Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Schumer: McConnell Wants to Cover Up for Trump; Democrats Push for Witnesses & Documents During Senate Trial; Democrats Demand Pat Cipollone Hand Over Firsthand Information; Constitutional Law Professor, Laurence Tribe, Discusses Impeachment, Democrats' Demands for Witnesses & Documents; Former Congressman & House Manager in Clinton Impeachment, Chris Cannon, Discusses His Warning to Democrats. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired January 21, 2020 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Schumer and the Democrats will lose round one. That's pretty clear. Their challenge is, make your case.

One of the delicate parts of that challenge, don't over-make your case, in the sense that part of McConnell's gamble here is this becomes very political, hyperpolitical out of the block, and people go it their corners.

And that even Collins, even Mitt Romney, potentially Lamar Alexander, who might be open. Saying you're open to witnesses doesn't mean you're committed to witnesses. So you need to read the Republican statements carefully.

But McConnell's -- part of his plan is if everyone goes off into his corner, it is easy to say we can't give them anything and keep the Republicans as Republicans.

The Democrats want to make their point at the beginning, you understand that, especially if you side with them in the case, but they have to be careful about this.

And then this comes down to how good are the House impeachment managers? How good are they at making the case as lawyers, as politicians, as advocates, we need the witnesses?

One opening, potentially, is in the president's legal response, where they again make the case that the Democrats have no fist-hand witnesses to some of these issues.

The Democrats can hold up the president's trial brief and say there's reason we don't have these witnesses. We don't have Mr. Bolton, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Blair and Mr. Duffey, from the Office of Management and Budget, because the president wouldn't give them to us.

So can they, using the president's brief, make a strong argument for at least the documents? The e-mails from these witnesses? And the testimony? This is going to come down to good lawyers on the floor of the Senate.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: This is why I was surprised when we -- I interviewed Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-Independent, last week. And I was surprised he had not been approached by House Democratic leaders to become a House impeachment manager. Because who would be better at delivering the argument to Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, that than one of their own --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.

TAPPER: -- as it were, an Independent Republican?

KING: Except politics is so strong here. Nancy Pelosi wants control. Doesn't trust him. He's not one of hers. Mitch McConnell wants control. We'll watch this play out.

You make an excellent point in an open -- if you have an open-minded conversation. But are we?

BORGER: There's a new strategy, though, that I think they had to cobble together this morning. And you hear it from Schiff and from Schumer, which is, yes, they're talking about witnesses, they're talking about documents now. This is issue number one. The hurdle they have to cross.

And, you know, we had Schiff say the first step ought to be the production of documents. Then you had Schumer say we -- you know, documents are more important than witnesses. Effectively.

So they believe, I think, they can make a case to the folks you're talking about, that's it is easier, it's easier to break these Republicans up when you're talking about documents. How can you not allow these documents to come over to the Senate?

And so that's what you heard from Schumer and Schiff. And it is going to be on the floor today. And maybe they figure they have a little bit of a shot at it.

TAPPER: And they want it to be why are you voting for a cover-up.

BORGER: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: That's how Democrats are casting it.

Still ahead, we'll talk to a Republican, who served as a House impeachment manager for Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, what he thinks about the way his party is running the show now.

Plus --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Plus this. A breakdown of the argument that President Trump's defense team plans to make. Our legal experts, they're standing by, they will weigh in on whether it will actually hold up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:37:36]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The question before the Senate is, do the Republican Senators want to be complicit in the cover-up of the president. Any Senator who votes to deny a witness, who votes to deny evidence, is voting to cover-up the president's crimes and subversion of the Constitution. There's no other way about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: House impeachment manager, Jerry Nadler, there moments ago. Democrats demand to hear from several key witnesses in the impeachment trial and get documents. As importantly or perhaps more importantly, witnesses that could have relevant firsthand accounts of the central issues in the case. The documents would be direct evidence.

I want to bring in CNN's Sara Murray.

Sara, who are the witnesses that Democrats are fighting so hard to hear from, obviously, besides Bolton?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: John Bolton is on the top of that list. He recently said he would be willing to testify before the Senate. And he obviously knows the president's thinking when it comes to Ukraine.

And he is vocal with his colleagues, we learn from witness testimony, about believing that there was a drug deal being cooked up when it came to Ukraine.

One of the people he said was involved in that drug deal, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney knows also the president's thinking on Ukraine. Bolton implicated him in this. And he had that press briefing where he said this was a quid pro quo and everyone needs to get over this.

Now, there's also an interesting e-mail exchange the "New York Times" reported on between Mick Mulvaney and Robert Blair, another witness that the Democrats want to hear from. Blair is one of Mick Mulvaney's top advisers.

And when Mulvaney e-mailed him in June and said, essentially, can we hold off on this aid to Ukraine, Robert Blair said we could, but you should expect for Congress to become unhinged, which is, of course, what happened after all of this.

Now, the man who was supposed to carry this all out was Michael Duffey, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. He was the one who sent an e-mail to the Pentagon 90 minutes after President Trump got off the phone with the Ukrainian president and said to hold off on the aid. He also sent follow-up e-mails to Pentagon officials on August 30th, saying this direction is coming directly from the president.

Back to you.

COOPER: Sara Murray, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Democrats are also making new demands on a top White House official. A short time ago, House impeachment managers sent a letter to the president's defense team demanding that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone turn over any information of which he has firsthand knowledge. The House managers also accused Cipollone of being a material witness in the case against the president.

[11:40:06]

Joining me now, one of the top constitutional law professors in the country, also advised House Democrats on their articles of impeachment, Laurence Tribe. He co-authored the book "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment."

Professor Tribe, thank you for being here.

I want to get your take on this latest news that, can House managers compel Cipollone to turn over relevant documents and by pulling on the material witness, could they also try to have him testify? Why are they doing that?

LAURENCE TRIBE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, they're doing it because the law demands it and because Cipollone is conflicted. He could lose his law license if he, while being a material witness, is also the chief counsel. It is a very straightforward thing.

And when you ask, can they compel, it is not clear how the compulsion would become effective. They might go to court to seek an order. But they're not going to go along with the idea of slowing down the trial, just because Cipollone is part of the cover-up. And he certainly is.

What is really going on here, Anderson, is just astonishing. This is not just the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump. It is the impeachment trial of the United States Senate. These Senators are on trial.

Someone like Susan Collins, who came out with a totally phony compromise about, you know, hearing some of the witnesses, later on, maybe, she should be ashamed of herself. All of these Senators have taken an oath to do impartial justice. And they have got to live up to that oath.

And if they do not, there's nothing much we citizens can do about it except vote them out of office. But history will judge them harshly because they are on trial.

COOPER: You really believe that all Republicans in the Senate, who vote to -- who don't allow witnesses, who continue to go forward as they have, that they are part of the cover-up? TRIBE: Yes, unless they have some reason that I can't fathom. What

could be the reason not to want to hear the firsthand witnesses like John Bolton after complaining endlessly that's what they want to hear? What could be the reason for not wanting to hear Robert Blair or Mulvaney?

You know, if they can exonerate the president, great. If they would incriminate the president, then we have a duty to hear them.

But there can be no possible reason, even this business of going into the, you know, into the wee hours of the morning, with Midnight Mitch in command, that doesn't make sense.

The old Senate rule about starting at 1:00 p.m., something that people have taken for granted, no reason for it. The chief justice is free all morning, apart from welcoming on opinions, which it can do at any time, except when the court is in session. And after tomorrow, the court is not in session. Any of the mornings until February 24th. We shouldn't take all that stuff for granted.

And the new rules that he's laid on, you know, the record can't be introduced from the House unless there's another vote, we're not going to decide on witnesses until the trial is over, it is like "Alice in Wonderland," verdict first, trial next. It doesn't make sense.

The American people are smart enough to know it. That's why 70 percent of them want to hear witnesses and want the evidence. It is a symptom of the dysfunction of our United States Senate that what 70 percent of the people want, Mitch McConnell couldn't care less about.

(CROSSTALK)

TRIBE: That bothers me. It should bother your viewers.

COOPER: Professor Tribe, you know that Republicans will say, well, look, the time for, you know, getting these witnesses, the time for getting the documents, that was what the House part of this was for. And they could have gone through the courts. This is the trial phase now, discovery is over.

TRIBE: Well, it is hard to know where to start with how salacious that is. This is the trial. When you have what amounts to a grand jury, there are some limits on what it can do, especially when it meets a complete stone wall.

We issued a subpoena to guys like Mulvaney. We asked whether Bolton would testify. The president, through Mr. Cipollone, who as I say, is conflicted because he's a material witness, issued a letter in October, early October, saying no cooperation, we don't care whether there's an executive privilege or not, we're simply going to require you to go through the courts with every single witness and that might take forever.

That's not the way the system works. The House of Representatives is not in joint business with the courts to see how long things can be dragged out. It has the sole power of impeachment. No president has ever defied that power the way this president has.

[11:45:02]

COOPER: I want to just get your thoughts on exchange that Jeff Toobin and I had one of the lawyers on President Trump's legal team, Alan Dershowitz, a colleague of yours at Harvard. I want to play that for our viewers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Previously, you said it doesn't have to be a crime, if the guy -- if the person in office completely corrupts the office of the president and who abuses trust imposes a great danger to our liberty, that is impeachable. Now you're saying criminal-like. So corrupting the office of the president, is that in your criminal-like or criminal-like behavior?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it's not. And that was rejected by the --

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: That was rejected by --

COOPER: So you were wrong. You're saying you were wrong back then?

DERSHOWITZ: I was saying I'm much more correct right now, having done much more research

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: -- because that's the issue -- let me explain. Please don't shut me off. You have two against one here. Let me make my point.

COOPER: No. I'm not on anyone's side.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I'm trying to listen rationally to what you're saying.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, listen. Maybe you'll understand if you listen. I didn't do research back then. I relied on what --

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: Please let me finish.

That issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment. Everybody knew he was charged with a crime. The issue is whether it was a hard crime.

Now issue is whether a crime or criminal act or behavior is required. I've done all the research.

(CROSSTALK) DERSHOWITZ: And, 22 years ago --

COOPER: Got it.

DERSHOWITZ: I didn't do the research back then

COOPER: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: -- because that wasn't an issue. I've done the research now. I wasn't wrong. I am just far more correct now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I didn't go to Harvard School. I didn't go to any law school. First of all, can you be right -- can you be wrong back then or just more correct now and criminal-like behavior? Doesn't seem like there say whole lot --

(CROSSTALK)

TRIBE: Anderson --

COOPER: -- jives with this new one.

TRIBE: Anderson, you don't need to go to law school to know what nonsense that is.

What is criminal-like behavior? If the president decides, you know, it would be good for my relationships with Vladimir Putin if I gave him back Alaska, not criminal-like, but surely impeachable. Alan, in his book says, no, not impeachable. He's really gone off the deep end.

And it is a clever strategy on the president's part because it makes a really great bumper sticker, no crime, in foul, no crime, no impeachment.

But anybody who thinks about it or knows anything about American history realizes that all impeachments are about abuse of power. If there's no abuse of power, of the kind that only the president can commit, then impeachment doesn't fit.

I remember from Alan's early history, something about, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Well, I think here the whole impeachment power fits perfectly to abuse of power. That's what it is for. That's what Hamilton and Madison and all of our framers said it was for.

Only the president can do certain terrible things, like use our foreign aid as a lever to extort money from an ally to benefit, an adversary like Vladimir Putin. That may not be a crime. In this case, crimes like extortion and bribery and violating the foreign campaign laws, all of that was committed.

But it is not the criminal-like nature of it all that counts. It is that the president is using the office that we entrusted him with, we, the people, in order to benefit himself and get himself re-elected. He's cheating in the next election. That is the case the Democrats are presenting.

And if my former colleague can't understand it, maybe he needs to go back to law school. But I don't think you need to, Anderson. It is pretty obvious.

COOPER: Professor Tribe, that was very professor-like of you. Thank you.

Larry Tribe, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

TRIBE: Thanks.

[11:48:51]

COOPER: Coming up next, one of the Republicans who served as a House manager in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton joins us live. Why he warned Democrats not to take the job this time around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:53:56]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CANNON, (R), FORMER CONGRESSMAN: I would implore you, Senators, both Republican and Democrat, to set aside partisanship, politics, polls and personalities.

Senators, we, as Americans and legislators, have never supported a legal system that has one set of laws for the ruler and another for the ruled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: A little flashback there, back to 1999, during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. That was then-Congressman Chris Cannon, one of 13 Republican House impeachment managers, who prosecuted the case against President Clinton.

TAPPER: In an interview last month, former Congressman Cannon predicted a, quote, "miserable experience" for the House impeachment managers in this trial.

Former Congressman Cannon joins us now live.

First of all, Congressman, thank you for joining us.

What's going through the heads of the House impeachment managers this morning?

CANNON: I don't know, but I suspect there's a lot of -- a little anxiety, a lot of concern, recognition that much of the next two weeks in American public life is going to focus on what they say and how they say it. And, you know, back in the day, 21 years ago, President Clinton had

some remarkable lawyers working for him.

And it takes really two things to be a great lawyer under these circumstances.

[11:55:10]

One, you have to deal with the law. Your colleagues and peers in the legal profession need to say, that was a legally well-founded argument. But it also has this overlay of politics. And so you have to present these complicated legal positions in a way that appeals to people.

Years ago, those people representing the president did really quite a good job. They did great work.

But I think the House managers had a much more difficult time because of the nature of the way the presentation went forward. And certainly, these House managers have a similar problem.

So the legal team the president has put together is interesting. It is interesting. Dershowitz is, I think, remarkably aggressive. And he's also a good lawyer, and assertive. I sort of wonder about Ken Starr, what his role would be.

Jay Sekulow is really quite a good lawyer. And he's also very sensitive politically. I think he sort of came out of a political background more than a pure legal background.

So it will be interesting to see that interplay between some really great minds.

TAPPER: Ken Starr, of course, making the complete opposite arguments today when it comes to some of the issues than he made 21 years ago when he was independent counsel.

In 1999, there was friction between House and Senate Republicans over the issue whether to call witnesses. You personally fought hard for witnesses. Three witnesses, ultimately, testified, not live on the Senate floor.

Is there a legal basis for trying to block witnesses this time around, do you think?

CANNON: Actually, I love the way he's approaching this thing because, with all due respect to people who actually care about this stuff and are involved, I don't think many Americans really care and they want it over with.

And I think McConnell has gotten that right, Ad frankly, I Daschle and Lott got it right 21 years ago, looking now some distance back at that. Most people I talk to, they see this as unnecessary.

Look, I have a little different perspective. I started my public career as an intern in the Supreme Court. Then I worked in the Agriculture Department as a low-level bureaucrat. Later on, I was a political appointee in the Interior Department and a solicitor. And we dealt with all these issues that -- you know, we lionize Ronald Reagan these days but he fought Congress the same way this president is fighting Congress.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we take this to the point of impeachment. In fact, if I can go on for a moment here, the problem here is that Congress has given up all of its authority.

(CROSSTALK)

CANNON: The only thing you can do now is impeach the president instead of dealing with oversight and investigations --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Congressman, I'm sorry to interrupt --

CANNON: -- and make America better.

TAPPER: I'm sorry to interrupt.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: The question was, you fought hard for witnesses in 1999. Do you think the Senate majority leader --

CANNON: Hello?

TAPPER: You fought hard for witnesses in 1999. The question is, do you think the Senate majority leader is right to try to take the exact opposite position you took when trying to impeach President Clinton?

CANNON: For some reason I lost a bit of your audio there. But I think I got that question.

And the answer is, there's nothing exact opposite. There's nothing -- these situations are so radically different that it doesn't make any sense to have Laurence Tribe talk about how wrong Alan Dershowitz was in the past. These are different circumstances and different situations. And anybody can create a narrative that supports a perspective.

What we need is to have a process that goes forward that will clarify, we hope, to some degree, these issues.

But, frankly, my personal feeling is that the claims against the president are bogus. They are without foundation. They're things every president has done in the past. And that presidents in the future, we hope, will have the power to do so that Americans' rights and interests in the world go forward.

(CROSSTALK)

CANNON: Yes?

BLITZER: Based on what you've seen so far, do you think this is looking like it's shaping up to be a fair trial?

CANNON: We decided 21 years ago that we're not going to have what I call a fair trial. That is precedent.

And what we're doing today, what the Senate majority is doing today is similar to what was done. The precedent is there. I think it's appropriate.

[11:59:54]

But the House ought to be doing much clearer and much deeper investigations. Thus far, we have the Mueller report. Did you guys see Mueller testify? He didn't have his cookies. He was attacking the president, not trying to make it better.