Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Senators Ask Questions To House Managers, Trump Lawyers; Soon: Senators Resume Questioning Legal Teams; Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is Interviewed About the Impeachment Trial. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired January 29, 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]
J. ROBERTS: It's counsel for -- or -- the president's turn.
DERSHOWITZ: What happened since 1998 is that I studied more, did more research, read more documents, and like any academic, altered my views. That's what happens. That's what professors ought to do, and I keep reading more, and I keep writing more, and I keep refining my views.
In 1998, the issue before this Senate was not whether a crime was required; it was whether the crime that Clinton was charged with was a high crime. When this impeachment began, the issue was whether a crime is required.
Actually, two years earlier in a book and then an op-ed, I concluded -- not on partisan grounds -- on completely academic grounds -- that you could not impeach for abuse of power, and that a technical crime was not required, but criminal-like behavior was required. I stand by that view.
The framers rejected maladministration. That was a prime criteria for impeachment under British law. Remember, too, the British never impeached prime ministers. They only impeached middle-level and low- level people. So the framers didn't want to adopt the British approach. They rejected it by rejecting maladministration, and what's a metaphor, or what's a -- a synonym for maladministration? Abuse of power. And when they rejected maladministration, they rejected abuse of power.
Mr. -- Congressman Schiff asked a rhetorical question: Can a president engage in abusive power with impunity? In my tradition, we answer questions with questions, and so I would throw the question back. Can a president engage in maladministration with impunity? That's a question you might've asked James Madison had you been at the Constitutional Convention, and he would say, "No, a president can't engage in that with impunity, but it's not an impeachable crime." Maladministration is not impeachable and abuse of power is not impeachable.
The issue is not whether a crime is required; The issue is whether abuse of power is a permissible constitutional criteria, and the answer from the history is clearly, unequivocally no. If that had ever been put to the framers, they would have rejected it with the same certainty they rejected maladministration.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: (OFF-MIKE) It was always understood that the prime purpose impeachment was dealing with the abuse of power. The first draft of the Constitution Convention said treason or bribery. That was rejected because it wasn't inclusive enough. Somebody -- Mason proposed maladministration -- found too vague. So they said high crimes and misdemeanors. That was a well-understood term in English law. It was a well-understood term in the -- in the Warren Hastings impeachment going on in England right then, and it meant primarily abuse of power. That is the main -- that is the main meaning of high crimes and misdemeanor.
Charles Pinckney said, "Those who behave amiss or betray their public trust -- " Edmund Randolph -- "misbehaves." But the -- I quoted (inaudible) the other day, "Every impeachment in American history has been for abuse of power in one form or another."
The idea that you have to have a crime -- bribery is right there in the Constitution. Treason, bribery are the crimes -- bribery was not made a statutory crime until 1837, so couldn't have been impeachment.
The fact of the matter is that crimes and impeachment are two different things. Impeachments are not punishments for crimes. Impeachments are protections of the Republic against the President who had abused his power, who would aggregate nice power, who would -- who would threaten liberty, who would threaten separation of powers, who would threaten the powers of the Congress, who would try to aggregate power to himself.
That is why punishment upon conviction for impeachment only goes through removal from office. You can't put him in jail as you could for a crime. You can't find him as you could for a crime. You have two different things. An impeachable offense need not be a crime, and a crime need not be an impeachable offense -- two completely different tests understood that way throughout American history and by all scholars -- all scholars in our history except for Mr. Dershowitz.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
The Senator from North Carolina?
BURR: Mr. Chief Justice, I sent a question to the desk for the Counsel of the President.
[18:05:00]
J. ROBERTS: Senator Burr asks, "We've seen the House Managers repeatedly play video clips of acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's press conference in which they claim he said that there was a quid pro quo. How do you respond to the House Managers allegation that Mr. Mulvaney supported their claims in his press conference?"
PURPURA: Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, Senator, thank you for the question. We respond as Mr. Philbin did earlier today with that, which is Mr. Mulvaney has issued two statements, one after his press conference and then one -- yes, Monday after the New York Times article concerning Mr. Bolton's alleged manuscript -- alleged statements in his manuscript. So I -- I think the easiest thing is just to read them, to understand what he said and to put it into context for everyone in the chamber.
This is from -- this is the day of the press conference. "Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear. There was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The President never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server.
The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more than 30 minute briefing, where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump's interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately. There was never any connection between the funds and Ukrainians doing anything with the server. This was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server. There was never any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.
Then on January 27th, which was Monday, there was a statement from Bob Driscoll who's Mr. Mulvaney's attorney. I'll read it in its full.
"The latest story from The New York Times coordinated with a book launch has more to do with publicity than the truth. John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton's purported August conversation with the President, nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the President or anyone else indicating the Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for Ukrainian investigation of Burisma, the Bidens or the 2016 election. Furthermore, Mr. Mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with Mr. Giuliani resembling that reportedly described in Mr. Bolton's manuscript as it was Mr. Mulvaney's practice to excuse himself from conversations between the President and his personal counsel to preserve any attorney-client privilege."
So I wanted to read those statements in full so that everyone had the full context. "Even after Mr. Philbin referenced the statement after the press conference, the House Managers again came back and said, 'Mr. Mulvaney indicated or admitted there was a quid pro quo.' That's not true. If Mr. Mulvaney misspoke or if the words were garbled, he corrected it that day and has been very clear."
Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: So ...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Maryland? (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the President's Counsel and the House Managers.
[18:10:00]
J. ROBERTS: The question to both parties, the House Managers will go first, "What did National Security Adviser John Bolton mean when he referenced whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this," end quote, and "Did he ever raised that issue in any meeting with President Trump?"
SCHIFF: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, when John Bolton -- and this is according to Dr. Hill's testimony -- brought up the drug deal, it was in the context of a July 10th meeting at the White House. There were two meetings that day. There was a meeting that Ambassador Bolton was present for and then there was a follow-on meeting after Ambassador Bolton abruptly ended the first meeting.
In the first meeting, Ukraine has naturally wanted to raise the topic of getting the White House meeting that President Zelensky so desperately wanted. And after raising the issue, at some point, Ambassador Sondland said, "No, no, we've got a deal. They'll get the meeting once they announce the investigation." And this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffened.
You can look up Dr. Hill's exact words, I'm paraphrasing here. But this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffens and he ends the meeting.
Hill then goes, "Follow Sondland and the delegation into another part of the White House where the meeting continues between the American delegation and the Ukrainian delegation." And there it's even more explicit because in that second meeting Sondland says, "brings up the Bidens specifically."
Hill then goes to talk to Bolton and informs him what's taken place in the follow-on meeting. And Bolton's response is, "Go talk to the lawyers and let them know I don't want to be part of this drug deal that Sondland and Mulvaney have got cooking up."
So at that point, that specific conversation, is a reference to the quid pro quo over the White House meeting. And we know, of course, from other documents and testimony about the quid pro quo about the White House meeting and all the efforts by Giuliani to make sure that the specific investigations are mentioned in order to make this happen. But don't take my word for it. We can bring in John Bolton and ask him exactly what he was referring to when he described the drug deal.
Now did Bolton described and discussed this drug deal with the President? Well, it certainly appears from what we know about this manuscript that they did talk about the freeze on aid and whether John Bolton understood and at what point he understood that the drug deal is even bigger and more pernicious than he thought that involve not just the meeting, but involve the military aid. There's one way to find out. And I want to add this in terms of Mr. Mulvaney.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
SCHIFF: No, maybe I'll add it later.
(LAUGHTER)
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice?
(UNKNOWN): (Inaudible).
J. ROBERTS: ... has 2.5 minutes.
PHILBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
The question asks about what Ambassador Bolton meant in a comment that is reported as hearsay by someone else saying what he supposedly said. What we know is that there are conflicting accounts of the July 10th meeting at the White House. Dr. Hill says that she heard Ambassador Sondland say one thing. He denies that he said that. Dr. Hill says she went and talked to Ambassador Bolton and Bolton said something to her about what we said in the meeting where he wasn't there, but he was saying something about it calling it a drug deal.
And what he meant by that, I'm not going to speculate about. It's -- it's a hearsay report or something he said about a meeting that he wasn't in characterizing it some way, and I'm not going to speculate about what he meant by then.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you. The Senator from North Dakota?
(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have a question for myself also for Senator Portman and Senator Boozman, and for the President's Counsel and I'm sending it to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: The question from the Senator is as follows. "In September of 2019, the security assistance aid was released to Ukraine.
[18:15:00]
Yet the House Managers continue to argue that President Trump condition the aid on an investigation of the Bidens. Did the Ukrainian President or his government ultimately meet any of the alleged requirements in order to receive the aid?"
PURPURA: Mr. Chief Justice. Thanks, Senator, for the question. The very short answer is no, but I will explain. And I think that's clear, I think we -- we demonstrated in our presentations on Friday and Monday that the aid was released, the aid flowed.
There was a meeting at the U.N. General Assembly. There was a meeting previously scheduled in Warsaw precisely as President Zelensky had suggested, and there was never any announcement of any investigations undertaken regarding the Bidens, Burisma, the 2016 election. No statements made, no investigations announced, began by the Ukrainian government.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Virginia?
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House Managers.
J. ROBERTS: The question is, "Do you know about additional information related to Russia disseminating President Trump's or Rudolph Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Should the Senate have this information before we deliberate on the articles of impeachment?"
SCHIFF: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, I think there are three categories of relevant material here. The first, you do have access to, and that is the supplemental testimony of Jennifer Williams. And I would encourage you all to read it. I think it sheds light very specifically on the Vice President and what he may or may not know these are the -- the schemes. So I would encourage you to read that submission.
There was a second body of intelligence that the committees have been provided that is relevant to this trial. You should also read it. And we should figure out the mechanism that would permit you to do so because it is directly relevant to the issues we are discussing and pertinent.
There's a third category of intelligence, too, which raises a -- a very different problem, and that is that the intelligence committees are for the first time refusing to provide to the Intelligence Committee. And that material has been gathered. We know that it exists, but the NSA has been advised not to provide it.
Now, the Director says that this is the Director's decision, but nonetheless, there was a body of intelligence that is relevant to request that we have made that is not being provided. And that raises a very different concern than the one before this body, and that is are now other agencies like the intelligence community that we require to speak truth to power, that we require to provide us the best intelligence now also withholding information at the urging of the administration? And that is, I think, a deeply concerning and new phenomenon. That problem we obviously have with other departments that have been part of the wholesale obstruction, but it now is wearing its ugly head with respect to the I.C.
But the shorter answer to the question on -- apart from Jennifer Williams, are there other relevant materials? The answer is yes. And I would encourage that you and we work together to find out how you might access them.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Majority Leader?
[18:20:00]
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice, the next two questions -- one from each side -- will be the last before we break for dinner. I would ask that following the next two questions the Senate stand in recess for 45 minutes.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator from Alabama, yes?
(UNKNOWN): I send a question to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question is directed to Counsel for the President. "How does the non-criminal abuse of power standard advanced by the House Managers differ from maladministration and impeachment standard rejected by the framers? Where is the line between such an abuse of power and a policy disagreement?
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you very much for that question because that question, I think, hits the key to the issue that's before you today. When the framers rejected maladministration and recall that it was introduced by Mason and rejected by Madison on the ground that it would turn our new Republic into a parliamentary democracy where a prime minister, in this case, a president can be removed at the pleasure of the legislature.
Remember, too, that in Britain, impeachment was not used against the prime minister. All you need was a vote of no confidence. It was used against lower-level people. And so maladministration was introduced by Mason, and Madison said, "No, it would turn us. It was just too vague and too general."
Now what -- what is maladministration? If you look it up in the dictionary and you look up synonyms, the synonyms include abuse, corruption, misrule, dishonestly, misuse of office and misbehavior. Even Professor Nicholas Bowie, a Harvard professor who is in favor of impeachment, so this is an admission against interest by him. He's in favor of impeachment. He says abuse of power is the same as misconduct in office, and he says that his research leads him to conclude that a crime is required.
By the way, the Congressman was just completely wrong when he said, "I am the only scholar who supports this position." In the 19th century, which is much closer in time to when the framers wrote. Dean White of the Columbia Law School wrote that the weight of authority by which he meant the weight of scholarly authority and the weight of judicial authority -- this is 1867. The weight of authority is in favor of requiring a crime.
Justice Curtis came to the same conclusion. Others have come to a similar conclusion. You asked what happened between 1998 and the current to change my mind, what happened between the 19th century and the 20th century that changed the minds of so many scholars? Let me tell you what happened.
What happened is that the current president was impeached. If, in fact, President Obama or President Hillary Clinton had been impeached, the weight of current scholarship would be clearly in favor of my position because these scholars do not pass the shoe on the other foot test. These scholars are influenced by their own bias, by their own politics, and their views should be taken with that in mind. They simply do not give objective assessments of the constitutional history.
Professor Tribe suddenly had a revelation himself. At the time when Clinton was impeached, he said, "Oh, the law is clear, you cannot -- you cannot charge a president with a crime. Well, he's the sitting president."
Now we have a current president. Professor Tribe got woke.
(LAUGHTER)
And with no apparent new research, he came to the conclusion, "Oh, but this President can be charged while sitting in office." That's not the kind of scholarship that should influence your decision.
You can make your own decisions, go back and read the debates, and you will see that I am right that the frame is rejected vague, open-ended criteria, abuse of power. And what we had as the manager made a fundamental mistake again, she gave reasons why we have impeachment. Yes, we feared abuse of power. Yes, we feared criteria like maladministration. That was part of the reason. We feared incapacity, but none of those made it into the criteria because the framers had to strike a balance.
Here are reasons we need impeachment, yes. Now, here are the reasons we fear giving Congress too much power, so we strike a balance. How did they strike it? Treason, a serious crime; bribery, a serious crime or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Crimes and misdemeanors, again the treason and bribery, that's what the framers intended.
[18:25:00]
They didn't intend to give Congress a license to decide who to impeach and who not to impeach on partisan grounds.
I read you the list of 40 American presidents who have been accused of abuse of power. Should every one of them be impeached? Should every one of them have been removed from office? It's too vague a term.
Reject my argument about crime. Reject it if you choose to. Do not reject my argument that abuse of power would destroy -- destroy the impeachment criteria of the constitution and turn it into words of one of the Senators of the Johnson time to make every president, every member of the Senate, every member of Congress be able to define itself from within their own (inaudible).
We heard from the other side that every Senator should decide the -- should decide whether you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt or prove by a preponderance. Now we hear that every Senator should decide what abuse of power.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
(UNKNOWN): (Inaudible), Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: Senator from Maryland?
(UNKNOWN): Chief Justice, I have a question on behalf of Senator Markey and myself that I send to the desk for the House Managers.
J. ROBERTS: The question is as follows, "Supreme Court Justice Byron White in a concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States, 1993, acknowledged that the Senate, quote, 'has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures,' end quote, but stated that the Senate, quote, 'would abuse its discretion,' end quote, if it were to, quote, 'insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges,' end quote. If the Senate does not allow for additional evidence and the testimony of key witnesses with firsthand knowledge of President Trump's actions and intentions, would a reasonable judge conclude these proceedings constitute a constitutionally fair trial?"
SCHIFF: I think the answer is yes. I don't know that we need to look to the words of a prior justice to tell us that a trial without witnesses is not really a trial. It's certainly not a fair trial if the House moves forward with impeachment and comes before the Senate, and wants to call witnesses, and wants to make its case and has told "Thou shall not call witnesses." That's not a fair trial.
I think that the American people understand that without reading the case law. They go to jury duty themselves every year and they see the first thing that takes place after the jury is sworn in is the government makes its opening statement, the defense makes theirs and then begins the calling of witnesses.
I do want to take this opportunity to respond to Professor Dershowitz' argument while they're fresh. You can say a lot of things about Alan Dershowitz. You cannot say he's unprepared. He's not unprepared today, he wasn't unprepared 21 years ago. And to believe that he would not have read 21 years ago what Mason had to say or Madison had to say or Hamilton had to say, I'm sorry, I don't buy that. I think 21 years ago he understood that maladministration was rejected, but so was a provision that confined the impeachable offenses to treason and bribery alone was rejected.
I think the Alan Dershowitz from 21 years ago understood that, yes, while you can't impeach for a policy difference, you can impeach a president for abuse of power. That's what he said 21 years ago.
Nothing has changed since then. I don't think you can write-off the consensus of constitutional opinion by saying they're all never- Trumpers. All the constitutional law professors, in fact, let's play a -- a snippet from Professor Turley who was in the House defending the President and see what he had to say recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TURLEY: On abuse of power, in my view, it's clear, you can impeach a president for abuse of power. You can impeach a president for non- criminal conduct."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: OK. Now, we can't argue plausibly that his position is owing to some political bias, right? I mean, just a few weeks ago he was in the House arguing the case for my GOP colleagues that the President shouldn't be impeached.
[18:30:00]
Now he did say, well, if you could actually prove these things, you could prove as indeed we have that the President abused his power by conditioning military aid to help his reelection campaign, yes, that is a -- an abuse of power. You can abuse -- you can impeach for that kind of abuse of power.
And that's exactly what we have here. We're not required to leave our common sense at the door. If we're to -- to interpret the constitution now as saying that a president can abuse their power, and I think the Professor suggested before the break that he can abuse his power in a corrupt way to help his reelection and you can't do anything about it. You can't do anything about it because, if he use it as in his personal interest, that's just fine. He's allowed to do it.
None of the founders would have accepted that kind of reasoning. In fact, the idea that the core offense that the founders protected against, that core offense is abuse of power is beyond the reach of Congress through impeachment would have terrified the founders.
I mean, you can imagine any number of abuses of power, a president who withholds aid from another country at war as a thank you for that adversary allowing him to build a Trump Tower in that country, that may not be criminal. But are we really going to say that we're going to have to permit a president of United States to withhold military aid as a thank you for a business proposition?
Now Counsel acknowledges that crime is not necessary, but something that can do a crime. Well, we think there's a crime here of bribery or extortion conditioning official acts for personal favors. That is bribery. It's also what the founders understood as extortion. And you cannot argue even if you argue -- well, under the modern definition of bribery, you got to show such as such. You cannot plausibly argue that it's not akin to bribery. It is bribery, but it's certainly akin to bribery. But that -- that's the import of what they would argue that, no, the President has a constitutional right (inaudible) he can do anything he wants. He can abuse his office and do so sacrifice the national security, undermining the integrity of the elections, and there's nothing Congress can do about it.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager. We're in recess?
(RECESS)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Part two, another two and a hours of questions for the White House lawyers, as well as the House managers, and it was very, very passionate, Jake. Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard professor, insisting once again there has to be a crime in order for a president of the United States to be impeached. Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, very passionate as well, saying, that is not absolutely true, rejected it completely, most of the arguments were for and against witnesses.
And this was significant because the House managers, Adam Schiff and company, they want John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and others to testify. But then we heard the questions from several of the Republican senators to the White House lawyer, saying, you know what, you want witnesses, we want Hunter Biden, we want the whistleblower, for example, and there was a passionate debate over the whistleblower and even Adam Schiff, they suggested maybe he should testify.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. But as you noted, one of the most striking moments from the last few hours of testimony and questions and answers that we've heard had to do with Professor Dershowitz speaking on behalf of the president's defense, defending himself because his view of constitutional powers and what is or is not impeachable seems to be, when it comes to respected legal scholars, shall we say in the minority.
And whatever you think of his interpretation and an argument he made earlier in the day, which seemed to amount to as long as the president thinks that what he is doing is in the national interest and that includes benefitting him in terms of his own re-election, he cannot be impeached for it on quid pro quo, abuse of power grounds. That is something a lot of people have been reacting to today negatively, saying that it was invented. Our own legal scholar right here, Carrie Cordero, pushing back against it.
And when it was pointed out that his position is in the minority, Professor Dershowitz very passionately, perhaps more passionately than we have seen him speak in the last several weeks, went on the floor and basically said that nobody else of the constitutional scholars who has the contrary position can be trusted that they are against Trump.
[18:35:10]
And they adjust their point of view, according to the winds of power --
BLITZER: If Hillary Clinton were president, they would have the opposite view.
TAPPER: Whether it's a Democratic president, such as Bill Clinton's impeachment, or a Republican president, such as Donald Trump, and suggesting basically that he alone is the honest broker here.
Let's go to our own legal analyst, the former student of Professor Dershowitz, Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, what did you think?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I mean, I don't want to turn this into a psycho drama starring Alan Dershowitz, but the idea that he's the only objective law professor in America who was yesterday at the White House patting Secretary of State Pompeo on the back and celebrating the Israel deal does not suggest that he is some sort of neutral observer here. Also an argument he made that I found breathtaking is you can tell I'm right because no one has agreed with me for the last 150 years.
I mean, let's just put Alan Dershowitz aside for one second. I think there was big news today. And, Jake, I think you were the first person to disclose it, which is that the administration is not satisfied with trying to stop Ambassador Bolton from testifying. They want to stop his book. And he received a letter last week from the National Security Council saying, your book is full of classified information and it's going to take a while to go through it. So, I mean, I think that is part of the effort that's going on here to shut down the fact- finding on this whole issue and it's not just about testimony but it's about the book as well.
TAPPER: And we have some breaking news on that as long as you bring it up, Jeffrey, which is that we just recently got a statement from the lawyer for Ambassador John Bolton basically noting that last week, after we got -- after he received, he and Ambassador Bolton, received the letter from the National Security Council, which we disclosed earlier today, basically saying as a warning, as a threat, however you want to describe it, you cannot publish your book in its current form because of all the top secret information in it and therefore you can't publish it according to federal law, according to non-disclosure agreements, et cetera.
And what Chuck Cooper wrote back to the National Security Council last Friday was, as you are no doubt aware, the House managers in the Senate impeachment trial have made clear their intention to seek Ambassador Bolton's at trial. And although no one yet knows whether the Senate will subpoena him to testify, he is preparing for that possibility. If he is called to testify, it seems certainly he will be asked questions that will illicit much of the information contained in the chapter of his manuscript dealing with his involvement in matters relating to Ukraine.
We do not believe any of that information could reasonably be considered classified. But given that Ambassador Bolton could be called to testify as early as next week, it is imperative that we have the results of your review of that chapter as soon as possible.
And Charles Cooper noting that even though he wrote that last Friday, he has yet to hear back from the National Security Council. And his client, Ambassador John Bolton, has made it clear that he wants to testify and he has information that is germane.
TOOBIN: And what this means in plain English though is that the administration holds all the cards here. They are the only ones who declassify a manuscript. And I've gone through this process. My first book, I had to submit for pre-publication review because I had a security clearance, and you're at their mercy. The only thing you can do is then go to court and get a judge to try to overrule it, which can take many months and judges are reluctant to overrule the determinations of the administration about what's classified.
So, I mean, the short answer that the National Security Council has given John Bolton in response to his requests to speed up the classification review is go pound sand. We'll get to this when we get to it. And in the meantime, you can't talk and you can't publish your book.
BLITZER: Gloria, only so far, five hours, another three hours later tonight and another eight hours potentially if they go 16 hours all together tomorrow. We're getting a lot of of good information out of this. It's very useful but it's very, very lively and there is a lot of anger on both sides.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: And on this book -- on the book question, I think it was very interesting when the White House lawyer said that he was asked, what did you know about this Bolton nook.
[18:40:01]
And he said, well, we never got a heads-up. It would be problematic for them. So they are saying that this was held by the national security folks, that they never got a heads-up. We don't know anything about what they know about it today. We just -- we have no idea. All we know is that, from Chuck Cooper, the attorney for Bolton, they are trying to at least get some clearance for the particular chapter that he might have to discuss if he is called to testify.
TAPPER: One note on that, if I can (INAUDIBLE) sorry to interrupt, is that this letter that we obtained from the National Security Council to Chuck Cooper, John Bolton's lawyer, that was released by the White House I think around noon or so or afternoon, at least. And, I mean, what's significant is that President Trump was tweeting this morning that John Bolton's book was full of classified information.
Now, if it is siloed in the National Security Council office that deals with vetting and this letter just went from the National Security Council office to Chuck Cooper, Bolton's lawyer, how did President Trump know that it was full of -- or at least that they are alleging it's full of top secret information, how did he know that, if according to his lawyers, the process is completely at --
BORGER: Right. We have no answer to that question, do we? We don't know what the president knows, maybe. We don't know what the president knows. We know what he is saying. And we know what his team is saying, which is that there's lots of things in here that have to be cleared.
TAPPER: Have to be removed as well.
BORGER: Removed. And they're in no rush. They're in a rush, except the Senate is in a rush and they've got to figure this out or, as I said earlier, and we've all said this at one point or another, Bolton could just come out and talk to us. JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So it does beg the question, what is Donald Trump so worried about that's in that book? And I'm not sure it's the greatest political strategy trying to hold it up. This is the kind of thing that could get those Republican senators, their backs up a little bit. Mitch McConnell thinks he's moving toward a vote to stop witnesses. This does not help him.
BLITZER: Everybody stand by. There's a lot more we need to report on that we need to assess. Our special live coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:47:11]
TAPPER: Welcome back to CNN's coverage of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.
On this day and tomorrow, the senator will be asking questions of the House impeachment managers and the president's defense attorneys. Of course, the big elephant in the room with the big white mustache is John Bolton and will he testify? Will there be 51 votes in the Senate on Friday to compel him to testify?
And let's go to Jamie Gangel. First of all, there is all this drama going on behind the scenes about John Bolton now. Not just about his testimony but the White House sending a note to his lawyer saying that, you know, you can't publish your book as it is because of federal law and nondisclosure agreements and top secret information. So, there's a lot of attention still on what John Bolton has to say and why the White House is so dead set against him saying it?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, what do we know about Donald Trump? He picks a fight even when he's winning. The votes were moving in his direction.
But this is not so unusual. He did -- he want -- he wanted -- he threatened Michael Wolff, Steve Bannon, Omarosa, Cliff Sims. He does this with books. The problem this time is the stakes are higher. You do not want to be as we said before, the political strategy, annoying the Republican senators.
All that said, I do not -- I'm going to gout out on a limb, I don't think John Bolton is going to testify. I think it feels as if the votes are moving in the other direction. So, I would invite him. We're all here. Come. We're happy --
TAPPER: Come in with a lot of warmth, sure.
GANGEL: Exactly, exactly.
TAPPER: John Barrasso, one of the Republican senators, said, I'm happy to say the momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday. That vote will be Friday. He's one of the Republican leaders.
Let's go to Dana Bash up on Capitol Hill. She's with the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, I am.
Senator Mark Warner, thank you so much for joining me.
What was your takeaway from the Q and A that you heard all day?
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Well, I think it got more interesting as the afternoon went on. I think -- particularly, some of the questions that were asked to both sides, you got a chance to argue and rebut. I still haven't heard an argument other than process-wise, why we wouldn't want to hear from John Bolton who was in the room, or for that matter, why we wouldn't want to hear from Mick Mulvaney who, I guess, potentially could come in and rebut John Bolton, also in the room.
The fact that the president doesn't want this to take place or his legal team doesn't, I thought the argument of the missing witness or I'm not much of lawyer, but the missing witness excuse or something, that you have to draw some inference that if they don't want these folks to testify who have direct knowledge, that I think most Americans will take as relevant.
BASH: Because you mentioned John Bolton, I have to ask you, Jake Tapper got a letter from the White House threatening John Bolton, saying, you know, you should not publish this -- this book.
[18:50:02]
So, it's not just about testimony. It's about releasing his book.
WARNER: I cannot believe that even this administration is going to try to silence a book that's going to be published in 60 days, and I come back again, I think the book will be published, and how stupid is this whole process going to look, and the U.S. Senate is going to look if there was directly relevant information that might have changed peoples' minds and people read about it in 60 days, in the middle of March and we in the United States Senate didn't get a chance to hear or see that testimony before we make our decision.
BASH: Did you ever think, as a tried and true Democrat, you would be in a position of defending and supporting John Bolton?
WARNER: Listen, I don't agree with John Bolton, but I would never question his conservative credentials, conservative bona fides, you know? But the idea here of pattern that anyone that disagrees with this president, that he's willing to bring the full force of his office down on top of any opposition, you know, does play into the House manager's argument. And I think the argument that Adam Schiff made, and at the second night of this, does anyone in that hall amongst the senators not believe that Donald Trump wouldn't withhold aid to go after a political opponent and, frankly, that he wouldn't do it again?
BASH: Well, on that note, Alan Dershowitz argued -- you heard this obviously -- that essentially, the president can do anything he wants for his re-election as long as it's also in the public interest. WARNER: I had Alan Dershowitz in criminal law 40 years ago, 40 plus
years ago at Harvard.
BASH: Would Alan Dershowitz have said this?
WARNER: I am -- I think the Alan Dershowitz that I had and the Alan Dershowitz that was around the Clinton trial, I'm -- I've got a lot of respect for Professor Dershowitz, but I think that theory that a president, as long as he thought it was in his own interest and some mixed national interest, can do anything in term of his own re- election campaign, can basically overturn American foreign policy, withhold military aid to an ally of ours who's fighting Russia to help himself in a political campaign, I don't see how that passes any smell test.
BASH: So, you're not really the audience for that. It's the potential for swing voters on the issue of witnesses.
WARNER: But I don think --
BASH: And also -- and also big picture, do you think that will have any sway with any senators who are potentially on the bubble, maybe even some moderate Democrats?
WARNER: Dana, what all I've seen is about 3/4 of Americans, whether you support the president or don't support him, agree we ought to get the facts, that we ought to see relevant witnesses. And again, I come back to the notion that if Mick Mulvaney who still serves this president, if he would come in and rebut what Bolton says, that would be relevant too.
Don't just put out a statement. Come up here, take an oath, swear to tell the truth, and then tell the truth. How can -- how can anyone legitimately be against that?
BASH: Senator, thank you so much for coming out. Appreciate it.
WARNER: Thank you, Dana.
BASH: Thank you.
Jake and Wolf, back to you.
TAPPER: Dana Bash, thanks so much.
We're going to squeeze in one more quick break. Stay with us as we continue to cover the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:55:13]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special coverage. Mike Rogers, you were chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
You heard Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, now the lead House manager, express concern of the whistleblower safety but also some of the aides in the House intelligence community whose names have come out are getting death threats right now.
MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, it's -- that's over the top. I will say that over the last few years, even in my last few years I had an incident in my office in my district, death threats over the investigation when I was participating in investigation.
TAPPER: Benghazi?
ROGERS: On Benghazi. And it's awful. It's bad. And social media is contributing to that in a way because people can do it and it's anonymous. But it is concerning.
And you don't want to move to the next level of this. All of that needs to stop. As much as this is, you know, a very partisan event, even the questions is, you know, tell me why the president isn't guilty? You know, tell me when the president was ever guilty?
This -- the average citizen looks at this, it takes that flavor of partisanship, and people get angry. And what happens is they make really bad decisions like threatening someone who's doing their job on the Senate staff. Even if you disagree with them, they're doing their job. They don't deserve to be threatened. And people ought to back off on all of that.
BLITZER: Nia, listen to Adam Schiff speaking on the whistleblower. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Let me be clear about several things about the whistleblower. First of all, I don't know who the whistleblower is. I haven't met them or communicated with them in any way. The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint.
The committee staff did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general. The committee, including its staff, did not receive the complaint until the night before acting director of national intelligence, we had an open hearing with the active director on September 26th, more than three weeks after the legal deadline by which the committee should have received the complaint.
In short, the conspiracy theory which I think was outlined earlier that the whistleblower colluded with the Intel Committee staff to hatch an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction. This was I think confirmed by the remarkable accuracy of the whistleblower complaint which has been corroborated by the evidence we subsequently gathered in all material respects.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Nia, that's a strong statement from Adam Schiff.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: It's a strong statement. Listen, Republicans have been saying that they wanted to hear from Adam Schiff on this. They wanted him possibly to be a witness in this and would probably be one of the questions he got, whether or not there was any coordination or cooperation between him and the whistleblower, whether or not he knew the whistleblower.
There are also questions or suggestions raised about whether Joe Biden -- the whistleblower worked for Joe Biden. So, you saw Democrats really working hard to put some of those conspiracy theories to rest. And, you know, I think ultimately, the big question is what happens Friday doesn't seem like any minds have been changed over the course of these last eight or so days. Seems like we are going to end where we began with maybe two Republicans voting for witnesses.
We'll see what Lisa Murkowski does. We'll see what the others do. But this probably doesn't change anything. It's certainly partisan. You have Democrats essentially wanting to lay the groundwork because that this wasn't a fair trial because there are so many witnesses that aren't going to be heard from.
TAPPER: Carrie Cordero, let me ask you on the subject of the whistleblower. There is, just as a journalistic principle, most media organizations don't name whistleblowers, whether they're for or against Democrats or Republicans. A Trump official retweeted the alleged name of the whistleblower. I have no idea if it's the right name or not.
I don't think that's a crime though, right? It's only -- the Whistleblower Protection Act only covers people in the federal government and the inspector general of the intelligence community, right?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right, so, this individual, if this is just somebody working for the campaign, not in a position of trust, not a government employee, this person doesn't actually know. I mean, I wouldn't think this person would have personal knowledge of who the whistleblower is. So, I don't think that person has legal exposure.
It's wrong to do. It's especially wrong in the context of somebody who is working for a current president who is seeking re-election. When they release the name, when people promulgate this name of the reported whistleblower, they are making that individual less safe.
TAPPER: Right.
CORDERO: And so there is a real personal potential harm to that individual, and it is -- shouldn't be somebody that is working for the president.
TAPPER: Legal but indecent which is a characteristic we're learning a lot about these days. BLITZER: Excellent point.
We're waiting for the resumption of the question session of the Senate impeachment trial.
Erin Burnett picks up our special coverage.
END
