Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Impeachment Trial Of President Trump In U.S. Senate; McConnell Revises Proposed Rule, House Record "Will Be" Entered Into Evidence Instead Of "May Be" Entered. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired January 21, 2020 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

PAT CIPOLLONE, COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: He read it to the American people and he didn't tell them it was a complete fake.

Do you want to know about due process? I'll tell you about due process. Never before in the history of our country has a president been confronted with this kind of impeachment proceeding in the House. It wasn't conducted by the Judiciary Committee. Now, Mr. Nadler, when he applied for that job, told his colleagues when they took over the House that he was really good at impeachment.

But what happened was the proceedings took place in a basement of the House of Representatives. The president was forbidden from attending. The president was not allowed to have a lawyer present. In every other impeachment proceeding, the president has been given a minimal of -- minimal due process. Nothing here.

Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF. Information was selectively leaked out. Witnesses were threatened. Good public servants were told that they would be held in contempt. They were told that they were in -- obstructing. What does Mr. Schiff mean by obstructing? He means, that unless you do exactly what he says, regardless of your constitutional rights, then you're obstructing.

The president was not allowed to call witnesses. By the way, there's still evidence in the skiff that we haven't been allowed to see. I wonder why?

No witnesses. Now, let -- let's -- let's think about something else for a second. Let's think about something else. They held these Articles for 33 days. We hear all this talk about an overwhelming case, an overwhelming case that they're not even prepared today to stand up and make an opening argument about. That's because they have no case. Frankly, the have no charge.

When you look at these Articles of Impeachment, they're not only ridiculous, the are dangerous to our republic. And why? First of all, the notion that evoking your constitutional rights to protect the executive branch, that's been done by just about every president since George Washington, that that is obstruction.

That is our patriotic duty, Mr. Schiff, particularly when confronted with a wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that I'm unfamiliar with in this country. Frankly, it's the kind of thing that our State Department would criticize if we see it in foreign countries.

We've never seen anything like it. And Mr. Schiff said, have I got a deal for you. Abandon all your constitutional rights, forget about your lawyers and come in and do exactly what I say. No thank you. No thank you.

And then he says, he has the temerity to come into the Senate and say, we have no use for courts. It's outrageous. Now, let me tell you another story. There's a man named Charlie Kupperman, he is the Deputy National Security Advisor. He is the number two to John Bolton.

Because you have to remember, Mr. Schiff wants you to forget, but you have to remember how we got here. They threatened him. They sent him a subpoena.

Mr. Kupperman did what any American should be allowed to do, used to be allowed to do. He was forced to get a lawyer. He was forced to pay for that lawyer. And he went to court. Mr. Schiff doesn't like courts.

He went to court and he said, judge, tell me what to do. I have obligations that, frankly, rise to the -- what the Supreme Court has called the apex of executive privilege in the area of national security. And then, I have a subpoena from Mr. Schiff, what do I do?

[14:35:00]

You know what Mr. Schiff did -- did? Mr. Kupperman went to the judge, and the House said, nevermind, we withdraw the subpoena. We promise not to issue it again. And then they come here and they ask you to do the work that they refuse to do for themselves. They ask you to trample on executive privilege.

Now, would they ever suggest that the executive could determine on its own what the speech of debate (ph) clause means? Of course not. Would they ever suggest that the House could invade the discussions that the Supreme Court has behind closed doors? I hope not.

But they come here and they ask you to do what they refused to do for themselves. They had a court date and they withdrew the subpoena, they evaded a decision and they're asking you to become complicit in that evasion of the courts. It's ridiculous and we should call it out for what it is.

Obstruction for going to court? It's an act of patriotism, to defend the constitutional rights of the President because it's -- they could do it to the President, they could do it to any of you and they could do it to any American citizen and that's wrong.

And Laurence Tribe, who's been advising them, I guess he didn't tell you that in the Clinton impeachment, he said "it's dangerous to suggest that invoking constitutional rights is impeachable -- it's dangerous." And you know what? It is dangerous, Mr. Schiff. So what are we doing here? We have the House that completely concocted a process that we've never seen before. They locked the President out -- oh, and by the way, will Mr. Schiff give documents? We asked him for documents -- we asked him for documents when contrary to his prior statements, it turned out that his staff was working with the whistleblower. We said "let us see the documents, release them to the public." We're still waiting.

So the idea that they would come here and lecture the Senate -- by the way, I was surprised to hear that -- did you realize you're on trial? Mr. Nadler's putting you on trial. Everybody's on trial except for them. It's ridiculous -- it's ridiculous.

They said in their brief we have overwhelming evidence and they're afraid to make their case. Think about it -- think about it, it's common sense. Overwhelming evidence to impeach the President of the United States and then they come here, on the first day, and they say "you know what? We need some more evidence."

Now let me tell you something. If I showed up in any court in this country and I said "Judge, my case is overwhelming but I'm not ready to go yet, I need more evidence before I can make my case," I would get thrown out in two seconds and that's exactly what should happen here -- that's exactly what should happen here.

It's too much to listen to almost, the hypocrisy of the whole thing. And what are the stakes -- what are the stakes? There's an election in almost nine months -- months from now, there's going to be another election. Senators in this body the last time had very wise words, they echoed the words of our founders. A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. And that's exactly what we have.

We have -- talk about the framers worst nightmare. It's a partisan impeachment that they delivered to your doorstep in an election year. Some of you are upset because you should be in Iowa right now but instead we're here and they're not ready to go and it's outrageous -- it's outrageous.

[14:40:00]

And the American people won't stand for it, I'll tell you that right now. They're not here to steal one election, they're here to steal two elections. It's buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment. They want to remove the President Trump from the ballot. They won't tell you that, they don't have the guts to say it directly but that's exactly what they're here to do.

They're asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as American -- Americans, the right to choose our President. In an election year, it's never been done before. It shouldn't be done be -- now. The reason it's never been done is because no one ever thought that it would be a good idea for our country, for our children, for our grandchildren to try to remove a President from a ballot, to deny the American people the right to vote based on a fraudulent investigation conducted in secret with no rights. Well I could go on and on but my point is very simple. It's long past time that we start this so we can end this ridiculous charade and go have an election. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

ROBERTS: The -- does the President's counsel yield back the remainder of their time? Thank you. The Democratic Leader is recognized.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to subpoena certain documents and records from the White House and I ask that it be read.

ROBERTS: The clerk will read the document.

CLERK: The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment, number 1284. At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert the following -- section notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, pursuant to Rules 5 and 6 of the rules and procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials, one, the Chief Justice of the United States, through the Secretary of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena to the Acting Chief of Staff of the White House, commanding him to produce from the time period from January 1st, 2019 to the present all documents, communications and other records within the possession, custody or control of the White House, including the National Security Council referring or relating to A, all meetings and calls between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, including documents, communications and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation for and follow up from the President's April 21st and July 25th, 2019 telephone calls, as well as the President's September 25th, 2019 meeting with the President of Ukraine in New York.

B, all investigations, inquiries or other probes relating to Ukraine, including any that relate in any way to one, former Vice President Joseph Biden, two, Hunter Biden and any of his associates, three, Burisma Holdings, Limited also known as Burisma. Four, interference or involvement by Ukraine in the 2016 United States Election. Five, the Democratic National Committee or six, crowd strike.

C, the actual or potential suspension, withholding delaying freezing or releasing of United States foreign assistance, military assistance or security assistance of any kind to Ukraine including but not limited to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, USAI, and foreign military financing, FMF.

D, all documents, communications, notes and other records created or received by acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney then National Security Advisor, John R. Bolton, senior advisor to the Chief of Staff, Robert B. Blair and other White House officials relating to efforts to one, solicit requests, demand, induce, persuade or coerce Ukraine to conduct or announce investigations. Two, offer schedule, cancel or withhold a White House meeting for Ukraine's president. Or three, hold and then release military and other security assistance to Ukraine.

[14:45:00]

E, meetings at or involving the White House that related to Ukraine including but not limited to one, President Zelensky's inauguration on May 20, 2019, in Kiev, Ukraine including but not limited to President Trump's decision to not to attend, to ask Vice President Pence to lead the delegation directing Vice President Pence not to attend in subsequent decision about the composition of the delegation of the United States.

Two, a meeting at the White House on or around May 23, 2019, involving among others President Trump then special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Ambassador Kurt Volker then Energy Secretary Rick Perry and United States Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland as well as any private meetings or conversations with those individuals before or after the larger meeting.

Three, meetings at the White House on or about July 10, 2019, involving Ukraini officials Andrii Yermak and Oleksandr Danylyuk and United States government officials, including but not limited to then National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, to include at least a meeting in Ambassador Bolton's office and subsequent meeting in the war room.

Four, a meeting at the White House on or around August 30, 2019, involving President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

Five, a planned meeting later canceled in Warsaw, Poland, on or around September 1, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelensky and subsequently attended by Vice President Pence.

And six, a meeting at the White House on or around September 11, 2019, involving President Trump, Vice President Pence and Mr. Mulvaney concerning the lifting of the hold on security assistance for Ukraine.

F: Meetings, telephone calls or conversations related to any occasions in which the National Security Council officials reported concerns to National Security Council lawyers, including but not limited to National Security Council Legal Advisor John Eisenberg regarding matters related to Ukraine including but not limited to, one, the delay military assistance to Ukraine. Two, the July 10, 2019, meeting at the White House with Ukrainian officials. Three, the president's July 25, 2019, call with the President of Ukraine. 4, a September 1, 2019, meeting between Ambassador Sondland and a Ukrainian official.

And five, the president's September 7, 2019, call with Ambassador Sondland. G. Any internal review or assessment within the White House regarding Ukraine matters following the September 9, 2019, request for documents from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House committee on oversight and reform and the House committee on Foreign Affairs including but not limited to documents collected that pertain to the hold on military and other security assistance to Ukraine, the scheduling of a White House meeting for the president of Ukraine and any requests for investigations by Ukraine.

H, the complaint submitted by a whistle-blower within the intelligence community on or around August 12, 2019, to the inspector general of the intelligence community. I, all meetings or calls including requests for or recordings of meetings or telephone calls, scheduling items, calendar entries, White House visitor records and e-mail or text messages using personal or work-related devices between or among one, current or former White House officials or employees including but not limited to President Trump and two, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Ambassador Sondland, Victoria Toensing or (Inaudible). And

And J, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch including but not limited to the decision to end her tour or recall her from the United States embassy in Kiev and two, the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sergeant at arms or any other employee of the United States Senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section.

MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice?

ROBERTS: The Majority Leader is recognized.

MCCONNELL: I want to ask for a brief 15 minute recess before the parties are recognized to debate the Schumer amendment. Therefore, I ask consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

ROBERTS: Without objection so ordered.

[14:50:14]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, so now there's a 15-minute recess for the 100 U.S. Senators. The House Democratic managers, the White House consults, they're going to get ready for part two today as they take up this amendment that Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, has put forward.

It's interesting, Jake, that it follows what is considered to be a fairly significant change on the part of the Senate majority leader, Mr. McConnell, from his proposed rules, resolution that was released last night, as to what factually was released during the course of this trial.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: It's surprising given how strongly Mitch McConnell rules the Senate. One would think he wouldn't introduce the package he did if he didn't know for a fact there was 51 votes. I wonder if he was in danger of losing the vote if he did not change the package.

What the bill does now -- the two big sticking points for some Republicans and for every Democrat was that each side, the House managers and the Trump side, were going to be given 24 hours to make their case, but they had to do that over two days.

That meant 12-hour days starting at earliest with no breaks 1:00 p.m., meaning that it would not end until at the very earliest 1:00 a.m. That's one issue.

And then the other issue, of course, was whether or not the evidence compiled by the House would be automatically included or would it have to be up for a vote to the point that maybe this evidence wouldn't even have been included. Let's bring back Dana Bash to tell us what Mitch McConnell has done to

change these issues that Republican Senators and every Democratic Senator were having with these rules -- Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is a very remarkable situation, as you were both discussing, given how every single move that the majority leader makes has been and he knows would be scrutinized by all parties.

Especially his fellow Republicans who he has been so clearly understandably trying to protect because a lot of these Republicans including Susan Collins, of Maine, if they don't win re-election and if four of them don't win re-election, he will not be the majority leader anymore.

That is first and foremost in his mind. He talks about the institution of the Senate, but that is the reality.

So our Phil Mattingly has been doing some excellent reporting on this. I'll let him give some of the details.

But, broadly, our understanding and my understanding in talking to a source familiar with the discussions is that while the public discussion has been about whether or not these key Republicans will allow witnesses, privately, the discussion had been about other issues like making the House Democrats information, their whole case admissible and on the front end.

And even broader things like you were saying like how long each day will go. But more importantly admitting the evidence on the front end. That was something that some of these key Republicans went to Mitch McConnell on and said, whoa, what you're doing, you're taking it too far. You should change this, and so he agreed to do it.

It happened so quickly that -- I believe we have a photo of it. There's handwritten changes. It didn't even have time to go back to the clerk for a formal change. It was done by hand before being formally introduced just a short while ago. That just shows you how quickly the changes were and how.

And, how -- you know, even Mitch McConnell who says he -- you know, who understands his caucus has to try to bend to their will while he's obviously trying to bend to the will of the White House, which wants this done quickly.

And there's also a school of thought that giving people like Susan Collins a win early on in this, a political win isn't such a bad thing for Susan Collins and other Republicans.

TAPPER: Dana Bash, thanks so much.

Wolf, just to be clear, this has now changed from instead of the 24 hours over two days, it's going to be 24 hours over three days.

BLITZER: For each side. TAPPER: For each side, which means eight-hour days, theoretically,

which is much more manageable and also will not run into the early hours of the morning.

And then, in addition, it will be automatically -- the evidence, automatically will be included in the record in the Senate, although members could vote later to take stuff out if they want to strike it from the record. It's an opt-in situation. So those are two very significant changes.

BLITZER: You know, I want to bring in Kaitlan Collins and Phil Mattingly.

Kaitlan, over to you. You're over at the White House. Give us a sense of what led to this fairly dramatic change.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So we're actually learning something interesting about the White House's role in all of this. We're being told that the White House had an initial role in that first language, that Phil and them have been talking about, of this resolution where it wanted those two days for those arguments. That 24 hours to argue over a time period of two days.

[14:55:15]

And we're told the reason the White House wanted that is because the defense here -- or excuse me -- the House managers get to go first and make their case, and the White House was worried that they would get pushed given all the motions that you're likely to see today, that they could get pushed and their argument would be broken up over the weekend.

So theoretically, if the House does start making its argument tomorrow, they could have Wednesday and Thursday. And then the White House was worried if there were a lot of motions, they would be pushed to potentially Saturday and on to Monday, and their argument would therefore be broken up.

They don't like that because, of course, it could potentially affect their coverage. They may not get as good of coverage if they had their argument broken up after the House is gone in a consecutive manner of days.

They played a role in pushing for that language in that initial resolution, wants that two-daytime period over the three-daytime period. We are told that a lot of that had to do with the White House.

And, of course, it makes sense because the White House does use all of their time with this three-day change we saw McConnell make, they would be presenting their arguments if they go up to the House on Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday. That would break them up on Sunday with that day that they will not be in session for this impeachment trial. So that actually had a lot to do with it.

It's a good question of what their response is going to be, what the president's response is going to be. He just got back to his hotel in Switzerland as his attorneys were on the floor making their opening arguments there, as you saw them going after Adam Schiff, who had been speaking. The question is what is his response going to be?

We should note he has plenty of time to watch this. It's about 9:00 in Davos, and the president does not have anything else on his schedule for right now for the rest of the day.

BLITZER: I suspect he is watching. I suspect he's not going to be very happy it's going to be spread out over three days as opposed to two days.

Phil, you're getting some information on why the Senate majority leader had no choice but to make this concession.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, let me walk you through some of the behind the scenes, according to several people who were involved in the events that transpired a couple of hours before the trial actually began when these changes were actually made.

Something to keep in mind here, I think there's a theory of the case that the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has had throughout the last couple of weeks preparing his members for this trial, and that is unity is extremely important for the entirety of the conference, all 53 Republicans, keeping them together for as long as possible will only pay dividends the longer the trial goes.

That's been what McConnell has preached to his members. It's been what he's kept in mind as he's negotiated behind the scenes on the actual details of this resolution.

What I am told is he was not in danger of losing the vote on this resolution, but he was in danger of losing some Republicans. Several Republicans made clear earlier this morning that they had issues with those two specific changes that ended up being made.

They had issues with compressing the trial into two days. They had issues with the fact that they were going to have to vote to admit the House evidence later on in the trial. They felt like those were things that didn't need to be a part of this and things that should have been addressed upfront.

Susan Collins said, for one, that she wanted the changes made. Her spokeswoman saying, "Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement."

Ohio Senator Rob Portman was also involved in this process.

The reality is McConnell read his conference. His conference was making clear that to stick together, they needed changes. The changes were made -- guys?

TAPPER: All right, Phil Mattingly and Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much.

We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, more on the Senate impeachment trial. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)