Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

NYT: Bolton Book Manuscript Says Trump Directed Him To Help With Ukraine Pressure Campaign In Early May; Soon: Impeachment Trial Resumes With Debate On Witnesses; FBI Responding To Incident In Mar-a- Lago; Suspects Arrested After SUV Breaches Mar-a-Lago Security; Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired January 31, 2020 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: --that John Bolton, his new manuscript for this book that he's trying to publish that the White House is trying to stop at least for now. He describes a discussion in early May in the Oval Office that included Mick Mulvaney, the White House Chief of Staff, Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel, Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, and John Bolton.

And that Giuliani was talking about these various investigations that they wanted, as we understand it, into some of the President's democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, that the President directed John Bolton to call the incoming president of Ukraine, President Zelensky, and make sure that Rudy Giulliani got a meeting with him in the coming days as Giulliani was planning a trip to Ukraine.

The "Times" reported on that trip that Giulliani was planning almost in real time back in May of 2019. Bolton writes that he did not make that phone call and the White House officials said about Giuliani's potential trip, and the trip was canceled.

If Bolton's account is true, you know, it would be the earliest that we know of that the President was involved in instructing people in relation to this pressure campaign with Ukraine for investigation that he wanted. You know, I don't -- we published this information because we want to inform people. I don't know what impact, if any, this will have on any of the proceedings, but it does broaden, if true, our understanding of what happened.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: It also certainly illustrates the fact that there is a lot that Bolton is claiming that the Senate has not heard about before, which we've known for a while because Bolton's lawyer has been saying that he knows about things that the Senate does not know and the Congress does not know.

Maggie, this also would seem to contradict the idea claimed by one of the President's attorneys, Patrick Philbin, who when asked about Rudy Giulliani and what he was doing said that, "I want to make clear that there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried out here by Giuliani." Because what you're describing is a campaign that is including the national security adviser, although it doesn't sound like Bolton actually carried this out.

HABERMAN: Right. And look, Jake, I should note here that Rudy Giulliani emphatically denied to Mike and me in a conversation that this conversation took place. He says that there was never a meeting that he had or he discussed Ukraine that Cipollone was present for and that that was also true for Mick Mulvaney, you know, and I expect we will be hearing more from the White House as the day goes on.

So I think these points a couple of things, one of which is that, you know, Bolton clearly has a story he wants to tell. There's nothing precluding Bolton from coming out and speaking. And I think that's one of the things that has really frustrated Democrats and probably some Republicans that if Bolton does want to say something, he probably can at this point, even if the White House is protesting with some of the information that his manuscript is classified.

TAPPER: Indeed he could call in just the way you did. Great reporting, Maggie, thank you so much.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And I just want to add one point that --

HABERMAN: I'm just trying to show how easy it is, yes.

BLITZER: Yes, Maggie and Michael Schmidt doing excellent reporting. It's Wolf. The second paragraph in your article, Maggie, says the President gave the instruction to Bolton, according to Bolton's manuscript during your Oval Office conversation in early May, that included and this is interesting, who was in that meeting according to Bolton, the acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giulliani, and the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

Mulvaney had said that whenever Giulliani was there, he would walk away because he didn't want to get an attorney-client privilege. Cipollone says he wasn't involved. He's leading the President's legal defense right now. The people in that Oval Office meeting, that's pretty significant if Bolton's account is true.

HABERMAN: If it's true. Correct, well if it is. But again, that's an important if. I mean this is why, you know, House -- I know the President have said that the House didn't call Bolton. It is true that they didn't go to court to get Bolton, but they did ask him to testify. Bolton declined.

Bolton then signaled earlier this month that he would be -- he would comply with a subpoena in the Senate. It seems likely that the Senate is not going to go for witnesses. I mean, this is why people who want witnesses are arguing that it would be important to get Bolton under oath.

We should also note that the White House has already get (ph) that Bolton who was often at odds with Mick Mulvaney and with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. But Bolton himself, you know, was a disgruntled employee who left on bad terms and who they say has an ax to grind, again, this is why the importance of being under oath matters.

But there are all kinds of complications of Bolton testifying. It's not just the question of his manuscript. There are really negative privilege issues that I think you would hear the White House put in play. Right now, we have one person's account in the manuscript, and then we have, you know, denials from on of the people involved. So, we'll see what happens.

[12:35:08]

BLITZER: Maggie Haberman doing an excellent reporting as she always does, thank you very much.

We're only moments away from the resumption of the Senate trial of the President of the United States. There'll be four hours of debate on the Senate floor equally divided between both sides. And then we assume there'll be a final vote on witnesses. Much more of our special coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:08]

WOLF: All right, we're only moments away now from the start of what could be the final day of the President's impeachment trial. It appears Republicans will have enough votes to block testimony from any new witnesses.

TAPPER: But of course, that vote is coming. As "The New York Times" reports, John Bolton is alleging in his new manuscript that the President is indeed at the center of this Ukraine pressure campaign.

Here with us now, "Politico's" Chief Political Correspondent Tim Alberta. Tim, thanks for joining us.

And you had an interesting take on why you thought Lamar Alexander ultimately was not going to vote for new witnesses, even though clearly from his statement he disapproved of the President's conduct. What might the impact be of this news, if any, on Senate Republicans as they decide whether or not to vote for further witnesses?

TIM ALBERTA, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, candidly I think the impact of this latest news in the "Times" is minimal, you know, if there's any impact at all. To be clear here, what the "Times" is reporting is essentially in service of something that Senator Alexander was conceding in his statement last night, which is that, yes, the President did it, right? He was central to this pressure campaign.

The things that the House managers have accused him of have been borne out, at least to his satisfaction, to be true. And yet he pivoted in that same statement to say that he doesn't believe that the country needs to be put further through a trial. He doesn't believe the Senate needs to talk to more witnesses to prove what has already been proven to him. So I don't think there's any real impact. I think, obviously, it adds to a lot of the fury surrounding this entire process and it's going to sort of ratchet up some of the pressure on Senate Republicans. But the pressure has been on them for weeks now, Jake, so I don't think that it really changes materially the way they're approaching this.

TAPPER: Do you think this same conduct, if it were done by, say, President Hillary Clinton, would be meeting with the exact opposite response depending on party affiliation? In other words, Senator Alexander would be decrying the behavior and then also calling for her removal from office, and Democrats would be defending her?

ALBERTA: Without question. And to be clear, you know, I wrote about this a couple months ago, Jake. You know, if then-President Barack Obama had been attempting to investigate Tagg Romney and had asked China or the Ukraine or other countries to look into Tagg Romney for the purposes of harming his domestic political rival heading into his 2012 reelection bid, then not only would Republicans have pursued articles of impeachment, but many of the President's -- the current President's staunches defenders on Capitol Hill, the likes of Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Kevin McCarthy and others, they would have been the House managers prosecuting that case for impeachment and you don't have to take my word for that.

That's straight from the mouths of Justin Amash and Mark Sanford, former members of the House Freedom Caucus, you know, some of the archconservatives on Capitol Hill, who were in the trenches for these fights during the Obama era. And both of those gentlemen have said to me, look, without any question, if the shoe were on the other foot here, not only would we be pursuing impeachment, but the right wingers in our conference, these guys who were sort of constantly nipping at the heels of the Obama administration over scandals real unimagined, they would be the ones prosecuting this case most forcefully. And of course now, we know that they are the ones who have defended this President in the most vigorous way possible.

BLITZER: Jim Alberta, thanks very much for your analysis of what is going on. We appreciate it very much.

There's some breaking news coming in right now. The FBI is responding to an incident at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. We will have details right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:48:37]

BLITZER: There's breaking news we're following. The FBI is now responding to an incident at Mar-a-Lago. Kristin Holmes is in Palm Beach, Florida for us. So what do we know, Kristin?

KRISTIN HOLMES, CNN NEWSOURCE NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, right behind me is Mar-a-Lago, and I'm not sure if you can hear it, but there are multiple helicopters over location. Now, we have just heard from the Florida police, they say a vehicle and suspects are currently in custody. So the way that they describe the situation is essentially the Florida Highway Patrol was following a black SUV as it barreled towards two security points outside of Mar-a-Lago. It broke through both of those security points before eventually officials launching fire into that vehicle. Now, again, the vehicle then sped off. They were eventually tracked down and, again, this custody the -- excuse me, this vehicle and these suspects are currently in custody.

We have reached out to Secret Service. We know, of course, President Trump is supposed to be here later today. He's spending his weekend here in Mar-a-Lago. This is a developing situation, but you should see the kind of security presence that's around us right now. Streets blocks away from Mar-a-Lago are completely shut down.

And we talked to one eyewitness who was at Mar-a-Lago when this occurred. He said he heard about eight gunshots at the time and then was shuffled off by Secret Service. And of course, we know rest of that story because we watched it happening. All these roads being shut down by Florida police as well as these agents all on the scene here trying to determine what happened.

[12:50:00]

The big question here, of course, is whether or not that vehicle was headed towards Mar-a-Lago intentionally. Were they on a chase for any reason? Why exactly were they following this car in the first place and why was it heading towards Mar-a-Lago? And of course, Wolf, this is just a developing situation. We're going to keep our ear to the ground, keep talking to our sources to figure out what exactly happened.

TAPPER: All right, Kristin Holmes, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

As we await the start of the impeachment trial in just minutes, the President, President Trump is now responding to that new breaking "New York Times" report that John Bolton alleges in his book manuscript that President Trump instructed him directly to help in the Ukraine pressure campaign in May, two months before the President ask Ukraine's president to investigate the Bidens.

Let's go to Dana Bash. Dana, what is President Trump saying in response?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the President just gave a statement to "The New York Times" denying that this conversation ever happened. He said, "I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy Giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in America and by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, to meet with President Zelensky." He said, "That meeting never happened." So, this is the President after this story came out giving a comment and a full denial.

But as you can imagine, Jake, the Senate and the Congress in general has been primed over the past three years to expect the unexpected with this President, and here we are on the cusp of what could be the final day of the President's impeachment trial beginning with a key Republican senator poised to make an announcement on whether or not to hear John Bolton as a witness or anybody as a witness, and of course another wrinkle comes out like this. As you would imagine, there is a lot of buzzing going on about this and questions about whether it will make a difference about Lisa Murkowski's decision. Jake?

TAPPER: All right, Dana, thanks so much.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Jake, that this news is coming out, but by all accounts, I think all of us believe it's not going to have an impact on changing anybody's vote when it comes to new witnesses emerging before this trial.

TAPPER: No, the senators know that John Bolton has things to say that they have not heard. And either -- I think they fall basically into two categories, Republican senators. One, OK, I agree with that and let's hear from them, that's Susan Collins, Mitt Romney. There are three groups, actually. That's one. Second group is Lamar Alexander. I'm sure he has more to say but I'm already convinced Trump did this so I don't need to hear from him. And then the third group saying, I don't think that this story is true. I don't think these allegations are true.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, the more interesting question to me at this point might be, what does the House do, because John Bolton's book is supposed to come out in six weeks or next month? The House does have the ability through House Foreign Affairs, through the intel committee, they could call Bolton and talk to him. So my understanding is they haven't made that decision yet, but I expect they'll be pressured on that in the coming days.

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm just thinking this "Times" articles can have two -- I've been in the caucus. This comes out -- the talk is going to be two things. Number one, see, they're trying to influence Lisa. They're trying to put this article out here just before she makes a decision. I'm telling you, that's what they're going to be saying. And she's going to be thinking, here they are. They're coming after -- this is targeted at me. And number two, and this goes to the vote, drip, drip, drip. There is more stuff coming if we let this thing sit out here. Let's get this --

(CROSSTALK)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: So also, aren't they going to be asking, wait, weren't we told something different on the Senate floor by the President's attorneys?

SANTORUM: No.

BORGER: I mean, Mr. Philbin told us, you know, foreign policy wasn't conducted by a private person. You were also told that Rudy Giuliani was a minor player, a shiny object designed to distract you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And one of the President's lawyers was in the meeting.

BORGER: That's right. He's on the floor. BLITZER: That's Cipollone and he's the lead White House counsel. All right, everybody stand by. We're only moments away from the resumption of the trial of the President of the United States. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:58:46]

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

TAPPER: And I'm Jake Tapper along with Dana Bash who's leading CNN's coverage up on Capitol Hill. In just moments, the U.S. Senate will gavel in for a critical session that could provide the deciding votes after weeks and weeks of proceedings. The day begins with four hours of debate on the question of whether to subpoena new witnesses and new documents.

BLITZER: But just last hour, another bombshell report on one additional witness Democrats have been pushing for. "The New York Times" now reporting new revelations from John Bolton's draft manuscript.

The President's former national security adviser writes that President Trump directed him, that's a quote from the manuscript, to help with the pressure campaign to gather damaging information on Democrats nearly two months before the President's infamous July call with the new president of Ukraine.

TAPPER: Of course, the big question is, will that news or the upcoming floor debates change any minds of the Republican senators? We're still waiting to hear final decision on new witnesses from Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Even if she does vote in favor of additional witnesses, however, this would result in a 50-50 tie. That would present a very, very small possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts could weigh in and break the tie, although frankly Wolf, I doubt it. I don't think John Roberts --

BLITZER: I think zero that that's going to happen.

TAPPER: Well, it's not unprecedented as you know, Senator Santorum and Alan Frumin is here, the former Senate parliamentarian. It has been done before in an impeachment trial.

ALAN FRUMIN, SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN EMERITUS: It has been done. It was done twice in 1868 by Chief Justice Chase. Immediately after that, Senator Sumner of Massachusetts made a motion in essence to amend the impeachment rules, to deny the vice president the authority to vote, which authority was not explicitly granted, that motion failed.

SANTORUM: The vice president or the chief justice?

FRUMIN: I'm sorry, chief justice. That motion failed 22 to 26. So the chief justice voted first on March 31 and again on April 2nd -

[13:00:00]