Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Watchdog Says, Trump Administration Broke Law By Withholding Ukraine Aid. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 16, 2020 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I am Wolf Blitzer in Washington alongside Jake Tapper. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world for a truly historic moment in the presidency of Donald Trump and the United States Congress.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: For only the third time in American history, the Senate will sit for an impeachment trial of the president of the United States. Donald J. Trump now joins Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson as the only other ones to face the prospect of the 100 senators removing them from office. The other two were acquitted and finished out their term. Johnson, of course, didn't have 100 senators but I'm quibbling here.

BLITZER: But for President Trump, this is also a historic first. He is the first president who will run for re-election with impeachment attached to him. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, impeachment lasts forever, And that just adds another level to the drama in the U.S. Senate right now.

Today, we have seen the first formal steps in the Senate before the trial actually gets underway. We anticipate that will be next Tuesday. That was the reading last hour, listen to this, the reading last hour of the two articles of impeachment going forward.

TAPPER: The first was for abuse of power. The president is accused of using his office to apply pressure to another country, in this case, Ukraine, for political gains, specifically withholding aid and withholding an Oval Office meeting to force the announcement of an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

The Government Accountability Office ruling just two hours before that article was read that the Trump administration broke federal law by withholding that aid.

The second article of impeachment, of course, is for obstruction of Congress over the successful efforts by the White House to block witness after witness as well as the production of documents important to House investigators.

Our Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. The articles are now in the record of the Senate, Manu. What's next?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We expect in the next hour when more of a ceremonial step will take place. They will set the stage for the trial, substance of the trial to start moving next week.

Now, in the next hour starting at 2:00 P.M. Eastern, senators will come and escort the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. He's going to come and arrive in the Senate. He will take his own oath as he prepares to reside over the trial.

The senators themselves will take their own oath, prepare and vow to do impartial justice to the president of the United States. And after that, senators will sign a book. Each of them will sign a book essentially affirming that they have taken their oaths.

And then once that's all done and the summons will be sent to the president of the United States informing him that he's been impeached, informing him that he can come make his case, and that's what we expect, essentially, the end of the ceremonial steps and procedural steps, and then the senators will essentially leave town this afternoon as things go behind closed doors.

The House impeachment managers are preparing to work, including through the weekend, to try to prepare for their case next need. The president's defense team also has been preparing behind closed doors for weeks. We'll see exactly the contents and counters (ph) of his team who actually will be on that team making their arguments.

But Tuesday is the day in which the Senate will formally adopt the resolution, governing how the trial will play out. That will be a fight, of course, as Democrats have demanded witnesses upfront, it would be agreed to up front. Republicans have said, let's deal with the issue of witnesses later, but those arguments will be made by the Democrats, the opening arguments and the president's defense team, and then the key question about whether or not the senators will break ranks with the president and support bringing forward witnesses, included John Bolton, former national security adviser.

And whether they'll agree to bring and allow in new evidence to be presented in the trial if new evidence emerges is also something to watch. So a lot of after these ceremonial steps will take place a lot of unpredictability in the days ahead and the senators weigh whether or not remove the president from office and how long to keep this trial going. Guys?

TAPPER: And, Manu, there is a branch of government, independent, non- partisan, it's like a watchdog for the federal government is called the Government Accountability Office or GAO. We learned today that the GAO ruled that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding that aid to Ukraine. What more can you tell us about that?

RAJU: Yes, that is non-partisan, you're absolutely right. That's the investigative arm of Congress. They issued a legal opinion saying that the president's administration, in fact, did violate the Federal Impoundment Act of 1974. That law requires an administration to actually spend money that has been appropriated by Congress, and that's exactly what happened with that military aid that had been withheld by the Trump administration.

[13:05:03]

The administration delayed providing that aid. And at that he same time, the president, of course, we now know, asked for an investigation into his political rivals, Democrats contend that is all tied together. So that, of course, will be played out in this impeachment trial.

But what the Government Accountability Office made very clear, that withholding that aid violated federal law, and the question now is how the senators will take that question and whether they'll consider that in the trial in the days ahead. Not much comment from Republicans today on that, but Democrats say this is another clear violation of the abuse of power by the president as he delayed that military aid that was vital for Ukraine to fight back against Russia. Guys.

TAPPER: Manu Raju, thank you so much.

BLITZER: One possible game changer is new evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. In an interview with our own Anderson Cooper, Parnas laid out new information on when the pressure campaign on Ukraine started and how President Trump's quid pro quo demands evolved. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED RUDY GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: The first quid pro quo, again, was when we met with President Poroshenko. That was --

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Former president.

PARNAS: Former President Poroshenko.

COOPER: So what was your message to Poroshenko?

PARNAS: Poroshenko, that if he would make the announcement that he would get Trump to either invite him to the White House or make a statement for him but basically start supporting him for president.

COOPER: So that was the first quid pro quo. What was the next one?

PARNAS: You have to understand, because this was a transition time. Zelensky just won. He was president-elect. And the most -- the number one thing on their agenda was not even the transition, it was to get the inauguration because it was a big thing. He was a --

COOPER: To show the American backing of the new administration?

PARNAS: Of course, because he had no strength with Russia.

COOPER: You message is announce the Biden investigation?

PARNAS: Announce the Biden investigation, get rid of certain individuals that are enemies of the president in his administration.

COOPER: At that point, was there any mention of withholding of aid?

PARNAS: Yes. Well, if they didn't make the announcement, basically, there would be no relationship not just -- there was no specific military, there was no aid that was 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 would have no communications.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I want to bring out our CNN Political Correspondent, Sara Murray. Sara, these are truly explosive new allegations by Lev Parnas. Tell our viewers what else he said.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. They are certainly very interesting, Wolf. And one of the things the president and his allies have insisted from the beginning is that the reason they wanted these investigations was all to root out corruption. And if you listen to Lev Parnas, he has another explanation. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARNAS: He always made it clear that he doesn't represent them wherever we went. He said, I don't represent the government, I represent the president of the United States.

COOPER: So anything Rudy Giuliani wanted the government of Ukraine to do, that wasn't official U.S. policy, that was a personal benefit to the president of the United States?

PARNAS: Well, you know, when I was doing it, I thought it was all and the same. But, obviously, now, I can see what the situation, the way it is, I mean, it was strictly for him. But, again, I thought he was our leader, he's the chief, he's the president and it was all about 2020, to make sure he had another four years.

COOPER: But that's not how you personally viewed it. This is about 2020 to help him get the next four years?

PARNAS: That was the way everybody viewed it. I mean, that was the most important thing, was for him to stay on for another four years and keep the fight going. I mean, there was no other reason for doing it.

The only thing we cared about and we were the team was to get Zelensky or Poroshenko or somebody to make a press release and announcement into the Biden investigation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MURRAY: I think that was a particularly damning comment, that that's how everybody viewed this, this was all about 2020, and Lev Parnas certainly is willing to name names in his interview. He says a number of people knew what was going on. He named the president, of course, he named Rudy Giuliani, he named Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, that Lev Parnas says he's willing to testify. And certainly he has some credibility problems as a witness, but there are also plenty of other names on this list that have not testified in the House inquiry and had been asked to appear before the Senate who could shed light on what Lev Parnas is sharing. Back to you.

BLITZER: All right. Sara, thank you, Sara Murray reporting for us.

And you can see Anderson Cooper's full interview with Lev Parnas. It is truly, truly significant and explosive tonight, 8:00 P.M. Eastern on AC 360.

TAPPER: Well, we've got time to discuss. Let me start with you, Jeffrey Toobin. Let's go back a few minutes. The Government Accountability Office report, that's non-partisan watchdog arm, says the Trump administration broke the law by withholding that congressionally approved aid to Ukraine.

[13:10:01]

Explain that. What's the significance of that, what does it mean? Will it have a bearing now on the Senate impeachment trial?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, just in terms of what happened, I mean, this is really a bedrock principle of constitutional law, that the Congress passes laws and passes appropriations, which means spending bills, that say money shall be spent in the following ways in the following areas.

The president then has the choice of signing it or vetoing it. The president signed the appropriation that said, I believe it's $390 million goes for military aid to Ukraine. At that point, under the Constitution, the president has no choice but to spend that money. That is a law like any other law.

But what the president did here is he put that money on hold. He said, I'm not spending that money unless I get what I want from the Ukrainians. And, according to Lev Parnas and according to all the evidence that was produced in the House of Representatives, what he wanted was the announcement of an investigation of the Biden family.

And what the General Accountability Office said today was by withholding that money, by not spending that money, that is a violation of a law called the Impoundment Act but is basically a violation of the Constitution. Because once a law is passed and signed by the president, the president has no choice but to follow the law, and that includes spending the money that is part of that law, so that's why this is really a very serious matter.

What impact it will have is a political question much more than a legal question, and I think it's less likely to have a big impact politically because the lines are drawn so clearly already.

TAPPER: Fascinating. Thanks so much. There's one other thing I want to talk about before we get to Lev Parnas, and that is a lot of senators, obviously those especially from swing districts, swing states, rather, who are up for re-election, feeling pressured, feeling the pressure of whether or not they are going to vote to allow witnesses, feeling the pressure of whether or not they are truly going to sit and listen to the testimony and try and make an objective decision based on it.

One of those senators, she was appointed to fill out the remainder of Senator John McCain's term in the Senate, the late Senator John McCain, Martha McSally. She's a Republican senator from Arizona. Manu Raju, trying to get just a basic answer to a simple question about whether or not she would be in favor of new evidence and witnesses. She fired back, attacked him, called him a liberal hack, called him names.

Gloria, I'm sure you have seen the exchange by now. It has now, by the way, been re-tweeted by the Trump war room saying that this is the only way to deal with fake news, CNN. I mean, it's obviously indecent and based on the desire to not have accountability or reporters asking basic, simple questions. What was your reaction?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, my reaction was that her behavior was disgraceful towards a reporter who was just asking a real question, which is, how do you feel about having witnesses. I mean, this is a key question that it needs to be decided.

I think Manu Raju, as always, a colleague of ours, is respectful. I'm sure there are senators who don't love being staked out in the hallways of the United States Congress, being asked questions that perhaps they did not want to answer. And she could have said, I'm sorry, I'm not ready to answer this question, or I don't want to talk about it, or whatever. But instead she lashed out at him.

And I think this is an indication not only the pressure she may be under but the pressure that all these senators are under right now, particularly as more and more information keeps coming at them with mock speed, it seems. I mean, just this GAO decision this morning is another layer of the onion that suddenly they have to kind of peel and say, okay, well, how do we interpret this? What do we do? Lots of them are saying, pay no attention to it, we disagree with it. I recall that two people from the OMB actually resigned over this decision.

So, you know, it gives you an indication of the stress that people are under, but it is no excuse for treating a member of the state that way.

BLITZER: I was going to say to Dana because she covered the Hill a lot, especially as someone as respectable as Manu, a solid professional, does his job, asks fair questions, is always nice to all the members that he sees in the halls and they're very available.

TAPPER: Senator David Perdue just answered the question.

BLITZER: Yes, everybody is walking -- DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's call it what it is. It was a stunt. Martha McSally saw it -- whether it was just her instinct to say you're a liberal hack.

[13:15:03]

But the fact that they tweeted it out in her campaign that somebody in the Trump campaign thought, this is great stuff, we'll re-tweet that, it was a stunt and it was -- and it really isn't right. Obviously, Manu is an incredibly objective reporter. Republicans will tell you that as much as Democrats will tell you that. But that is almost besides the point.

What this is is another example of Republicans just lashing out at the institution of the media and hurting the institution, even especially at a time we are going through as a country, something that is a last resort and something like impeachment, where there are witnesses. And she took the oath, whether she was elected or not, she's going to have to answer questions, whether it's from a reporter or when she --

TAPPER: Abby Phillip, I want to get your position on this, because I think there is significance in this, whether McSally just had a bad moment. She then doubled down by tweeting it out, and then the Trump war room tweeted out attacking CNN. And, again, there was nothing liberal about this question.

David Perdue, a Republican senator who is a strong Trump ally, just answered it, do you think there should be more witnesses or not. But I think that this is -- I think it's almost like a warning chant that Republicans and the Trump administration and the whole MAGA universe is just going to be trying to weaponize what President Trump has created, which is this groundswell of media hatred and a desire to not have any credibility.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I do not think this was a bad moment in a sense that she wasn't having a bad day. This was Martha McSally understanding what is required of her if she is living in the world in which she is a member of Trump's Republican Party. This is sort of attacks in Trump world. You have to show your allegiance to the president by doing what he would do in that moment, which is not entertaining the question, not even entertaining the subject matter, but simply saying, you are fake news, go away, I'm not going to talk to you.

That's what's required of Republicans like her who, at some point, have to run again under Donald Trump's protection, and you can't do that without the president really being fully behind you. And I think in this moment, what we're probably seeing from Martha McSally is a groundswell of support from the president's allies, a groundswell of donations, and it's also a warning shot to other Republicans who might be up for re-election who are looking down the road that there are two choices here. You either do the Trump strategy or you take another route and you risk being out in Siberia all alone with no support, whatsoever.

TAPPER: And, Sophia Nelson, I want to get your take on this because you're a former House Republican Counsel for the Investigations Committee. What do you make of this?

SOPHIA NELSON, FORMER HOUSE GOP INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: Well, I agree with everyone here. I mean, I think it's Macbeth, we think the lady doth protest too much, right? She's -- it's a stunt. I agree with you. But I think more importantly, if you take Susan Collins and you take Martha McSally, they have very different realities they're living in right now. Susan Collins going back to Maine does not have the same electorate that Martha McSally has in Arizona.

And so you're right about this allegiance to Trump, but I think it's going to be harder for those moderate Republican senators to walk that same line, because they're not going to get re-elected. The people in their states aren't beholden to Trump in the same way. So I think that the risk for the Republicans with this type of attacking the media strategy is that the public is absolutely tuned into this and watching, it's historic. And I think they run a real risk here when you attack on something basic like, do you think there ought to be witnesses, people start looking at you like, what is she so angry about? Why is she attacking him on a very simple question? It begs the question (ph).

BLITZER: And she should do the right thing, she should call up Manu Raju, apologize to Manu Raju, I misspoke, I'm sorry I did that and then whatever she says. And then she should issue a public statement to apologize.

TAPPER: That's so sweet. I wish I lived in that world.

BLITZER: That's the right thing to do.

BORGER: She made up her mind. She knows what side she's on.

NELSON: Yes, she's not an impartial juror.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No. I think, look, her state is changing by the second. It is one of the fastest changing demographic states in the country, and so she is taking a risk here.

But, again, we talked about this a little bit earlier. The Republicans are roughly evenly divided. You can go state by state and find the polls moving in different ways. But if you look nationally, Republicans are roughly evenly divided.

If the Republicans are evenly divided and you are on the ballot, you need your base, first and foremost. You can't get anywhere without. She has decide, I am not going to risk, to Abby's point, the wrath of this president. That was not an accident. She knows, all of them know, they've all been in their private Tuesday lunch, has been told by Majority Leader McConnell and others, you're going to get asked these questions. His advice has been, bring your lunch and sit at your desk if you don't want to answer these questions.

She could have easily said, good morning, I won't answer your question, she could have said nothing at all and just walked away.

[13:20:00] She could have said, we're going to have a trial. I'll make that decision when I have to. I want to hear evidence first. There are thousand different ways to respond. She chose that one because she has made her choice. That's telling as we go forward.

Quickly, on the other question, the broader question of accountability. If you read the GAO report, it says the State Department and OMB failed to respond to their request for information to explain. Where have we heard that before, right? That's part of the obstruction case against the president in the impeachment articles. An agency of government, a watchdog agency says, can you please explain this to us? The Trump administration says, go away.

In recent days, we are told they have canceled three or four classified briefings on the situation in Iran telling, branches of government, go away. We can go through this time and time again. When was the last time there was a White House briefing? I think I was a teenager. That's a slight exaggeration. It's been more than 300 days since the White House has stepped forward and been willing to take questions.

This administration, beyond impeachment, has decided, we'll do things our way and we will not respect any of the norms of a representative democracy to answer questions of the legislative branch. They fight the judicial branch quite a bit. And they tell the news media. And when they tell the news media, go away, they are telling you at home to go away. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, when they say, we will not answer your questions, that's not just about us, it's about you.

TAPPER: I just want to read a statement from CNN, apologies for bringing my glasses (ph), a CNN spokesperson announcing about that exchange between Manu Raju behaving professionally and Senator McSally. Quote, it is extremely unbecoming for a U.S. senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job. Unbecoming is --

BORGER: It's a nice word.

TAPPER: At the very least, that's what it was.

BORGER: For these senators, it has become -- to a follow-up on John, it's become kind of an existential question here, which is, you're either with us or you're gone. And you can approach it differently. Martha McSally behaving disgracefully with Manu or Susan Collins, who walks a fine line in the State of Maine, when Lev Parnas' information and documents came out, she said, well, I wonder why the House didn't have it sooner, why we didn't get it sooner. Well, the reason they didn't get it sooner is they were trying, and as soon as they got it, they released it. But she's approaching it in a different way, still walking that line, and McSally, however, doesn't have to be nuanced, let's put it that way.

BLITZER: Before we take a quick break, why do you have to apologize for putting on your glasses? I have to apologize for --

BASH: Just wait until he grows a beard. They're now going to be singing a different tune.

BLITZER: Everybody stand by. There is a lot more news we're following right now.

Lev Parnas also accusing other Trump officials by name of knowing about that scheme.

Also, Ukraine announces an investigation into the possible surveillance of an ousted American diplomat, but the State Department completely silent. This is CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:00]

TAPPER: In under an hour, we should see President Trump for the first time today. He will be participating in the announcement of the guidance of constitutional prayer in public schools. That's what they're calling it. But there is a big chance, of course, that he'll take the opportunity to discuss the latest developments in the Ukraine pressure campaign, the Ukraine scandal.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. Kaitlan, what are you hearing?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the question is going to be what does the president say now today given these accusations that Lev Parnas has made against him. We know the president has been distancing himself from Lev Parnas and his indicted associate ever since October when they were first indicted. But the question is now, because given those interviews that he gave last night where he accusing the president of knowing everything about this pressure campaign on the Ukrainians to announce these investigations.

And it's not just the president. Listen to what he said to Anderson Cooper last night, not just talking about the president's role in all of this but also of his top aides and what they knew about what he was doing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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 quid pro quo.

PARNAS: Look, again, like I said, I'm not here to debate, I'm here to get the truth out. I got my records.

COOPER: How do you know that the vice president would have known what Giuliani was up to? PARNAS: Because we would speak every day. I knew everything that was going on. I mean, after Rudy would speak with the president or come from the White House, I was the first person he briefed. I mean, we had a relationship.

COOPER: So Giuliani knew everything you were doing.

PARNAS: Everything.

COOPER: You're saying Vice President Pence knew.

PARNAS: I don't know if the vice president knew everything we were doing. I'm sure he was --

COOPER: But he knew of the quid pro quo.

PARNAS: Of course, he knew. Everybody knew it. Everybody that was close to Trump knew that this was a thorn in the side and this was a serious situation.

COOPER: Bolton?

PARNAS: Bolton.

COOPER: Mulvaney?

PARNAS: Mulvaney.

Bolton, I don't think, agreed with it. I think there were certain people that agreed with it and didn't agree with it.

COOPER: He called it a drug deal, according to Fiona Hill.

PARNAS: I think Bolton is a very important witness. Because, I think, between me and Bolton, we could fill in all the dots, I think, because I was on the ground there and he was over here.

COOPER: And you would be willing to testify?

PARNAS: I would be very willing to testify.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Now, Jake, he's certainly right there when he says that John Bolton was not on board with this. That was actually a big point of contingent between the president and John Bolton near the end of his time as national security adviser.

[13:30:02]

Separately, we should not the vice president's office has denied what Lev Parnas said they are talking the vice president being aware of this.