senate, he decided not to, at least not on day one.

MICHAEL SHEAR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I was really struck by the tone, given what, as you say, what Jay Sekulow had done, you know, at the microphones kind of before the trial in the days leading up to it, very heated, very -- lots of sort of fire and brimstone. You sort of saw the preparations for the kind of presentation that people expect the president wants to see on television, and the tone was very dramatically kind of softer than I think we all expected.

Now, we don't know what tomorrow is going to bring and it may be they take a turn and go in that direction. Certainly the chief justice' admonition at the beginning of the trial for everyone to remember where you are may have helped. It also may be that they recognize, to Maggie's point, they're winning. They don't need to go there, so to speak. And that let's get this done quickly.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And that seemed to be, too, an appeal to some of the Republicans who maybe were not watching as closely but who have been uncomfortable by the president's conduct. Thinking of folks like Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, we don't expect them to be swing votes.

Clearly they will most likely vote to acquit him at the end of the day. But they have said before that they do find this behavior not appropriate, they were not comfortable with it. Whether it's impeachable, they don't believe that's the case, and I believe that was a little bit of a message to that kind of crowd of the Republicans.

KING: And Adam Schiff and all the Democratic managers, particularly Mr. Schiff have tried to play to that. They know some of the Republicans privately say things they're not willing to say publicly. They know for a fact that an overwhelming majority of Republicans see what Rudy Giuliani was operating and some of their eyes roll and you get a negative reaction.

Adam Schiff trying to play, the president's team is going to tell you, this was fine, he doesn't trust the intelligence services, he doesn't trust the establishment, so he's going to use Rudy Giuliani, give me a break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: They're going to the president's personal lawyer. Does that sound like an official policy to try to fight corruption? Why would you go outside the normal channel to do that? You wouldn't.

No, you go to your personal attorney who is on a personal mission that he admits is not foreign policy when your objective has nothing to do with policy, when your objective is a corrupt one. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: A strong argument and a strong case. The question is, did he change the minds that need to be changed?

PAUL KANE, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: I don't know that he changed any minds. But when Schiff and the Democrats are presenting on that argument, the national security argument, the anti Russia, we're going to take on Putin and Trump isn't, when we're in the room, in the chamber up above, in the gallery, you can see the Republican side tense up because they're not comfortable with it. The Pat Toomeys and Rob Portmans, they're uncomfortable with that argument because deep down they grew up hating the Soviet Union and wanting to challenge them.

And that puts the Democrats in their strongest -- they argue about the GAO says this part of the law made it illegal. That doesn't score points with Republicans. That argument on national security does.

KING: And so, to that point, so they see Mr. Schiff. Most Republicans, even the president's team gave Schiff some credit, gave the Democrats credit, yes, he presented a very compelling case. That's how they want to do it.

So, one of the challenges to the president's team is to make this about politics as much as they can. So, Adam Schiff did in a hearing a couple months ago, through this parody of the president, did not literally represent what the president said on a July 25th call. One of the president's attorneys saying this should prove to all of you they're not serious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PURPURA: That's fake. That's not the real call.

[08:10:02]

That's not the evidence here. That's not the transcript that Mr. Cipollone just referenced, and we can shrug it off and say we were making light or a joke, but that was in a hearing in the United States House of Representatives discussing the removal of the president of the United States from office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That is not a weighty factual or weighty legal argument. But to the idea that Democrats wanted to this, they were hell-bent on impeaching the president, Republicans need to stay loyal, perhaps effective.

HABERMAN: I think that's actually, I continue to think that's the White House's most effective argument is -- and they have been laying that out over the last several weeks, that this dates back to and they point to a story in "The Washington Post" about how Democrats were preparing for the president's impeachment before he was sworn in or right after he was sworn in. That this was essentially the goal of the Mueller report, according to them, and now that the Democrats have stumbled upon something that they can use.

I do think because this is -- I think Mike Pompeo telling an NPR reporter, questioning whether Americans care about Ukraine was deeply unwise. But I do think the White House and the president's lawyers are banking on the fact that most Americans are not following the details of this, are not, you know, deep into the foreign policy aspects of this, and they just kind of catch a glimpse of this and that's all they hear. The more they make that political argument, they think they're reaching voters.

KING: To that point, the quicker they can get to the conclusion.

HABERMAN: That's right.

KING: Especially when the Democrats do, you can have a debate about whether it's impeachable. But the facts, they have the fact of this, it's pretty damning. So, we're going to have more on the case as we go through the hour. But I just want to get to where we are, especially if you're right, and the president's team wraps up on Monday --

HABERMAN: They might.

KING: They might.

HABERMAN: I don't think they'll use the full day --

KING: They might, or wrap up early Tuesday. We were looking at Monday and Tuesday the Trump defense team, then Wednesday and Thursday, senators get 16 hours to ask questions, Friday and Saturday potential votes on witnesses, especially if the president's team doesn't take all its time and we get to the senators -- we start the senators sometimes Tuesday.

This could well -- unless the Republicans lose votes, unless some math change happens that we don't see today, over by the end of the week, correct?

KIM: Correct. And that's actually the scenario that Mitch McConnell and most of his leadership had envisioned for a while. I mean, I know there was waffling on how long they wanted the trial to go. But they said, about two weeks, you know, give an appearance that this is a fulsome trial, that we're giving both sides enough time to make their arguments, you know, shortcut the witnesses questioned.

Because you're right, if there's a majority on witnesses, then all bets are off. We don't know how long this is going to go, we don't know if the White House exerts privilege, whether this gets into a big legal fight and it gets very messy which is what Mitch McConnell clearly wants to avoid.

And we're looking at that State of the Union this coming or a week from Thursday when, if the president is acquitted by then, that does give him a very big microphone to be able to talk about, you know, being -- being acquitted by the Senate and then go on and talk about his other policy agendas and other policy matters for the election year. KING: The collision of the calendar part is still (INAUDIBLE) when

you look at it all.

We'll continue the conversation. Up next, the president is a star witness at his own trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:25]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'd love to go. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be beautiful?

REPORTER: Why don't you go?

TRUMP: I don't know. I'd sort of love to sit in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces. I'd love to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: One of the president's lawyers was very quick to label the idea of the president actually coming to the Senate trial a bad idea. But while the president is not attending the trial, he is very much a part of the proceedings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

I have President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: You want that kind of interference in our elections?

TRUMP: It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it.

China should start an investigation into the Bidens. President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We talked a bit about this, but the Democrats get the math, and those comments from the president, especially him standing next to Putin and essentially repeating Russian propaganda make Republicans stare at the ground, make Republicans mumble under their breath.

HABERMAN: They do.

KING: But is it going to change their votes? HABERMAN: I think that we have seen the more that these arguments are

being laid out by Democrats, Republicans have been -- it's not just the Trump defense team giving them a safe space, they're trying to create their own. So, the last couple days, the anger has been Schiff reading some CBS News story about the president threatening senators which to be clear, I don't think actually is what the White House has been doing.

KING: Right.

HABERMAN: But that became an affront, because there was a praise, put people's heads on a pike, or your head on a pike.

KING: Right.

HABERMAN: That became the reason that they were angry.

I think the Republicans are looking for any reason they can to point to, to say, see, this is just silly, and I'm with the president. I mean, one of the things the president has been incredibly successful with over the last three years, four years, is turning everything into an up or down referendum on himself and making people choose, and that's what he's doing here.

KING: To your point, he's doing it this morning. The impeachment hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours, the radical left do nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. He goes on to criticize Adam Schiff. That one, the president has sent 330 tweets or retweets in the past five days, including a record 142 on Wednesday.

Look, you know, some of those, again, would flunk the fact check test, but he understands the goal here, keep Republicans on Team Trump and this is over by Friday or Saturday.

KANE: Yes. They have latched onto this idea in his tweet, massive election interference.

[08:20:03]

He's accusing the Democrats of what they are accusing him of doing. That's always a safe place for Mitch McConnell. He loves to be able to find the Democratic precedent to justify his own version of things. And that's going to be ultimately, for those Lamar Alexanders and Pat Toomeys who don't like what Trump does, if they're able to say back home, there is a jury, it's you the voters, you'll decide in November.

KING: And so, one of the president's attorneys yesterday was making his case, Democrats jumped on it to say actually that helps us make our call for witnesses. Let's see.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PURPURA: Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): They kept saying there are no eyewitness

accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts, the very four witnesses and the very four sets of documents that we have asked for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Quick response from Senator Schumer. Again, my question is, and I know I'm a broken record, pretty powerful case. You say there are no firsthand witnesses, let's have John Bolton, let's have Mick Mulvaney, let's have Mulvaney's chief of staff, let's have the acting budget director, their emails. But?

SHEAR: Well, but there's been an inherent tension in the Democratic sort of mission here from the very beginning which is they come into the Senate wanting to say this is a rock solid case.

KING: Right.

SHEAR: You know, we have mountains of evidence. In fact, there was an amazing little visual moment yesterday morning when the House managers had four Senate pages wheeling big carts filled with of boxes and binders sort of as a show into the Senate to sort of suggest, look, this is how powerful our cases, look how much evidence we have. At the same time, they're arguing we don't have enough evidence because we need more witnesses, we need more documents.

And it's been -- that tension has been there from the beginning. You know, the White House did kind of open the door a little bit yesterday by suggesting there are things we need to know more about. You know, that -- that is the sort of backdrop against which the political considerations are made about witnesses, and I think that's how that decision is going to be made.

KIM: And that tension has been there for some time. But it's interesting to see which Republican senators have picked up on that talking point. I think the most significant is Lisa Murkowski herself --

SHEAR: Yes, agreed.

KIM: -- who had been quiet for some time, but has said. You know, if the White -- if the House felt these witnesses and felt this evidence was so compelling, why didn't they fight this out earlier? So, while we're all reading the tea leaves from these four senators, I thought that was a significant statement, because Susan Collins and Mitt Romney have kind of box themselves into perhaps voting for more witnesses and evidence at the end of the day. They both said they were likely to support it. Romney keeps saying he wants to hear from Bolton.

But I thought Murkowski has been interesting and instructive to watch.

KING: And to that point, language is a little bit different, but this is Cory Gardner up for re-election in Colorado. A state that's likely to be blue, very hard if you're a red Republican senator to win in a presidential year if your state is going the other way. So, you think Cory Gardner might be looking to show his independence, but --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY GARDNER (R-CO): We'll have a continued trial of witnesses that we heard from in the House and the efforts will continue this week.

REPORTER: Are you open to hearing from John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney?

GARDNER: A lot of impeachment witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: As the doors close, as they always tend to do. Good for -- we've heard a lot of impeachment witnesses saying the House had their chance, we've got enough.

HABERMAN: I think your point of as the doors closed is fair.

Gardner has not been a witness really who the White House is concerned about and I think that's important. There were a lot there was speculation he was early on.

Lamar Alexander is where their focus is and has been. So far I think they're feeling encouraged by what they have seen.

I also think, to Seung Min Kim's point, the fact that the House didn't subpoena these folks was always going to be something that the Republicans were going to point to and say, why should we do this for you? Understand all the reasons that have been laid out as to why Pelosi and other Democrats wanted to do this quickly, and there were obviously concerns that they were looking at, but those are political concerns.

And if the argument is going to be, you know, we need to know the truth and get at the truth, voters can ask a legitimate question of why these witnesses were not subpoenaed?

KING: You make a key point about Lamar Alexander, former aide to Howard Baker way back in the days. We know where his instincts would be. He's about good government. He doesn't like the way the president conducts himself, but he is like that with the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. So, will he disrupt the Republican vote? That's one to watch in the days ahead.

Up next for us, the coming debate over impeachment witnesses, and just what John Bolton should do.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:29:03]

KING: For one of the House Democratic managers, Zoe Lofgren, this is impeachment number three. She was a staffer when the House Judiciary Committee built the case against Richard Nixon, a member of that committee during the Bill Clinton impeachment, and now, a senior member helping make the case against President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Even President Nixon who famously attempted to defy a subpoena for tape recordings of his conversations, he let his most senior staff testify before Congress. Now compare to President Trump. He publicly attacked the House's impeachment inquiry and he ordered every single person working in the executive branch to defy the House impeachment inquiry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[08:29:47]

KING: CNN legal analysts and impeachment experts Ross Garber and Michael Gerhardt join our conversation, and Maggie Haberman of the "New York Times" is still with us.

Ross -- let me start with you. It was almost Trumpian in the sense that everything this president does is bigger and better and greater than anybody before him. Zoe Lofgren is trying to make the case there that we have never seen defiance of the constitutional order like this.

Is she right?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I'm not aware of such a blanket refusal to produce information. That is true.

You know, but I think what he -- what the President would probably say is unlike Nixon he actually did produce the tapes here. You know, he produced the call record.

You know, I am concerned though about this article of impeachment. I think this article -- the article about obstruction of Congress is particularly weak. Presidents going back to Washington have asserted privileges and immunities and objections.

You know, President Obama's attorney general was cited for criminal and civil contempt of Congress. I think it would be very dangerous to say that that is now a basis for impeachment.

KING: Well Michael -- as you jump in, I want to add this. The President -- one of the questions is, can the Democrats get witnesses. The White House has sent clear including these words from the President that even if you have the votes to get John Bolton we will try to gum up the works.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would rather interview Bolton. I would rather interview a lot of people. The problem with John is that it's a national security problem, you know. You can't have somebody who's at national security and if you think about it, John, he knows some of my thoughts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: If, and it's big if, the Democrats could find four votes and get a subpoena for John Bolton and the Chief Justice of the United States signed that subpoena, can the President gum this up for weeks and months in the court over executive privilege or they have to settle it in the Senate?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: They certainly will try to gum it up in the court so that's been part of the difficulty. Nobody expects the President or his team in a sense to simply comply with the subpoena.

But I think it's really important to understand first, as Ross himself just said and I agree, never before in American history has a president refused to allow any part of his executive branch to cooperate with a congressional inquiry the purpose of which is to look into the presidency.

The second thing to understand about that, impeachment is in the constitution as a check against presidential misconduct but the President has undermined it by ordering people like Bolton and others not to show up.

So what we're seeing is if the President's strategy and obstruction to some extent continues to work, impeachment becomes a novelty. There's no way to hold him accountable through this one process which is meant to hold him accountable.

KING: And one of the interesting things here is new information. Whether it is a Government Accountability Office ruling that says that the President broke the law, that happened with withholding the aid that happened after. Now it's the impeachment vote.

And now you have the tape recordings brought forward by Rudy Giuliani's partner, Lev Parnas and his partner, Igor Fruman -- two men who are under federal indictment, we need to make that clear. The President said he doesn't know them. But he spent a lot of time with them, at dinners and at fundraisers including this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, RUDY GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: That's why you're having such, I think if you take a look -- the biggest problem there I think where you need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration.

TRUMP: What? The ambassador to Ukraine?

PARNAS: Yes, she is basically walking around and telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached. Just wait. I mean -- it's incredible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She'll be gone tomorrow.

TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Ok. Do it. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Maggie, you know the President well. Get her out. Take her out tomorrow.

That language might be offensive to some people, but the President likes to say I have the right to name my ambassadors. My point is more what the Democrats have tried to shame the Republican senators almost saying, you know books are going to be written. You know more information is going to come out. Things like this.

Is it an effective part of their argument? Or was Nancy Pelosi right at the beginning and maybe they should have not impeached and kept their oversight responsibilities and as these new things come out they can hold them up.

HABERMAN: I think you can make a case in either direction. I think that you raise two important points.

One is that Lev Parnas is indicted and I do think it is important. I have said this in the last couple of days that I think for the first two years of this presidency, voices who were oppositional to Trump got a lot of credibility that possibly they should not have had. So I think it's important to look at this.

However, Parnas did produce this tape that backs up the (INAUDIBLE) of what the White House had said wasn't true. And that's really the issue there is he absolutely has the right to fire an ambassador. But then they claim that he didn't do this.

I don't think that that from Lev Parnas is going to be compelling to Republicans to say you know what, there might be more. I think it would have to take other information related to other sources. But I just think coming from them it's not going to move the dial.

KING: Ross and Michael -- as we close, jump in on that if you will. But also this -- we're going to have at least one more day, maybe two more days of the President's argument. We saw the overview of it yesterday.

Just help our viewers understand -- a, what you're looking for and whether you think they have been effective so far.

[08:34:54]

GARBER: Yes. We're going to be seeing a lot of debate over the next, you know, few days about witnesses before the Senate. You know, one point I think is worth emphasizing is that the Senate has subpoena authority but the House also has subpoena authority.

The House has the same level of subpoena authority as the Senate. There's nothing stopping the House from issuing subpoenas to witnesses at all.

But, you know, in terms of the President's presentation, I'll be looking to see if it's as tight as it has been so far and how far they go with the Bidens.

KING: Michael?

GERHARDT: Well, two quick thoughts. I mean first of all, the House did issue subpoenas, and secondly the House tried to negotiate with Bolton among others to testify. So the House actually did try. But Bolton was ordered by the President not to cooperate. And he's not the only one the President ordered not to cooperate.

The second thing is that as we watch the White House lawyers and even Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, I can't help but think about one of the classes I teach which is legal ethics. And one of the things that lawyers have to do is to be candid and truthful in a tribunal. And the Senate's a tribunal.

So I'm really curious and rather anxious I'm to see to what extent the lawyers continue to misrepresent and state incorrect facts or perhaps state falsehoods. That puts them in danger of losing their license.

KING: Tomorrow morning will put all those questions to the test.

Michael, Ross -- appreciate it. Maggie as well.

Next, when we come back, we shift to 2020 politics.

Bernie Sanders pulls ahead in the first two states on the calendar.

[08:36:24]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We have some new New Hampshire poll numbers to unveil this Sunday and they are more proof that Bernie Sanders is the candidate with momentum as the first votes draw near.

Remember Iowa votes first a week from tomorrow. A New York Times/Sienna College poll in Iowa puts the Vermont senator on top.

New Hampshire eight days after Iowa. Our new CNN/University of New Hampshire poll releasing right now, well, it shows Bernie Sanders leading there as well.

Let's take a look. Among Democrats likely to vote in the primary in New Hampshire, 25 percent for Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden at 16 percent. Mayor Buttigieg at 15 percent. Elizabeth Warren down to 12 percent.

Let's look at the change since our last poll in October. Bernie Sanders is up, Senator Warren has dropped. Sanders on top, we just told you, in Iowa. New Hampshire next.

The two first states, Bernie Sanders leading the pack. Why is this happening? Sanders always a favorite of progressives -- 39 percent of liberals, self-described liberals, are for Bernie Sanders; 21 for Warren; Mayor Buttigieg and Joe Biden -- look at the change here -- up 13 points since October. Bernie Sanders among the liberal and progressive voters. Senator Warren, down 7. This change right here is the biggest factor in Bernie Sanders getting momentum in the race.

Also, top choice among women in the race. Let me bring this up as well here. Women who are going to vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary -- Sanders at 27, Biden at 15, Warren down at 14. She's Lost seven points and Sanders has gained eight.

So he's leading here in New Hampshire which votes second. We already told you he's leading in Iowa which votes first. Bernie Sanders -- happy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All across the country, let me tell you, that the big money interests are getting very nervous.

They're looking at recent polls in New Hampshire and in Iowa. And they're saying, oh, my God, Sanders can win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: CNN's Abby Phillip and "New York Times" Lisa Lerer join the conversation.

Lisa -- to you first out there in Iowa. Sanders can win. That is a sentence that was not spoken all that often in 2016 even though he ran a strong campaign against Hillary Clinton. In 2020 as we get ready for the first votes, Sanders can win.

LISA LERER, REPORTER, "NEW YORK TIMES": Yes. I think there was a feeling for a long time in the Democratic Party that Bernie Sanders wasn't that much of a threat because it wasn't possible for him to actually capture the nomination.

That sentiment is definitely changing and it, along with it, has raised fears that this primary could be prolonged, that it could extend far into the spring. If not to the convention and that's a situation that could hurt the party in the general election. So you're certainly hearing those kinds of anxieties being discussed more and more among the Democrats.

But I do think that we see Bernie Sanders consolidate the support of the left wing of the party as the moderate side of the party is still trying to figure out who their standard bearer will be.

And you know, the party really is fairly split on what direction they want to go. Whether they want to come out of this process with a nominee who is more liberal or more moderate. And I think that's what we will see these races test. That's what we will come out of this primary with an answer to.

KING: Right. And with the first votes eight days away in Iowa, then a week after that in New Hampshire, it's kind of a little chippy out there. I suspect it's going to get very sharp chippy.

What's fascinating to me the Democrats still say when you ask them what is most important, they still say beating Trump. And yet -- and yet, Bernie Sanders has taken off in Iowa and New Hampshire -- look at these numbers.

In our New Hampshire poll, who has the best chance to win in November? Democratic voters still think it's Joe Biden by a big margin over Bernie Sanders. And yet if Biden is at 41 and Bernie is at -- Senator Sanders, when you say who is strongest against Donald Trump, then what is it? Why are Democrats looking at this race differently?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, I think Bernie Sanders is benefiting from Democrats on the moderate side being split about Joe Biden. I think there are a lot of moderates who still believe Joe Biden is the strongest but they really want to entertain someone else.

And they have a couple of other options. They have Pete Buttigieg and they have Amy Klobuchar who are the top contenders for those moderate voters. But at the same time, I mean I like to describe voters in this cycle of being kind of pundits in some ways.

I do think that what -- for Bernie Sanders the reason he benefits at this stage from these voters is because they look back on 2016 and they remember the narrative that he did well with the same types of white working class voters that Donald Trump did and they think that that's important.

[08:45:02]

PHILLIP: And so they give him a little bit of credit for being electable in that way. And I think that's why he's benefiting and Joe Biden is really suffering from the fact that his vote share is very fractured right now.

KING: In the last hour, we played a sound of Bernie Sanders' surrogate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michael Moore the filmmaker saying take a risk on Bernie. Take a risk on Bernie.

Well, if you turn on the TV in Iowa and you see a Biden campaign ad -- listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every day he's president, Donald Trump poses a threat to America and the world. We have to beat him. This is no time to take a risk. We need our strongest candidate. So let's nominate the Democrat Trump fears the most. Vote Biden. Beat Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Question -- Lisa about voters. Should Biden have a health care ad up right now. Should he have an Obama ad up right now? Should he be talking more about Democratic issues and not he President as we head into a Democratic contest? LERER: Look, electability has been the defining issue of this primary,

more than anything else a Democratic primary voters, particularly older voters who tend to turn out in higher numbers, typically want someone that they feel can beat Donald Trump. That's a core part of Biden's argument.

It's also an unsolvable puzzle. It is impossible to know who is the most electable until you're actually in the general election.

But that's part of why I think we could see a big shift in this race once we have candidates actually winning contests because what makes you look more electable than winning something. So I think once we have someone coming out of Iowa, someone coming out of New Hampshire, we could see a sense of momentum even more than we normally see in a primary season that overtakes the race.

KING: Right. Senator Sanders is also strong in Nevada. I haven't seen any recent polling there but a couple of months back, he was strong there.

If Bernie Sanders wins Iowa, wins New Hampshire, wins Nevada. Joe Biden wins South Carolina, the guy is going to raise his hand and say I told you so is Michael Bloomberg, who's going to raise his hand and say none of these centrists can beat the liberals, you need me.

We'll see if we get to that point.

But right now, one of the big questions is Elizabeth Warren. She owned the summer. She was the rising star of the party in the summer. She has struggled in the fall as we head now into these contests early in the winter season.

She's trying to convince her supporters and she does have a good organization in these states so don't count her out. She's trying to say come back to me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is no time to think small. This is no time to look back. This is no time for a vague campaign that nibbles around the edges of big problems. This is no time to look sideways away from bigotry and racism. This is no time to think small.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: It's interesting. No time to think small on the front and the back of that piece of sound right there. That's a play to progressives. Let's do big, bold ideas and then in the middle don't in a vague campaign, let's not nibble around the edges.

This is a big test for her. She owned the campaign for a stretch. Not now.

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean she continues to critique the moderates which is an interesting choice considering that the polling seems to suggest that it's really Sanders who has kind of gobbled up some of her voters.

I consider some of these people that Sanders has brought back into his fold people, people who might have supporter him in 2016 who flirted with Warren over the summer who thought that she might be able to carry some of his sort of his ideas and have left her largely for Sanders. She's got to get those people back.

So it's an interesting choice to focus so much on a message that seems to be aimed at Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg by and large and to some extent Amy Klobuchar when really the problem for Elizabeth Warren at this particular moment is that she's got to get her left flank back into her fold. Otherwise this is not going to come together for her.

KING: All right. Ladies -- sit tight.

Up next for us, we'll kind of flip the sides a little bit. The President is on the ballot in both Iowa and New Hampshire, too. Our new CNN poll out this hour shows some new evidence of the President's tight grip on the Republican Party.

[08:49:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: With the impeachment trial to resume this week, a very clear reminder in our new CNN/New Hampshire poll that Republicans break from their president at their peril.

Nine in ten likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters back Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination -- nine in ten. Statewide, the President has an approval rating at 50 percent, that's up 6 points from October. That number includes a boost among Republicans and Independents.

You might remember Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in 2016, but just barely. Looking ahead to this November, 46 percent of New Hampshire voters say they will vote to reelect the President, 49 percent say they plan to vote against him.

The President knows the 2020 calendar. He has rallies planned in Iowa and New Hampshire just ahead of the first caucus and the first primary. And his latest campaign ad aimed at keeping his base loyal and energized.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump is under attack. Nancy Pelosi and the far left are trying to overturn his election with a sham impeachment, stealing your vote, silencing the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Lisa Lerer -- Iowa and New Hampshire, two smaller states when it comes to November in the electoral college. But two sates the President will want to play in.

And just a reminder, when you look at those strong Republican numbers, if you're one of those senators thinking of voting for witness, this president has the grip of the party.

LERER: Yes, there's no question, the party has really unified and remain to unify around President Trump and he has really delivered something for all segments of the party -- the fiscal conservatives had their tax break, social conservatives have the steps he's taken on abortion. there's been some moves in foreign policy to satisfy sort of the more hawkish wing of the party.

[08:54:52]

LERER: So he's done a lot of things to keep his base together, to keep his base unified behind him. And that really is a core part of his re- election strategy is getting his base to turn out.

The question is whether Democrats can get their base to turn out in higher numbers, whether they can get sort of lower propensity voters, younger voters, voters of color to come out in large numbers. And that is going to depend in part on who ends up capturing the nomination.

KING: Without a doubt. Just one more quick number. Should the Senate remove Trump from office in New Hampshire -- 40 percent say yes, 53 percent say no. Yet another swing state where the numbers are not where the Democrats would like them.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS this Sunday. Hope you can catch us weekdays as well -- a very busy week ahead.

We're here at noon Eastern.

Up next, don't go anywhere. A very important "STATE OF THE UNION" with Jake Tapper. His guests include one of the House impeachment managers, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, plus Republican Senator James Lankford.

Thanks again for joining us. Enjoy your Sunday.

[08:55:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)