Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump's Lawyers Will Present Main Arguments amid Bolton Bombshell; House Managers Speak on Bolton's Damning Revelations. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired January 27, 2020 - 12:30   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:00]

MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: -- that President Trump ever link security assistance to any investigations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: 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 said around the edges that they heard it was him, they heard it was him, but no one said it directly. And of course, they're ignoring the e-mails from the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, where they were saying that this was about the president.

Now, that changed because if it is true what John Bolton says, the former national security advisor, that the president told him holding up the aid because I want the investigations, what does it mean to the case? CNN legal analyst and former general counsel of the FBI, Jim Baker. Good to see you as always. How big a deal?

JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, this is a big deal. This is a huge deal and it undercuts significantly the president's defense that Mike Purpura was just articulating there on the floor of the Senate from Saturday as everyone has noted today. So this is -- it's a huge deal. But -- well, let me back up. It's potentially a huge deal.

How this plays out? We'll have to see whether this actually moves the four Senators from the Republican side to vote for witnesses. We'll just have to wait and see.

CUOMO: Help me assess why it's a big deal. The immediate pushback is, well, they knew this, they knew the president's lying, he lies about everything, he lied about this. Bolton is probably telling the truth. And all the evidence we have to this point including the OMB e-mails and other testimony point to the fact that this is what the president wanted. Why should I feel differently?

BAKER: Well, the one gap, as I think the president's counsel articulated pretty well on Saturday is that, for example, Ambassador Sondland was talking about, well, I presume this was the case. He said that numerous times and they played that. This is a direct conversation between Mr. Bolton, allegedly, between Mr. Bolton and the president himself in which the president links the holding -- the withholding of the aid to the investigation of the Bidens and not Burisma or anything else or corruption apparently according to reporting, but directly to the Bidens. And so this has been one of the key element of many Republicans and other supporters of the president who said, no, no, this is not a quid pro quo, he didn't do anything wrong and so on.

We already know that would have been unlawful because the GAO has told us that. It was unlawful to do this. And so I think it goes right to the core of an essential element of the president's defense if we can get -- if the Democrats can actually get this evidence in front of the Senate.

CUOMO: Their argument will be the GAO saying it was a violation. It's, you know, it's a violation of the law but it's just a violation, it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

But we're going to take in the House Democrats right now. Let's listen to Schiff.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): -- we're running a little late, so we'll have to keep it to that. The news of the last 24 hours that John Bolton not only prepared to testify but that based on his manuscript, that testimony would include a direct conversation with the president of the United States where the president made it clear that he was conditioning military aid on political investigations or material that he wanted from Ukraine makes it all the more clear why you can't have a trial, a meaningful trial, without witnesses and you certainly can't have one without John Bolton.

I am, you know, pleased that the senators are reconsidering. Some that had I think questions about the utility witness testimony. They appear to be reconsidering and I think that's very positive because this witness obviously has such relevant information to shed on the most egregious of all of the charges in the articles of impeachment. And that is that the president of the United States withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from an ally at war to help secure that nation's help to cheat in the next election.

Now, let me make one other point, though, very clear. We already have testimony on this key pernicious charge against the president. And that testimony has been consistent and uniform and uncontested. When the president's counsel says as they did on the Senate floor that there is no direct evidence the president ever told someone he was conditioning the aid on these investigations, that's just not correct. He told Mick Mulvaney and Mick Mulvaney admitted it publicly saying that he had discussed this DNC server issue with the president and that was part of the reason they held up the money.

So the president's own chief of staff has already admitted to discussing this with the president. What's more, Ambassador Sondland spoke to the president on September 7th, and while the president denied a quid pro quo, he then went on to explain to Sondland there was in fact a quid pro quo over the aid. That is Zelensky had to go to the mic to answer these -- announce these investigations.

[12:35:18]

And, of course, all the other circumstantial evidence, the fact that there was no legitimate reason for holding the aid, the fact that all of the national security staff, all his advisers and the other secretaries were urging that it be released. The uncontradicted evidence is as simple as two plus two equals four.

Nevertheless, the president's lawyers sought to contest this charge. And now that they have, they cannot dispute the relevance and the importance of John Bolton's testimony. So he had to come in, testify under oath. Senators should not wait until March 17 when the book comes out. They should demand this information while it would still be pertinent to their decision.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congressman, some Republicans argued that if he was so relevant, if John Bolton's testimony was so important, then you should have pushed harder for it over on the House side. Knowing what you know now and we've seen what you've seen in this reporting about the book, do you regret not doing that should you have?

SCHIFF: No. Because what that argument amounts to and bear in mind, we did use that approach with others like Don McGahn. It is now more than nine months since we subpoenaed Don McGahn and we're nowhere near a court decision. So when people say why didn't you go to court to insist and fight and go through the district court and the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, we would still have that question unresolved a year from now.

So it's really an argument to say that the president should be able to unilaterally decide whether and when he can be impeached. Given that he was attempting and has been attempting and continuous to attempt to cheat in the next election, we did not feel we could wait. Now, it isn't a question for John Bolton. Why? He was unwilling to testify when we invited him to testify in the House. Why --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why do you think that is?

SCHIFF: Well, I don't know. But I think he should answer that question. But he is -- for whatever reason, he was unwilling to come before the House, he is willing to come before the Senate. And the senators should not turn away from this very relevant evidence.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Have you and your staff had any conversation with Bolton --

CUOMO: Now, there's our Manu Raju asking there. All right, so you hear Adam Schiff's position, he had all the House managers with him there, and it's pretty simple. Bolton has direct evidence of the president directing the action of the pressure campaign against Ukraine. He should testify.

Jim Baker is with me. Now, first of all, that's the position that we assume the Democrats would adopt. He got a strategy question there from a reporter. Now, you should never expect a politician to say, yes, I made a mistake, I wish I had done it different. Of course, he wasn't going to say that.

But the point of the question stands which is the strategy of Pelosi here and of not pushing for witnesses then, delaying sending over the articles and getting to where we are now, how do you view it in retrospect?

BAKER: Yes. It may turn out to have been a brilliant strategy, a strategy of tactics. In other words, winning by not losing. Hanging in there as long as possible.

They know they don't have the votes in the Senate. They know they're not in control of the executive branch so they can't force the president literally to turn over all the information or allow witnesses to testify. But the longer they can hang in there like in an insurgency, they may win because all this evidence continues to come out and none of it is helpful to the president. The Bolton information we just got, the Lev Parnas documents and tapes and all this kind of stuff, it all cuts against the president.

So I think if I were in the Republican shoes, I would be thinking, we need to get this over as quickly as possible, and I think that's been their goal a long time. On the Democrats' side, hanging in there, not losing, dragging this out a bit in this kind of a context now may actually turn out to be an effective long-term strategy, even though it's very tactical and they have to win sort of one thing at a time in order for it to be effective.

CUOMO: Right. We have just 20 minutes or so until they reconvene and the president's defense team will take up and resume its case. Two things we can bet on, one is that they're not going to mention Bolton, but two, you will hear argument today, I would wager that they say even if everything that the Democrats say happened happen, it's still not impeachable.

Let's see if that shift happens. Jim Baker, thank you.

Coming up, details on the White House process for reviewing books like Bolton's. Why do we care about that? Who knew, who knew what was in this manuscript long before today? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:44:53]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And as President Trump's lawyers prepare to do day two of their defense, the shocking news this morning from the New York Times confirming that not only does John Bolton have a book coming out in March, but in it Bolton says he was witness to the president saying he wanted to hold off on aid to Ukraine until they announced an investigation into the Bidens.

[12:45:13]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Brian Stelter, the anchor of Reliable Sources is with us. Brian, we heard a book was coming. We knew this was in the works but now we know a lot more about when it's coming out and what's in it.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, all of sudden we know this book which is titled "The Room Where It Happened" will be published by Simon and Schuster on March 17th. At least that's the release state that's been announced by the publisher. It could change and I'll get to that in a moment.

You noticed the cover of this book. It's an Oval Office shape on the cover. It's outlined right there. So we know what Bolton is doing.

The New York Times story from Sunday night came out, and then within an hour or two, amazon.com suddenly had a listing for this book so people could start to pre-order it. It's listed as being more than 500 pages on Amazon. And according to the Times, we know that he's going to be writing about this tying of Ukraine aid to the investigation of the Bidens.

So here's the Amazon pre-order page. People are wondering, this book is nearly two months away, why won't it come out sooner. Well, according to a source who's been involved in discussions over the book, quote, Bolton submitted to the white House out of an abundance of caution and tried to follow the process. That process has been breached so he's assessing his options.

I said to the source, what is assessing his options mean? Could this book come out before March 17th? Well, that's certainly is possible but right now, Simon and Schuster has penciled it in for March 17th.

Now, could Bolton go on television sometime before March, would he speak out as our panelist has been talking about. Again, the source said nothing has been decided but not ruling that out. I think it's notable that now that this is information has leaked, Bolton might be signaling that he's ready to talk sooner. And, of course, he has repeatedly said he would speak to the Senate if subpoenaed.

Now, what makes this book different from all the other books we've seen? Well, Bolton has the same book agents as James Comey whose book "A Higher Loyalty" was significant in terms of being a tell-all about the Trump administration. And, of course, there's been lots and lots of other books in the Trump years, books like "Fire and Fury and Fear", And "A Very Stable Genius" recently which has been at the top of best-seller list.

Even anonymous had anonymous book but nothing like Bolton's yet. Nothing in a Trump years compares to a senior adviser of the president coming out with a 500-page tell-all.

Jake? Wolf?

TAPPER: All right, we'll have to see whether it's a tell-all or not, but Brian Stelter, thank you very much.

We're moments away from the president's legal team giving their opening arguments. Standby, we're going to squeeze in one more quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:52:05]

TAPPER: We are moments away now from the start of today's arguments in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, only the third impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate in the history of the United States.

BLITZER: Certainly is significant. CNN Presidential Historian Tim Naftali is joining us now. As we sort through the stunning allegations coming from the draft of John Bolton's upcoming book, Tim, what kind of impact will Bolton's revelations have on this trial?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, this is a reminder that an impeachment is a political process. That doesn't mean that politics determine guilt or innocence, but politics shape the way in which the trial progresses. If there hadn't been twists and turns in this trial, it would be the first in U.S. impeachment history.

This is changing what we heard-- what we've learned today from the New York Times is change -- or late last night is changing the landscape, the political landscape for swing senators. They would -- if they voted against witnesses now, they would be taking a chance that in a few weeks, they would look like participants in a cover-up. The fact that they now have good reason to believe that there is someone close to the president who is willing to admit there was a quid pro quo, I think, changes their political calculation.

Now, there are those who argue that it doesn't matter if there's a quid pro quo. We're hearing that argument out of the White House. But I don't believe every senator agrees. I think there are senators there who think that a quid pro quo regarding our foreign policy that is linked to a president's personal political interest is unacceptable.

TAPPER: Tim, when it comes to the big picture, people don't really remember the procedural votes of the impeachment of bill Clinton or the procedural votes of the impeachment of Richard Nixon or the procedural votes of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, for that matter. But you're saying because this new news is so stark, you think actually senators voting to not have witnesses might actually become an important part of the record.

NAFTALI: History shows us that stonewalls can leak. This is a drip, drip, drip process. It's step by step. I don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, but this makes a vote, at least on the motion to consider a motion for witnesses, much more likely.

TAPPER: Tim Naftali, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Stand by.

NAFTALI: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up, the president's legal team is going to present their case next. Will they address this blockbuster news by John Bolton? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:59:25]

BLITZER: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Welcome to CNN's special live coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.

TAPPER: And I'm Jake Tapper along with Dana Bash who is leading CNN's coverage up on Capitol Hill. Any moment now, week two of these historic proceedings will begin to get underway. The president's legal team is expected to lay out the main arguments of their defense. They have just about 22 hours remaining after taking the first two hours of their time on Saturday.

BLITZER: But they'll have to make their case with a major headline undercutting their defense. According to the New York Times, the former National Security Adviser John Bolton writes in a draft manuscript of his upcoming book that the president explicitly told him that he wanted to maintain a freeze on U.S. military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine --

[13:00:00]