Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Senate Impeachment Trial Enters Third Day; Interview with Bill Hennessy; Interview with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 23, 2020 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: -- expect today? Obviously, we're still -- it's Democrats making the argument. We hear mostly from Adam Schiff, who's leading the way.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we're going to have the classic thing of, I'm going to tell you I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell it to you, and then I'm going to tell you what I just told you.

COOPER (?): There's a lot of repetition.

COATES: There is, but there is actually a psychological reason for doing so. The most persuasive oral arguments, most persuasive prosecutions all involve the same kind of techniques that a great orator would use.

Think about MLK and "I Have a Dream," think about great addresses, think about songwriting and choruses. You want to (ph) have (ph) people (ph), stick (ph) in their minds, but you have to --

COOPER: Or even not a great orator, like President Trump, who just repeats, you know, witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt, and it's effective.

COATES: Touche. And the issue here, of course, is the notion at the end, you have to guard against two things. You want to be repetitive -- you want to repetitious in order to have that persuasion, but you cannot go against the law of diminishing returns.

You have to, at some point, realize that the sort of fire hose of information that many have heard for the very first time in the Senate, they're going to have an exponential amount of learning they're learning right now. And then it's going to start (ph) to taper off. And then it will start to feel redundant. So it's going to be a balancing act for them to do that.

Of course, they're capitalizing on that talking point of being, it's redundant because they have no big case, that's not true. They have compartmentalized it, they broke it into different agencies, vignettes about different testifying witnesses, to try to drive home the point, the president has abused the power that he tried to conceal it, and that any argument to the contrary is really a dereliction of duty about separation of powers.

COOPER: Ross, you know, you -- we heard earlier from a number of Republicans -- we talked to Senator Ted Cruz -- saying, the more they talk, the more convinced Republicans get that they're wrong, essentially, paraphrasing him.

Do you think that's true? I mean, or do you think it's -- I mean, no matter what, they're going to say, if it was too short a presentation, they would say, oh, it's very short, a presentation, they don't have a case?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Both. So for sure, no matter what, the Republicans are going to say that whatever the House managers do is insufficient, it's not great. But I do think there's a lot of truth to it. And Laura is right, there is the potential for diminishing returns.

There's also the potential for inoculation. People have heard it so many times. They've heard it over and over and over and over again. It -- there's no shock value.

And one of the issues I've had -- and I thought Schiff was very, very good yesterday -- but one of the issues I've had with him and the House managers and the House committees all along, is the lack of sort of cohesive storytelling, the lack of narrative, the lack of the use of surprise. I mean, there's -- there really hasn't been that. But -- kind of those techniques. And I think that's necessary.

What Adam Schiff and the managers have done is sort of organize this whole thing as if it's a legal investigation, as if it's a legal case. And what they're doing now is essentially organizing their presentation as if it is a legal brief.

We saw sort of the introduction, we saw the recitation of facts. Today, I think where we're going to start out is with a recitation of the law. And then we're going to see the application of facts to law. Great in a legal brief, I'm not so sure it's going to be the most effective way to make this presentation.

COOPER: What do you think would be more effective?

GARBER: I think to structure it in a way that actually is sort of a cohesive narrative. You know, people respond to storytelling, people respond to appeals not just to logic, but also to emotion. And I think -- I think that's what's kind of missing here.

You know, and lots and lots and lots of words. We heard about Ukraine. You know, I don't know why we're not seeing, you know, a map; why we're not seeing pictures of Ukraine, why we're not seeing, you know, pictures of, you know, its proximity to Europe and Russia.

I mean, there's a lot of sort of visual storytelling that could be done that I think is -- and the most effective thing really is the playing of the testimony, the playing of the witnesses. I think more of that, less talking.

COOPER: Tim?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I really believe it's important not to make the mistake that the House managers made in the Clinton case. In the beginning of the Clinton trial, the House managers surprised many by being succinct, on-point and quite effective -- Asa Hutchinson, for example, was one of the House managers.

But there were 13 of those managers, and they started to repeat themselves. And by the end, they lost some of the power and advantage that they had in the beginning. Also, Clinton's legal team was very sharp.

I think these lawyers have to remember that this is not just a legal case, but this is a political case. And you've got to give a story to those five or six Republicans that you want to defect from their team. Those Republicans are not going to become Democrats. But if they're going to vote for witnesses or for documents, they're going to have to explain themselves. And you've got to be thinking about what the narrative is they're going to use to --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Although it's the audience for this -- I mean, in the minds of the House managers -- really those -- those few Republicans who maybe will change to allow witnesses, or is it just the American people, really?

[10:35:02]

NAFTALI: Well, the American -- well, I think it should be both. I think the American people, we know are tuning in, more than -- certainly more than tuned in, actually, for the Clinton trial. So the American people, some new people are coming to this story that may not have listened to the House story.

But really, right now, they should be focused also -- the House managers should be focused on those five or six Republicans. That's why they shouldn't use terms like "cover-up." They shouldn't talk about you -- you know, they shouldn't have criticized those Republicans for participating in a cover-up, when they had -- when they were arguing that they should vote for documents right now, or vote for the witnesses now. They'll have a chance next week.

You should be laying a foundation for them to be able to turn to their fellow Republicans and say, look, I'd like to vote with Leader McConnell, but I really believe we need to know more about this and that.

COOPER: Protestors, blankets, note-passing: they're the moments that you do not see on TV cameras, we don't control those cameras. One man has been there, capturing it all. His sketches, telling the behind- the-scenes story of this historic trial, what the senators are doing while people are speaking. We'll talk to an artist who's captured all of these, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:57]

COOPER: During the impeachment trial, senators are expected to observe specific decorum guidelines, including being in attendance at all times. Reading materials should be pertinent to the trial, and there's no use of phones or electronic devices.

As viewers, though, it's hard to tell if lawmakers are following all the rules. The Senate actually controls the cameras, it's not CSPAN, it's not CNN. So we're relying on those allowed in the chamber, to let us know what's actually happening, what the senators are doing while the speakers are making their presentations.

Courtroom sketch artist Bill Hennessy is one of those people who can not only tell us, but show us some of the behind-the-scenes activity. Thanks so much for joining us. First, give us a sense of what it's like inside the Senate chamber, what the cameras aren't showing, just the atmosphere there.

BILL HENNESSY, SKETCH ARTIST IN SENATE CHAMBER FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Well, it's pretty serious, as you can imagine, Anderson. It's fairly tense, but we do have this sort of bird's eye view, looking down on all the senators as they are listening to the testimony as it's being presented.

You know, I recognize my job there is to provide visuals that maybe can't be seen by the cameras. And so I look for that. I realize what they're looking for from me.

COOPER: And are senators in their seats most of the time, or are people walking around?

HENNESSY: Initially, they were in their seats. I mean, pretty much every single one in their appropriate location. But as the presentation has taken place and it's gone hours and hours, they started million about a little more -- excuse me.

And by the end of yesterday, I noticed -- particularly at the end of Congressman Schiff's presentation, there were a lot of empty seats. And some were standing, just standing behind their seats or wandering about, and then it seemed that a lot of them kind of wandered out.

COOPER: And are -- is there anything unusual you've seen?

HENNESSY: Well, I mean, not really so much unusual as what you might expect, that they would be sort of negotiating, discussing matters. You know, we have a really unique view, looking down on them. There's some note-taking ,it is kind of notable that sometimes there's absolutely nothing on their notepads and instead, they choose to listen and not take notes.

But you know, as far as --

COOPER: It's also --

HENNESSY: Go ahead.

COOPER: -- it's also interesting, just the traditions of the Senate, the things which are on desks. I think there's actually -- I think you drew a picture, at one point, of a spittoon?

HENNESSY: Yes, the spittoon is a holdover from days gone by, but it's kept there as a tradition. And I see the image of Marco Rubio, for some reason pulled out a crow quill -- you know, the feather pen and started pretending to write with it, I think that was more just sort of in jest.

COOPER: Mm-hmm. And the -- are people talking to each other at all? I mean, I know they're not supposed to speak, I've heard there was passing of notes.

HENNESSY: Oh, there's definitely, you know, talking. But not a lot. I mean, primarily, they are paying attention, at least they appear to be. And -- but there's definitely, you know, talking, particularly in the back, when they'll stand up and mill about, there's a little bit of discussion.

But most of that happens during the breaks, that's where you'll see a lot of interaction between them.

COOPER: Bill Hennessy, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

HENNESSY: You bet.

COOPER: Any minute now, we expect to hear from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He's maybe taking questions as well, bring you his comments live.

[10:44:39]

Also, a Republican senator joins us to react to one of his colleagues, saying they haven't heard this case before.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. I'm Dana Bash on Capitol Hill, and I'm joined now by a Republican senator, John Barrasso of the state of Wyoming. Thank you so much for joining me --

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Thanks for having me.

BASH: -- I appreciate it. So you have now heard one very long day of the House Democratic managers talking, really in granular detail about how they believe that the president pushed the Ukrainian leader to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, and threatened to withhold aid that you and your colleagues passed, here in Congress, that the Ukrainians needed. Any -- have they swayed you at all?

BARRASSO: No, nothing that -- what I heard. It didn't seem -- yesterday was like Groundhog's Day, because we heard what we had heard the day before. And I'm expecting more of the same today, just repeating and repeating and repeating. About every hour and a half, they repeat themselves, they play the same videos, use the same quotes.

[10:50:12]

I was surprised at how often Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's name were brought up by the Democrats --

BASH: Why?

BARRASSO: -- yesterday, in this area, during the time when --

BASH: Why did it surprise you?

BARRASSO: -- just the number of times that they brought his name up, continues to remind people that there is concern about what happened in the previous administration.

BASH: So let's talk about the question of witnesses. You have said a couple different things. Earlier, you have said -- you said that you were open to new witnesses. And yesterday, I heard that you said that you don't think it's necessary.

I want you and our viewers to hear what Adam Schiff -- one of the times that Adam Schiff argued about the need to hear from witnesses, especially John Bolton.

BARRASSO: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): John Bolton now says there's no necessity for him to go to court, he doesn't have to do it. He's willing to come and talk to you. He's willing to come and testify, and tell you what he knows --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So why not hear from him? Doesn't that seem -- the way that they're describing it and the way that John Bolton has now offered himself, like a no-brainer? Why wouldn't you want to get more information if you could?

BARRASSO: Well, the question's going to be put to all of the Senate, do we actually need more information after we've heard 24 hours of the case from the Democrat witnesses -- the Democrat managers, another 24 hours from the White House? And then finally, we have a 16-hour opportunity to ask questions.

At that point, the question is, do we need more information or --

BASH: Well, what do (ph) --

BARRASSO: -- do we know enough to make a final judgment? BASH: But in fairness, what they are presenting is based on the only

thing that they know. I mean, they're only -- they only have an argument based on the information at hand. And the point that they're making is, we could make a better argument if we had, for example, firsthand witnesses, someone like John Bolton who understood and was there for the decisions and the directives that the president made.

BARRASSO: But it's the same argument that they continue to make. It's what they brought forth from the House --

BASH: Wouldn't it be more persuadable to you if you heard from someone like John Bolton who was actually there?

BARRASSO: Not necessarily. I may have, by the time this is all done -- and I expect I will have enough information to make a final judgment decision -- I expect most of the senators will do that.

I expect that the Democrat senators will already have enough information to make that final decision, especially when you have four of them running for president. There was one on, in the last hour, on CNN. I mean, they're actually going to be voting to remove from the ballot, the name of Donald Trump. Not just remove him from office, but remove him from the ballot in 2020. So I believe they have a conflict of interest in their decision.

BASH: So I understand you're saying that they're being repetitive, but you understand there is something to be said for the fact that people at home, who may or may not be calling you -- maybe not so much in Wyoming, but other -- other states, which are a little bit more mixed in terms of partisanship -- that that is part of the way that they have to make their argument. That this is what they have, these are the facts that they have and they're doing it in different ways but you're the jury, but the public back home is also the jury.

BARRASSO: Well, I think Adam Schiff, the other night, looked up to the camera, and he said, I know they're still watching in California. But as he's repeating things that we've heard time and time again.

So we went into the case, many of taking lots of notes the first day. And then, yesterday, not too many notes because it was just a repetition of the day before, and that's why I say it's like Groundhog's Day all over again. Today, I'm expecting to hear just a repetition of what they said yesterday.

BASH: Just real quick, talk to me about what it's like to be in the chamber. I was watching a little bit, our colleagues are watching. I've noticed you are there, you are paying attention. There was some whispering, there was some giggling. And --

BARRASSO: I sit next to Lindsey Graham, he's a talkative kind of guy --

BASH: That's fair.

BARRASSO: -- you can get into trouble --

BASH: That's fair.

BARRASSO: -- and they say under punishment of imprisonment.

BASH: Well, based on what I saw, there could be some people in jail because not --

BARRASSO: That could be bipartisan, yes.

BASH: -- that could be bipartisan --

BARRASSO: Talk (ph) on the floor, right (ph).

BASH: -- but do you feel confident that people are paying attention, even though I've seen some people get up and leave at various times?

BARRASSO: Well, it's interesting. You've been in the gallery, I've seen you in the press gallery. You know, they're playing videos and you can see those video screens from around the chamber, but you can't read the e-mails that they're projecting on those video screens.

So when one of the managers says, "And you see from this e-mail," from my seat, I can't read that. I know many of the members can't read it, the print is too small. So if you actually want to see it, you either have to get up and walk over to those large video screens in the corners of the Senate chamber, or go into the cloakroom. And in the cloakroom, CSPAN is on. And they're broadcasting the e-mails, you can see those, or the text messages, or whatever, on the screen.

[10:55:00]

So if you really want to pay close attention, you can't do it from your seat, you have to do it from either standing in front of the video screens or in the cloakroom, watching the CSPAN video.

BASH: So note to managers, print out the e-mails and hand them out. OK, thank you so much. Thank you for your time --

BARRASSO: Thanks for having me.

BASH: -- Senator.

BARRASSO: Thanks.

BASH: Appreciate it.

Jake and Wolf, back to you.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Dana. Thanks very much.

You know, Jake, they complain that it's repetitive, the Democrats' the House mangers' arguments are repetitive, they keep hearing the same thing over and over again.

But one of the audiences -- and maybe the most important audiences -- for these House managers is the American public. And unlike us, most Americans are not sitting there, six, seven, eight hours, watching this. They may sit there for half an hour, an hour or so. So that's why the Democrats, the House managers are being repetitive, I presume.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: It's also odd, I think, to complain about there not being anything new, and then go and vote against there being anything new. I mean, this is a trial. There have been witnesses in every previous impeachment trial.

And Senator Barrasso, along with his 52 Republican colleagues, have voted against every other attempt to subpoena documents or subpoena witnesses including, as Dana just pointed, out, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has expressed his willingness to come forward and tell his story to the Senate if subpoenaed.

So it does seem to be kind of trying to complain about it no matter what --

BLITZER: Right.

TAPPER: -- the food is horrible, and such small portions. The -- the fact is, this could be much more riveting testimony, it's true. It could be much more interesting and have a lot more new in it if the Senate voted to have new witnesses and have new testimony.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the senators' argument here, do we actually need much more information? Reflects this notion that whatever the president did, it's not impeachable.

It seems to me that he seems to be in that camp, that, I get it, I get it, I know what he did. But I'm not going to vote to impeach him over it. And that seems to be a good part of the Senate, although they're not allowed to say it because -- publicly, because the president would get angry at them. So what he has to say is, you know, we have enough -- I think we have enough to make a final judgment. We're having 24 hours on one side, 24 hours on another.

And he doesn't even have to deal with the issue of witnesses, but others have said what -- you know, what Jake is talking about, which is, you know, this sort of notion, well, I'm not learning anything new but I don't really care to because I don't want any more witnesses.

I think for the American public, out there, saying, OK, you have the opportunity, you've been complaining about hearsay forever. You have the opportunity to hear from people in the room, from John Bolton, who actually says, subpoena me and I'll come. And we know, from other testimony, what John Bolton has said. He referred to this notion as a drug deal, this set-up for Zelensky to announce investigations.

Wouldn't the American public -- and that is who they're playing to -- wouldn't the American public say, well, I've served on a jury, I -- when I'm on a jury, I want to hear all the witnesses. So why wouldn't you?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Whether you do or you don't, you have to. Whether you do or you don't, you have to, if you're American --

BORGER: Right. KING: At least part -- the whiny part is, give me a break. Just do your jobs, this is your job. If you don't like your job, get a new job, right? This is what you signed up for. Impeachment is very rare, this doesn't come up all the time. But if can.

If you're a senator, you understand there is possibility you might have to sit in an impeachment trial. And I was here for the last one, part of this is just the political role reversal. Democrats were against witnesses then, therefore witnesses now.

Republicans did not say they were bored, even though there was nothing new brought to the Senate floor during the Clinton impeachment trial. Republicans were not rushing out to say, we're bored, this is old, this is nothing new, can we get this over with.

Some Democrats were saying, why do we have to hear this all again? Why can't we just get to the vote? So some of this is just pure politics.

But, again, we have to remember -- and we have to help our viewers put it in context. Senator Barrasso, whether you agree or disagree with what he just said, is a member of Mitch McConnell's leadership team.

They are told, in every public appearance, just minimize the Democrats' case, say I'm hearing nothing new, saying this nowhere comes close to the bar of removing a president from office, especially in an election year. Let's go home. That's their political message, whether you like it or not. That's what they're going to say, over and over and over again.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: And get in a mention of Biden, right? As we saw him do there. Say, oh, he was surprised at how many mentions of Biden. There weren't really that many mentions of Biden. If anything, they were essentially saying, there was no there, there, the folks I heard from yesterday.

Anyway, I mean, they are playing to the American public, but it's a slice of the American public, right? It's their base, it's obviously what the president wants to hear from him.

I think there was all of this thinking -- and John sort of alluded to this -- this idea -- or Gloria did -- this idea that, at some point, maybe the Republicans would land on this behavior was terrible, but it's not impeachable. Doesn't even really seem like they're approaching --

(CROSSTALK)

[11:00:00]

KING: John Cornyn -- John Cornyn, it's interesting, he's also one of the senior -- he got close to it yesterday, essentially saying, you know, look, some of this distasteful, some of this is not the way I would do it, some of this you might not --