Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump; Interview With Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); Trump's Lawyers Present Impeachment Defense Amid Bolton Bombshell. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired January 27, 2020 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
{18:00:00]
(IMPEACHMENT TRIAL)
HERSCHMANN: That is what the country demands. That's what society deserves.
Maybe the American people like an administration that is fighting the opioid epidemic. Maybe the American people like secure borders. Maybe the American people like better trade agreements with our biggest trading partners.
Maybe the American people, like other countries, sharing the burden when it comes to foreign aid. Maybe the American people actually like lower taxes. In other words, maybe the American people like their current president, a president who kept his promises and delivered on them.
If you think the Americans -- if you think Americans want to abandon our prosperity and our unprecedented successes under this President, then convince the electorate in November at the ballot box. Do not try to improperly interfere with an election that is only months away based on these articles of impeachment.
In the trial memorandum that you submitted here before the Senate, you speak about the framers of the Constitution believing that President Trump's alleged conduct is their, quote-unquote, "worst nightmare" and that they would be horrified.
In fact, sadly, sadly, it is the House managers' conduct in bringing these baseless articles of impeachment that would clearly be their and our worst nightmare. Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: The Majority Leader is recognized.
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice, I think we're looking at a 45-minute break for dinner.
J. ROBERTS: Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you.
(RECESS) WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: So, there you have the White House lawyers making the case on behalf of the president, going into detail after detail after detail on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company, and blaming the Democratic House managers for this extensive two-to-three-hour conversation that they just had on the Senate floor.
Pam Bondi, one of the president's lawyers, a former Florida attorney general, and now Eric Herschmann, another of one of the president's lawyers, going through all of the allegations that have been made against the former vice president and his son Hunter Biden.
And Jake, there was still no reference at all to John Bolton, the former national security adviser, and the allegations that he is suggesting in the draft manuscript of his new book.
But they certainly went into detail on the Bidens.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: So, first of all, as you note, the biggest development in the last day is the fact that we now know that the former National Security Adviser John Bolton, in his new book, in the manuscript, according to people who have seen it, who talked to "The New York Times," he is alleging that he heard specifically from President Trump that it was a quid pro quo, that Ukraine would only get the security assistance, up to $400 million worth, in exchange for investigation into the Bidens.
And, once again, we have the Trump defending lawyers not acknowledging that fact, even though all 100 senators, I think, likely know that that's a fact and that's one they need to address, because their whole defense is, nobody heard from President Trump that there was a quid pro quo, even though Mick Mulvaney has said so on the record about a separate issue, but we can move on from that.
This was red meat. This was red meat for Trump's base. This was red meat for the president's favorite channel. This was red meat for the president's most ardent defenders.
BLITZER: If he was watching, he was very happy with what he heard over the past two or three hours.
TAPPER: Yes, there was a lot of insinuation, a lot of conjecture, nothing, by the way, in terms of all the -- quote, unquote -- "evidence" that Rudy Giuliani has uncovered in Ukraine. None of that was presented on the floor of the Senate. And I wonder why, if it's so credible.
But, that said, a few points. First of all, I thought it was interesting that they used this -- given that Mitt Romney is one of the three swing -- three or four swing votes in the Republican Senate Caucus, it was interesting that they brought out this tape of Barack Obama, then incoming president, belittling, wrongly, in retrospect, Mitt Romney's view that Russia was the number one geopolitical foe of the United States, because, obviously, Romney was correct.
And I think there was a lot in the presentation, especially by Eric Herschmann, to remind Republicans of what a Democratic president looks like, because they tried to get Obama, many of those Republicans, to give lethal aid to Ukraine. They weren't able to do so.
They were able to do so with President Trump, and on and on. There were a lot of things that Eric Herschmann said that were just false, and Republicans in the Senate had to have known they were false.
For example, while there is plenty to criticize in terms of Hunter Biden taking that deal and being on the board of Burisma, and even Hunter Biden is acknowledged it was a mistake, and...
BLITZER: While his father was in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Yes, absolutely, and that is that -- there's -- everyone can criticize that. It's absolutely open to criticism.
The idea that Vice President Biden tried to get a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired in order to help his son is not only contradict by facts. It's contradicted by Kurt Volker, who was President Trump's ambassador or special envoy to Ukraine.
[18:05:07]
The entire Western world wanted Viktor Shokin fired, because he was perceived to have been corrupt. The E.U. wanted him fired. Anti- corruption activists in Ukraine, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Republican senators wanted Viktor Shokin fired.
And Republican senators have to know that. So, when Eric Herschmann was saying, was this really the policy -- could this really have been the United States' foreign policy? Yes. Yes, it was. It was United States foreign policy.
And Viktor Shokin leaving was, as far as anti-corruption activists in Ukraine were concerned, a good idea. So I wonder -- even though I'm sure that there are people on that other channel who will be happy to hear this, Republican senators who know the facts know, well, I don't like the Hunter Biden did this. I don't like -- I mean, look, if we're going to start outlawing relatives of politicians from getting bored connections, I'm all for it.
But it's not going to end with Hunter Biden.
BLITZER: You know, it was interesting.
He kept referring, Eric Herschmann, to "The New York Times," "The Washington Post," Politico, ABC News, all sorts of...
TAPPER: "The New Yorker."
BLITZER: "The New Yorker" magazine, all sorts of mainstream news organizations, for suggesting that the president of the United States had a right to raise this issue of the Bidens with President Zelensky of Ukraine. TAPPER: It's a completely legitimate issue. And Hunter Biden was put
on that board in 2014. And Republicans in the House and Senate controlled the House and Senate. And they had -- they had every right at the time to investigate it in 2014, and 2015, and 2016, and 2017, and 2018.
And they never did. But now Joe Biden is running for president, and suddenly there is this real keen interest among Republicans in what I have already said, I think, is a swampy-looking arrangement. And that's -- that's what doesn't pass the laugh test here.
BLITZER: Let's get Jeffrey Toobin to weigh in.
He was listening as carefully as anyone to what we heard.
You got a smile there, Jeffrey.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I just -- let me give you three reactions to the whole Biden chapter.
First, I thought Attorney General Bondi did an effective job of showing how sleazy the hiring of Hunter Biden was. I mean, there is no way to dress that up. He was given a great deal of money for a job he was unqualified for. And the only reason he got it is because he was the vice president's son. That's one point.
Point two, her discussion and Eric Herschmann's discussion of the role of Joe Biden, vice president at the time, was a parade of lies, just outrageously false in every fact, in every insinuation, particularly -- and, Jake, you just mentioned it -- this idea that he engineered the firing of Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor, to benefit his son.
That is a complete falsehood. It's been debunked many times, as you point out. And since Joe Biden is the one who is running for president, that seems to be enormously important.
Now, the third point, which neither Bondi nor Herschmann addressed, was, why this -- why was the president obsessed, concerned with this issue of alleged corruption in Ukraine, instead of any other issue?
And why then? Why in July of 2019? The idea that his only interest in corruption was to damage politically the -- a likely rival of his for president, that went completely unaddressed, particularly, again, today, of all days, when the issue was the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars just to find out -- to obtain an investigation of the Bidens.
That issue when completely unmentioned. So I think all of us knew this was coming, and it came in about the package we expected.
TAPPER: And, Jeffrey, I just wonder if you think -- how effective you think this is, given the fact that, look, obviously, this is going to be red meat for the president's base.
And part of these presentations is talking to the American people, not just trying to convince these senators. And the people who want to be fed that red meat, they got it. It's what they wanted. And, as you note, there's a lot to criticize in Hunter Biden being on that board.
But that's not what the Senate is debating. I mean, go ahead, impeach Hunter Biden, I think, you said the other day. The idea is, what about President Trump's conduct?
We have a higher status and requirement of conduct for the president of the United States. And we still have this big boulder of John Bolton's allegations sitting there.
[18:10:03]
The U.S. Senate, you got to believe that a bunch of them, especially ones that wrote letters at the time calling for the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin's office to be cleaned up, they have to know the facts on that.
And so how effective is it in trying to convince Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander maybe, to stick with the president, as opposed to wanting more witnesses?
TOOBIN: Well, I think there are different audiences here.
And if you were a moderately to low-informed viewer, and all you knew about Hunter and Joe Biden was what you heard today, you would be pretty outraged. You would be -- you would be concerned, and you might be one of the people who, when the president starts holding rallies again, will be chanting "Lock him up," because you know that's already started to happen.
And it will happen if Joe Biden is the nominee. As for the more sophisticated and informed audience in the United States Senate, they are probably less susceptible to that argument.
But they are also primarily politicians. And they are only going to act against the president's interests if they feel like they have enough political cover to do it. This is not the Donald -- the Republican Party. This is the Donald Trump party.
And he really wants no witnesses here. And it is going to take a lot to get those four senators over the hump of asking for or subpoenaing John Bolton.
And I would not presume to know how that vote is going to come out at this point. Obviously, it's changed. The political calculus has changed since last night, when "The New York Times" broke that story. But I'm not prepared to say that Mitch McConnell is going to lose, because I never want to make that prediction.
BLITZER: Yes, that's a good point.
TAPPER: Wise.
BLITZER: Very much up in the air.
Gloria, what did you think?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I agree with everything that's been said, of course.
But the thing that struck me about Eric Herschmann is, first of all, some of it was ridiculous to me, pointing out Obama's meeting with Medvedev and -- give me a break. What does that have to do with any of this right now?
And his defense boiled down to: He did it. So what? He did it. He was trying to root out corruption. Of course, as you have made the point, and Jeffrey made the point, if he was preoccupied with rooting out corruption, why haven't we seen more of that?
But his defense was, he had a reason to do it. It's OK. Therefore, it was in the national interest. This wasn't just about Joe Biden.
The other thing that struck me was Jane Raskin's Giuliani defense, which was, he's a bit player. He really didn't have anything to do with this.
Now, never mind that in that May 23 meeting with the three of amigos, as they're called, the president said, the Ukrainians have been trying -- they're out to get me. Talk to Rudy. They had come back from the inauguration. They were all excited about getting this money to Ukraine.
And the president said, talk to Rudy. Never mind that Rudy Giuliani wrote a letter to Zelensky saying, I'm representing the president of the United States. I'm his personal attorney, and I need to meet with you.
He was called a colorful diversion, a minor player, a shiny object designed to distract you, because the Democrats did pay an awful lot of attention to Rudy Giuliani. The reason they did that is because they were trying to show you that Rudy Giuliani was actually running foreign policy here for his own personal benefit.
And they were -- the president's attorneys were saying, that's really not the case. Don't pay attention to Rudy, not important.
TAPPER: Also, let's not forget how often President Trump brought up Rudy Giuliani, I think four or five times on that phone call with Zelensky.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: On the call, six times.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: And in the new John Bolton allegation is the idea that he and -- Bolton and Pompeo both expressed concern right about the role Rudy Giuliani was paying in terms of -- playing in terms of who was paying him.
BORGER: Right.
TAPPER: Everyone, stick around. We got a lot more to talk about. We're going to squeeze in a quick
break.
We will be right back with more coverage, the breaking news coverage of the Senate impeachment trial.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:18:42]
BLITZER: The president's lawyers have now spent five hours today, two hours on Saturday.
They still have, what, about 14 hours left, if they want to continue to make their case against the president. They still have plenty of time left, if they want to continue. They're going to be spending several more hours, we're told, tonight. We will see what happens tomorrow.
Dana Bash is up on Capitol Hill getting reaction for what we just heard, a lot of blasting, Dana, of the Bidens.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Thank you, Wolf.
And thank you.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is with me, Democrat of New York.
Joe Biden, his son, not surprisingly, made very sort of star appearances there, thanks to the president's legal team.
As a consumer of that information, as you were saying coming in, you were probably not the audience. It was the other side of the aisle. But, still, what was your takeaway? What was the feel in the chamber?
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): I thought, again, they were trying to president a shiny object to distract us from the question, did President Trump tell the Ukrainians that he wouldn't give them aid unless they investigated his political opponent?
And they were trying to distract all of the jurors, all of the Senate with this information.
And I found it deeply disturbing, because it's not relevant, and it's already debunked as a conspiracy theory.
[18:20:03]
So, it was very startling that they spent so much time.
I also was deeply disturbed by the closing arguments of this evening, because it was a campaign ad for President Trump. I mean, how absurd to talk about tax policy and prosperity when talking about what's actually at issue.
BASH: So, let's talk about John Bolton.
He's -- was not mentioned by any of the president's defense team.
GILLIBRAND: No.
BASH: But he is being talked about -- you know better than I do -- in the Cloakroom among senators on both sides.
GILLIBRAND: John Bolton has direct, relevant information.
He is the person who had direct conversations with President Trump. And he has said in his book, apparently, that President Trump told him there was a quid pro quo and they were withholding aid until they opened an investigation into his political rival.
That is direct evidence of -- proving that the article of impeachment of abuse of power is true.
And so that's a piece of factual evidence that we are entitled to. And, again, these Republicans, and particularly the lawyers for President Trump, are trying to obfuscate that.
And the fact that my colleagues want to put their head in the sand and then complain that it's dark is outrageous.
BASH: Well, there is -- because of this news --
GILLIBRAND: Yes.
BASH: -- there is pressure on your Republican colleagues to vote to allow John Bolton to testify.
But there's also discussion inside the Republican Caucus about, well, if we're going to do that, we're going to have to get a Democratic witness.
Is there anyone who you can see that you would be OK with the Republicans calling in order to sort of, from their perspective, balance out?
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: You know who they want. They want the Bidens. They want Hunter. They want Joe Biden.
(CROSSTALK)
GILLIBRAND: The only standard about whether a witness is allowed or not is whether it's a relevant witness. So, you just have to show that it's relevant to the allegations of this particular impeachment proceeding.
And they did not establish that today. And they have not up until now. So I'd like to see what witnesses they'd like to offer. We certainly
need to hear from Mr. Bolton. We also need to hear from Mick Mulvaney. And we should hear from McGahn and other witnesses.
BASH: So, you are open to a witness swap, just not necessarily...
GILLIBRAND: I think both sides are entitled to witnesses.
The only legal standard that they will have to meet is that those witnesses are relevant.
BASH: And do the Bidens meet that?
GILLIBRAND: Not that I heard of today. I still don't see how it's relevant whatsoever.
So, they would have to prove that, I think, because you would have to present it at some point to the chief justice.
BASH: OK.
Senator, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
GILLIBRAND: Thank you.
BASH: Wolf and Jake, back to you.
TAPPER: Dana Bash, thanks so much. And thank the senator for us.
Let's open this up again to our illustrious panel.
And, Jamie Gangel, let me ask you. The Republican lawyers, President Trump's defending attorneys, are doing everything they can. They're mentioning hot mic moments with President Obama about transmitting the information to Vladimir. They're talking about this red meat, that red meat.
One thing they're not talking about is the biggest story of the last 24 hours, which is incredibly relevant to the impeachment trial of President Trump, and that is John Bolton and the allegations he's going to make in his book, the idea that he says there was a quid pro quo and President Trump directly told him so, as well as other details.
Is this moving Republican senators at all towards the vote to have more witnesses?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I wish I knew the answer to the question definitively. But this is what I would say.
Republicans I have spoken to today are very nervous. This is a game- changer, insomuch as we now have someone in the White House who's saying they had a firsthand conversation with the president.
They feel blindsided by it. They feel that the White House should have given them a heads-up. And they have been trying to do damage control. But late this afternoon, I spoke to two Republicans who think that it is moving in the direction of getting enough votes for witnesses.
They don't think they're there yet, but that's where they think the trend is going. And one of them said to me something that we actually talked about a long time ago. John Bolton was a notetaker. And when he first left the White House, you may remember we talked an awful lot about everything he knew.
I think they're very concerned that there's even more in this book than what's come out thus far.
BLITZER: Yes, he has a lot of notes. It's a 500-page book, this manuscript. And he took a lot of notes. They could potentially subpoena all the notes, in addition to the manuscript itself, if they want to go down that road.
GANGEL: Correct.
BLITZER: The argument, Nia, that they were making, the president's lawyers, Eric Herschmann and Pam Bondi, basically was that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are very relevant to this investigation right now, they need to come in.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes.
BLITZER: They seem to be suggesting, yes, if John Bolton -- I mean, this is just my interpretation.
If John Bolton is going to be called, they want Hunter Biden and maybe even Joe Biden to be called as well.
[18:25:07]
HENDERSON: I think that's right.
We keep obviously focusing on John Bolton. He's got this new manuscript out, a book coming out in March. But, listen, if you're Republican listening to what we heard today from the president's lawyers, they are making the case that Donald Trump had every right to investigate or want an investigation launched in Ukraine because of what he says that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were up to.
So, listen, is there going to be some sort of swap? We have obviously heard from Joe Biden and Joe Biden's people that they find all of this basically to be conspiracy theories, there's no evidence behind it, and Joe Biden himself saying that he wouldn't be open to any sort of swap.
But, yes, I mean, if you're a Republican today, and it does come down to this idea of witnesses. Then you have got to consider the Biden...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: John, Eric Herschmann, at the end of his statement, he said to the House Democratic managers, be careful with what you wish for.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Eric Herschmann was asking the Senate and the American people to live in a parallel universe for most of the afternoon, as the entire Trump legal team was.
Here's the biggest dynamic today. Republicans came to work today in the Senate knowing they had a problem. John Bolton was in "The New York Times." His book manuscript is out. Only part of it is in "The New York Times." They don't know what else is there.
But what is in "The New York Times"? There was a quid pro quo. The president said, withhold the aid until they start the investigation. The president's lawyers all day long keep saying there's not, denying that it exists.
TAPPER: Yes.
KING: Jane Raskin goes to the floor and defends Rudy Giuliani.
In that same story, it says that John Bolton and Mike Pompeo both raised concerns that Rudy Giuliani was acting on behalf of his clients and undermining U.S. national security in the process.
So Republican senators came to work today hoping the president's team would answer the questions raised in this report, would lower the pressure on them to have witnesses. They have gotten the opposite. They have gotten the opposite.
The key senators, the six or eight or 10 that matter the most, don't trust the White House to begin with. Now they trust the White House less because they're not getting answers. They're getting fantasyland.
So the momentum -- again, Jeffrey Toobin raised a good point. Mitch McConnell's not done yet. But the momentum is growing for witnesses. What Mitch McConnell is trying to figure out now at dinner is, how many, is there a deal, do they get witnesses? What can I do?
That's what dinner is about. It's not about eating.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: And, also, if I could just say, I mean, one of the things -- people have been very critical, President Trump's allies have been very critical of his tweets.
And, in fact, one of the reasons that he sometimes has trouble finding legal representation is because he's so uncontrollable, so unpredictable. He did a tweet early this morning about John Bolton directly responding to the allegation that's in "The New York Times."
I don't know if we have that ready. If we could put it up, that'd be great. He says: "I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens."
And then he goes on. There might be legal significance to the fact that President Trump has now declared publicly about that conversation with Bolton.
Carrie Cordero, what is the legal signature against, potentially, of that tweet?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, one of the arguments that the president's team has been making is that John Bolton can't testify because his communications with the president are privileged, that they would fall under executive privilege.
But now we have John Bolton presumably writing about this particular conversation with the president. And now we have the president making a public statement, his tweet, a public statement, talking about that specific conversation.
So there's a really strong argument that he has now waived executive privilege as to his communications with John Bolton on this issue. It doesn't mean that he's waived his executive privilege with John Bolton about every single national security conversation that they might have had.
But on this central issue, which I think, even if it were challenged, let's just say hypothetically, it was challenged in a court, would be overwhelming that the decision would be in favor of admitting John Bolton and that the executive privilege is no longer, because it goes to the central issue of the case, which was the motivation for the president's conduct.
TAPPER: Never tweet, as I always say.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Not happening, not happening. Not happening now at all.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: And let's not forget, Ken Starr, the former independent counsel, he started this afternoon hours ago, 1:00 Eastern, saying, no crimes were committed by the president. Let the people decide in the next election.
All right, we have got to take another quick break.
Our special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
TAPPER: Welcome back. Joining us now, Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, he's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He along with his 99 other colleagues have been sitting there listening to the president's team defend his conduct.
Senator, first of all, your reaction to the news broken in The New York Times that apparently the national security adviser -- former National Security Adviser John Bolton has a manuscript that will be published in March in which he says that there was -- he learned from the president in a conservation last August that there was a direct quid pro quo that the Ukrainians would only get their $400 million in security aid if they agreed to do the investigations into Democrat, including the Bidens. What's your response?
SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Well, that's the smoking gun. That's what the Senate has to hear. That's what Republican have to demand is brought before the Senate in the trial.
[18:35:02]
Obviously, John Bolton has firsthand knowledge of what the president thought of what he wanted to have happened on his behalf. That was withholding of the aid to Ukraine unless it was an investigation of the Biden family. He has firsthand knowledge. He took notes on the meetings. All of that should be made available now to the Senate.
Donald Trump is on trial. And for us, we know that a trial is a search for the truth. And John Bolton is as close to the truth that we have been able to reach thus far. And if we don't have him as a witness, then it will be nothing more than the effect of having a cover-up that protects Trump from accountability for what he was telling his own top officials.
TAPPER: The president's defenders have not mentioned this news development that broke last night. They have talked about Hunter Biden. They talked about Joe Biden. They talked about Barack Obama. You know the 53 Republicans that served with you in the Senate. Does the fact that they are ignoring this incredibly relevant development in the story, would that alienate them or would they not care because they're just on President Trump's team?
MARKEY: Well, we've already heard that Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are very interested in hearing from Bolton. That's in the room right now. That's part of this trial. And the fact that none of the president's defense team mentioned John Bolton today doesn't mean that it isn't looming as the cloud over this trial if the Republicans, four of them, refuse to call him as a witness. Otherwise, this entire trial will be viewed as a historical joke because, in fact, we did not question that one person who could eliminate what Mulvaney was thinking, what Pompeo was thinking and most importantly what the president was thinking when that money was being withheld from the Ukraine.
BLITZER: Senator Markey, it's Wolf. Some of your Republican colleagues, Pat Toomey, for example, they're suggesting a witness swap. Let's say John Bolton comes and testifies but they want to be able to call someone else, let's say Hunter Biden as a witness as well, one for one. The Democrat House managers can have a witness but the president's lawyers, they want to have a witness. Would you go for that?
MARKEY: Hunter Biden is not on trial. Hunter Biden actually doesn't know anything about any conversations in all --
BLITZER: But you just heard the president's lawyers, two of the president's lawyers, spend two hours explaining why Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and Burisma was so important to the president, why he raised that issue with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
MARKEY: Look, what the Republicans tried to do was to distort, to distract, to deny anything that the president did by not even talking about it. So this is the clearly an attempt to feed red meat to their base but also red herrings to take us away from the central issue.
And as a witness, Joe Biden would have nothing to illuminate the Senate with regard to any of the actions which the president took in order to extract an investigation of the Bidens in return for $391 million worth of security aid. Joe Biden is not on trial. Barack Obama is not on trial. Hunter Biden is not on trial. And they don't know anything about this case.
And that's what Republicans are trying to do, to try to distract, take our attention away from the central issue and hope that it goes away. But John Bolton is not going away. This is going to loom larger and larger as each day goes by this week. Will there be four Republicans willing to stand up to ensure that we have a full and fair trial. Right now, we know two are willing to do so. Are there two more senators out of the remaining 51 willing to stand up for a trial?
BLITZER: So you're basically rejecting Senator Toomey's proposal?
MARKEY: Well, it has to pass the test of relevancy. This is a trial about Donald Trump and there is no relevancy to any of the testimony which Hunter Biden could provide about the actions of Donald Trump. It would be completely and totally irrelevant.
BLITZER: Senator Markey, thanks so much for joining us.
MARKEY: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
BLITZER: All right, we're going to continue our special coverage right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: As we wait for the impeachment trial of President Trump to resume, let's go to our Chief White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta.
Jim, I understand you're getting some new information there. What are you learning?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. On a day when the president's defense team was going after Joe Biden, Barack Obama, defending Rudy Giuliani, a weekend report that a White House official says the president was watching today's trial coverage and was pleased with his defense team's presentation, that much we know at this point in terms of the president's reaction.
Meanwhile, White House official, they have been spending much of the day responding to former National Security Adviser John Bolton's allegation that the president told him that aid to Ukraine would be on hold until investigations were announced into former Vice President Joe Biden. The president said earlier today that this allegation was false, but the stunning accusation blindsided senior White House officials over here, as well as Republican leaders up on Capitol Hill, including the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell.
But one indication of how much of a headache Bolton's allegation has become, listen to this.
[18:45:03]
Listen to this, the vice president's chief of staff, Marc Short, he has released a statement just a short while ago, insisting he has never heard the president connect aid to Ukraine to investigations of the Bidens.
And we can put this quote up on screen. This is from Marc Short, the president's -- the vice president's chief of staff, saying quote: At no time did I hear him tie the aid to Ukraine to investigations into the Biden family or Burisma.
So, interesting that top official over here put out a statement essentially knocking down this allegation or attempting to knock down this allegation coming from the former national security adviser, John Bolton. The question now is, of course, what happens next as one top Republican official put it to me a short while ago, in three letters, TBD, as in to be determined.
But White House officials say the president's legal team is prepared to deal with Bolton if he ends up testifying. Keep in mind sources close to president's legal team have said for a while that Mr. Trump reserves the right to assert executive privilege and block John Bolton from testifying. The president has sounded cool to this idea of Bolton testifying, but actually Bolton testifying could obviously trigger a massive court fight. It's not exactly clear at this point, Jake, whether the White House is ready for that -- Jake.
TAPPER: All right. Jim Acosta at the White House -- thanks so much.
And, of course, as we discussed before, Gloria, as Carrie Cordero points out, the very fact that Donald Trump, President Trump, took to Twitter this morning to specifically deny that he talked with John Bolton about a link between the security aid to Ukraine and the investigations that he wanted to take out, to undertake against the Bidens. The fact that President Trump has already spoken publicly about this makes it very likely that he will not be able to successfully exert executive privilege on that conversation. He has already essentially waived it, Carrie Cordero said --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: He said it's false. He said it's false. So, he was characterizing the conversation. I'm not the lawyer. We have plenty of lawyers here.
And so, it seems to me that since he's already spoken about it publicly, I don't understand how he can claim privilege which is why a lot of people don't like to have the president as their client --
TAPPER: Right.
BORGER: -- because he tends to do things like this, making his lawyers jobs miserable. And I think --
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The statement by the vice president's chief of staff makes it worse, because there's another official within the White House making a comment about what Mr. Bolton did or didn't say to the president or what they heard or didn't hear. This makes it -- it just makes it worse. It's a very -- sorry, Wolf.
BLITZER: No, let me just say, what happens if John Bolton and Simon & Schuster, his publisher, were to go ahead and public the book next week or in March, without getting official clearance from this office over at the White House saying that there's no classified information.
BAKER: They have taken the risk that the White House could sue them either for violating the contract, the nondisclosure agreement that he signed which I understand is a customized one. If he disclosed classified information, he's subject to prosecution. So, the protection he gets by having it cleared through the White House is that they can't come after him later for disclosing something that's privileged or even worse, something that's classified. So, the process gives him protection.
CORDERO: On the question of whether or not it would be challenged, the executive privilege, I think there's an argument that the chief justice could decide this. So, I think the Trump defense team is using the threat of blocking John Bolton as a threat against senators who maybe are considering voting in favor of witnesses because they are using the threat of delay, the delay of a potential litigation.
We don't actually know that it will play out that way. I mean, there is a possibility that the chief justice could make the decision and not throw it over into a lengthy court proceeding.
KING: What is so telling is how nice the president has been to John Bolton since he left. I'm serious, these were two guys who had significant policy disagreements. They are not alike in how they approach the world.
We know John Bolton had other disagreements with other members of the national security. Right after he left, he said, I hope he's going to do well. I wish him well. I like John Bolton.
Then he said later, I like John Bolton. I always -- I didn't always get along with him. But that's, you know, that's going to be up to the lawyers.
But what he said in Davos the other day was very interesting. He said, I don't know if we left on the best of terms. I would say probably not, you know? Due to me, not due to him.
President Trump very rarely steps up and says this is my fault, not somebody else's dysfunction relationship. He's tried repeatedly to hug John Bolton since left because -- now there's a book coming out
BORGER: Well, what happens, OK, lawyers, what happens if the transcript just suddenly, of the book, appears. GANGEL: The manuscript.
BORGER: The manuscript. Right, then what?
BAKER: If it were to contain some classified information, then the FBI would investigate. But that's assuming that it does. And so, you probably --
TAPPER: But is that reason, like for instance, what we know that he has in this book isn't classified.
BAKER: Well, we don't know that.
TAPPER: No, no, I mean, from what the excerpt that "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" have written about isn't classified. It's just --
BAKER: It's probably privileged, right.
[18:50:00]
TAPPER: Privileged.
BAKER: Privileged.
TAPPER: Yes, the idea that --
BAKER: Potentially given the caveats that Carrie has talked about.
TAPPER: It's not going to put anybody's life in danger. It's not information that puts the United States at a --
(CROSSTALK)
BAKER: Yes, but it's (INAUDIBLE) page book and you don't know what's in it.
(CROSSTALK)
GANGEL: John Bolton also knows better than anyone where that line is, and he wouldn't be the first person to publish a book without review. It's taking a chance of being sued, but not necessarily.
BAKER: He can also -- he can also just come on a show and just do it.
GANGEL: Right.
BAKER: I mean, I'm subject to pre-publication review, but not for words that I'm speaking right now because I'm doing it in this format.
BORGER: His lawyer made it clear in his letter that they have carefully sought to avoid any discussion of sensitive compartmentalized information or other classifies it information and we do not believe that pre-publication review is even required.
TAPPER: Right. GANGEL: Correct.
TAPPER: He's smart. He knows -- he knows what he can write and what he can't.
Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill right now -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I've been walking around the hallways talking to some senators and the one thing I can tell you as this day has gone on that maybe the conversation hasn't changed with regard to the presentations we're hearing during this trial but the conversations have changed in the hallways, particularly among the people who matter most.
And that is the Republican senators. We saw some of it this morning, but now as they are taking their dinner breaks, been able to digest the news of John Bolton and what it means, it's very interesting.
Just for example, I was just talking to Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a freshman Republican, who said that, for him, he's still OK not hearing from John Bolton but he conceded after talking to his Republican colleagues, he said that he's not so naive to say that things haven't -- haven't changed. That the conversation hasn't changed. And that it has moved from no witnesses to well, if we do have a witness in John Bolton, what would we do in exchange? Who would we have in exchange? Could we have somebody in exchange?
And that is really different from what we were hearing on Saturday after the president's defense team presented for the very first time. And that is -- that is noteworthy. Doesn't mean there will be witnesses. Doesn't mean there will be that kind of exchange but the fact that these are active conversations, real conversations because the dynamic is different is really noteworthy.
BLITZER: That's an important point. Jeffrey Toobin, the issue of witnesses, so important, if there are no witnesses, this whole trial the president could be acquitted Friday or Saturday. If there are witnesses, it could go on for weeks.
Walk us through the process. Let's say there's one Democratic witness, one Republican witness. They have to first be deposed, right?
TOOBIN: They have to first be deposed in some sort of setting that's agreed to by the two parties. But again, a lot is still up for grabs even if they decide on witnesses.
First of all, is the first deposition videotaped and does that serve as the testimony that's presented in front of the Congress. That is -- in front of the Senate. That's what in the Clinton trial. That there were three witnesses, they were examined on video tape and portions were shown to the Senate.
Alternatively, you could have a deposition on video and then live testimony, live witnesses in the Senate. That has happened before in earlier trials. All of that is unresolved. I think the point that you make about delay
is a very real one especially if the White House decides to challenge Bolton either on executive privilege grounds or classified information grounds. Anything that is a dispute that goes to court, you're talking at least weeks of delay if not months and that is going to play into the negotiations one way or another. So, there are still a lot of moving parts even if you decide that there are going to be witnesses.
TAPPER: So, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks so much.
Alan Frumin, let me bring you in.
So, you're the former Senate parliamentarian, and the idea here that things take weeks or months to go through the judicial system, and ultimately get a final ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, they have the chief justice of the United States presiding over this trial.
What can he do in terms of compelling a subpoena, compelling a witness? What is he likely to do?
ALAN FRUMIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: There is some chatter today in the newspapers that chief justice unilaterally could compel witnesses to appear. I don't think that's going to happen. Looking at the Senate's rules and I realize, those who delve into the nuances of the Senate rules frequently emerge scratching their heads.
[18:55:02]
The assertion that he can do this I think doesn't hold water.
What he can do however is rule on the relevance of any testimony, of any evidence, documentary or witnesses.
TAPPER: Before it's presented?
FRUMIN: Well, it's unclear. If there's a challenge to the relevancy of documentary evidence or testimony, the presiding officer at the trial and this is the chief justice has the right, if he wishes to rule, he can punt. He can submit it to the body. And any ruling that he makes is subject to an appeal to the body.
So, he does have a role. I think he will play a role much more so than has been evident this first week.
TAPPER: What's to stop a Democrat right now, a Democratic senator, or even Mitt Romney, let's say, or Susan Collins, somebody who said they want to hear from John Bolton. What's to stop that person from going up to Chief Justice Roberts and saying, this is obviously relevant. He has said he is willing to come if he's subpoenaed. I would like you to compel him to come here and testify.
FRUMIN: Right now, I think that's premature. If you look at the language of the resolution setting out the guidelines for the trial, we have the 24 hours of arguments. We have 16 hours of questions. I think the issue of witnesses will come up early on.
BLITZER: Hold on for one moment. Looks like Jay Sekulow. The trial is resuming.
JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're going to first hear from former independent counsel Robert Ray. He's going to discuss issues of how he was involved in investigations, the legal issues, some of the history of how that works and then we will conclude this evening with presentation from Professor Dershowitz.
SEKULOW: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, House managers, we're going to do two things this evening. We're going to first hear from former Independent Counsel Robert Ray. He's going to discuss issues of how he was involved in investigations, the legal issues, some of the history of how that works and then we will conclude this evening with a presentation from Professor Dershowitz.
So, with that, I'd like to yield my time, Mr. Chief Justice, to Robert Ray.
RAY: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, distinguished House managers and may it please this court of impeachment. I stand before you today in defense of my fellow Americans who in November 2016 elected Donald Trump to serve the people as their president.
Their reasons for that vote were as varied as any important decisions are but their collective judgment accepted as legitimate under our Constitution is deserving of my respect and yours. For only the third time in our nation's history the Senate is convened to try the President of the United States on articles of impeachment. Those articles do not alleged crimes.
The Constitution, the framers' intent and historical practice all dictate that well-founded articles of impeachment allege both that a high crime has been committed and that as such removal from office is warranted only when such an offense also constitutes an abuse of the public trust. That is, in the case of the president, a violation of his oath of office. Both are required and neither one by clear and unmistakable evidence is shown here by these articles of impeachment.
I am here this evening in this chamber distinctly privileged to represent and defend the President of the United States on the facts, on the law and on the constitutional principles that must be paramount to you, members of the Senate, in deciding the great question of whether these articles warrant, with or without witnesses, the removal of the President from office.
Because there is and can be no basis in these articles on which the Senate can or should convict the President on what is alleged, the President must not be removed from office. That judgment is reserved to the people in the ordinary course of elections, the next of which is just over nine months away.
Forty years ago, in 1980, I first came to Capitol Hill as a legislative intern for a congressman who, only six years earlier, had played an important and critical role in the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. The congressman of whom I speak who I came to respect immensely served then and in 1974 in the House Judiciary Committee. He was tasked in the summer of 1974 together with his colleagues in evaluating and voting on, and as most of the House managers here have, articles of impeachment.
