Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Soon, House Managers Present Abuse of Power Case; Schumer Speaks Ahead of Opening Arguments Against Trump; Sen. Tom Carper (D- DE) Discusses Criticism House Democrats Are Offending Senate Republicans & Democrats Seeking Witnesses and Documents. Aired 11- 11:30a ET

Aired January 23, 2020 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And John alluded to this idea -- or Gloria, this idea, at some point, maybe the Republicans would land on this behavior was terrible, but it is not impeachable, doesn't even really seem like they're approaching --

(CROSSTALK)

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: John Cornyn, it's interesting, he's one of the senior - but he got close to it yesterday, essentially saying, you know, some of this is distasteful, not the way I would do it, some of it you may not like, but it does not rise to -- we never removed a president from office and we're not going to do it now.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Broadly, that's not the case.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: I would love to hear what Senator Santorum thinks about this because there was -- editors of the "National Review," a conservative publication, had an interesting editorial.

And, basically, they say, "Senate Republicans have reached an unspoken consensus, by and large, about the president, he should not have done what he did." I'm going to summarize it. He should not have done what he did, but it is not impeachable.

And then, write, quote, "It is a reasonable position and it is the case of Republicans ought to make in public, they are inhibited from doing so by the president's on obstinacy."

In other words, the safest grounds is that President Trump shouldn't have done that, we don't support. But there's an election coming up, let's leave it to the American people. That's what the "National Review's" position is.

You can't do that because President Trump demands the Republican Party be in lockstep and say it was a perfect call. RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. And I would say

that's been my position, my position all along, that a lot of what the president did was not the right thing to do, but I don't think that it comes close, in my opinion, to grounds for removing the president.

I think Republicans are making a mistake not to have many Republicans out there saying that exact same thing.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Exactly --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: And -- but having said that, there's also a big group of Republicans -- and I respect them -- who think this whole thing is just a complete sham, who agree with the president, 100 percent, that this is not partially pure politics, completely pure politics.

KING: But agree with the president that you hold up nearly $400 million in military aid, agree with the president you keep dangling the White House meeting but still haven't given the White House --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: The argument is that, number one, the other side didn't know it was being held. And number two, it was released on time. It was released and spent. And this president's policies towards Ukraine are stronger and better than the previous administration.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: And Democrats used to argue against.

From a Republican point of view, the hypocrisy on the Democratic side is just overflowing. And they're not going to tolerate it.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: This is what Schiff -- Schiff was making the case, I think, very clearly yesterday, that the aid to Ukraine was released on September 11th and that was two days after there were three House committees launching an investigation into the Ukraine matter and why the money was held up. So the president was under a great deal of pressure to say, OK.

Finally, they're making the point he didn't release it out of the goodness of his heart. He was pressured into doing it, plus there was a whistleblower out there.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: I don't think he knew anything about the whistleblower. I agree with that --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: -- the congressional committees wanted him to spend the money and were going to push him to spend the money.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: They already appropriated it.

SANTORUM: Right. But they -- the administration got word that, look, they're going to do something and really force your hand on this. And he said, OK, the --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: -- and Republicans were telling him the votes are there, so he said, OK, fine, I'll release it. You can say --

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And a whistleblower came forward.

SANTORUM: But that's not -- that's not oh, I'm -- I'm trying to cut some sort of deal. That's not proof that there's any kind of quid pro quo here. It is proof that the president, who we all know has a long track record of actually holding back the aid and not wanting to spend a lot of money.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: We're having a conversation here. We are not short of the details. Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton get --

(CROSSTALK)

KING: -- how it played out, which is was.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Was it because of the whistleblower, was it because of Republican Senator pressure?

SANTORUM: I go back to the point we all made here, doesn't matter. Even if that was the case, even if he had some consideration in holding back the money, you don't throw a president out of office for that. You just don't.

BORGER: For asking a foreign leader to do his political dirty work and holding up aid --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: It's not political dirty work. It is a legitimate question --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: If you believe there say legitimate question on the --

(CROSSTALK) BORGER: Go to the FBI.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Why didn't he go to the FBI?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: OK --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: But this is the question of maladministration. You don't agree with the president's policies, you don't agree with his motives for doing it -- if we go not motive of every presidential decision and say, there's a political motivation that can actually hurt your opponent or help you and we're going to impeach you if that's the case, every president will --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Senator, let me ask you a question. Do you not have any concern, having already stated that you have concerns about what President Trump did, you don't think it is impeachable, do you not have any concern about the next president?

Look, I'm perfectly willing to concede the point that the Senate tolerating Bill Clinton's personal behavior paved the path for presidents to not be moral exemplars in the future. And you can judge that however you want. I'm not talking about Obama. That's one.

Two, do you not have any concern that a president Warren, a President Buttigieg, President Biden, President Sanders, says, OK, China, you want to play ball, I'd like to know more about what the Kushner family did with those visas? OK, Turkey, you want to play ball, I want to know more -- we'll listen to Adam Schiff. I'm sorry,

SANTORUM: Chuck Schumer.

TAPPER: Chuck Schumer, I'm sorry.

[11:05:17]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I want to say this, the president said in an interview yesterday at Davos that he will take a look at cutting Social Security and other entitlements after the 2020 election, and that it is, actually, he said, the easiest of all things.

The president promised that, unlike other Republicans, he wouldn't touch Social Security and Medicare. He's already broken that promise and gone after Medicare. Now it looks like Social Security is in the president's crosshairs as well.

Even as this trial, even as this important trial continues, Americans should hear that the president is casually talking about cutting their Social Security at a Swiss ski resort with the global financial elite. Now we get the impeachment stuff. OK. To the matter at hand, today was

a discussion -- sorry, Tuesday was the discussion over amendment votes. But yesterday, the managers got to lay out their case uninterrupted.

As manager after manager stepped up to lay out the evidence amassed against the president in precise and devastating detail, the atmosphere of the Senate took on an entirely different dimension.

It may have been first time that many of my Republican colleagues heard the full story, the complete narrative, from start to finish, uninterrupted, and not filtered through the kaleidoscope lens of FOX News, where, at best, things are left out and at worst things are terribly distorted.

It may have planted the first seeds in their mind that, yes, perhaps the president did something very wrong here.

Mr. Schiff and the other managers did an exceptional job laying out the facts of the president's alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Walking through the chronology and anticipating and rebutting the most predictable counterarguments from the president's counsel along the way and knocking those arguments down before they got there.

I was particularly impressed how Mr. Schiff undid the ability of the managers to say, well, the president said there's no collusion, and they kept pointing out in a very clear way in the same phone call, in the same letter or in the same conversation he then went back to holding back the aid.

It has been only one day, but House managers are setting the bar very high for the president's counsel to meet. At this point, I'm not sure how the president's counsel, as unprepared, confused and tending towards conspiracy theories as they have been, can clear it.

And I would say one other thing. Particularly in the last two hours, when Mr. Schiff summed everything up. I was there and I like to watch my Republican colleagues. And many of them really don't want to be there. And for some of it they're looking the other way, may be chatting with somebody, sitting this way.

Schiff had such power in his speech that he almost forced them to look at him and listen and just about every Republican's eyes were glued on Mr. Schiff. So it was a powerful rendition.

Now, what are the Republicans saying after yesterday? Well, the same Republicans are saying that they heard nothing new. But these Republicans voted nine times on Tuesday against amendments to ensure new witnesses and new documents to come before the Senate.

Let me repeat, the same Republicans saying they heard nothing new just voted nine times on Tuesday to hear nothing new.

If they want new stuff, there's plenty of it. As the managers made clear, a lot of the documents are sitting there, all compiled, all ready to go, with simply a vote of four Republicans to subpoena them.

This argument that they heard nothing new when they vote against new evidence repeatedly rings very, very hollow.

[11:10:04]

If my Republican colleagues are interested in some new evidence, on top of the very substantial House record, there's a very simple answer, vote with Democrats, to call relevant witnesses and documents.

The presentations themselves argued both implicitly and explicitly for the importance of witnesses and documents.

At key points yesterday, it was so clear that we ought to hear from Mulvaney and Blair and Duffey and Bolton, who are at the center of these events, and it was so clear that we must review relevant documents.

If someone doubts a witness reporting a phone call, the way to verify it, to see if it is true, is look at the underlying document. They don't want that.

The managers kept referring back to important documents that we know exist and that we know concern the charges but are being hidden from the Senate and the public by the president.

One example, Ambassador Taylor's memo to Secretary Pompeo after he spoke to Bolton, in which he gave a contemporaneous account of his concerns about the president's corrupt scheme in Ukraine. Why wouldn't my fellow Republicans want to see it? Why wouldn't they want the American people to see it?

I don't see how any Senator, Democrat or Republican, could sit on the floor, listen to Adam Schiff and the House impeachment managers and not demand witnesses and documents, unless, that is, they're not interested in the truth that they're afraid of the truth, that they know the president is hiding the truth.

I think the case for witnesses and documents is so self-evident that many of my Republican colleagues are desperate to talk about anything else. They're so eager to change conversation from witnesses and documents, from over the question of fairness of the trial, that they're inventing shiny objects and so-called outrages.

We don't know what the next one will be. But it will surely be something irrelevant to a fair trial. Because they don't want to debate that issue. So they try to turn you, the press, and the American people away to look at something else that has nothing to do with the trial.

Make no mistake about it, the issue of relevant evidence, documents and witnesses, is going to come back up and Senate Republicans will have the power to bring that evidence into the trial.

We saw how Leader McConnell was forced to modify his resolution on Tuesday after certain Republicans raised objects. Republican Senators, four of them, it is in their hands, can make this trial more fair if they want to. The question is, will they use that power when it really matters?

Senator Hirono?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we're going to continue to monitor this news conference from the Democratic leadership. Chuck Schumer making the case for witnesses, for documents.

And Dana Bash, Phil Mattingly on Capitol Hill. They're watching all of this very, very closely.

Dana, first, to you.

We keep hearing that the critical -- the critical element will be these four Republican Senators who can make the difference whether or not there actually will be witnesses called.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And it is important to go back to that, because that was obviously what the whole point of Senator Schumer's presentation was, just there.

The argument that he is making and other Democrats have been making both the managers on the floor but, more importantly, those in and around this trial, which is to try to pressure four Republican Senators to break with their leader, to break with their president, and say, we want witnesses.

We want to hear from other people who can shed more light on this, direct witnesses or people with direct knowledge of what the president wanted, of what he directed, and so forth, with regard to what happened with Ukraine.

And as I reported earlier, you -- that's not just kind of happening in a vacuum.

You're also seeing and the Senators are also hearing from allies of the president, and allies of their own, maybe back home, in a very coordinated effort, a lobbying campaign that is going on as we speak, behind the scenes, by the president, by the White House, to try to combat that, and say, no, no, you don't want witnesses, and here's why.

So those are the cross currents going on right now, in the short-term. Doesn't change the long-term question about whether the president will be acquitted, there's no indication that will change. But that is the ball game right now. Still, about whether any four Republican Senators will break with their party.

[11:15:09]

TAPPER: Right.

The idea right now, Phil Mattingly, not so much whether there will be 20 Republicans to go along with actually removing President Trump from office, but four Republicans who would like to hear more information. Democrats are trying to hit hard the idea they would be complicit in a

cover-up. Republicans saying it is not the job of the Senate to do the House's work for them.

Have you seen any indication that there will be four Republicans to vote for, for more evidence, more witnesses, Phil?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, I think the general understanding now in the Hill is there are three. You know Senator Mitt Romney said he wants to hear from Ambassador John Bolton. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, have made clear they're very and very likely to vote to consider witnesses and additional evidence. Big question is the fourth.

I think to go to Dana's point, the Senators themselves are hearing from their allies. They're also getting a lot of pressure from Republican leadership.

You heard Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell make the case that if you want to go after and try to subpoena administration officials, you're going to lead to a very elongated process. You are going to lead to court cases that are going to bring in open question, as it was referred to me, a pandora's box of what this means for executive privilege going forward, warning essentially Senators against that. They're getting it from all sides here.

You heard from Senator Schumer, as well as the Democrats' pitch here. This is important as you watch the presentations. You saw it last night and you see it again today. How the Democratic managers weaver in the idea of we believe this is certain. We believe this is exactly what happened.

But, Jake, this would be what else we can learn if you get this information. This is why this is necessary in the effort to pitch.

And I'll say one final thing, you don't ever see kind of that last vote come in isolation. We know there's three. They need to have four. If there's going to be a fourth, there will likely be a push for safety in numbers. You'll see a couple more come along as well.

The big question is, will a group of four, five, six, start to come together and say this is something we need to consider or will it just stick to three and this will go down. As Dana made the point, this is the ball game, this is the vote after the presentation and the Senators' questions, that's what matters now.

BLITZER: It is an important point.

And if there will be witnesses, this trial will go on for a lot longer than two weeks. Remember, there were witnesses in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, it went on for five weeks. We'll see what happens in the coming days.

Everybody, stand by. There's a lot more we're covering now while we await for opening arguments to resume.

One Senator responds to criticism the House Democrats are offending Republicans in the Senate. Stand by. We're getting more information.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:22:10]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Out of a group of 100 Senators, the most critical audience for House impeachment managers, the Republicans who run the chamber, many have been clear they don't think President Trump's actions warrant removing him from office.

Here is Senator John Cornyn, of Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX) (voice-over): The question is whether this is treason, bribery or high crime or other high crime and misdemeanor. This is the most -- this is the nuclear option under our Constitution, to remove a duly elected president by the vote of the House and the Senate. This is something we should not do unless that constitutional standard -

(CROSSTALK)

CORNYN: And I don't --

(CROSSTALK)

CORNYN: I'm struggling to see how that is even close.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Democratic Senator Tom Carper, of Delaware, joins me now. He's a member of the Homeland Security committee.

Senator, thanks for being here.

We have had one full day of opening arguments. I'm wondering what you're hearing from Republicans on the sidelines.

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): Some people say, well, we've heard this before, didn't learn anything new. I think most Republicans I've talked to, frankly, very much -- almost in awe of the presentation, the ability of Adam to make this kind of presentation, to do it again and for hours, to do it without notes in some cases, his ability to make the case.

I think earlier in the -- like in the afternoon, as the day wore on, people walked off, especially on the other side, weren't paying as much attention. I tell you by 6:00, 7:00, nobody was reading anything. They were focused on what the team, our team, had to say and especially what Adam Schiff had to say. Excellent presenter.

COOPER: Rand Paul tweeted that the more he and his fellow Republicans hear from House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, the more unified the caucus is. We heard Ted Cruz said something similar, essentially, you know, the

longer this goes, the less compelling their arguments are.

Do you think there are any changes the impeachment managers should make in their approach or do you think these Republicans, like Rand Paul, are going to oppose and speak against anything that Schiff and the others do?

CARPER: There are a handful of Republicans, I suspect, who aren't interested in being there, don't want to hear this, and would be just as happy being somewhere else. And -- but there are a handful of Republicans, I don't know, four, five, six, seven, handful of Republicans here, as we are, interested in the truth.

I'm 73 today. I got up early this morning and ran down to the Lincoln Memorial and up the steps and get some inspiration from Mr. Lincoln, who used to say, almost the same words of Thomas Jefferson, if the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake.

We want to know the truth. One of the best ways to ensure we get the truth is to have relevant witnesses and to have relevant documents.

[11:25:01]

The idea -- the idea that a bunch of our Republican friends voted like nine times this week, not for relevant documents, not for additional testimony by people who are in the know on the inside, under oath, they don't want to hear that.

There's a certain irony to that. It's not lost on me. And I hope it's not lost on the voters. And particularly the folks who are in the Republican caucus who have not made up their minds. And who actually think maybe we do -- they need to know a little bit more.

COOPER: Do you think the audience -- which is the more important audience for the House managers, is it the American people who are listening or watching? Is it -- is it those, you know, four, five Republicans, who may be willing to at the very least vote for -- to have some witnesses come forward in?

CARPER: I spoke with my wife last night back in Delaware. She was able to watch it on television. She said it's carried on all the networks. Almost all of them are carrying it live. I was amazed.

And she said that the visual presentations, the video of the actual words and the images of people within the administration, ambassadors, folks who are working the Ukraine and the White House, to hear their testimony is very, very compelling.

We didn't get -- we got to see some of that on the floor. But not nearly as good as -- watching from their own living rooms.

COOPER: One Republican Senator open to having witnesses, Lisa Murkowski, she and others say they were offended by Democrats' accusations that they're engaged in a cover-up. We heard that from Jerry Nadler, He was admonished, as well as the Republicans were admonished as well.

Do you think that language, that characterization is a misstep? It is something that might appeal to a broader audience, but it seems like for, at least for some of the Senators, they seem offended at the allegation that they were involved in a cover-up.

CARPER: Anderson, we have a fuzzy connection. I cannot hear everything you said. Earlier, when John Cornyn spoke before me, he couldn't understand he said. Try it again and I'll try to be responsive. I want to make sure I answer your question.

COOPER: Do you think -- Lisa Murkowski said that she and others were offended by the term cover-up. Do you think that was a mistake or do you think that is an appropriate word to use?

CARPER: I realize some of our Republican friends are not anxious or happy to hear the word cover-up.

What is beginning to emerge for me -- and I like to think of someone who is pretty good at working across the aisle and trying to get things down here set aside the politics -- it is beginning to look and smell more like a cover-up.

But at the end of the day, the question here is, will we have access to the information that we know is there.

I think the president, in Davos, said we have the information, they don't. Something like that. And my lord, that's -- that's the case, if he's willing to acknowledge publicly that they have the information and we don't, and to say that's why he thinks they'll be successful, that's a scary thing for our country.

The founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia some 240 years ago, they disagree about a lot of things. One thing they all agreed on, they didn't want a king. That's why they put in place check and balances. That's the real deal.

The main thing here is the kind of threat that is posed to our -- the underpinning of our country. The reason we have this democracy that endured for over 200 some years is because of checks and balances.

It is a hard way to govern. Churchill said the worst form of government devised by man, except for everything else. This is not an easy way to govern. We're learning it all over again.

COOPER: Senator Tom Carper, I appreciate your time. Want to --wish you a happy birthday. Congratulations.

CARPER: Thank you so much. Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: Take care.

Four Senators pulled from the campaign trail to serve as jurors in the president's impeachment trial. Turns out may be helping one of them in the one of the early primary states. We'll have more on that ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)