Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Soon, Trump Defense Begins Final Day of Opening Arguments; Iowa Sen. Ernst Comments on Biden Cause Controversy; Trump Defense Teams Brings Out High-Profile Lawyer Alan Dershowitz; Schumer News Conference on Bolton Revelations & Need for Witnesses; Schumer: Trump Nice to Turkey, China, Hungary Leaders Due to Financial Interests; Trump Legal Team May Wrap Up Today, Leaving Valuable Time on Table. Aired 11-11:30a ET
Aired January 28, 2020 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:01:02]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer, live in Washington, alongside Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper. And Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill. This is CNN's special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.
Today is the final day for the president's legal defense team to plead their case against impeachment. It is a try to dissuade Republican Senators from considering calling for witnesses, even in the wake of the John Bolton revelations as reported by the "New York Times."
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: The Trump team last night broke out high- profile attorney, Alan Dershowitz, to make their case right in primetime. He argued that even if John Bolton's claims are true, demanding a quid pro quo is well within the president's rights, and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Meantime, politically speaking, it seems Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst said something that has caused a lot of controversy. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus-goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point?
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: The former vice president responded with this tweet, and I'm quoting now, "Iowa caucus-goers take note, Joni Ernst just spilled the beans, she and Donald Trump are scared to death I'll be the nominee. On February 3rd, let's make their day." TAPPER: The irony is that Republicans use the same kind of strategy in
their attempt to derail the Hillary Clinton campaign, at least according to then-House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, back in 2015.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Let's discuss this.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Go ahead, Senator.
RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We have to draw a distinction with these two. What Kevin McCarthy was talking about was something the House representatives practically did to go after Hillary Clinton. And you can make the case, obviously, successful in some regard.
What the Republicans -- what Joni Ernst voiced that she probably, in my opinion, shouldn't have voiced, but she did, was that a proceeding that the Democrats brought on. I mean, this is not something Republicans decide, oh, we're going to go after Joe Biden.
The Democrats brought this impeachment on and had to deal with, at least in some respects, Joe and Hunter Biden and Republicans are simply taking advantage of the moment to counterattack.
So I think they're very different. One was sort of a strategy to go after Hillary Clinton, by the majority. The other is a response to a -- an attack on the president and trying to fend it off.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: She ruined the moment for the Republicans. Here they were, feeling really great, that Alan Dershowitz had given them the excuse they were looking for on impeachment, right?
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: He said whatever --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: It's a Trumpian moment.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Change the topic at a time --
BORGER: Exactly. Whatever Bolton did, Dershowitz said, it is not impeachable.
SANTORUM: Yes.
BORGER: Now you hear Republican Senator after Republican Senator this morning saying, you know, it may -- his behavior may not have been appropriate or perfect, but it is not impeachable.
SANTORUM: Yes.
BORGER: They had heard that. They were feeling really great. And she goes out there and last night and says, well, it is really just about the politics of this and I hope Joe Biden loses Iowa, and maybe he'll lose Iowa as a result of this.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: I agree with you.
BORGER: And so, if I'm a Republican, standing next to her, I'm grabbing her away from the microphone.
SANTORUM: I agree with you. But having said all that, what she said in a moment of weakness is not --
(LAUGHTER)
SANTORUM: -- doesn't change the overall drift of what happened last night. Robert Ray --
BORGER: And Dershowitz.
SANTORUM: -- and Dershowitz did a job of shoring up any nervous Republican.
[11:05:02]
The fact that Mitt Romney came out today and is now talking a deal instead of a straight-up vote that I want John Bolton to come, is, I think, emblematic of the fact that this is --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: In many ironies, Alan Dershowitz being the savior for the Republican Party here --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Trump has some very strange --
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Can I say something? Is there anyone on this panel who is not interested in seeing if there's some sort of political blowback for Joe Biden when it comes to the defense?
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Exactly, right, exactly. Pundits saying it is one thing.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Defending President Trump's conduct when it comes to Hunter and Joe Biden is another.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Iowa votes on Monday, the first contest, it's only one, but it's very important, especially if you're a former vice president. If you underperform, there will be all the questions about, does Joe Biden have what it takes, and we don't know the answer to this question.
He has stressed this is proof Trump fears me. He tried to turn it to my advantage. This is proof Trump fears me because I'm the guy who can beat him in the general election.
If you're a Democratic voter, do you buy that or go into it thinking about, fair or unfair -- if you're a Democrat, you're thinking it was unfair -- the things said about Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and think, do we want to go through this again.
Because no matter what happens in this, whether it's the witness question, we assume the math, if Trump get acquitted, if Joe Biden is the nominee, you think that Donald Trump is going to forget about any of this story line?
Just because we had an impeachment debate about it and some Republicans don't like it, so I'll be quiet? That's not going to happen.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Last night, in the primetime, White House legal defense arguments, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Ray, they did give the Republicans a lot of cover to go ahead and say, yes, maybe it was inappropriate, the phone call, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but it doesn't rise to the level of removing him from office.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes, and that was -- yes, that was Dershowitz, a household name to most Americans because of his past involvement in high-profile cases, I thought, made a pretty compelling case.
Essentially, saying, even if everything that has been presented to you by the Democrats, and some which hasn't been presented by the Democrats is true, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.
That, in many ways, is what people thought weeks ago would be the stance from Republicans, from this -- from his defense team.
And so, finally, I think, in the closing, we'll see what they say today. Some say they probably should have just left while they had the applause from the GOP Senators.
BORGER: I'm curious how the president reacts to this. Of course, he hasn't allowed anybody to say anything is inappropriate, the call was perfect. Cipollone came out and said it was perfectly appropriate. Everything was great. Jay Sekulow said the same thing.
Clearly, and Ray was first one to say, he said, "I know many of you may have come to the conclusion or may have already concluded the call was less than perfect." He went on to say, "OK, that's fine." Acknowledging where the Senators were.
As to Biden, the jury is out. I was texting with somebody on the campaign who said, well, we can say that we're their biggest target because they're afraid of us. How long that will last --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: How Democrat process that, we'll find out. That's why they have elections.
But to the point, there's no question that Mr. Ray and Professor Dershowitz changed the trajectory of yesterday. The question is what happens today.
TAPPER: Let's listen in to the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I thought there were two leaders of Vietnam, Win Cow Key (ph), who I had heard about, and Nguyen Cow Key (ph), who I had read about. "Win" in Vietnamese is N-G-U-Y-E-N, which is a very common name, is pronounced "win." And thank you for listening in.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: This is the Schumer moment of --
(LAUGHTER)
SCHUMER: OK. Thank you all for coming. I'm joined by my great colleagues here.
Now, it seems like every day some new revelation emphasizes our request for relevant witnesses and documents in this trial and gives it momentum. There has been a steady drip, drip, drip of information. The truth, leaking out in one explosive article after another. In that sense, this is reminiscent of Watergate.
E-mails were released over the Christmas break, showing that the delay on military assistance was placed 91 minutes after the president's July 25th call with President Zelensky. E-mails from Michael Duffey revealed he had, quote, "clear direction" from the president to continue the hold on military assistance.
And yesterday, the "New York Times" reported on several stunning chapters from Ambassador Bolton's book, including the admission by Mr. Bolton that he was ordered by the president to continue freezing military assistance to Ukraine until it was announced the political -- until it announced the political investigations he was seeking.
The details from Ambassador Bolton get to the very heart of the first article of impeachment.
The same "New York Times" story places Mick Mulvaney at the center of this plot. He's a more important witness probably than Bolton. And the e-mails from Duffey and Blair, the two other witnesses we seek, are even more relevant as this information comes out.
[11:10:18]
So I understand why Leader McConnell and President Trump wanted a very short incredibly rushed trial. Because the longer it goes on, the more likely that new evidence and more new evidence will come out that further implicates the president.
Now, just look at the other "New York Times" report last night about Ambassador Bolton's book. Several members of the administration had concerns about the president's dealings with autocrats. Particularly, Xi of China and Erdogan of Turkey.
Did the president have financial interests at stake when he was talking to Erdogan, Orban, Xi or others. Maybe his kids had some economic interest at stake. And did it impact our nation's foreign policy with those countries?
Those questions are not the subject of the president's impeachment trial. But this report should be a warning sign to any Republican in the Senate.
If you vote with the White House to suppress and cover up evidence, the odds are strong that the truth, the truth will eventually come out.
In a few weeks or a few months, to my Republican colleagues --
BLITZER: We're going to continue to monitor Chuck Schumer, Democratic leader in the Senate.
He made a pretty startling accusation against the president that, according to the John Bolton book, the "New York Times" reporting, that the president was nice to the leaders of Turkey, China and Hungary, potentially, according to Schumer, because he had some sort of financial interest or maybe his children had a financial interest.
That's a pretty serious allegation that he's making against the president.
TAPPER: It is, first of all, completely irrelevant to the facts in front of the Senate right now.
Second of all, it is based on reporting that is based on what somebody who has seen the book has told the reporters, the "New York Times" reporters. Ad I don't mistrust their reporting. Maggie Haberman, Mike Schmidt are excellent. They break a lot of stories.
It is not the kind of solid evidence that, you know, you would introduce in a hearing as it were. And not really particularly germane.
It's not Bolton talking about something he saw or a conversation he participated in. It is Bolton, according to this account, and suspicions and concerns he had, which is very different than the initial revelation, which was about a conversation he had with President Trump.
BLITZER: Yes.
John King what do you think?
KING: We're in a very unpredictable situation in that, is this, does this, whether -- this is secondary. I'm not saying it is not important, but --
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Neither am I.
BORGER: Right.
KING: The president's phone conversations with other leaders around the world are not essential to the impeachment question.
But is that enough that John Bolton keeps saying things that are startling, John Bolton keeps saying things that are worth exploration. Is that enough to convince four Republican Senators to extend the impeachment trial and have witnesses? That question is before us.
As of today, I think your money is safer staying with Mitch McConnell than bottling this up. We don't know how that will play out over the next 72 hours or so. And we'll have a better answer. The president's team final close today could influence that debate.
It does raise a question, though, of what if John Bolton is not called as a witness and this book comes out. Has impeachment somehow boxed the Democrats in, in the sense that Republicans have the majority in the Senate, so Chuck Schumer can say whatever he wants, can't get a hearing, can't get John Bolton in the chair in the Senate.
If the House Democrats come back to any of this, it is T-ball for Republicans to say, you had your shot with impeachment, now you're being gratuitous.
What do you mean you are going to call John Bolton before the Foreign Affairs Committee? What do you mean you you're going to call John Bolton before the Oversight Committee? What do you mean you want to call on the Attorney General Bill Barr?
This is what Nancy Pelosi was worried about the at beginning when she was against impeachment. That you would get boxed into an impeachment process and that any other legitimate oversight by the House would then appear to be political and gratuitous. I don't know where we're going but we're at this unpredictable crossroad.
TAPPER: John, you said that Congress is also potentially true, which is, let's say they don't call for witnesses, they vote to not call witnesses, let's say, three Republican Senators do, but not the fourth. And then the trial is over Friday.
KING: Right.
TAPPER: And then the book comes out. And it's --
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: What we're getting are descriptions of the book from people who read it, as they tell it to reporters.
John Bolton, if you ever looked at any of his previous books, is incredibly meticulous. He has -- he takes detailed notes throughout the day. At the end of the day, according to the "Washington Post," he would then make a memo of what the day brought. So his book will have lots and lots of detail.
[11:15:06]
Don't then, Republican Senators, might they face the opposite question, which is, how could you not have called this guy as a witness. I'm reading this book in March and you didn't --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: I think every one of the Senators, as they cast this vote, is going to have to think what is going to come out in six minutes, six days, and six months from now, that is going to maybe cast this vote in a very different light as they -- no question about that.
As they cast that vote, if it's a no vote, will they have to answer it? Not just John Bolton's book. There are other people out there, too. We're focusing on this one thing.
As this plays out, we just know this from a fact --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Over the weeks and months, more information about all of the episodes, are going to come out. Will they be shamed by their vote?
HENDERSON: Which is where Dershowitz king of comes in. Right? This blanket defense of what he did, even if what Bolton says was true, then it still wasn't impeachable. That's where you imagine a lot of the Senators, particularly the ones set to vote against these witnesses, which most of them will, obviously, so, yes, that's why Dershowitz was so helpful.
SANTORUM: Number one, this isn't going to be the first book that is an explosive book about how Donald Trump operates in the White House.
TAPPER: It'll be the first one written by somebody who was a top adviser.
SANTORUM: Yes, but --
TAPPER: On the record.
SANTORUM: All I'm saying is I think everyone on the Republican side has discounted the way the president operates as something that, we knew going in, we have seen multiple reports of how he operates, not a secret to anybody.
So I think all Republicans care about, all I would care about, as a Republican Senator, is the point that Nia made, on this subject matter, what he said is irrelevant because, even if it is true, it the not impeachable.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Everything else is a political issue. And, by the way, we have an election coming up.
BORGER: But that's the problem.
SANTORUM: And that's where this --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: So Dershowitz says and Ray says it is not impeachable. The problem is, it is not surprising either.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: You have a story -- and I agree with Jake, it's completely irrelevant to what is before the United States Senate. But it is relevant in the nation that this story and Bolton's perception of the president and his relationships with authoritarian figures and telling them, on the sly, well, I'm going to help you out, that is troubling, but not surprising anymore to the American public.
TAPPER: The president's defense team set to kick off the final day of the opening arguments. CNN has learned it likely will not last more than a couple of hours. We'll discuss the strategy.
BLITZER: Also, Senator Tim Kaine hasn't weighed in on the impeachment since the trial started until now. He joins us live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:22:06]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has learned the president's attorneys could wrap up their arguments early today. That means they would be leaving valuable time on the table.
CNN's John Harwood joins us from the White House.
What are you hearing, John, about what to expect today?
JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, what we're hearing is that the White House lawyers are not going to take all the time available to them because they don't think they need to.
This is a situation, as the John Bolton exercise has shown, where time is not their friend. They're hoping to get this trial and these arguments done as quickly as possible, hopefully, with no witnesses.
Their defense has been all over the place. It's been, house managers bad, Bidens bad, Trump -- there's no evidence that Trump did it. Then when Bolton blew that up and they said, well, even if he did it, as Alan Dershowitz said last night, it is not impeachable.
What they're trying to do with that is simply give GOP Senators something to hang on to do, to justify a vote against witnesses and vote to acquit. We're starting to hear that today from Republican Senators who say we wouldn't learn anything from John Bolton anyway.
This is an acknowledgement of the point that our colleague, Brit Hume, made on FOX a couple of weeks ago. They already believe that -- Republican Senators already believe that Trump did what he's accused of doing. They don't think it is worth impeaching him over.
If that's the case, try to put your cards on the table and get your vote as quickly as possible and see if you can hold 50 out of 53 against witnesses and then move on to the acquittal vote.
COOPER: John Hardwood. John, at the White House. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Toward the end of the day on Monday, constitutional lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, tackled the Bolton issue with an argument for expansive presidential power. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Back now with our legal team.
Jeff Toobin, did you -- what did you think overall of Dershowitz's argument?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I thought it was very dense. I thought it was hard to follow, frankly. But that argument is a very powerful one and a very helpful one to the president. Roger Wicker, who's a Senator from Mississippi, already said today,
well, based on what Professor Dershowitz said, we don't need to hear from Bolton or any witnesses because it is irrelevant.
The charge itself -- this is why Dershowitz's argument is helpful to the Republicans, is that it says, accept it all as true, accept Trump did exactly what the Democrats said he did, it is still not impeachable.
I think that argument is wrong as a matter of law, but, it is an argument you can have.
COOPER: And his argument is it's not impeachable because of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power are simply not impeachable offenses?
TOOBIN: Exactly. His argument is that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not high crimes and misdemeanors as he understands the Constitution to be written. If you believe that, you don't need witnesses.
[11:25:09]
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: But another of President Trump's lawyers argued -- this is Robert Ray -- argued that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.
So you had, yesterday, one of Trump's lawyers saying. you can't impeach people for abuse of power. And you have Robert Ray, who said history matters, telling us the story of Richard Nixon and explaining there was a bipartisan coalition and a bipartisan consensus that the president had abused powers.
So Republican Senators got both an argument for abuse of power and one against abuse of power. Then the issue is the president's misuse of our foreign policy for personal gain on the same level of abuse of power as Richard Nixon's, which Republicans and Democrats alike agreed was reasons for impeachment.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Dershowitz's argument was far more nuanced in my take. It was twofold. Number one, he was saying that a quip in and of itself is not an impeachable offense because we all the time look at withholding aid or trying to make bargains with foreign nations and we don't look at that as an abuse of power.
The question for him was whether a quid pro quo was transformative in some way to be an abuse of power.
Dershowitz's is argument here is abuse of power as a concept is far too vague of a term, that it would not be able to deter conduct in the future unless it was clearly -- had elements that associated with it to say here are the qualities we find abhorrent, here is what you're doing if it is abuse of power.
Short of those clear elements, you cannot find an abuse of power that is not going to give this over to where Congress now is empowered to say the president serves at your pleasure.
That's his overall argument. I don't think it is sound. Because, number one, on the quid pro quo, no one is asking for a psychoanalysis of President Trump in respect to his family relationships. It's about what his motivation was as to why he wanted a quid pro quo. It is his motivation holding all the water here, because of a personal interest.
In terms of abuse of power, it is not so generalized as he's making it out to be. They spent 24 hours, as we all know, finding all of the different elements, the A, B, Cs, abuse of power, betrayal of national security and interests, corruption of the election and the public office. All of those things had corresponding evidentiary arguments. He glossed over all of that in an effort to say, this is, so what.
COOPER: Ross?
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, an abuse of power is a necessary component to an impeachable offense. It is not necessarily sufficient. I think -- I think Dershowitz was making that point. It is only the most serious abuses of power.
He's walked back the initial contention that it must be a crime, although, that's the White House' position in their briefs. Dershowitz walked that back, then said it has to be crime-like or criminal type, which I think there's probably general consensus on. I agree with that, in as much as it has to be incredibly serious and has to be an injury --
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: You made the argument that if a president is parking in a handicap space --
GARBER: Abuse of power, not impeachable. That's exactly right. There are minor abuses or power and then there are potentially very significant abuses of power.
But what Dershowitz is doing is a rhetoric device by focusing on the heading and not the details.
COOPER: Coming up, will Senators see John Bolton's manuscript in a classified setting? That's a possibility. We'll speak live to one next as we await the president's defense team.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
