Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Chuck Schumer: We Will Force Vote On Witnesses And Documents; House Democrats Release New Evidence From Rudy Giuliani Associate; Chief Justice Roberts To Play Key Role In Impeachment Trial; Eight Senators To Watch During The Impeachment Trial; Source: Donald Trump "High-Profile" Team To Defend Him On T.V. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in U.S. and around the world to CNN Special Report: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

On this Sunday night in Washington D.C. an extraordinary extra hours meeting of the House members preparing to prosecute President Trump, his impeachment already in the history books and following the constitution he now gets a trial with 100 jurors that is the entire United States Senate.

Just moments ago the Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would try to force a vote on witnesses in this trial. CNN's Athena Jones, she is on Capitol Hill with these new developments. Explain what he means by that and crucially, does he have the votes to get witnesses in this trial, at least at this early stage?

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jim, well hat is the big question here. I mean, this we kind of saw this coming the Democrats. We've heard for weeks now they've been pushing the idea that in order to have a fair trial in the Senate, you have to have witnesses and you have to have documents. That is what Senator Schumer is talking about. Let's listen to what he had to say at that press conference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: We have the right to do it. We are going to do it. And we are going to do it at the beginning on Tuesday. If Leader McConnell doesn't call for these witnesses in his proposal, we're allowed to amend it and ask for them. I'm allowed to amend it. And then if they say, well, let's wait and hear the arguments, we'll want to vote after they hear the arguments as well and we'll do everything we can to force votes again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: So there you heard it there, he is going to try to force votes on this at the very opening stages of this process. This is likely to take place behind closed doors because, of course, the rules of the impeachment process means that Senators can't talk. They have to be silent. So this is likely to take place out of our view.

But the question he raised is the chief one here, does he have the votes? We already know the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said days ago that he has enough votes to pass this resolution pass these rules with just Republican support. We've also heard from a handful, a small number of Republican Senators.

Folks like Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski who say, they're open to hearing from witnesses, but even they say that they want to address that later in the trial, according to the so-called Clinton model after each side has made their opening arguments, the House Managers and Trump's defense team and after Senators have had a chance to question both sides.

So that is the question here, are those people who've already said yes I'm open to witnesses, and then that they're not going to vote for it before we get to that stage, will they have suddenly change their minds? Chuck Schumer is hoping so. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Right. So well maybe get a no at this, first of all, later, after the case is represented, you get a yes, but again a lot of stuff up in the air. Athena Jones thanks you very much. Let's take a closer look at the men and women who are going to be making the case on the President to the Senate. You have seven House Managers who can call Trump's - President Trump's conduct the framers' worst nightmare.

They're in the left hand side of your screen they'll face President Trump's hand-picked legal team on the right-hand side. As White House Counsel is in there as he is the man whose work led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment, Ken Starr, of course arguing the opposite point you now, as well as Harvard University Constitutional Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Most or all of the President's team chosen, we're told, with one key bit on their resume that is their experience working on television an important factor to this President. Alan Dershowitz was on CNN this morning, explaining how he sees himself in this historical trial. He says the part he will play is less about Donald Trump and in his words more about the constitution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM: I'm not involved in the day-to-day issues. I was asked by the President's defense team to become of Counsel on the specific issue of the criteria, the constitutional criteria for impeachment. That's a very important issue. I will be making that argument as an advocate, not as an expert witness. I will be advocating against impeachment of this President based on the constitutional criteria in the constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. Kaitlan let us get to Dershowitz in a moment. Important part of the President's defense but the White House has been responding to the Democrats' case here with the seven pages brief. What's the core at this point of the President's defense?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is their first forceful formal response. It kind of mirrors that letter that you saw back in the fall as the President was being impeached in the House, where they were saying that they were not going to cooperate with their request.

And they're making the same argument here, except they're specifically referencing these two articles of impeachment against the President, breaking them down, saying that they do not believe either is constitutional, and saying that they're believe they're defective and that they violate the constitution.

And on the second article of impeachment the obstruction of Congress they should know and I'm quoting them, the notion he obstructed Congress is absurd. Though of course that comes from Democrats saying they did not get the documents and witnesses that they wanted in that House impeachment. And they're hoping they're going to get that now as Athena was just laying out.

Though it is still an open question about those witnesses while allies are telling the President hey, if they do get the witnesses they want, John Bolton, those types, we are going to push for the Hunter Bidens, Joe Bidens, Adam Schiffs those witnesses that they've been saying they wanted all along.

Now what's notable about this response, we are getting from the White House and we are expecting to get a longer one by the deadline of that filing for tomorrow. They are not denying that the President tried to withhold the aid from Ukraine or that he withhold a White House meeting or that he demanded they open this investigation, announce this investigation into the Bidens.

[21:05:00]

COLLINS: What they're denying here Jim is that the President did anything that raises to the level of impeachment and saying flatly the President did nothing wrong. An argument you've heard them make multiple times. Now as far as Alan Dershowitz goes, it is still pretty interesting to hear him saying he is not part of this formal day-to- day part of the President's legal team.

Even though when the White House announced the President's team on Friday night, Alan Dershowitz's name was underneath that White House letterhead. And he is going to be arguing on the President's behalf. Maybe it's about the constitution and not necessarily about the details of the case here, he will be arguing on his behalf.

So we've talked to White House officials, about why is there this distancing you're seeing from Alan Dershowitz? They say they don't know, he is on the team and in the President's point of view. That's for sure.

SCIUTTO: Yes, qualifying his role interesting thing to do before delivering the defense. Kaitlan Collins at the White House thanks very much. Joining me now for more, team of experts Carrie, I want to begin with you, because at the center of the President's team's defense here is this idea that this impeachment is constitutionally invalid because it has not alleged a crime. That's what you hear from Dershowitz as well. Respond to that.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So the act of impeachment doesn't require a crime to have been committed. The President isn't going to be prosecuted for something. The only remedy to deal with an abuse of his office, and that's what the House Managers have laid out in their brief, that he abused his authority to provide defense assistance to a foreign country.

That is a core national security authority. They're alleging that he abused it. That doesn't have to be a violation of the criminal code in order for it to be impeachable.

SCIUTTO: In other words you don't need a statutory crime that's on the books but in effect the constitutional the framers gave Congress the ability to define what is impeachable behavior?

CORDERO: The Senators have the ability to determine what they think rises to the level of impeachment. There are not specific elements like we would normally think about in terms of elements of a crime and a criminal act. Instead the main reason that there is impeachment in the constitution is to deal with abuse of power. Otherwise, we would have no remedy for removing a President before the next election for abusing his office.

SCIUTTO: So David Gergen, put this in historical context, particularly going back to the most recent of course it is Andrew Johnson, 1868, Bill Clinton, 98-99. Richard Nixon was nearly impeached and that's the reason he resigned. The standard that has been set in the several decades for what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors specific to abuse of power?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, we know in the Clinton case, abuse of power was one of the articles against Bill Clinton. People agreed back there and the case was help up by Mitch McConnell as the model. There was an article of abuse of power against Clinton.

We know that they wrote that in to the Nixon deal. Pamela and I had an interesting conversation during the break about the rest of the impeachment there have been 15 impeachments at the federal level, right?

Three at the Presidential level, the rest among judges across federal judges now this is what the Senate has decided you can be impeached for among the judges two for intoxication on the bench. Arbitrary conduct trials, abuse of power, favoritism in appointment of bankruptcy either at least of these cases that did not require a crime to be judged by the Senate is that's a basis for you to--

SCIUTTO: So Pamela, your point to this is that if you look at precedent for where the Senate has not just tried judges, where they have the same power but actually remove them from office, but the President clearly is different.

PAMELA BROWN, CNNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. And it undercuts a central argument that we've heard from the President's attorneys in the answer that was released yesterday and what we've heard from Alan Dershowitz, that the articles of impeachment, particularly the abuse of power does not prove a violation of law by the President or criminal conduct, and therefore are constitutionally invalid.

Because as David pointed out, there are several examples of federal judges who have been impeached for noncriminal conduct such as intoxication on the bench. Now I did asked a source close to the President's legal team about this the thinking of this was? They said, well the President is different and so forth that past President's you know it has had to do with criminal conduct.

There isn't any distinction that I'm aware of between a President and judges as it pertains to impeachment. My view of this, though, is that the President's lawyers know that as much of this is legal, it's also a public messaging strategy as well.

SCIUTTO: Yes, that's right.

BROWN: And by getting this message out there, that there's no proof that the President committed a crime or there is no proof that he violated a law that they believe will resonate with the American public like in the Mueller investigation.

[21:10:00]

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER AND EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Well, I was just going to say to add to Pam's point, what's the big takeaway in the conservative base from Mueller investigation? No collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration. Now only one of those things is - the collusion piece, Mueller said, well, we can't see that. No obstruction?

There's, by my non-lawyer eye, a dozenish examples of potentially Donald Trump obstructing. Total exoneration, it literally says in the Mueller report, if we could exonerate Donald Trump, we would say so. But I do think Pam's point is so, so important. This is not about how the Senate views it.

This is not about how Chuck Schumer views the moves that either Mitch McConnell is making or Donald Trump is making. Donald Trump, from picking that legal team to every tweet that's going to come out, to Stephanie Grisham and what she says, it's all based on shaping the broader public opinion.

Because their bet is that people aren't going to follow every tiny little movement that happens over these coming weeks. And honestly Jim, depressingly they may well be right, that people won't follow it as closely as we do.

SCIUTTO: But at the end of the day, right Carrie, I mean historically and legally, it is by its design, a political process. CILLIZZA: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Is it not? The framers gave elected politicians the right to decide, in effect, if a President should be removed based on the behavior, whatever the alleged behavior is.

CORDERO: Well, it's a political process because the venue for the proceeding is Congress. We're not in the judicial system where there are certain standards and certain evidentiary standards, and Supreme Court precedent and all those types of things that would apply if we were in the judicial branch.

This is on the Congress side. And so it is a political process. That's why they can set what the rules are. Senators are going to be able to vote whether they have witnesses or whether not. It is really so much is up to how they want to shape this particular proceeding and whether or not they believe that the evidence presented meets the standard of impeachment. The Senators have a lot of flexibility here to make that historical procedure.

SCIUTTO: Essentially if you look at the history too because at the time you read about it, is that they considered putting it into the Supreme Court to decide. Decided not to, because they decided if you did that, then the court could make a decision after the President left office because they would have to in effect recues themselves well, put in the Senate there you go.

GERGEN: But they intentionally left it vague and left it up to the Senate of the future to define whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor. We've known that all along. I think it was part of the wisdom of the founders. They did try to prejudge everything. They couldn't. They left it up to the good sensibility of people who came along later about whether the behavior was so repulsive that that person should no longer be President.

SCIUTTO: That's why this argument about, you know, there is no statutory crime it really falls, if you look at the history of how they got there? Let's talk for moment, Pamela, about what Chuck Schumer, Ranking Democrat in the Senate, is saying here. He wants to force a vote on having witnesses and other new evidence right at the front of all this. How would that work? Is our best guess that he has those votes at this early stage?

BROWN: Well, Mitch McConnell has come out and said that he has votes for this resolution to move this until after both sides make their cases and so forth.

SCIUTTO: And McConnell is a pretty good vote counter.

BROWN: And McConnell is a pretty good vote counter - exactly he come out and says that.

CILLIZZA: Justice Kavanaugh proves that, yes.

BROWN: But you do have some Republicans, at least three we know of who have come out and signaled openness to hearing from witnesses. That doesn't mean they're going to vote with Chuck Schumer from the get go on Tuesday but perhaps when this is taken up later in the Senate trial.

But this has been one of the most contentious issues and you're really seeing Democrats ramp up their arguments. You heard him today on the Sunday show saying look, this is not a fair trial without witnesses. Now you have John Bolton, the Former National Security Adviser, coming out and saying he's willing to testify, you have Lev Parnas now the Giuliani Associate, who has been involved in the Ukraine situation. And so they make the argument that it is crucial to hear from witnesses.

SCIUTTO: And we heard that Nancy Pelosi, they've done some polling and this fair trial idea has some traction.

CILLIZZA: Sure.

SCIUTTO: It's a difficult political argument to make, is it not, particularly that there should be no witnesses in the trial, particularly for Senators who are on the bubble?

CILLIZZA: Yes. And what I would say to echo Pam, I think it's important to remember, if there is a vote that Chuck Schumer forces on witnesses on Tuesday, my strong guess is that they will not get the required vote. That does not mean we will never see witnesses.

Chuck Schumer believes, to your point, Jim, politically speaking, that saying look, we've learned all this information. There were three witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial. Why would we not? That by creating sorts of a paper records they will force a series of those votes because remember we always talk about Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, rightly so they're right in the middle there.

[21:15:00]

CILLIZZA: Mitt Romney, Cory Gardner in Colorado up for re-election. He's behind right now it is a state that Hillary Clinton won. Martha McSally, despite her conduct with Manu Raju, totally inappropriate, she's feeling stress of being in a state that's very close that she is running behind her opponent.

SCIUTTO: Lamar Alexander is retiring.

CILLIZZA: There is a group, its five to seven of them. The problem is, you would need 20 of them to remove Donald Trump if all 47, but its different when it comes to--

SCIUTTO: For witnesses you need four.

CILLIZZA: Exactly for a majority.

SCIUTTO: All right. Thank you all, stay with us much more to discuss. Today in other news House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff is claiming that intelligence officials now are withholding documents that could be relevant to the President's impeachment trial. I'm going to get reaction from the Former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe coming right up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Tonight the lead House Impeachment Managers as well as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff is raising several key concerns ahead of the impeachment trial. Here is one of them relating specifically to the intelligence community.

[21:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D-CA): The Intelligence Community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the Senators might want to see during the trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: With me now is the Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Andrew thanks for taking the time on a Sunday.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER ACTING FBI DIRECTOR: Sure.

SCIUTTO: A lot of your experience but also the role of the Intelligence Committee in terms of oversight of the intelligence agencies. Are there circumstances where the I.C. could reasonably withhold documents that the Chairman of the Intel Committee says is relevant to an investigation?

MCCABE: Jim, it's very hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the elements of the Intelligence Community would withhold documents from the Committee. If there were an ongoing sensitive operation, for operational reasons they wanted to may be delay turning things over, that's one possible scenario. Other than that, there's a very free exchange between the different elements of the community and the Intelligence Committee.

SCIUTTO: So this has happened as we learned about another case - I don't know if you say stonewalling but at least pulling back. Intel agencies and their directors typically testify in public around what's known as the global threats, worldwide threat assessment here. We're hearing they don't want to testify in public and that seems to be after last year and years before where they said things that contradict the President's own baseless claims.

MCCABE: Right.

SCIUTTO: So you have them withholding documents and you have them withholding public testimony that is part - again, the committee's oversight of those agencies. What are your concerns with that?

MCCABE: Very, very concerning decisions that we see coming from the Intelligence Community. I mean, look, nobody likes to testify publicly. I didn't enjoy doing it when I was in the FBI. You may recall I had to jump in and take over Jim Comey's testimonial responsibilities on this very same sort of hearing mere days after he was fired.

It's such an important presence for the FBI to have at that table that I felt like it was the right thing to do. They typically have a public hearing and then they have a private hearing behind closed doors in the skiff to cover the really sensitive stuff. But that public part of the hearing is important. People should understand what are the leaders of our intelligence entities think of the current threats we face?

SCIUTTO: I mean, I've watched those hearings and I've certainly learned a lot about them but you learn things about for instance the seriousness and say Russia's threat to interfere in another election, these are the issues that Americans have a right to know.

I want to ask you about evidence that's come to light since the House impeached the President and before the trial. Some of this is communications. This drew our attention, in particular. You have Devin Nunes, who is the Ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. His top aide communicating with Lev Parnas, of course a close associate of Rudy Giuliani now indicted.

Close associate who is described in interviews, include on this network saying that there was, an effective scheme to trade military assistance for investigating the Bidens. I'm just going to throw up one of the text messages here between Nunes' aide and Parnas. They're communicating here about let's do our call at 12:00. We can do the first prosecutor at 1:00 your time. They appear to be speaking to a former prosecutor in Ukraine who offered his help in this.

Tell us why Americans, people at home, or people watching this abroad should be concerned about this kind of communication between such senior American officials and members of Congress and someone like Lev Parnas.

MCCABE: Well, it's important when we think about Lev Parnas to look at the whole spectrum of issues that he presents. And certainly there are a lot of aspects of the story that he tells that are challenging in terms of his own credibility. He uses some vague generalities. He says everybody knew everything. Did the vice President know? Of course he knew.

He's not able to cite specifics of actually speaking to people in some of those exchanges. This is a very different situation. This is on that end of the spectrum for Lev Parnas in which he has actual real- time text messages with the other people he claims to have been dealing with, proving in essence that he was engaged in those dealings.

In this case, with Representative Nunes and staffer Derek Harvey, what we see is that there's a very senior staffer to the - Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee is deeply involved with Lev Parnas on a very familiar, very frequent basis, involved in the actual meetings that Parnas is taking and setting up in Ukraine to execute this scheme. So it puts the Representatives staffer and eventually the Representative himself in the execution of this scheme.

SCIUTTO: You know - we should note that the President's Personal Attorney, Rudy Giuliani, I mean, and he have been in touch with some fairly shady folks in Ukraine.

MCCABE: Absolutely.

[21:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Including folks who, one of them who has been providing information to him, training with the KGB. I just wondered based on your experience, are these kinds of relationships and communications that a country like Russia attempts to take advantage of, that information?

MCCABE: Of course, of course. To be able to have insight as to what the President or his close advisers are actually thinking and doing, and trying to execute on the ground in a place like Ukraine, where the Russia Intelligence Services operate in a completely unfettered manner, they do whatever they want in Ukraine on a daily basis. So, to be able to monitor, possibly surveil, and interact with this group of people conspiring in this scheme is - it is just a gold mine for them.

SCIUTTO: Andrew McCabe thanks very much.

MCCABE: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead this hour eight Senators who could make a critical impact on whether witnesses are called as well as new evidence. We're going to tell you who to watch? And a closer look at the man who will preside over the Senate trial what we can expect from the Chief Justice John Roberts?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Of course the lead up to President Trump's impeachment trial has been contentious to say the least with Democrats and Republicans accusing one and another of being biased but one person is obligated to remain in partial that is the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts who will preside over the Senate trial. CNN's Gloria Borger has more on the Chief Justice.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Jim, the phrase impartial justice is not new to John Roberts. And he may need to show Senators how it's done when he travels across the street to the Senate on Tuesday.

In this class photo of the men and women in black, one justice sits smiling front and center. But Chief Justice John Roberts will soon leave his natural habitat at the sedate Supreme Court and move to the political mine field of the Senate, as he presides over the trial of the President. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT BIOGRAPHER: When he's over at the Supreme Court, overseeing that body, he's actually a judge. He is casting votes. He's deciding cases. When he is at the Senate, he's not casting a vote for or against Donald Trump. He is presiding over a trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: The constitution itself is vague on his job description, saying only this. The Chief Justice shall preside.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ROBERTS, UNITED STATES CHIEF JUSTICE: And I'm now ready to take the oath.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: His one-time mentor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, took a hands-off approach to the job when he sat on the dais throughout Bill Clinton's impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Two decades later, Mitch McConnell makes it clear he would like Roberts to stick to the same script.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I would anticipate that the Chief Justice would not actually make any rulings. He would simply submit motions to the body and we would vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: That's probably just fine with Roberts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BISKUPIC: John Roberts is naturally reserved. John Roberts is very much concerned about appearances and the judiciary looking impartial. I cannot imagine John Roberts having any incentive to intervene in the business of the Senate in a way that would look like he was actually controlling the fate of Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Although he has pushed back at the President in the past, directing a public broadside against Trump after he publicly criticized judges as political. Roberts wrote, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: We do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. We do not caucus in separate rooms. We do not serve one party or one interest. We serve one nation.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Robert's pushed back against Trump was an example of what an artful politician Roberts is, because it showed him defending the judiciary, pretending in my view, that they are apolitical, but giving himself the political space to continue to be the conservative that he has always been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Roberts was thrust into the court's top role 14 years ago. Now at 64, he leads an ideologically divided court just as Donald Trump and a House Democratic Majority continually collide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED OLSEN, FORMER U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: It is like two glaciers crushing together and anybody that's caught in between those two glaciers or icebergs can be crushed. There's high stakes and lots of tension.

UNDENTIFIED FEMALE: And where does that leave John Roberts?

OLSEN: Well, right smack in the middle of things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Not just presiding over impeachment in the Senate but potentially deciding issues affecting the Presidency itself at the high court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSHUA MATZ, FORMER CLERK TO JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Every generation has a moment where the Supreme Court seems to stand on the edge of the --. Right now there are fundamental questions about the protection of individual liberty and about the basic structure of our government that are out for grabs in ways that we haven't seen in decades.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Roberts is a product of the Reagan Revolution, that cadre of young lawyers who served in Washington to change the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRED FIELDING FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, the tenor of the times was that there hadn't been a Republican President. There hadn't been an acceptance or an involvement of the conservative movement.

OLSEN: He was a special assistant to the Attorney General. Before that, he was Clerk to Justice Rehnquist and a very prominent court of appeals judge. So, he was in the judiciary then. Then he was in the White House, the Executive Branch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:35:00]

BORGER: When, at 27, he went to work for Ronald Reagan's Counsel, Fred Fielding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIELDING: When you're in the White House Counsel's Office, you have to put in your thinking an ingredient of the political impact and the social impact of something, not just the legalistic impact. And I hope that that was helpful to John in his developing his own philosophies.

TOOBIN: He was for limiting voting rights, for eliminating affirmative action. He was for restricting abortion rights. This was the Reagan agenda, and it was his agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Married with two children, the son of an Indiana Steel Executive and the product of a private high school and Harvard and Harvard Law, the young Roberts always figured he would be writing history instead of making it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What motivated me to go to law school is that there were not a lot of jobs for history teachers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Roberts had plenty of offers as a lawyer and became a federal judge, and then in 2005, George W. Bush catapulted him to the ultimate job at the age of 50.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: In public service and in private practice he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: Roberts was smooth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BORGER: In the past, Roberts has been a proponent of Presidential authority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOOBIN: Executive power, especially Vis-a-Vis the Congress, has been one of Roberts' core values.

ROBERTS: Will all Senators now stand?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: But in the Senate Chamber Roberts doesn't rule. Even so, he may be asked to. Especially because Democrats and Republicans are battling over witnesses, but the betting is that Roberts will turn those decisions over to a majority vote, as his mentor Rehnquist did when presiding over the Clinton impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: I underwent the sort of culture shock that naturally occurs when one moves from the very structured environment of the Supreme Court to what I shall call, for want of a better phrase, the more free form environment of the Senate.

ROBERTS: If I am confirmed--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: When justice nominee Roberts was asking for Senate votes for himself, it went very well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOOBIN: John Roberts was the last Justice whose appointment was almost apart from partisanship, that his qualifications were so great and his confirmation hearing testimony was so impressive that he got almost half the Democratic Senators to vote for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BORGER: But this time it's not about him. And those who know John Roberts say he will want to keep it that way. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Gloria Borger, thank you very much. Democrats will need four Republican Senators to break ranks if they want to get witnesses called in the Senate impeachment trial. We're going to break down whom to keep your eye on with that decision coming? That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:40:00]

SCIUTTO: The Senate impeachment trial will offer a fascinating opportunity to watch party politics play out if they could get just four GOP votes the Democrats could force a lot of procedural issues, but key ones, including the question of whether the Senate will hear from witnesses and view new evidence.

With that in mind, CNN Politics Reporter Chris Cillizza has compiled a list of eight Senators to watch, crucial ones. Chris, give us the details here, because of these eight, you would only need four to join Democrats.

CILLIZZA: That's right, Jim. These are the eight I think we're going to be keeping an eye on as we go through these weeks of the process. Let's start here. These are two Senators, one retiring, Lamar Alexander, long-time institutionalists, who was the Governor of Tennessee is retiring in 2020 doesn't have to worry about Trump.

Now Mitt Romney, not retiring but remember, he got elected in 2018, not up until 2024 and although Utah is a very conservative state. Donald Trump is not terribly popular there. So keep an eye on both of those, let's keep going.

Now the next one I believe, yes, these are reelection issues group. Cory Gardner up this November in a state Hillary Clinton won, he is running against John Hickenlooper the Former Governor who did not run although on the Democratic Presidential race but he is leading him.

Joni Ernst, Iowa, swing state. Democrats like their nominee or their likely nominee here Ernst won relatively easily last time but will be under some pressure to think of back home. Let's keep going.

Okay, these are the two faces that if you follow politics at all, these are the Republican moderates. Now, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, these two were the two we were waiting for on the Brett Kavanaugh the last huge Senate vote, Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, Murkowski voted against, Susan Collins voted for.

They are both on the record for saying that they're okay with the trial opening without witnesses but they are both on the record as well saying they don't want to rule out the possibility of witnesses that's why Murkowski yesterday talking to local news, talking about that very fact. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI, (R-AK): I care about the roles and responsibilities that we have, that were outlined in the constitution, and in making sure that we are doing right by them. And so I don't want this proceeding to be a circus. I don't want it to be viewed as a mockery or a kangaroo court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CILLIZZA: So, look, you can make what you want out of that. But Chuck Schumer probably likes to hear that, Jim, because it sounds like she's open to, at least, talking about some votes that might be with Democrats.

I want to finish on these last two. Martha McSally got a lot of attention last week for being just rude unnecessarily to our colleague, Manu Raju.

[21:45:00]

CILLIZZA: She is in a state where, unlike and like Cory Gardner up for reelection this November and like Cory Gardner is trailing her Democratic opponent. And I just want to throw this guy in here. Doug Jones, he is the only one who has got a "D" by his name. Represents a state in Alabama that Donald Trump won overwhelmingly he won a special election to replace Jeff Sessions he beat Roy Moore. He is up in November for a full term.

Let's see what he does. He could vote for - against impeachment and still lose against - and still lose. Let's see what he does here? But one Democrat - watch so seven Republicans one Democrat. I think we're going to be talking a lot about the faces I just showed you, Jim back to you.

SCIUTTO: Chris Cillizza, we'll be watching them. Thanks very much. Coming up next, President Trump, he says that the history - there's a long history - he has a long history with the legal system. We're talking lawsuits numbering in the thousands. What that can tell us about his potential strategy to fight impeachment?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Tonight a source close to the White House tells CNN that the President specifically sought a high profile legal team that can perform on television for his defense during the impeachment trial. CNN's Tom Foreman has more on the team, he is now assembled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Indeed the evidence suggests that the President repeatedly tried to thwart the legal process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOM FOREMAN: CNN CORRESPONDENT: When Ken Starr was building the impeachment case against Bill Clinton, saying the President had sexual relations with an intern and lied about it under oath, Donald Trump called the special prosecutor a freak and more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think Ken Starr is a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: But now Starr is on Trump's impeachment defense team. Joining Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz as the President's latest ready-for-TV legal heavyweights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT RAY, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: We shall be doing -- do our best to be thorough and fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Ray took over the Whitewater probe when Starr stepped down and seems ready to stand by him again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAY: Although there might not be at this point the votes to dismiss this outright, I think you can look for summary proceedings in the United States Senate without witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Dershowitz was part of the so-called dream team defended O.J. Simpson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: If you're honor didn't see, everybody else in the country saw.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: He represented Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst and for a time, the late accuse sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. He told the New Yorker he regrets that one. But he has also said a lot of other things.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: Black lives matter is endangering the fairness of our legal system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: His flair for grabbing headlines may be why a defense team spokesperson says Dershowitz will present the oral arguments against the impeachment charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're the kinds of broad, general, wage open ended criteria that can be with weaponized against virtually any President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: The defense team also includes Former Florida Attorney Pam Bondi, long-time Trump Lawyer Jane Raskin, and leading the effort White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and outside attorney Jay Sekulow. Yet even with all that legal fire power, a question remains.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the issues is, will the President follow legal advice?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Even as the President stacks up all this big name legal help, he keeps insisting, the case against him is incredibly weak and anybody can see it's a hoax. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

SCIUTTO: Back with us now, CNN's Legal Analyst, Carrie Cordero. Carrie, you look at that team. What do you make of his defense team and his strategy as a result?

CORDERO: Well, the team might be high profile but I wouldn't say that it's a first class team. The President really couldn't get the any of the constitutional, conservative super stars that you might think, the type that worked on the Bush-Gore case, so that type of caliber of lawyer and so what it really has a sort of a mishmash of lawyers.

Some people from the White House Counsel's Office who have been willing to work for him in that capacity, Pat Cipollone, Pam Bondi, somebody that he thinks performs well on TV and that he knows from Florida and then Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz who really are an odd couple in terms of a legal team.

SCIUTTO: Well, their role in the Clinton impeachment in effect on the other side and some of the comments coming back to - I mean, we even see Ken Starr on the story there. He accused President Clinton of trying to thwart the legal process throughout. And by the way, when Ken Starr was Independent Counsel, there were witnesses called in the Senate trial.

CORDERO: There were. And so I think on that point, on the obstruction which is the second article of impeachment, we're going to hear Ken Starr making the exact opposite arguments that he made before because this President has obstructed. He's not been able to - been willing to provide witnesses, not been willing to provide documents. Those are there exact opposite arguments that Ken Starr made before.

SCIUTTO: Is that on their defense? Is everything seen through such a partisan lens now that folks will be forgiven for saying what they said then against a Democratic President now in defense of a Republican President?

CORDERO: Well, I think in part so much of this legal team strategy or this impeachment team strategy really seems to be PR Public Relations. I think that's why we saw Alan Dershowitz on TV all weekend. A serious lawyer, a person who was approaching this historical proceeding with a seriousness of purpose would have been hunkered down preparing this weekend not on TV but they know that that's what their client wants that is what the President wants to say.

SCIUTTO: And in Dershowitz's case it's kind of going to walking away from his role to some degree or at least qualifying what his role is in it.

[21:55:00] SCIUTTO: Carrie Cordero, thanks very much for everything this evening. And thanks so much to you for joining us tonight. As the impeachment heads to the Senate, CNN has special coverage all day every day. Don't miss a moment from the Capitol. Watch complete coverage of the impeachment trial of President J. Trump, Donald J. Trump right here on CNN.