Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Democratic Senate Leaders Hold Press Conference; Trump Spoke to His Legal Team Late Last Night; Trump Says Bolton Testifying Would Be "National Security Problem"; A.G. Barr Contradicts Trump on Whether Abuse of Power is Impeachable. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 22, 2020 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:07]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer. We're live here in Washington alongside Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper. This is CNN's special live coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.

We're just two hours away now from the start of the day, of day two of this trial. This is the time that's been set aside from the beginning of the session for motions from either of the House managers or President Trump's team. But it looks like there won't be any.

The Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, has just started a news conference here in Washington. Let's listen in.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): He's not lying. I saw you there.

OK. Thank you. But I hope everyone got a good night's sleep.

Let's talk about yesterday.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: As everyone knows, the Senate had a long but crucial debate over the rules of the trial last night. It lasted into the early hours of the morning. Now, the American people expect a fair trial. Our oaths, our oaths, our solemn oaths to the impeachment trial and to our Senate office demand it.

So before we -- before we proceed to opening -- before we proceeded to opening arguments, it was nonnegotiable for us that the Senate at least consider the question of evidence, witnesses, and documents, and the rules of a fair trial.

I publicly offered to delay some of the votes until today to spare everyone from staying late. But Leader McConnell was so unwilling to let the trial of President Trump go on for one session longer than he had planned, he declined to delay any votes.

It seems the only reason Senator McConnell refused to move votes back a day is because it would interfere with the timeline he promised the president. Not what's a fair trial, not what's letting the American people hear what they have to hear, but just what President Trump, the defendant here, wanted.

Now, if there's one thing we learned from the series of votes on the Senate floor, it's that Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans don't want a fair trial that considers all the evidence.

On four separate votes, every Senate Republican voted against requesting relevant documents for the trial. On three other votes, every Senate Republican voted against calling relevant witnesses before the Senate.

Republican Senators even voted against amendments that made basic, fair, procedural fixes, one that prohibited the White House from selectively leaking documents, and another giving both parties a reasonable time to respond to motions. Even those they opposed.

At the very end of the night, every Senate Republican rejected Senator Van Hollen's amendment to place the question of witness relevancy in the hands of the chief justice and voted down an amendment to guarantee the consideration of witnesses and documents later in the trial.

That particular amendment, the one that would guarantee votes on witnesses and documents. revealed the charade that the Republicans are participating in here.

All along Republicans have said it's not that we don't want witnesses and documents, we just want to vote on them later. We explained why that made no sense from a trial perspective.

It meant that presentations could not rely on this important evidence, that Senators cannot ask questions about this evidence and can only decide on this crucial question once the trial is basically over. We've been calling it "Alice in Wonderland" trial.

[11:05:01]

But even then, Leader McConnell's resolution allows only one vote on whether motions to subpoena witnesses and documents are in order. He amended it, different from the Clinton situation, the Clinton impeachment.

Only one vote on whether to have witnesses and documents, not a vote on witnesses and documents, merely a vote on whether to have a debate about having a vote on witnesses and documents.

When we offered an amendment to actually guarantee votes on witnesses and documents after the question period, after the presentations, instead of one vague procedural motion, every single Republican said no.

So when they say, oh, they want to make sure we'll vote on witnesses and documents later, their votes belie that.

The bottom line is this, the very first thing the American people saw when they tuned in to the impeachment trial of President Trump was Republican Senators voting against having a fair trial with relevant evidence.

It's clear that the American people overwhelmingly support a fair trial and overwhelmingly support witnesses and documents.

So it was a dark day and a dark night for the Senate. As a consequence, the impeachment trial of President Trump begins with a cloud hanging over it. A cloud of unfairness.

Democrats will seek additional votes on witnesses and documents down the line.

Yesterday, we put the spotlight on the number one issue in having a fair trial, witnesses and documents. That's just where the spotlight belonged. And I predict that as a result, that spotlight will continue to focus on witnesses and documents and the pressure will continue to build on Republican Senators.

As we saw yesterday, Leader McConnell was forced to tweak his organizing resolution before it was even offered with modifications scrawled in the margins after several Senate Republicans agreed with Democratic objections. I'm glad a few of Leader McConnell's most egregious proposals were expunged.

But let me point out, the fact that McConnell had to change his resolution showed that Republicans can make this trial more fair if they want to. It's not a question of ability. They can, if they want. It's a question of conscience.

Senate Republicans have the power in their hands to make it a fair trial. Will they use it when it matters?

The next real test will come after Q&A when we revisit the issue of witnesses and documents.

I want to make one final point. The House managers made a very clear and compelling case not only on the glaring need for evidence but also on the gravity of the president's offenses.

In stark contrast, the White House defense were unprepared, confused and totally unconvincing. White House counsel resorted to the kind of histrionics you see on FOX News evening broadcasts rather than any sober-minded argument that could persuade thoughtful Senators.

On multiple occasions they made discreet and demonstrable factual errors. The president is always loose with the truth and it seems his lawyers are the same way.

Most telling of all, White House counsel were far more preoccupied with making inflammatory and inaccurate statements about House managers than providing an actual defense of the president's conduct. This does not bode well for the president's case if this pattern continues over the course of the trial.

Senator Murray? SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Well, thank you, Senator Schumer.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: OK, we're going to break away from the press conference and talk about what we just heard from the Senate minority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, who was talking about the votes last night.

There were 11 amendments that Democrats proposed and all of them were shot down on pretty much a party-line vote every time, 53-47. There was one exception when Susan Collins joined the Democrats.

But to look at the list, it is a list of trying to get White House materials, trying to subpoena State Department records, Office of Management and Budget records.

To subpoena Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, subpoena Pentagon documents, subpoena senior White House aide, Robert Blair, who is the chief aide of acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.

[11:10:08]

To prevent selective admission of evidence, to subpoena the former national security advisor, John Bolton, who has said he is willing to testify before the Senate if he is subpoenaed. Even that was voted down 53 votes, 53 Republicans to 47 Democrats. To vote on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, and on and on.

And, George Conway, we were talking about this earlier, but I do have to say I find it stunning that at no point, with one exception with one Republican Senator, did any Republicans break with the caucus to say, yes, I would like to hear from John Bolton, the national security advisor, who has said he's willing to testify if subpoenaed.

GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY: Right. It's absolutely astounding and disturbing. Eleven motions, not just one vote. I don't know how they can justify doing that, refusing to hear evidence on such a broad basis on an absolute basis and be compliant with their oaths. I just don't understand it at all.

BLITZER: Do you think it my change after the opening arguments from both sides?

CONWAY: It should be apparent right now how much of that is relevant and pertinent to the issues at hand, because they know that John Bolton was blocked from testifying by the White House. They know that Mulvaney was blocked by the White House from testifying.

And that Mulvaney went out to the public and admitted there was a quid pro quo. And they know that all of this evidence is relevant.

Now, if they had said, well, let's just do some of it because we may not need all of it and we'll vote on some of it later. That might have been a reasonable thing to do. But to vote no on every single one of them? It's crazy. GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, their point is, and

Rick Scott said it, we talked about this a little before, is that this isn't our job, OK? This was the House's job. They're supposed to do that. That's the message of the day because a bunch of Republican Senators -- I believe Ron Johnson has said it -- we're not going to make their case for them.

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: Their job is to let the evidence come in. Their job is to listen to the evidence, not block it.

BORGER: Right.

CONWAY: This isn't hard. It shouldn't be hard.

TAPPER: So President Trump is in Davos and he gave a press conference. One of the quotes he said that he's comfortable with the status of the trial so far because, quote, "Honestly we have all the material. They don't have the material."

I mean some people have pointed out he's again saying the quiet part out loud.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But George was making the point earlier, I'm not a lawyer, someone who's covered politics for a long time.

If you looked at the presentations from the House managers and the presentations from the White House counsel, even your incoming from most Republicans is they believe the House managers were more compelling, were more fact based, were better performers, which matters when you're talking about public opinion as well as swaying Senators.

But what you just mentioned, you just went through the math. All the president's team needs to do is keep the math where it is. The Senate does not convict, nowhere near as many Republicans break, maybe they get no witnesses, maybe one witness.

The president's plan is to keep the math where it is. So he will say we have all the information. Again, I bring up the files, everyday I'm sitting here.

The information is not good for the president. It's up for the Senate to decide whether it's an impeachable offense. But Rudy Giuliani running a free-lance operation with Lev Parnas, who the president calls a con man. Then if Les Parnas is a con man, why is your personal attorney routinely doing business with this man overseas?

The information is not on the president's side. That's not to say that's impeachable. Again, that's up to them. But the president is just trying to keep the choir at practice.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: If he keeps the math where it is by keeping, the call was perfect, the information is on our side, it works. We can fact-check it until the sun comes up and down and they propose 27 more amendments but, so far, it is working so they're not going to change it.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Let me ask you a question, George. Lev Parnas being a con man. Didn't John Dowd -- I think he was then the acting attorney for Giuliani -- didn't he file a document saying Lev Parnas was on the president's legal team as part of the Giuliani team?

CONWAY: Right, he did. He did.

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: No, it's incredible.

To go back to the point -- well, birds of a feather, let's be serious here.

But to go back to the point about the documents or the materials all being on Trump's side. Well, they actually aren't. He tried to make that the case but a lot of these witnesses decided to testify, notwithstanding the directions they received from the White House.

And these FOIA requests are being -- and they provided some of their emails and text messages.

But that shows you what his strategy is, which is exactly as John said, is we don't want anything more, we want to keep the rest of it to ourselves so nobody will see it, because they know it's going to affect the numbers adversely.

(CROSSTALK)

[11:15:05]

KING: I keep reading the transcript the president says is perfect. Again, Marie Yovanovitch, you can disagree with her decisions in Ukraine, if you want to have a substantive debate. But the president of the United States telling the newly elected president of Ukraine, well, she's going to go through some things.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

KING: A career diplomat, who is known, who is known -- I've said this before. It's very hard to have Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice both like you. But Marie Yovanovitch is viewed as, A, an upstanding foreign career service official --

(CROSSTALK) KING: -- someone who fights corruption, someone who stands up. A woman in that part of the world who stands up to Vladimir Putin.

Again, if the president has issues with her, the president is the boss. But to say to the new president of another country, she's going to go through some things. We've learned other information since then about --

(CROSSTALK)

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the Democrats putting on a case yesterday I think in a way people didn't think would happen. It was sort of a lot of amendments, obviously, a lot of talk about procedure, but they kind of brought the highlights, the cliff notes from their House trial which --

CONWAY: A very smart thing.

COATES: -- was a very smart thing.

People are tuning in, it's the first day. So you bring in Fiona Hill's testimony. The idea that it was a political domestic errand. Bring in Vindman's testimony. Bring in Bill Taylor's text messages. And bring in the idea -- there's a cable, right? Where is the cable.

So they had a great day I think yesterday, the Democrats did. But to John's point, so did Republicans because, once again, they all hung together, right? I think this is a preview of what we might see.

BLITZER: So far, the Republicans are holding it together well. We'll see what happens in the coming days.

There's a lot more we need to assess.

President Trump dodges a key question on whether abuse of power is an impeachable offense. It comes as we're getting access for the first time to newly discovered memos from his attorney general, Bill Barr, and it reveals a major contradiction with the president's stance.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:21:16]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump is on his way back to Washington from Davos, Switzerland, where he attended the World Economic Forum. Before leaving, he offered a review of day one of his impeachment trial, calling it a hoax but adding that he'd love to be there in person.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Will you show up at your trial any day?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'd love to go. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be beautiful? I'd love to sit right in the front row and stair in their corrupt faces. I'd love to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: CNN's Kaitlin Collins joins me now with more.

So the president, Kaitlan, has tweeted and retweeted dozens of time before he even left Davos. Has he talked to his legal team?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we're hearing from sources that the president did speak with his legal team late last night, as that debate on the Senate floor was wrapping up early in the morning in Switzerland where the president was.

He told them he had been watching this debate play out on the Senate floor in between his meetings with world leaders at that economic forum. He said he was impressed with their performance. He especially liked what Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone were saying. You saw at times they got in very heated exchanges with House Democrats.

Now the president is on his way back to Washington.

His legal team right now is meeting here at the White House before they do go to Capitol Hill for those opening statements. We saw Pat Cipollone arriving and going into the West Wing earlier. You can see him getting out of this Suburban.

And they're going to be on Capitol Hill today, of course, while the House Republicans that the president has named to his impeachment team are working out of the White House getting ready for their rapid response.

Now, Anderson, before the president left Switzerland this morning, he did an impromptu press conference that was not on his schedule and we were not expecting.

While he answered questions of reporters, he talked about one of the most contentious debates that we watched last night over that subpoena for John Bolton. His answer was incredibly revealing.

Listen to what he said when he was asked about John Bolton coming forward and talking about what he knows about everything that's going on with Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The problem with John is that it's a national security problem, you know. You can't have somebody who's at national security and, if you think about it, John, he knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders.

What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it's not very positive and that I have to deal on behalf of the country. It's going to be very hard. It's going to make the job very hard. He knows other things.

I don't know if we left on the best of terms. I would say probably not, you know. And so you don't like people testifying when they didn't leave on good terms. And that was due to me, not due to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Saying you don't want someone testifying when they left the White House on bad terms. A pretty striking answer from the president making clear he'd be worried about what Bolton would testify about.

And of course, something really rare there, seeing the president say Bolton left on bad terms because of him, not because of Bolton, which is not something we've heard the president say since John Bolton did leave the White House.

COOPER: Kaitlin Collins, thanks so much from the White House this morning. Thanks.

One of the key arguments from the defense is that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. President Trump himself in Davos, Switzerland, this morning saying, well, it sort of depends.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Is abuse of power an impeachable offense?

TRUMP; Well, you're going to talk to the lawyers about it. But I will tell you, there's nothing here. The best lawyers in the world have looked at it. The Department of Justice has looked at it, given it a sign-off. There was nothing wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: For future presidents, is abuse of power an impeachable offense?

TRUMP: Well, it depends. But if you take a look at this, and from what everybody tells me is, all I do, I'm honest. I make great deals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Honest and makes great deals.

The president's own legal team doesn't appear to be on the same page. Attorney General Bill Barr, back when he was still in private practice, actually argued that, yes, abuse of power is impeachable in a then-confidential 2018 memo.

[11:25:07]

Here's what he wrote, quote, "The fact that the president is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is also subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause."

Barr goes on to cite a 1982 Supreme Court case, adding, quote, "The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that the president remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office."

Joined now by our legal team.

Jeff Toobin, contradictory?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes, it is contradictory. Remember, this is an issue that's going to come up a lot as the real trial begins, which is, can an impeachable offense be abuse of power other than an actual crime.

Alan Dershowitz has argued and he's going to be arguing to the Senate that you need to have an actual crime, or what he calls a criminal- like behavior, which I'm not sure I understand what that is.

But the House managers' position, which is supported by the vast majority of academics, is that abuse of power, that the president using the enormous power that he has in a way that is contrary to the Constitution but not a criminal offense is also an impeachable offense.

The president seemed to suggest there that he agrees with the House managers, that an impeachable offense can be an abuse of power under some circumstances. But that's a debate we're going to have a lot over the next few days.

COOPER: Tim?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a lot of time reading the diaries of Nixon supporters, southern Democrats and Republicans, who ultimately decided to vote for impeachment. And they dealt with this issue of abuse of power.

They thought, does it have to be a crime. They decided that, no. The concept of high crimes and misdemeanors means a crime against the state. And if the president uses power in a way that corrupts our system of government, then they should be impeached.

So they said, even if it's not a crime that we would recognize in a court, it's a crime against the state.

And so it seems to me that you have -- you have lots of precedent in presidential impeachment crises of people deciding that, in fact, abuse of power does not require a crime.

That's why Richard Nixon would have been impeached, for using the IRS against Americans. Not necessarily a crime if done by the president, but he was doing it for political purposes.

TOOBIN: It's also worth remembering that in the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a federal criminal code in the way that we have one today. So the idea that the framers had some sort of checklist of treason, bribery and other federal crimes, they didn't because there was no such thing.

COATES: They have to be careful in the sense that not to make the phrase "abuse of power" to be so vague and not be able to prove some clear delineation, some clear context that says, how can a president in the future avoid this type of behavior, because the whole prospect of having an impeachment is to deter future bad behavior as well. And to let people know, who may be running for office, at all

different levels, to say here is the kind of behavior that you cannot engage in, whether it's a criminal code attachment or not.

So the risk they will run is the defense team for Trump will say it's just so vague, it's so vague as to give carte blanche, any time Congress does not like what the president does to wave the flag of abuse of power.

In return, the House managers will have to say, no, no, here is what a clear instance of abuse of power is. The inability to hand over funds that have been appropriated, use it for political leverage and political gain, here's why it was a problem, here's what you can avoid in the problem, and not have that vague concept.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's an important point. I think we're confusing a few concepts. The notion of, is abuse of power an impeachable offense or not, I think is a red herring. There are egregious abuses of power and trifling abuses of power. So whether it is or whether it's not, I think misses the point.

And in terms of whether it has to be a criminal offense or not, it's notable, the White House lawyers argue that it does. I read Dershowitz now as saying that not necessarily it doesn't.

The bottom line is, as Tim said, it has to be something that's incredibly egregious, that goes to the heart of our government, of our democracy, that impairs the ability of the official to continue in office and, like Laura says, it has to be clear.

Now, normally that would be a crime. That's something that would be a crime. But not necessarily a crime. And I think that's the focus. Does it meet those criteria?

[11:30:03]

COOPER: We're going to take a quick break.

Still ahead, one of the president's most loyal backers, Congressman Mark Meadows, joins CNN live. We'll talk about his role in advising the Trump defense team.