Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

GOP's Lindsey Graham: "Important" For Us To See Bolton Manuscript; Growing GOP Support For Seeing Bolton's Testimony, Manuscript; Soon: Donald Trump's Team Resumes Opening Arguments; Donald Trump Claims He Hasn't Seen Bolton's Damning Testimony; Bolton Claim Raises Stakes As White House Defense Team Spotlight. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired January 27, 2020 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I'm Jake Tapper live in Washington alongside with Wolf Blitzer, Chris Cuomo, Dana Bash on Capitol Hill. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world for CNN's Special Live Coverage of the Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: In just one house the Senate gavels back into sessions and we'll be watching this to see if the President's defense team will address the damning new information Former National Security Adviser John Bolton's book. The New York Times reports rough manuscript details of conversation in August, where by the President explicitly told Bolton that he wanted to continue withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine help with investigations including an investigation aimed at Former Vice President Joe Biden. Republican Senator Mitt Romney now saying he wants to hear Bolton testifies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY, (R-UT): I can't begin to tell you how Jon Bolton's testimony would ultimately play on a final decision, but it are relevant, and therefore I would like hear and it and what impact that might have would depend up on all the facts associated with it. We hear from opposition prosecution and defense was to what was relevant and what was said and how that might influence our final vote? But I can't begin to tell you how that will be resolved? As I've indicated I see myself as a Senate juror, and in that capacity, I will maintain impartiality to the extent I can.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator, have you spoken to any of your Republican colleagues? Do you get the sense more of them will be on board with voting for witnesses? Four of you need to say yes. Do you think there are four votes?

ROMNEY: I think it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Interesting that he's suggesting that there might be four to get to 51. Then you can bring in witnesses. But at the same time the Republicans will demand they want witnesses as well, including the Bidens.

TAPPER: Remember that the defense case, what the defenders of President Trump said on the floor of the Senate was that all of this idea that the aid was tied to these investigations that President Trump wanted, that all of this is speculation from Gordon Sondland, and there were no firsthand witnesses.

Now that's not true. We have Mick Mulvaney on the record saying indeed there was a link between the delay of the aid and the desire for the investigation by Ukraine in 2016. But putting that lie aside, John Bolton and what he's claiming, obviously, would be completely relevant. But we're in the subject of that one lie, since we're addressing it; let me bring up this tweet from President Trump earlier today.

The Democrat-controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. Then he goes on to say it's up to them, not up to the Senate. The idea that the House of Representatives never even asked John Bolton to testify is just a lie. It's false. There is a letter I'm holding in my hand right now from October 30th in which the three chairs of the relevant committees in the House of Representatives asked John Bolton to testify.

So they did, in fact, ask him to testify now whether they subpoenaed him, that's another matter, because there was this whole subpoena argument that was going on, but the idea that there was no request for Bolton to testify, completely false. Completely false. Let's go to Chris Cuomo now.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Remember, Jake and Wolf, the key is President knows it's false. He knows what happened and why the House laid off the subpoena with the - with Bolton because the attorney for Bolton was very clear about what path it would take and what that would mean and that it was a time battle and they didn't want it?

So the state of play on Bolton as a witness, though, does have a twist in it. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the President's biggest defenders, saying he would like to see the Bolton manuscript. All right, now, we talked about this earlier. We have John Dean, Jeffrey Toobin, Laura Coates and Ross Garber.

So Ross, maybe Senator Lindsey Graham was listening to you and saying, I hate him less, let me see what he says? The idea if we don't get Bolton's testimony, that's complicated, privilege and what happened and who else and horse trading but the manuscript. What could be done according to Lindsey Graham?

ROS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: As we said a little while ago, either a subpoena for the manuscript and they change hands and there's no time to get to court, or the administration voluntarily provides the manuscript to the Senate. I take Senator Graham's comment to mean, all right, we'll take the manuscript, and then we will decide, first of all, whether it needs to be part of the record, which it probably will be, but then second, do we even need him as a witness? We have his words. We have dozens of pages of his account of things. Maybe we don't need him as a witness. I think that's the thing to watch for now.

TAPPER: Jeffrey, how does that play?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, the story gets more and more complicated. I mean, Simon and Shuster, his publisher, and John Bolton himself have under their control the ability to solve this problem. Just come here and give an interview. Release the book.

[12:05:00]

TOOMBIN: I mean, I think there is a patriotism factor at play here where, you know, I think we all recognize that the impeachment of a President is an extremely serious thing. We also recognize that John Bolton has highly relevant testimony and a book he's written. Why are an editorial assistant at Simon and Shuster allowed to read this and the hundred Senators are not? There's something wrong with this issue

CUOMO: Copyright issue?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, let's put aside the legal issue for a second which just sort of the--

CUOMO: Yes.

TOOBIN: Yes, the ethical issues like is it really more important to release the book on March 17th as supposed to January 30th?

CUOMO: But Bolton has been doing this all along, right he had his lawyer about whether or not he would expect that he has been selectively this patriotism but what happens, John Dean, if this changes and Bolton is like, you know what, I didn't think it would play out this way. I guess I do have to offer up the manuscript? To Laura's point, now it all becomes free which is a great twist of the knife by Trump at Bolton, but what happens? Would the manuscript be enough?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, first of fall it's hearsay, clearly. That hasn't been a big prohibition and evidence in this case so far, but that certainly is in regards to his testimony. All it is a suggestion of his testimony and hearsay of what he might say.

CUOMO: Even if the manuscript reads, this is what he told me, the manuscript in and of itself can't be as competent as his actual testimony?

DEAN: That's exactly right, certainly not the best evidence. That's the first problem. Secondly, Bolton, as Jeffrey has been saying, as a patriotic manner, hold a press conference tomorrow, today, come to your show this evening, whatever, and put the word out. Here's what I know, here's the relevance of it, here's why I signaled I had vital information, and he should do that.

Why he would want to withhold that now that it is so clear he has this information is a mystery?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think about strategy all the time, and I anticipate if I were the defense team, what would I do? And I think the Democrats have to be very careful about putting all their eggs into the Bolton basket, because it still holds true that the defense is going to say this is now going to be a he said, she said.

Okay fine, he comes out here and he says that this is what the man told me, the President wanted to condition aid. It's not different from what we heard from, say, a Bill Taylor or Fiona Hill or Gordon Sondland frankly at this point. So they say, now it's a he said, he said, and his defense is still the same. That's not true.

And you had bad blood when you left the White House, so you're trying to stick it to us. In reality, I was conditioning aid only about corruption generally, not about a political opponent, and I was doing so for the interest of the national security of our entire nation.

And so in many ways, as far along as we get from the revelation, which is a revelation about having firsthand accounts from Donald Trump, you're in the same boat for a lot of the Senators to say well this moved the needle for me personally have I learned that much more that's going to be able to undermine what I know will be the defense? I don't think it is yet.

TOOBIN: What makes this so extraordinary is that we are debating about facts that are known in the world. It's not like a mystery - like, there are emails. Every government decision in the past 50 years as documents underlying it. American policy with regard to Ukraine is no exception. There are emails in the White House, in the National Security Council on this subject.

How can the senate, in good conscience, make a decision of this magnitude knowing that this evidence is out there and not getting it. Knowing that these witnesses--

GARBER: The House rushed this along, they got the information, they controlled the timing of this. That piece I understand, you know. The Senate saying, you guys, you put together this case, you brought it to us. The rules favor the House. The rules automatically let the House spend three days putting in every piece of information they wanted, whether they collected it or they saw it on TV, it didn't matter. I could see the Senate saying, no, no, no, that's not how it works. We're not now going to have a year and a half trial and go to court and all those things.

TOOBIN: But if you view - and it's an imperfect analogy but a useful one - the House as the grand jury and the Senate as the trial jury, the grand jury never gets every single piece of evidence.

GARBER: It's not perfect, that's not the structure. Impeachment is not a grand jury, it's a completely different process. You know, these House members had to be in a position where they voted. It was the only vote that the House gets to take on whether the President should be removed from office. That's what the impeachment says, is that the House of Representatives believes that the President should be removed from office, and then it goes to the Senate for a trial.

[12:10:00]

COATES: Ross, it also says, though, the Senate should try the case. I think it is apropos to talk about a grand jury as analogy for this reason alone. The idea of an indictment is never the sealing for what you have to do for your burden approve in a criminal prosecution. The articles of impeachment are also not the sealing. The shouldn't be the floor and bare - we just need Jeff that not enough to impeach a President, but the idea that you wouldn't have to then have witnesses or try the case just because there's no grand jury I think it lets the Senate off the hook of coin becomes usual standards.

CUOMO: Laura has the proper synthesis on this. I think though that to your point of not getting too smart on it. Will it move the needle? As Jeffery said and as everybody here knows and you do, too, at home, it's not a mystery that what happened? It's not a mystery why it happened? The mystery is how these Senators are going to process what is known by everybody through the lens of political advantage.

One of the first indications is the Republicans didn't hold their presser this morning. And boy, would I love to be in that lunch with the GOP Caucus and what they're asking of their leader Mitch McConnell.

So stand by now we're awaiting the start of today's trial. We're getting new reporting of how the President's lawyers are going to approach the day. This is CNN's Special Live Coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

BLITZER: The bombshell claim by Former National Security Adviser John Bolton is under cutting a significant of chunk in President Trump's impeachment defense.

TAPPER: And now CNN is learning that the White House is hearing from frustrated Republicans over being kept in the dark. CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House for us. Kaitlan, what are you hearing?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, essentially the White House Legal Team thought that yesterday was going to be a day to essentially fine tune their arguments to really focus on that and get ready for today. And now with this bomb shell coming from this reporting in "The New York Times," they are essentially working late into the night figuring out how they're going to respond to this?

Now first up they have to decide that they wanted the President to address this essentially, and aides helped the President to craft that tweet that you saw last night where he was discussing this addressing the allegations, something he's done today saying that they were false. And essentially they did that because they wanted Republicans to have talking points because they knew that they were going to be asked about this first thing on Capitol Hill today. The other question that they've been wrestling with Jake and Wolf is whether or not they're going to address these allegations from the Senate floor today?

They thought today was going to be a wrap-up. They felt really good how Saturday went, how the Republicans responded to that? They thought they were in a safe place where they wouldn't have to have witnesses and they were going to able wrap up this trial quickly. And this has really changed the trajectory of everything, and they realize that.

And of course their question is going to be whether there are going to be witnesses and whether or not they're going to bring this up on the floor? That is still TBD that we'll likely learn when we start to see Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow in the light this afternoon.

I do want to follow up on one thing that we talked about on Friday which is Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz of course two blockbuster names of the President, added to his legal team, but who had not been part of any formal legal prep with the rest of the team so far, as of Friday had not been seen in the White House or in Capitol Hill where the rest of the team has been working out of.

But we are told they were at the White House this morning. We will see them on the floor today when they are expected to present. The question is how do they handle this bombshell coming in just days before what they hoped would be an easy acquittal?

BLITZER: Yes, Kaitlan, thank you very much. The President's legal team still has 22 hours left. They only had a few hours on Saturday. They had 24 hours over three days if they want to use all that time. They certainly will have a lot opportunity to go forward.

TAPER: And the big question and we'll see this at 1:00, I Suppose. Do they even bring this up? It is obviously going to one he minds of every Senator there, That John Bolton has this information that directly contradicts the case they're presenting to Senators. What do they say about it?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's the elephant in the room and someone has to talk about it, depending on what happens in this Republican luncheon, what the Republicans say to Mitch McConnell. What are they going to say to their leader when they feel they should have been informed about this?

I was just looking back to what we were hearing on Saturday, and you heard Mr. Purpura, who is in The White House Counsel's Office, say not a single witness testified that the President himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a Presidential meeting or anything else

TAPPER: It's a lie

BORGER: Now you have John Bolton in his manuscript saying that, and you have the President, by the way, who came out today and said that's not true. So the question that I have is, well, if you're going to have Bolton testify, the President says he's lying. Do you now have to say to the President, okay, Mr. President - not that that will ever happen - but, Mr. President, we have a he said, she said situation here. The President says you're lying about this. You took copious notes, as John pointed out earlier. What happens next?

TAPPER: The can I just say something, Laura, which is - we talked about this earlier. It's not just John Bolton who was contradicting the President's story. Mick Mulvaney went out in front of the cameras and said the security aid was tied to at least one of the investigations in part. We also have Gordon Sondland, and then, of course, all the other witnesses. So the question - it's not a he said, she said, it's he said, he said, he said, he said, he said. There are a ton of people.

BORGER: That's the worry of Republicans, because then it opens the door to all these other witnesses. If you have Bolton, don't you then have to have Mulvaney?

TAPPER: Of course.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: And you have a number of Republican Senators again who will not say this publicly because they fear the wrath of the White House or they love their Senate Majority and they're worried that an angry President would put the Senate Majority even more at risk in this election year who do not like when lies are told on the floor of the United States senate or misrepresentation of you want to choose a kind of word.

[12:20:00]

KING: The question is, can this leadership now keep this genie trapped in the bottle? There are two, Collins and Romney. There are three or four other Senators we know are in their heart of parts are inclined to vote for witnesses. Leader McConnell has tried to keep them in the bottle. Can the passage of time today, can something the President's lawyer say get them all to take a deep breath or this is messy.

We talked about this. This is messy. They would have preferred the House had John Bolton, the House fought this out in the court. All of the Senators have a legitimate argument to say, why this I happening here? Wey didn't this happen there? That's great, but it is happening. The President is on trial for impeachment. And his National Security Adviser says there was quid pro quo and that didn't fall from the sky magically.

They fell from the sky right after the President's lawyer said on the floor of the United States Senate not a single witness which shifts, you're right, it was a lie about Mick Mulvaney. Here's John Bolton saying, hello. Do they want to be the ground ostrich party and stick their head in the ground and hope they can run out the clock? That is their choice.

BLITZER: Everybody stand by. Dana is up on Capitol Hill. Dana, you have a special guest now? DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I'm here with Senator Amy Klobuchar. She is back from Iowa, just off the plane. We won't show your footwear. It is Iowa foot ware.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's just tennis shoes.

BASH: Tell me what your thoughts are and if you've had a chance, more importantly, to speak to your colleagues as things have really been stood u here and scrambled when it comes to witnesses?

KLOBUCHAR: I think this is a game changer, because I sat there and listened to the President's lawyers this weekend, and their whole case was, oh, this didn't happen, basically. This didn't happen. Look at the readout of the call. That's not what he said. And now you have the National Security Adviser, the gatekeeper to all the information basically saying it did happen.

So, regard regardless of how the going to vote on impeachment, I don't know how they deny the American public the truth, how they can explain that they wouldn't call in Bolton to testify? You've got Susan Collins now saying it's more likely, you've got Mitt Romney already saying that Bolton should testify, and then you have a number of them saying--

BASH: But you need four.

KLOBUCHAR: You need four, but they've literally said the case is just circumstantial. Look, I'm a former prosecutor. The way you get to evidence that isn't just circumstantial is getting in the room where it happened. And I've been saying that for weeks now, we need to hear - I did not know it was the title of john Bolton's book.

BASH: You didn't intentionally plug his buzz book?

KLOBUCHAR: No, I did not.

BASH: What Lindsey Graham and a couple of other Republicans have told my colleagues in the hall way this morning as they were going into their lunches is the same thing we heard before. Okay, well, you want to hear from Bolton, then we'll have to hear from witnesses we want to hear from like Hunter Biden, Joe Biden. Is there any world where you can see at least Democrats agreeing to ask them to come?

KLOBUCHAR: I just think we need relevant witnesses, and that was one of the reasons in kind of a desperate move at the end, we said, let John Roberts, conservative Supreme Court Justice, decide what witnesses are relevant. We actually had a vote on that and all the Democrats voted to allow him to decide.

They wouldn't even go for that. So I think it shows how they know who is relevant and who is not relevant, and the relevant witnesses are the people that were there when the President made the decisions and directed them to withhold the aid. And we've heard from numerous career diplomats, military people, that they believe this happened, and all of this evidence mounting, and now we have the guy that was in the room saying it happened. I just - I don't know.

I keep thinking, did they run for these jobs just to be able to buy their chairs at the end and put them in their office? Did they run for these jobs just for a lifetime title and a trophy on a wall? Or did they run for these jobs to represent the people, because the constitution doesn't say we, the ruling party, it says, we, the people.

BASH: One last question, really briefly. The other argument that we're hearing from Republicans, and we are going to maybe even hear from the lawyers on the floor in the trial today, is this isn't our job. It's not our job to finish the house managers' investigation. They should have dealt with this, taken this to court if John Bolton couldn't or wouldn't testify before the house when they were dealing with the impeachment issue.

KLOBUCHAR: This is a trial. When you go back through history, there have always been witnesses at these trials. That's a fact, every single one of them except this one. I don't understand how - I thought the most compelling argument made was that history is going to look back at them on this. And if they squelch the truth - they can vote however they want, but if they squelch the truth, the minute the book comes out, - squelch the truth - they can vote however they want, squelch the truth - they can vote however they want, but if they squelch the truth, the minute the book comes out, they'll find out.

BASH: Senator thank you, senator. I appreciate it.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Dana.

BASH: We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. I was just looking at my watch to see much time?

KLOBUCHAR: Yes, I got to get back.

[12:25:00]

BASH: Yea little more than a half hour until the trial starts again. We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: There is simply no evidence anywhere that President Trump ever linked security assistance to any investigations.

(END VIDOE CLIP)

CUOMO: All right so one of the main prongs of the President's legal team's defense strategy is you have no direct proof. Sure a lot of people have--