Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Senators Sworn In For Impeachment Trial Of Donald Trump; Giuliani Associate Implicated Trump In Ukraine Scandal; Donald Trump Insists He Does Not Know Lev Parnas. Aired 3-3:30p ET
Aired January 16, 2020 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:00]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: The impeachment process for the House of Representatives formally presented the Articles of Impeachment,
reading them out, one by one, charging the President with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The Senate has formally accepted these allegations and accusations and the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says the ball is in the Senate's court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We saw a strong case, an infallible, undeniable case for the impeachment of the President, so that future president would
ever think that she or he could get away with what President Trump has been getting away with, in his view.
Any further evidence should not be avoided, and now it's in -- the ball was in the court of the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Well, Phil Mattingly, we won't see many of these in our careers. What was the mood like as these proceedings got underway?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Richard, I think what was most interesting and what a lot of us were struck by was just the
silence. You're used to when you look at the Senate floor, especially when you have all of the senators on the Senate floor, there are conversations
going on all over the place, you can usually hear people in the gallery talking as well. No one was talking and they technically aren't allowed to
talk.
And I think you also saw, at least in some members, maybe not all members, just the recognition of the gravity of the moment as they walked over to
sign the oath for the trial in the well of the United States Senate recognizing the kind of work they would do, and certainly, Richard, a
couple of weeks ago, that they realized that at some point, this all felt very political, it all felt very partisan.
Obviously, everybody was kind of watching what was going on in the House. But at some point, that moment was going to sink in of oh, wow, we have a
trial now for a number of weeks that could lead to the removal of the President of the United States.
Now, obviously, there is no expectation at this point in time that the 67 votes needed to remove the President will ever be there, given the makeup
of the United States' Senate, but I do think there's a recognition that this is very different. This is historic and the stakes, regardless of how
this ends for the next couple of weeks, not just for the President, but also for the body itself, for the U.S. senators that are going to have to
be listening to and eventually voting on things here couldn't be higher.
QUEST: So let's go through the tick tock, if you like. The Chief Justice arrived, he took his oath of office, then the senators did. What happens
now? Where do they go from here?
MATTINGLY: So publicly, we're pretty much on hold until Tuesday. That's when the trial is going to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. It will be gaveled back
in and they'll basically be considering the rules of the road for the first stage of the trial.
But I think there's also things that are going to be happening behind the scenes that are extremely important. Obviously, today had a summons sent to
the President of the United States, letting him know that he was being impeached or that he had been impeached, and he was now on trial.
He will have to respond to that this weekend. Perhaps more importantly, also coming this weekend, briefs from both the White House -- or the White
House defense team and the House Managers.
Richard, this will be the first real opportunity we will get from the White House perspective to see what their initial arguments in defense of the
President will actually be, and kind of get a look into what we expect their defense to be once that initial stage that the two presentations
actually begins next week.
QUEST: Phil, we'll be watching closely. Many thanks for your understanding and help in this.
As the impeachment trial gets underway, now CNN is hearing new claims about what President Trump knew about the pressure campaign on Ukraine.
So who did it come from? The allegations come from this chap, Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman with ties to Mr. Trump's personal lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani was previously hired to do the consulting work for Parnas's company, and is now being called a fraud guarantee. Parnas and another
associate of Giuliani were arrested in October, unrelated charges about campaign finance and they pleaded not guilty.
However, if you look at the relationship that Parnas claims to have -- and bear in mind, Donald Trump has said he didn't know the man. Well, he shakes
hands with a lot of people as the President.
But one can't help thinking -- there you are -- Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, the Vice President with the family, with the Kushner's. There is with the
President's daughter, and the Kushner's and again with the President. A lot of pictures with somebody, for somebody who claims they don't know them
with the sons there.
Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper earlier, Parnas said he delivered quid pro quo offers to Ukrainian officials on Giuliani's behalf and the goal was
get Donald Trump reelected.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEV PARNAS, INDICTED GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: If they didn't make the announcement, basically there would be no relationship, not just -- there
was no specific military aid, there was no aid. They weren't going to be assisted. There was going to be no inauguration. Pence wouldn't be at the
inauguration. And there would be no visit to the White House. There would be basically -- they will have no communication.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: So how -- you told the top official in the Zelensky inner circle that if they did not announce an investigation of the
Biden's immediately and to get rid of some folks around Zelensky, who they believed were opposed to President Trump, that there wouldn't be any aid
and Vice President Pence would not even come to the inauguration.
PARNAS: Correct. I mean, it was strictly for him. But again, I thought he was our leader. He's the Chief. He is the President, and it was all about
2020 to make sure he had another four years. And that is --
COOPER: But that's how you personally viewed it. This is about 2020 to help him get the next four years.
PARNAS: That was the way everybody viewed that. I mean, that was the most important thing is for him to stay on for another four years and keep the
fight going. I mean, there was no other reason for doing it.
COOPER: The administration says and Jim Jordan in Congress and a lot of the Presidents defenders in Congress say the President was deeply concerned
about corruption in Ukraine.
PARNAS: Like I said, I'm not going to go into personal attacks on anybody here, but they all know. They go home at night, they'll have a conscience.
I've been there when they liked him, when they didn't like him, when they talked behind his back, when they agreed with them and disagreed with him,
and to see the things that they're doing now and just blindly just -- I mean, it's a sham. It's a shame. And --
COOPER: They know the real story.
PARNAS: Absolutely. They all know. They were all a part. I mean, they all know.
COOPER: Did the President care about corruption in Ukraine?
PARNAS: You'd have to ask him, but as far as I know, the only thing we cared about -- of the team was to get Zelensky or Poroshenko or somebody to
make the press release and the announcement into the Biden investigation.
COOPER: What's so fascinating about what you just said is that it's not to launch an investigation and to investigate even the Biden's and Burisma,
it's to make an announcement of an investigation. That's what mattered.
PARNAS: Right. Well, because nobody trusted them to do an investigation.
COOPER: In terms of who knew about what you were doing in Ukraine, did Vice President Pence know?
PARNAS: Of course.
COOPER: Because I mean, his office has said he was unaware of -- you know, that he had met with Zelensky after not going to the inauguration, but he
wasn't delivering a message of a quid pro quo.
PARNAS: Look, again, like I said, I'm not here to debate. I'm here to get the truth out. I've got my records.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: So now, we are just waiting for the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer of New York. He is about to get underway. He is
getting underway. We'll join him.
Now David Gergen is with me. David, you'll have to wait a moment or two while we listen to Chuck Schumer.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): You could feel the weight of the moment. I saw a members on both sides of the aisle visibly gulped. The weight of history
sits on shoulders and produces sometimes results you never know will happen.
For some of us here, this is the first time we've done this. For others like myself, it's the second time, but I assure you, there's no difference.
Even though I've gone through this before, for all of us, the solemnity and gravity of the moment in our history hits you square in the back when you
take that oath, a separate designed to buy the Senate only for senators who will serve on a Court of Impeachment.
The feeling in the Senate chamber was solemn, serious, profound. The weight of history, the eyes of history, you feel it are upon you.
I know every one of my colleagues felt it. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle felt it.
You all heard the reading of the Articles of Impeachment by Representative Schiff at noon. It was a solemn recitation of charges that approved are
crimes against our democracy itself, to actually hear the charges read, even though we've heard the many times before impresses the seriousness of
the charges.
This is not something trivial. This is not something everybody does. This is not something that can be dismissed. President Donald Trump is accused
of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections and then doing everything in his power to cover it up.
These are exactly the kind of offenses the founders most feared when they forged the Impeachment Clause in the Constitution. Do we want foreign
powers to determine our elections? Do the American people want someone from overseas determining who is their President? Who is their governor? Who is
their senator? Who is their congressman?
[15:10:10]
SCHUMER: This is what the nation has feared for centuries. And we fear it today more than ever with this President. This is very, very serious stuff.
This is not trivial because it's hard to imagine a greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the
elections within our borders.
And for a country to attempt such a thing on its own, as Russia has done is bad enough. For an American President to deliberately solicit such a thing,
to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance to help him win an election is unimaginably worse.
I am actually filled with anger when you read the attempt to subvert our democracy, so these charges are serious -- very. And it's on those charges
which the Senate has to render a verdict.
Remarkably, crucial pieces of information related to the charges against the President are still coming out. Last night, Lev Parnas, an associate of
the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani gave an astonishing interview on national television that further implicated the President in a
plot to remove the U.S. Ambassador and pressure Ukrainian President Zelensky into announcing investigations into one of the President's leading
rivals.
And just today, through the good work of Chris Van Hollen, who you'll hear from shortly, the GAO found that it was illegal -- illegal -- for President
Trump to withhold military assistance from Ukraine to pressure them to interfere in the 2020 elections.
Both the revelations about Mr. Parnas and the GAO opinion strengthen our push for witnesses and documents in the trial. The GAO opinion, especially
makes clear that the documents we requested in our letter to Leader McConnell are even more needed now than when we requested it last month
because President Trump, simply put, broke the law.
Every senator will get a chance to vote to obtain these documents next week. Now returning to how I began, the oath we all just took, will weigh
heavily on senators to consider this question about how fair a trial we have.
We've asked for four fact witnesses and three specific sets of relevant documents. The witnesses are not Democrats. They are the President's men,
his top advisers who he appointed. The documents are not Democratic documents. They are just documents. Period.
Every Senate impeachment trial in our history, all 15 that were brought to completion featured witnesses, every single one.
Leader McConnell is fond of citing precedent. We've all heard him about 1999. The precedent in impeachment trials in the Senate is to have
witnesses. To have no witnesses would be a dramatic break with precedent. It would mean the first impeachment trial of a President in history with no
witnesses.
The first impeachment trial of anybody that went to completion in the Senate's 200 and some odd year history without witnesses.
So in the coming days, each of us, every one of us, Democrat and Republican, will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in the
search of truth or in service of the President's desire to cover it up.
Now that every senator has sworn a solemn oath before God and the American people to do impartial justice, let every senator reflect on that choice.
And let history weigh on every one of our shoulders -- Senator Harris.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): Thank you, Leader Schumer. I would argue that not only is this an impeachment trial, but that the very integrity of the
United States Senate is on trial.
What is before us are charges that are arguably the most serious charges that have ever been leveled against a President of the United States and
where there has been an abandonment of responsibility to uphold the ideals, much less the words of the United States Constitution by the President of
the United States.
[15:15:10]
HARRIS: That responsibility now rests on the shoulders of each member of the United States Senate, which is to uphold the integrity of our system of
democracy, uphold the integrity of our system of justice, and to uphold the integrity of the United States Senate, which has a responsibility to do
fair and impartial justice, which means demanding that the American public --
QUEST: Now, that seems a good moment to just pause away from what's happening in the Senate. CNN's senior political analyst, David Gergen has
advised four Presidents.
And first of all, and your thoughts when you watched the Chief Justice being sworn in, the Articles being read, and then the senators being sworn
in.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I do think, Richard, there's a very strong sense of solemnity that took over the Senate, an important
moment. This is serious.
But suddenly it's also suspenseful. You know, this looked like it was going to be a cut and dried activity that they'd bear -- all of their minds were
made up, all the evidence was in. We knew that they would be the sham -- it might even be a sham proceeding, but it wasn't going to be.
It was all to be expected. It was all going to go by a certain rule book, if you would.
But in the last few days, the last few weeks, there's been this flood new evidence that has come in with more possibly to come that is much overdue.
We've just talked about one with Senator Schumer on the floor that has strengthened the case that President Trump was directing all of this
activity right from the beginning.
Rudy Giuliani has a letter to the President-elect of Ukraine saying -- speaking as the President's personal counsel, that he has -- the President
has knowledge and consent for everything Giuliani would like to bring to a meeting.
That just left no doubt about who was in charge. We've known that. But the other thing is, of course, the story about our American Ambassador being
pursued and followed in Kiev. And in some ways it presented with a physical threat and she was brought home because of that, the pressure to get her
out of there.
Why do they need -- why did they want to get her out of there? Because she was blocking the efforts of to create a more corrupt Ukraine. She was
blocking the efforts to get the Biden information.
So this is a -- we're in an important moment when suddenly we think how -- we think we know what is going to come out, but we don't know for sure.
QUEST: Right. But do you think that the Democrats will be able to peel off enough Republicans just to agree to hear evidence where a simple majority
is required?
GERGEN: Well, the first question they may have is what do you do with the documents that have come in? Are they -- can they be introduced? I just
think that if this is -- if this is a trial and trial jurors don't make decisions until -- the evidence can keep coming in and be admissible until
the jurors are put to the task of making a decision.
And I do think that the documents are very minimal bar that I imagine that not enough Republicans will -- this only requires four -- will support.
Bringing in a witness is a harder case. I don't think the votes are there yet. But the solemnity of the occasion, the seriousness of the occasion, I
think will encourage four senators to come forward on the Republican side.
No sure thing. That's part of the suspense.
QUEST: David, good to see you. Thank you, sir. Much Appreciated. Thank you.
GERGEN: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: We'll take a break. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: So the actual trial will begin next week in earnest. What's happening this week is strictly -- well, it's important, it is ceremonial.
The Impeachment Managers marched two by two across the Capitol and delivered the Articles of Impeachment by hand. Today, the Sergeant-at-Arms
proclaimed, hear ye, hear ye, and reminded the senators, they must keep silent on pain of imprisonment.
Then the formalities of the House where the lead Impeachment Manager, Adam Schiff read the charges. The Senate formally accepted the Articles and the
senators and the Chief Justice were sworn in.
Joan Biskupic is the CNN's Supreme Court analyst. She joins me now. I was very taken and interested, you know, getting this right is important. And I
noticed John Roberts, even before he took the office stopped the President of the Senate and stopped him and said, no, I have to do this first. I have
to read my bit before you can administer -- everybody is being very careful to get it right.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right. This is the easy part. This is the very scripted part of what we're going to see over the
next couple of weeks.
And there are -- the language that everyone is using today has been -- was used in 1999. It is standard language and the Chief has his role now as
Presiding Officer. And as you know, the responsibility he has, as he oversees the Senate trial is much different than what he does across the
street at the Supreme Court.
There, he is of course a judge, casting vote, deciding cases. Here, he is just making sure that the procedures run smoothly, and he is going to try
to receive and let the senators take it their show.
QUEST: So on questions like matters of evidence, whether something should be admitted, whether there should be witnesses and the like, the normal
evidential issues of a judge, will it -- will he be ruling on those sort of things?
BISKUPIC: Okay, let me tell you on paper, he has the ability to rule on those things. Starting with the baseline that is that -- the U.S.
Constitution says that the Senate has the sole power to decide this, but the Chief Justice understand that rules that trace back many, many years,
but were formalized in 1986, the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer can make determinations on the relevance and materiality of evidence and
witnesses.
However, and this is a big caveat, and of his own rulings can be reversed by a majority of the Senate. Again, sending the signal that it's the
senators that decide things.
Back in 1999 when Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided during the Bill Clinton trial, this never -- those kinds of hard questions about the nitty-
gritty of witnesses and evidence did not come to the Chief. It had already been ironed out between the Majority Leader and Minority Leader.
QUEST: That's the big difference, of course that took place in those. Finally briefly, it is interesting. I've got my copy of the Constitution
here. It is interesting. It's only basically two paragraphs part of Section 3.
I mean, this whole thing -- there maybe rules and there maybe procedures above it, but under the Article 1, Section 3, it's just two paragraphs?
[15:25:05]
BISKUPIC: You know that's right and that's why going forward, it's really the senators who will determine the rules. Now again, there is precedent
for how they conduct themselves. But all the U.S. Constitution says is that the Chief Justice shall preside when the President himself or herself is
has been impeached. And also though that the sole power of whether that individual is found guilty goes to the Senate.
QUEST: Donald Trump -- forgive me, Donald Trump is speaking. We need to hear him.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... pictures taken which I do with thousands of people, including people today that I didn't meet, but
I just met them.
I don't know him at all. I don't know what he's about. I don't know where he comes from. No nothing about him.
I can only tell you this thing is a big hoax. It's a big hoax. We call it - - this is the current hoax. We've gone through the Russian witch hunt. We've gone through a lot of them from, probably before I came down the
escalator.
But certainly, since I came down the escalator, you take a look at what's happened and it doesn't matter -- he is trying to probably make a deal --
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).
TRUMP: I don't even know who this man is, other than I guess he attended fundraisers. So I take a picture with him. I'm in a room, I take pictures
with people. I take thousands and thousands of pictures with people all the time, thousands during the course of the year.
And oftentimes I'll be taking a picture with somebody, I'll say, I wonder what newspaper that one's going to appear in.
No, I don't know him. Perhaps he's a fine man. Perhaps he's not. I know nothing about him. But I can tell you this --
QUESTION: ... taking pictures. He says that --
TRUMP: I don't know him. I don't believe I've ever spoken to him.
QUESTION: ... with Giuliani, and he said --
TRUMP: I don't believe I've ever spoken to him. I mean thousands of people.
QUESTION: ... President of Ukraine.
TRUMP: I meet thousands and thousands of people as President. I take thousands of pictures. And I do it openly and I do it gladly. And then if I
have a picture where I'm standing with somebody at a fundraiser, like I believe I saw a picture with this man, but I don't know him. I have never
had a conversation that I remember with him.
QUESTION: So when he --
TRUMP: You just have to take a look at the pictures. Quiet. You just have to take a look at the pictures. You just have to take a look at the polls.
You see -- I don't need anybody's help.
We're doing phenomenally well, the economy is the best it's ever been. We have never had an economy like this in history. We just made the two best
trade deals in the history of our country. We are doing well.
I don't need the help of a man that I never met before, other than perhaps taking a picture at a fundraiser or something if that's where we stand now.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) Davos and if you are, what's the message you want to --
TRUMP: I will probably be going to Davos. I've been invited. We have tremendous world leaders and we also have the great business leaders and we
want those business leaders all to come to the United States.
Some of the businesses left the United States because they were disgusted with what happened, and now they're all coming back. We are booming. Our
country is the hottest country anywhere in the world. There is nothing even close.
Every world leader sees me, they say what have you done? This is the most incredible thing that we've ever seen. I understand the stock market today
broke 29,000.
When I came in, it was a fraction of that. It was a number that frankly would have gone and it would have been cut in half, and if the other person
or the other party won, the number would have been cut in half.
We are doing so well. And I want to get more. We have tremendous room for growth in our country in terms of the economy. We have tremendous, powerful
room for growth. So I'm going to be going to Davos. I'll be meeting the biggest business leaders in the world, getting them to come here.
I'll also be meeting with foreign leaders, okay?
QUESTION: ... you talked about prayer and faith today. What's your message to the millions of Catholics in the United States? Why should they vote for
you in the upcoming election?
TRUMP: Well, I have a great relationship with Catholics. I've done so much for Catholics. You take a look at the abortion issue. You take a look many
of the issues, Mexico City. Take a look at so many of the different issues.
My relationship with Catholics and the Catholic Church has been very, very good, as you would know very well.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Rudy Giuliani wrote a letter to Zelensky requesting a private meeting and he said it was in his capacity as private
counsel to President Donald J. Trump. This was before the inauguration. Did you authorize him to write that letter? And what was your understanding of
what the meeting was supposed to be?
TRUMP: Well, I don't know anything about the letter. But certainly Rudy is one of the great crime fighters in the history of our country. He's
certainly probably the best over the last 50 years.
He was also the greatest mayor in the history of the City of New York. I think Rudy was truly an outstanding example. His endorsement of Bloomberg
got Bloomberg elected. He endorsed Bloomberg, but Rudy is the greatest crime fighter and Rudy is somebody that frankly, having him on my side was
a great honor for me and it has been a great honor for me.
Rudy Giuliani -- Rudy Giuliani did a phenomenal job over a long period of time in fighting crime.
[15:30:10]
END
