Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Soon, Legal Teams Face Full Day of Questions Before Witness Vote; Trump Legal Team Introduced Eyebrow-Raising Arguments; Schumer Holds Press Conference on Trump Attorneys Unable to Answer Questions; Trump Team Can't Cite If He Spoke of Biden Probes Before 2020 Run. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 30, 2020 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:19]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer, live in Washington, alongside Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, and Dana Bash. She's up on Capitol Hill. This CNN's special coverage the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.

Today, we'll hear the second and last round of questions from U.S. Senators before they decide whether to allow new witnesses in the trial and ultimately decide whether to remove the president of the United States from office.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: The Trump defense team introduced some, I think it's fair to say, eyebrow-raising new arguments in the impeachment debate yesterday.

Including Attorney Patrick Philbin, the White House deputy counsel, arguing that foreign interference in an election is OK as long as the information that you get on an opponent is credible information.

Another remark causing headlines in this history-making impeachment trial may be remembered as one of the defining moments, perhaps, when Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was, of course, a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team among others, argued that a quid pro quo that helps a president get elected is not impeachable if the president believes that his re-election is in the public interest.

And for his part, Dershowitz says the media is getting it all wrong about this moment, tweeting, quote, "They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes his re-election was in the national interest he would do anything. I said nothing like that. As anyone who actually heard what I said can attest," unquote.

BLITZER: Here is Alan Dershowitz in his own words on the Senate floor, less than 24 hours ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR, HARVARD SCHOOL OF LAW: Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest.

And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

They never allege that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president to the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, unless you build a hotel with my name on it, and unless you give me a million- dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds. That's an easy case. That's purely corrupt and in the purely private interest.

But a complex middle case is, I want to be elected. I think I'm a great president. I think I'm the greatest president there ever was. And if I'm not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's discuss this.

John King, I don't think that we misunderstood him. He's pretty clearly saying that it is not a quid pro quo that can be impeachable if it is being done for your re-election, which you perceive to be in the national interest, as opposed to a million dollars into your bank account.

And that is a rather expansive view of presidential powers and what is allowed.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Incredibly expansive view of presidential power and what is allowed. It's a part, it's a piece of what is a kitchen-sink defense strategy.

Alan Dershowitz says the president can do anything. Mr. Philbin says the subpoenas were out. They have thrown a bunch of different arguments out there trying to give the Republicans looking for something to grab on to.

But in this particular case, you have Alan Dershowitz, who, if we roll back the tape a few years, most conservatives would call a liberal elitist, making an argument on the floor that conservatives for years have made against liberal elitists.

That essentially -- the conservatives get up and say the liberal elitists think we're smarter than you, you don't get it, trust us, we're doing well for you, let us do what we're doing and it will work out OK for you.

Conservative leaders have made that case for years. No. A, you're not smarter than us. And, B., we don't think you're doing the right thing for us.

But Alan Dershowitz is saying the president thinks getting re-elected is good for the country. I can do anything I want. That's a crazy argument.

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think what Dershowitz is -- I could be wrong. But I think what Dershowitz is getting at, what Republicans are concerned about, I'm concerned about, which is this whole idea that, number one, this whole corrupt motives idea, that, you know, we can look into the mind of a president, see his corrupt motives and that's grounds for impeachment.

What he's saying is, just because a president is doing something in his election interests, that is not a corrupt motive. OK?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Doing something that is corrupt, that's corrupt, and it's not corrupt.

SANTORUM: The act itself has to be corrupt. His motive, the motive of being -- doing something in your own political interest. Everybody does everything in their own political interest.

TAPPER: All right.

SANTORUM: That can't be the corrupt motive is what he's saying.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Ron, we should note you're an adviser to -- what is your exact role with the Biden campaign?

[11:05:02]

RON KLAIN, BIDEN CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Just an adviser to the Biden campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Former chief of staff, and a strong supporter.

TAPPER: Yes. Yes.

KLAIN: Look, what the president did here was unlawful. He withheld aid that Congress appropriated. He did it for his personal gain. Whether that gain is financial --

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: -- whether the gain is financial or political, that's his personal gain.

This is Watergate. What Alan Dershowitz is talking about is Watergate. If President Nixon thought getting re-elected was in his national interest, he ordered people to break into the DNC, he ordered people to pay hush money --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: Those are specific crimes. Holding back aid is not a crime.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Every president can be impeached --

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: -- abuse of office --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: No president will ever be impeached --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: -- for releasing aid three weeks later than we should have.

TAPPER: Let's let Ron --

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Look, abuse of office, abuse of the president's power is an impeachable offense. It's always been a tradition in our country. It was part of the Clinton impeachment. It was part of the Nixon.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: And what happened here was the president used his office to withhold aid from Ukrainians, released it because he got caught --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: Well --

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Released it because he got caught.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Because Congress was going to force him to release it.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: -- tell the Ukrainians to interfere in our elections. That's an impeachable defense --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I want to point out, Senator Santorum, the Government Accountability Office recently issued a statement saying that --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: I understand that. But that's --

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: The aid, nearly $400 million, was authorized and appropriated by the House and the Senate, signed into law by the president of the United States. It was the law of the land. The GAO says what the president did was unlawful.

SANTORUM: Yes, that's because they are a congressional arm. And they have said things that the Obama administration did --

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Nonpartisan arm.

SANTORUM: But they're an arm of Congress defending congressional prerogatives.

BORGER: Can we just say --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: And they have found illegal acts on every administration and none of them have been impeached for it.

BORGER: Can we go back to Richard Nixon for a second. Because didn't Richard Nixon say, if a president does it, then it is not illegal?

SANTORUM: I disagree with that.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: I'm not making that argument.

BORGER: No. But this is exactly what Alan Dershowitz is saying. Alan Dershowitz is saying a president, not unlike a king, I with argue, but that a president can do anything that he wants to do if he or she considers it in the national interest.

And since, ipso facto, politicians believe what they're doing is in the national interest, then the president can do anything he wants.

And, oh, by the way, the president's lawyers also argue that foreign influence is OK. It is OK so long as the information you're getting is credible.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: I mean, look at the way they're describing the presidency. It's changing the nature of the office.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I think that's right. And changing American democracy. I think if you're Donald Trump listening to that, you basically got a blank check to do anything you want going forward in this 2020 election.

You can get foreign information, you can -- in the way it happened in 2016. You can encourage that. You can do this again, what he tried to do with Ukraine, and it would be OK. I think that's what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were afraid of,

that is why they went forward with this impeachment in the House. And he likely will get acquitted in the House (sic).

But, my goodness, it was a great day for this president yesterday and certainly the ghost of Richard Nixon as well.

TAPPER: I think it is also pretty clear -- and Ron Klain, I'd love to know what you think -- that right now the momentum is with the Republicans. It seems pretty clear they're not going to get the Democrats. They're not going to get 54 votes for new witnesses, John Bolton or anyone else.

And it is possible even that the vote to acquit might be bipartisan. There are Democrats from red states, Manchin from West Virginia, Jones from Alabama, Sinema from Arizona, who might even vote to acquit.

What do you make of that? I mean, this is just me. You know, I don't know this for a fact. We'll see what happens tomorrow. But that's what it looks like the momentum is going, where it's going.

KLAIN: I think there's a lot of speculation about that. Senator McConnell said the other day he didn't have the votes to withhold witnesses. Now it seems that he might have the votes to withhold witnesses.

I think, you know, one thing that both Senator Santorum, knows from the Senate, I know from working there, is you don't really count the votes until you count the votes. Let's see what happens here.

I do think that, you know, Senator McConnell is a skilled and gifted leader. He knows how to whip his caucus. He knows how to deliver the votes. And he went out publicly to get the Trump base to rally against witnesses and they're doing that.

But that may be a short-term victory and long-term mistake for them.

TAPPER: Speaking of the Senate, let's listen in to the Democratic leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): And thanks for coming.

And let me say that I thought the questioning period yesterday was very good for us. It showed how flimsy, how specious, and how dangerous the Republican arguments were.

I want to go over some important moments from that first period of Senators questioning yesterday, nearly all of which made the case for witnesses and documents.

[11:10:02]

Some of the best questions came from Republicans. From Senator Collins and Murkowski. Asked if the president -- asked the president's counsel if they could give an example of the president expressing concern about Hunter and Joe Biden before the former vice president announced his candidacy.

President's counsel could not point to a single example to support the claim. So he made up a bogus excuse that his answer was limited to what's in the record.

Senator Romney asked the president's counsel if they could clarify the specific date when the president ordered the delay in military assistance and what reason he gave for doing it.

Again, presidents counsel could not point to anything to answer Senator Romney.

Now, these are crucial points and they get right at the question of corrupt motive. The simple factual questions, and the president's counsel, unable to answer them. Wow.

You know who could help them answer those questions? Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and our other two witnesses. So could the documents that we have asked to subpoena.

A few other moments stood out. I asked president's -- they said they were not demanding absolute immunity. So I asked them to name a single document or a single witness that the House counsel requested as they went through the process that the president said OK. Not one. They couldn't name one.

Mr. Philbin had to filibuster. P.H., get it? Philbin, filibuster.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHUMER: Had to filibuster an answer as to the general reasons they might call immunity.

Another moment stood out, amazingly. On Monday night, Mr. Dershowitz advanced a scarcely believable argument of impeachment.

Yesterday, he went even further suggesting, because presidents believe their re-election is in the public interest, when they do things to benefit their re-election, it is in the public interest and they can basically do whatever they want.

I hear he's correcting it on TV today. That seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's pattern. He gives a statement on the floor, and then spends the next day correcting it. What a load of nonsense.

By Dershowitz's logic, President Nixon did nothing wrong in Watergate. He was just breaking into the DNC to help his re-election, which, of course, is in the public interest, according to Dershowitzian logic.

The Dershowitz argument, frankly, would unleash a monster. More aptly, it would unleash a monarch.

Think about this. According to Dershowitz, impeachment is only for criminal offenses. Meanwhile, President Trump's Justice Department argues that a sitting president can't be indicted, can't indict for criminal conduct, can't impeach for noncriminal conduct. The president could blackmail a foreign country into poisoning our

elections and get away with murder, literally, so long as he's in office.

Republicans have gone from denying the president -- what the president did to normalizing it by claiming every president does it, to now saying there's nothing wrong with it, even if he did it.

It is incredible the lengths they will go to justify something, most of them, not all, but most, know is wrong.

The president's counsel is asking us to confer two new rights on the presidency. The right to ask foreign countries to investigate their political opponents, and the right to prevent Congress from investigating their opponents.

If Senate Republicans vote to endorse these ideas by shutting down a fair trial, they could spell the end of presidential accountability as we know it.

TAPPER: All right, we're going to cut out of Senator Schumer's press conference there and talk more with our panel.

I want to get your reaction, Senator Santorum, to an argument that we just heard from Schumer, which is there were questions that the president's attorneys could not answer last night, questions put to them by Republicans.

One, from Collins and Murkowski -- we don't know how they're going to vote on this -- did Trump ever mention Joe and Hunter Biden when he spoke with Zelensky's predecessor or with any other Ukrainian officials, cabinet members and top aides.

And another from Mitt Romney, asking what specific date the president first ordered the hold on military aid to Ukraine and what his reasoning was at the time he did so.

And neither of those were the president's attorneys able to answer. Doesn't that concern you at all? Aren't these questions they should be able to answer? They're from Republican Senators.

[11:15:04]

SANTORUM: Yes. Again, should they be able to answer them? I suspect they should be able to answer them. And why they weren't or have they not investigated that. I think, again, the answer is, yes, they should have been able to answer.

The more relevant question, from the standpoint of Republican Senators, not maybe Mitt Romney, is it doesn't really matter. Because what the president did was, on its face, not an impeachable offense.

It just keeps coming back -- I know everybody wants to keep doubling into getting more details and finding more information, but -- none of it matters because most -- the --

(CROSSTALK)

I understand. But the Republicans feel like, except everything Adam Schiff believes is the case, we still won't know.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: So why find out.

KLAIN: They can answer the questions. They won't. The answers are damning. There's no evidence that President Trump had any interest in corruption in Russia until the month Joe Biden got into the presidential race. That goes to his intent. His intent was Ukraine --

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: You said Russia.

(CROSSTALK)

KLAIN: Ukraine, sorry. That intent was political, not about the public interest.

And that -- the reason they can't answer that question is because the answer is damning. The same thing for the questions the other questions posed.

These are questions, as you alluded to Jake, posed by Republican Senators, not partisan Democrats or whatever.

So the problem here is the facts are bad for Trump. And the Republicans have to either hide the facts or vote against the witnesses who could testify to those.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: But they can answer the question by going to the president or finding out.

TAPPER: It is pretty clear also, John Bolton could answer at least one of those questions, what day was the military --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Hold on. Stick around. We have much more to talk about.

Even though 75 percent of Americans, according to a recent poll, think that the trial should have new witnesses, Republicans keep coming up with reasons for why there should not be. We'll talk about that.

BLITZER: And also, how the Trump team couldn't answer some of those questions about whether the president even mentioned investigating the Bidens. We'll have more on that.

Much more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [11:21:34]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: As we await more questions from Senators, the questions from moderate Republicans, like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, have been getting attention.

One of them asked about the president's motives. They want to know if he raised the issue of Biden with Ukraine before Biden announced he was running for president.

Here is how the president's legal team answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK PHILBIN, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY COUNSEL: I can't point to something in the record that shows President Trump, at an earlier time, mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Back now with the panel.

Jeffrey, it just seems so interesting that there were a number of questions they couldn't answer. And essentially, they're saying, you know, I can't point to something in the public record because the public record is actually woefully thin.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Very thin. If you were doing an investigation in a U.S. attorney's office or the FBI of the decision to withhold -- to withhold American aid from Ukraine, you would start by getting the documents. You would start by getting the e-mails.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Another question they were asked, from Mitt Romney, which I mentioned before, which is, when did the president decide to, you know, stop the aid and when did he transmit that decision. They don't have an answer for that, because nobody knows.

TOOBIN: Nobody knows.

COOPER: No documents put forward.

TOOBIN: Nobody knows.

And it is not like some mystery of the universe. This actually has a knowable answer. And it exists --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: -- in the memory of people or in the documents. It is -- and the --

(CROSSTALK) COOPER: The fact the president hasn't said, yes, I made that decision on, you know, July 3rd or --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: We're not talking about questions like why is there evil in the world.

(LAUGHTER)

TOOBIN: There is like, what day, what day that the aid was cut off.

COOPER: Right.

TOOBIN: And that -- somewhere that answer exists, but the Republican don't want the answer to it.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: One thing that is important, because of the president's cynical defense strategy or the stonewall, they don't want to introduce data into the discussion and have the House managers say, oh, how do you know that. Wait, you know that? What is the document? Because that would mean they would then have to produce materials.

So this is the cynicism of this entire process. In order to maintain the stone wall, that the president's defense attorneys are unwilling to clarify a record, which they could easily clarify by looking at White House records --

(CROSSTALK)

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's the rub for the House impeachment managers. You have a little delicate dance. We know the next step in this process is voting whether to have more -- witnesses or documents be subpoenaed. But can't go with the strategy of saying, we have been stonewalled, we have nothing here, we have to build our case.

They have to be able to say, even if this is all we have, it is enough. That's what Adam Schiff kept driving home yesterday, essentially saying, listen, we know what the facts are as we have, we know we have enough. If you should require more information for any reason whatsoever, this is why you have to get witnesses there.

But this is a delicate balance to say we got enough and, yet, we need so much more.

(CROSSTALK)

ROS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. And I think, as a practical matter, they haven't been able to shoulder that balance.

Philbin was in a very tough position. Because it is knowable. It is, you know, frankly, knowable by his client. The answer is, well, go ask your client what --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: I wish the question was: And if you don't know, can you get back to me tomorrow?

(LAUGHTER)

GARBER: Right. And so, you know, everybody is playing this weird dance, whether -- there's knowable information. There's tons of knowable information. The president's lawyers are saying the House should have gotten it. And I think that's actually a fair argument.

[11:25:13]

The Democrats are saying, well, wait a minute, we're at trial, this information is knowable and wouldn't take a long time to get it. And now that we're in trial, the Senate should be the forum for getting it. And I think that argument also has merit.

But, you know, the reality is that they want to get this thing done like the House wanted to get it done. And it is going to get done. And there's a ton of information that is not known today. But there say lot of information we're going to --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: Here is a question to which there's a knowable answer. How many Republicans are there in the Senate? Fifty-three.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: And that's the answer that you need to know to all these questions, is that, you know, this Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. And it looks this way -- I mean, I certainly defer to the people who are doing the day to day reporting.

But it looks like they're going to shut this down tomorrow. And, you know, we're going to rely on journalism and perhaps the House investigations to determine the rest of the facts. And, you know, we'll see if anyone cares.

COOPER: Will House investigations continue?

TOOBIN: That's going to be an interesting question for Nancy Pelosi to decide. Because I find it very hard to believe that John Bolton will not testify before the House at some point.

But you can be sure if the Democrats do start calling these witnesses again. Republicans will say, oh, here we go again, they lost in the Senate, and they're now pursuing these issues.

But, you know, in light of the complete shutdown of fact finding here, I wouldn't be surprised.

COOPER: Couldn't you pursue this through the courts for now as opposed to having public hearings? Which, through the courts, it is not as if on a daily basis, frankly, people pay attention. It just meanders it's way through the courts.

TOOBIN: Well, you -- it depends who you're asking for. I mean, if they try to get Mulvaney, Mulvaney will fight this. I think --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Even just trying to get documents?

TOOBIN: The documents will go -- that will take forever in the courts. You know that. But it seems worth -- if you care about the answers, it is worth fighting.

The interesting question is Bolton. Because Bolton said he was willing to testify before the Senate. He didn't say anything about the House.

And now, in light of the letter he got from the National Security Council yesterday, his lawyer, it is unclear in terms of what is classified and what is not. And he now is in a precarious situation for testimony.

COOPER: There's new details from Capitol Hill on how Republicans are reacting to Alan Dershowitz's controversial argument. We'll have more on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)