Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Impeachment Hearings Begin Today. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired November 13, 2019 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Been worked out for today.

Who has the advantage?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: You know, I think it's pretty equal, right? I think the advantage, in some ways, goes to the viewer, right, because you're not going to have a situation where either side can kind of hijack this hearing with hijinks, with, you know, sort of filibustering, as we've seen in other hearings like this.

I think if you're the Democrats, you're happy, a, that it's televised. You're happy that you're going to have lawyers directing the question so you can lay out a real narrative, right?

I think the key for Democrats is simplicity, right? Stay away from the sort of legalistic Latin arguments we've heard previously. Keep it simple. Simple language. A clear understanding of what they think happened and why it matters.

I think it benefits Democrats that they have witnesses here who are willing -- if you think about Bob Mueller, he was a reluctant witness, right, in some ways a hostel witness to Democrats and here you have people who want to come forward and tell their story.

So I think it's going to be a format that works really for both sides. I think Republicans have to make a decision, do they want to have the sort of filibustering questions that sometimes mark these hearings or are they trying to be essentially poke holes in what Democrats are going to try to lay out.

BLITZER: The pressure, Gloria Borger, is clearly on the Democrats right now to deliver because they were deeply disappointed at the Robert Mueller hearings didn't go exactly the way they anticipated.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that is true. I think there is a lot of pressure there. But I think what they're trying to do, as Nia says, is simplify the case and say that, here's the -- here's the conversation the president had with President Zelensky. These are unimpeachable witnesses we have from the State Department who were worried that policy towards Ukraine was being corrupted by Rudy Giuliani upon the direction of the president of the United States who wanted to dig up dirt on a political opponent. And they can read from that letter what Taylor and Kent will do as

emissaries from the State Department, will talk in great detail about how upset and concerned they were about what was happening to United States foreign policy. And they will explain what was really going on inside and how confused they were and how upset Ukrainians were at the very top that their aid and their meeting with the president was being held up because of the president's request to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

BLITZER: They have, the Democrats, a certain advantage. They spent hours in closed door depositions, sworn statements, from these two diplomats, Bill Taylor and George Kent, and so they basically know what they're going to say now before television cameras.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, of course. And I think that's an advantage. And I think these will be compelling witnesses. I think they'll be highly credible witnesses. I think efforts to tarnish their reputation will come up short.

But I do think there is an advantage for Republicans. We know how this ends. We know how it ended when it started. There's not a mystery here. This isn't a who done it or what happened.

Republicans are kind of going to try to do a number of things, which is they may regrettably go after the witnesses and their reputations, but they'll probably try to insulate the president. They'll try to argue a broader context about how Ukraine got support in the end anyway, and they'll make a case to muddy all of this in a sense to say, look, we're coming up on an election year. If you find this so offensive, then vote the guy out of office, but we shouldn't impeach him.

I think that's going to be really difficult for Democrats to deal with. And I'll be very interested to see how the public responds to all of this in live hearings to see if that sense of public opinion moves. I really don't know how it will go.

BORGER: You know, and they're -- they're going to say inappropriate but not impeachable.

GREGORY: Right. Right.

BORGER: And it will drive the president crazy.

HENDERSON: That's right.

BORGER: Because the president --

BLITZER: Because he says the conversation was perfect.

BORGER: Was perfect, right.

GREGORY: Right.

BORGER: So it will -- it will drive him crazy and so there are some who may decide that they're not going to say inappropriate anymore because they don't want to do that and they don't want to get the president upset.

But there -- they are a little boxed in about how they explain this phone call.

GREGORY: Right.

BORGER: One way they'll do is they'll say, well, you know, this was all about corruption, except for one thing, in the phone call the president never mentions the word corruption.

GREGORY: Right. And I think it's important for viewers watching this to know that everybody -- there's nobody who in Washington can say with a straight face that this was appropriate.

HENDERSON: Right.

GREGORY: This was really egregious conduct on the part of the president and others around him to conduct the call this way. Whether that's impeachable is a separate question. You can argue elements of this. But I think the battle lines are drawn and they are separate from whether this was a good idea.

BORGER: Right.

HENDERSON: But you look so far where public opinion is, Democrats have gone a long way in terms of moving the public to their side. It's essentially 50/50 in terms of whether or not people think the president should stay in office or should be impeached and removed from office.

[08:35:03]

Maybe about 15 percent to 20 percent still undecided, need more information, and I think this is where this hearing comes in, in terms of changing people's minds and giving them more information.

BLITZER: All right, everybody stick around. There's a lot more we need to assess. A lot more we need to discuss.

We're awaiting today's public, televised hearing to begin. Can Democrats make their case to the American people? And what will it mean for the president of the United States? We're going to ask two people who have been through the impeachment process before.

Much more of our special coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:31]

BLITZER: Even in extraordinary times, this is an extraordinary day. But for my next guest, the impeachment process is nothing new. John Dean is the former Nixon White House counsel. Julian Epstein was chief counsel for the House Judiciary Democrats during the Bill Clinton impeachment process.

Gentlemen, thanks to both of you for joining us.

Julian, why do you think the Democrats picked these two diplomats, career diplomats, Ambassador Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, to lead off these historic hearings?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: Because their credentials are impeccable and I think that they will make -- start to make the case that what you had here was -- in John's case you had a third rate bribery in the Watergate hearing. This was a third -- third rate burglary. This is kind of a third rate bribery case. And I think these two very, very well credentialed diplomats will be able to make the case that what this was, was essentially a solicitation of a bribe by the president of the United States.

BLITZER: What do you think?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Good points. They were willing to come forward. The foreign service is playing a very unique role here. They have the knowledge, they have the background, they certainly have the credentials and they're making powerful witnesses.

BLITZER: The argument that Republicans will make that both of these witnesses said they didn't have any direct contact, they didn't have conversations about any of this specifically with the president, only other officials.

DEAN: It's a good argument to a small degree. There are lots of -- there are more exceptions to the hearsay rule that are played every day in courtrooms and could play in an impeachment proceeding, where the fact that you don't have the direct conversation, but the circumstances create the validity of the testimony, it's just as strong as direct conversations.

BLITZER: What do you think?

EPSTEIN: Well, I think you'll continually hear that theme by Republicans. I think they'll continually push Democrats to show evidence of the president actually saying, I wanted this bribery scheme (ph) to go through. And I think that you'll hear that.

I think the other thing you'll hear from Republicans is the inherent power argument, that you may think that this effort was corrupt, but the president has the inherent power to go after corruption, in Ukraine or anywhere else, if he thinks there's corruption. And it's a subjective decision as to whether you think that's a corrupt or whether that's legitimate. So I think you'll hear the inherent argument as well -- the inherent power argument as well.

I don't think either of these arguments are very strong. But, you know, I think another important point to make here is when, you know, when John testified before the Senate in 1974, 80 million people tuned in. When you're going to see these hear this morning, I think you're likely to see maybe 10, 12 million people tune in.

It's a very, very indifferent environment. We don't have the public square that we had in 1974 and 1998. Everybody's constantly distracted on their cell phones. We live in a digital environment of self- reinforcing social media bubbles. It's a very, very different environment today. It's much harder to prosecute a case in the public square than it was in 1974, even 1998.

So I think what the Republicans are counting on is being able to say, well, the president has the inherent power and I think what they're also counting on is that people are too distracted so that you can't move public opinion from 50 percent, where it is right now, to 60 percent, 65 percent.

BLITZER: A big difference between then, during the Nixon impeachment process, and even the Bill Clinton impeachment process, and now is that at that time you had bipartisan support for this kind of inquiry to begin. Right now you don't have any bipartisan support. You just have Democrats. All of the Republicans voted against beginning this investigation.

DEAN: It was slow, Wolf. One of the odd reactions I had personally as a result of my testimony was people coming up to me after my testimony and saying, we enjoyed your show. And I didn't get what they were talking about. Didn't realize for a few years -- actually until Iran Contra it hit me that there's a theatrical aspect to this. That could well play today. These are very good players, if you will. And there is that aspect. And that makes a huge -- that's good for storytelling, good for understanding what's happening. And that's one of the aspects I think is going to surface today.

BLITZER: Because what he's suggesting is one thing to read hundreds of pages of testimony and depositions. It's another thing to see someone say it on television.

EPSTEIN: Sure. And, again, the question is, how many people are tuning in. I'm very curious to see the numbers.

BLITZER: There will be millions. There -- all the networks, people are going to be watching this.

EPSTEIN: Remember --

BLITZER: They're going to be streaming it. People will watch it on their iPhones. People will be watching.

[08:45:00]

EPSTEIN: Are we getting -- are we getting 10 million, 15 million, are we getting 30 million, are we getting 40 million? I think -- I think there is that question.

But I think, for sure, when you see credible diplomats that have served this country for decades coming before the Congress and saying, yes, this was a bribery scheme that the president was engaged in and he not only was engaged in the scheme, but he was trying to involve scores of administration officials from the State Department, the diplomatic corps of the White House. I think that begins to be a rather compelling case. BLITZER: I want you guys, both of you, to stand by as well, Julian

Epstein, John Dean.

We're going to have a lot more on all of this.

The first witnesses will arrive shortly up on Capitol Hill for the impeachment hearing. You're looking at live pictures coming in from Capitol Hill.

Up next, I'll speak to the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper. He has strong views on what we're about to see.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:06]

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Moments from now, Bill Taylor and George Kent, the two men at the center of today's impeachment hearing, they're expected to arrive up on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, "The Washington Post" is reporting that two Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both indicted, met with President Trump at an exclusive event back in April of 2018 and then pressured the president to fire the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Joining us now, the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Thanks so much, General Clapper, for joining us.

If that "Washington Post" is accurate, that these two individuals, both of whom are now facing criminal charges, encouraged the president to fire this longtime U.S. diplomat, what does it say to you?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, it obviously illustrates that the president's fixation on Ukraine is -- was longer than just the 25 July phone call. And that this, you know, plot is thicker and longer and that the effort that may have been the genesis of the move to eventually remove the ambassador. So this has been going on longer than had previously thought, if this is accurate.

BLITZER: If it's accurate.

The president, as you know, insists he doesn't know these two individuals at all. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know those gentlemen. Now, it's possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody.

I don't know them. I don't know about them. I don't know what they do. But, I don't know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You'd have to ask Rudy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: They were definitely Rudy Giuliani associates. And there were plenty of pictures, not just one or two, but a whole bunch of pictures. These two guys would show up at various events and have front row seats.

CLAPPER: Well, in fact, again, if the reporting is accurate, they had actually had a dinner together. So, I mean, this is the all too familiar pattern of, you know, when somebody gets hot, the president attempts to distance himself from any association with them. And, you know, we've seen this before.

BLITZER: You were the director of national intelligence. Is there any doubt at all that Russia interfered in the 2016 election because, as you know, some of the president's supporters, including the president himself, suggested that it wasn't really Russia, it was Ukraine.

CLAPPER: No, it was Russia. It was absolutely no contemporaneous information, intelligence of any sort indicating it was other than Russia. It wasn't the 400-pound guy in his bed in New Jersey, it wasn't China and now it wasn't Ukraine. It was Russia. And if you need proof of that, read volume one of Mueller.

BLITZER: Of his report, because he makes it clear, including the president's own current FBI director, Christopher Wray, director of national intelligence, they all agree the same thing.

CLAPPER: Right.

BLITZER: So why do you think they're -- you know, the president -- some of the president's allies are suggesting, you know, it was really Ukraine?

CLAPPER: Well, I think --

BLITZER: The goal was to help Hillary Clinton and hurt him.

CLAPPER: Well, it was not only the president's allies, it's the president himself, who from -- from the beginning --

BLITZER: That conspiracy theory is totally discredited.

CLAPPER: Been skeptical about, you know, pour cold water on the Russian interference because, of course, that casts doubt on the legitimacy of his election. He reacted that way when we briefed him in January of 2017 on our intelligence community assessment. But again, Wolf, it was Russia.

BLITZER: You know, and I think everybody agrees, except for a few people, it was Russia. But the Russian goal in this, and it's included in the intelligence assessments, was to sow political dissent in the United States. That was seen by Putin and his associates as something that would benefit Russia if there was a huge political debate here in the United States. So from their perspective, if that was their goal, mission accomplished.

CLAPPER: Oh, absolutely. And that was the initial goal was to sow doubt, discord and distrust in this country and to capitalize on our polarization and divisiveness. And, unfortunately, we are a very ripe target for them. And so from the Russian perspective, this is a huge win for them. And in Putin's mind, I believe, what this does is compensate for many other Russian weaknesses by weakening us, which they have succeeded in doing.

BLITZER: The whole notion of this political dissent in the United States, we're seeing it today, very partisan bickering over all sorts of issues, but a huge hearing about to take place. The Democrats on one side, the Republicans on another side. The Russians are looking at this and saying --

CLAPPER: Well, they're happy. I mean Putin's got to be very happy about this because, again, this is something he's been working at for a long time. Sow doubt, discord, and divisiveness in this country and to exploit it.

[08:55:02]

So, for him, this is a huge win.

And I noted with, you know, actually I was sad to see Foreign Minister Lavrov during an interview kind of joke about interfering in the 2020 election, which, again, they will do, as well as others, who will go to school on what the Russians did in 2016.

BLITZER: So they're sitting back -- in fact, I have that clip. Let me quickly play that clip of Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, joking about all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The presidential elections are coming up in 2020. So how is Russia getting ready for that?

SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: We'll resolve the problem, don't worry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He's having a good time at all of this.

CLAPPER: Well, this is not unlike the president himself, our president, joking with Putin about not interfering -- interference in the election in 2020. It's a joke.

BLITZER: Yes, when he was in Helsinki, he sided with the Russians, with Putin, as opposed to the U.S. intelligence community. I was there listening to that news conference -- that joint news conference.

General Clapper, thanks so much for coming in.

CLAPPER: Thanks for having me, Wolf. BLITZER: You're watching CNN's breaking news of the first televised impeachment hearing into President Donald Trump's tenure.

Our live coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:00]