Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

New York Times Reports, Bolton Says Trump Directed Him To Pressure Ukraine For Info Democrats, Trump Denies. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 31, 2020 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:07]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Although, frankly, Wolf, I doubt, I don't think John Roberts -- zero.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I don't think that that's going to happen.

TAPPER: Well, it's not unprecedented, as we know. Senator Santorum and Alan Frumin is here, the former Senate Parliamentarian. It has been done before 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.

TAPPER: The vice president or the chief justice?

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

TAPPER: 1868?

FRUMIN: 1868. Yes, a while ago. But by the end of the trial --

TAPPER: You were just a (INAUDIBLE) at the time?

FRUMIN: Yes, I was just starting my career after the Senate was first elected.

By the end of the trial, the chief justice was confronted with a vote on a motion to adjourn the trial for a month. It was a tie vote and he declined to vote, and I'm thinking that he voted in the first two instances and refrained in the third instance basically based on his personal comfort.

TAPPER: And, Senator Santorum, Salmon Chase, the chief justice, was raked over the calls for that. This was part of his legacy at the time. There is very little indication that Chief Justice John Roberts wants to weigh in to the political -- FMR. SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Salmon Chase, if I recall, was part of Lincoln's cabinet. Salmon Chase was someone who was an active political -- he was appalled (ph), whereas John Roberts is none of those --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: So are you saying he could weigh in?

TAPPER: No, no, less likely to.

SANTORUM: He was less likely to weigh in. I mean, Salmon Chase, this was -- he was an active participant in Republican politics. John Roberts is none of those things. John Roberts will not weigh in. There is zero percent.

BLITZER: Well, let's see what Lisa Murkowski does and we'll know if it's 50-50 or not. Dana Bash is getting more information up on Capitol Hill. What you learning from our excellent team up there, Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We thought that Lisa Murkowski was going to release a statement this morning. It obviously did not happen. We see that the Senate is poised to begin to resume the trial.

And so we're going to see -- I tend to agree with what Senator Santorum said earlier just in covering the Senate in particular, the Republican Conference for so long, that even though there is buzz, I can tell you there was a lot of buzz about this new New York Times story saying that the president, according to John Bolton's manuscript, that the president told him to talk to Giuliani and get the ball rolling on an investigation of Joe Biden back as early as May, that the discussion is about it but then, you know, kind of getting their back up about what the kind of goal is of whomever is leaking to The New York Times in order to potentially influence this decision that Lisa Murkowski is going to make and others as we get close to the witness vote.

But I can tell you, as you can imagine, because Pat Cipollone, the man we have seen on the Senate floor for days and days and days leading the president's defense, his chief counsel, because he is also alleged, according to the Bolton manuscript, according to The New York Times, to have been in that meeting. I just got a text from a Democratic senator before going onto the floor that said, heaven help Cipollone. So there is a lot of churning going on as you might expect as the senators are gathering for what could be the final day or what may not be the final day of this impeachment trial.

BLITZER: It looks like while we're waiting for the House managers to walk in, the senators continue to walk in at some point. Jake, we will see the chief justice of the United States. He will be presiding. There will be the usual prayer, pledge of allegiance and then four hours of debate equally divided between both sides.

TAPPER: And we've just got this statement in. We've been hearing some Republican senators, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee basically say what the president did was inappropriate but it does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office.

We just got the statement from Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. Nobody thought he was going to support removing the president from office, but it actually goes a little bit farther than inappropriate, because the premise of his post that he put out in a medium is that let's assume everything the Democrats are saying it's true. Then he says, quote, just because actions made the standard of impeachment, it does not that is in the best interest of the country to remove the president from office, John King.

So there's Rubio saying, even if you think this is completely true and horrible and he should be impeached on it, and he's not disputing this point, interestingly enough, I don't think it's worth removing him from office.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And so on the one hand, you're saying what the president did was wrong, using his words, yes, and on the other hand, saying it doesn't rise to the level, especially in an election year, which is an argument for a lot of Republicans, to remove the president from office.

I do think you do see an effort by some Republicans to try to lay down some marker, whether they succeed is an open question they have not in the past, to try to tell the president, look, we're going to vote your way here, you have to really start thinking a little bit more about what you're doing and how you conduct yourself.

[13:05:12]

Now, we're three years into the Trump administration. That is not a new theory. It's the first time we're having it in the context of an impeachment trial, which is a historic event, but you do see some Republicans who are trying. I know a lot of Democrats would say, not trying hard enough, not trying boldly enough. If you want to send the president a signal, call in John Bolton. Even if you're going to, in the end, vote, no, let John Bolton make the case. That's what Democrats would say to try to chasten the president.

But you have these Republicans, somebody like Marco Rubio, ran for president, was chain-sawed by the president in that campaign, has ambition, wants to maybe run for president again, trying to get to a place where they make a point with the president and try to preserve themselves, to give themselves some flexibility in the future. But, again, if you're opposed to this president, you're going to say that's weak or splitting the difference.

BORGER: And isn't this the difference between the House and the Senate? Because in the House, we heard none of this, right? We heard hardly anybody -- no Republican, to my memory, maybe you guys remember --

KING: Only the former Republicans, Justin Amash --

BORGER: Only former Republican Justin Amash --

TAPPER: Well, Francis Rooney of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois were critical of his behavior.

BORGER: Critical, but no Republican came out, even as far as Marco Rubio, who was effectively saying, maybe impeachment was fine, maybe that was right, but we're different and we have a different job, because our job is not to impeach, our job is to remove. But the senators are getting to a different place, which is inappropriate. Maybe some of them will get to wrong, Jake, I don't know. Inappropriate but shouldn't be removed for it.

My question is, how does the president react to that? Because we know his lawyer, Pat Cipollone, who by the way was in this meeting that The New York times wrote about, and said, everything was appropriate. Alleged meeting, as Rick Santorum points out, but let's just say that there is more coming out.

SANTORUM: This is the point I've been making all along. There is a range of emotions within the Republican caucus, of people who really have problems with the way Donald Trump conducts business. And I think you're going to hear from them. You've heard a few statements. You're going to hear more statements.

This is not the last Republican who is going to say -- because they're going to go out after they vote and they're going to have to defend this vote. Very few are announcing beforehand. And they're going to get up here in the next -- how many hours is it, 17 hours, 16 hours if they take the whole time? And they're going to have to defend their vote.

And you're not going to hear very many say this was a perfect call. I guarantee you. You'll hear some. You'll hear some, this is sham and this was -- but you will hear a lot of folks saying, I'm really concerned about what the president did, but.

JENNIFER PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But here's what's going to energize Democrats. Marco Rubio gave a carefully crafted statement, better than what most House Republicans did. He's going to vote against having witnesses. So he's going to say, I don't need to know more. This was terrible and wrong, but I don't think there should be witnesses.

SANTORUM: It doesn't rise to the level. That just doesn't matter.

PSAKI: Well, that's just not going to fly with everybody. And I think 80 percent of the public thinks there should be witnesses. It's not a --

SANTORUM: The House's case is not sufficient to remove the president.

FRUMIN: I want to know if we're going to hear from any of Rick's former colleagues on Article II.

TAPPER: Obstruction of Congress.

FRUMIN: I think you'll find Democrats on board with this one, personally.

TAPPER: Against it?

SANTORUM: I'm voting no on Article II.

FRUMIN: Really.

SANTORUM: I do.

FRUMIN: I thought you'd see Republicans voting yes on Article II.

SANTORUM: Absolutely not. No, look, I think that the idea that the Democrats are saying, you know, we don't have time to go through the normal process of checks and balances and going to the third branch of government and getting the third branch of government to adjudicate this dispute. To me, it completely eliminates the executive's ability to control their privilege under the Constitution.

BORGER: And then maybe you'll start having another debate about what is an impeachable offense or now what rises to the level of impeachable offense. The Government Accountability Office has said what the president did was illegal.

SANTORUM: As they did toward President Obama on things that he did. But no one impeached President Obama for doing that.

BORGER: We're talking about this. We're talking about the fact that The New York Times is writing about a pressure campaign from the president to his national security adviser, telling his national security adviser, you've got to be in on this scheme with me and call Zelensky, and he did not do it.

TAPPER: And we should just note, President Trump just issued a statement about this allegation being made by John Bolton's manuscript or John Bolton in this manuscript that was just reported by The New York Times. President Trump saying, quote, 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 New York City to meet with President Zelensky. That meeting never happened, quite a clause in the middle of that one.

PSAKI: It was so specific. That's what struck. It was like, I never did this very specific meeting and ask him to do this specific thing?

[13:10:01]

Like, did you ask him to do other things, was there a meeting that was also still about Ukraine? I mean, that's the question --

BORGER: But we know that Rudy Giuliani wrote a letter to the president of Ukraine saying that, I'm doing this on behalf of the president of the United States.

TAPPER: And he was trying to meet with him, yes.

BORGER: Exactly.

TAPPER: So what's interesting about the president's defense, John, is that he doesn't need to deny facts that members of the Republican Party in the Senate are already saying, we already believe these facts and we're still not going to remove you from office, they're okay. President Trump is denying facts that we know are true but also denying facts that we don't know about but even people willing to acquit him are willing to believe.

KING: Yes. And so now you're going to see the Democrats getting up to make their case for witnesses in this four-hour debate raising all these questions, trying to raise all these questions. Did the president's lawyers lie to you, Republican senators? That's what Adam Schiff is going to say. You're going to vote for no witnesses, you're going to vote to shut this down in the middle of the night after being lied to on the Senate floor by the president's lawyers about Rudy Giuliani role, about Mr. Cipollone's role?

Now, that was what's alleged. I'm not saying it's true but it's sort of alleged in the story, based on John Bolton's book. That's the case Schiff is going to make. We expected this statement from Lisa Murkowski an hour or so ago. We haven't gotten that. Is she rethinking or was she just not ready to give out her statement? But you're going to still see -- I believe, I see no evidence that is going in another direction, but you are going to see the Democrats, they have time left, and they are going to use it to try to say, Team Trump is lying to you in your house and you're going to let him off.

SANTORUM: And what Philbin was saying -- what he said yesterday is that Rudy Giuliani's activities were in the context of the Mueller investigation, that he was looking into potential corruption of the 2016 election coming from Ukraine.

BORGER: What did Biden have to do with the Mueller investigation?

SANTORUM: Again, all I'm telling you is that's why he was there and he put together, as Philbin said --

TAPPER: But then why was he there a couple of weeks ago?

SANTORUM: He put -- it came in a report that Rudy did that was delivered to the White House, they've talked about this. So it is not that they denied Rudy was engaged and involved in it, he didn't deny it, they said it was in a different contexts that --

TAPPER: Well, there were two investigations that the president was pushing.

SANTORUM: That's correct.

TAPPER: One is about the Bidens and the other one is about what even --

SANTORUM: 2016 election interference.

TAPPER: Yes, the 2016 election interference that President Trump's own former Homeland Security adviser has called a debunked conspiracy theory and the FBI director said the other day that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election. So we know that that is a debunked conspiracy theory according to President Trump's own advisers and aides.

BLITZER: Go ahead.

SANTORUM: Well, I was just going to say, again, the president doesn't -- as you know, doesn't necessarily believe what a lot of things are coming out of the FBI. And so I'm just saying the president is very suspect about those types of, quote, debunkings.

BLITZER: Alan Frumin, you're the former Senate Parliamentarian. This New York Times report, and I think it's a significant report, flatly denied now by the president, by Rudy Giuliani, I assume it will come up. We're going to four hours of debate right now, equally divided between the House managers' side, the Democrats' side and the White House, the Republicans' side. Walk us through how a debate like this will unfold over the next four hours.

FRUMIN: Under the impeachment rules, this is not thought of as a debate, this is thought of as arguments. The parties argue, the senators deliberate. There is no debate per se in an impeachment trial.

What Chief Justice Rehnquist did in the Clinton trial, Chief Justice Roberts is following here, and that is he's permitting the party that favors the motion to go first. The opposition to the motion goes second, but the proponents of the motion get to rebut.

So there are chunks of time. The first chunk of time goes to the proponent of the notion. That person can reserve as much of the two hours as he or she wishes for a rebuttal. The opponents to the motion get to go second. They may not reserve any time, so they have to use all their time.

And I believe we saw during the consideration of the basic resolution and the amendments to it that the proponents, if they are smart, will speak very briefly in favor of the motion, And they'll say, I will let the opposition have their time now. And the proponents will save as much of their two hours as possible and force the opposition to use all of their time and they get no rebuttal time.

TAPPER: So I just want to read this statement from Rudy Giuliani, who talked to Kenneth Vogel of The New York Times, about this story, about this bombshell report of Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt that Bolton, in his manuscript, allegedly says that President Trump directly told him to help set up a meeting between the new president of Ukraine and Rudy Giuliani.

Vogel writes that he just asked Giuliani if Bolton made up the meeting, because he denies that it took place. Giuliani says, quote, I think he's making some of it up. He's sure making it up. I wouldn't call it making it up, but he's acting like a real scumbag by never telling me that he objected once and then saying I was a time bomb or a firecracker or something.

[13:15:03] I think the term he used was hand grenade. But in any case, that is from a phone interview that Giuliani had with Kenneth Vogel.

I'm not really sure what to make of that statement that says because he's saying he's making it up, and then he says, I wouldn't call it up making it up.

BORGER: Well, there are other people in the meeting. So there was Mick Mulvaney -- aside from the president, Mick Mulvaney and Pat Cipollone. So you have two people you can ask about what occurred in the meeting.

Now, four people in the meeting or five people in the meeting could have different ideas of what occurred, but there is a very basic question, which is, did the president asked Bolton to set up a meeting with the president of Ukraine for Rudy Giuliani, whom the president --

TAPPER: Here's the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. Let's listen in as he gavels perhaps this last day of the Senate impeachment trial into session.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The chaplain will lead us in prayer.

BARRY BLACK, SENATE CHAPLAIN: Let us pray.

Eternal Lord God, you have summarized ethical behavior in a single sentence: Do for others what you would like them to do for you. Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct. Lord, help them to remember that they can't ignore you and get away with, for we always reap what we sow. Have your way, mighty God. You are the potter; our senators and we are the clay. Mold and make us after your will. Stand up, omnipotent God. Stretch yourself and let this nation and world know that you alone are sovereign. I pray in the name of Jesus. Amen.

J. ROBERTS: Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

J. ROBERTS: Senators, please be seated. If there is no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The deputy sergeant at arms will make the proclamation.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trials -- trial of articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, president of the United States.

MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice?

J. ROBERTS: The majority leader is recognized.

MCCONNELL: For the information of all colleagues, we'll take a break about two hours in.

J. ROBERTS: Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 483, the Senate has provided up to four hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, on the question of whether or not it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.

Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent?

SCHIFF: (OFF-MIKE)

J. ROBERTS: Mr. Cipollone, are you a proponent or opponent?

CIPOLLONE: (OFF-MIKE)

J. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Then Mr. Schiff, you may proceed.

SCHIFF: Before I begin, Mr. Chief Justice, the House managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of counsel for the president.

Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, fellow House managers and counsel for the president, I know I speak for my fellow managers as well as counsel for the president in thanking you for your careful attention to the arguments that we have made over the course of many long days.

[13:20:00]

Today, we were greeted to yet another development in the case, when The New York Times reported with a headline that says, "Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says." The president asked his national security advisor last spring, in front of other senior advisors, to pave the way for a meeting between Rudolph Giuliani and Ukraine's new leader.

According to The New York Times, more than two months before he asked Ukraine's president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security advisor, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and the White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, who is now leading the president's impeachment defense.

Now, you will see, in a few moments, and you will recall Mr. Cipollone suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this body. He said, all the facts should come out. Well, there is a new fact, which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those who were in the loop. Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses.

Just as we predicted -- and it didn't require any great act of clairvoyance -- the facts will come out, they will continue to come out. And the question before you today is whether they will come out in time for you to make a complete and informed judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the president.

Now, the Times article goes on to say that Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton to call Volodymyr Zelensky, who had recently won election as president of Ukraine, to ensure Mr. Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani, who was planning a trip to Ukraine, to discuss the investigations that the president sought, in Mr. Bolton's account.

Mr. Bolton never made the call, he wrote. Never made the call. Mr. Bolton understood that this was wrong. He understood that this was not policy, he understood that this was a domestic political errand and refused to make the call.

The account in Mr. Bolton's manuscript portrays the most senior White House advisors as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president from, including the White House Counsel.

Over several pages, according to the Times, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning the presidency in 2016.

As he began to realize the extent and aims of the pressure campaign, Mr. Bolton began to object, he wrote in the book, affirming the testimony of a former National Security Council aide, Fiona Hill, who had said that Mr. Bolton warned that Mr. Giuliani was a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up.

Now, as you might imagine, the president denies this. The president said today "I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy Giuliani, one of America's -- one of the greatest corruption fighters in America."

So here you have the president saying John Bolton is not telling the truth. Let's find out. Let's put John Bolton under oath. Let's find out who's telling the truth. Trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth. Let's not fear what we will learn.

As Mr. Cipollone said, let's make sure that all of the facts come out.

DEMINGS: Mr. Chief Justice, senators, counsel for the president, last Tuesday at the onset of this trial, we moved for Leader McConnell's resolution to be amended, to subpoena documents and witnesses from the onset -- from the outset.

This body decided to hold the question over. You have now heard opening arguments from both sides. You have seen the evidence that the House was able to collect. You have heard about the documents and witnesses President Trump blocked from the House's impeachment inquiry.

[13:25:00]

We have vigorously questioned both sides. The president's counsel has urged you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record assembled by the House. The evidence in the record is sufficient. It is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment, more than sufficient.

But that's simply not how trials work. As any prosecutor or defense lawyer would tell you, when a case goes to trial, both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. That happens every day in courtrooms all across America.

There is no reason why this impeachment trial should be any different. The common sense practice is born out of precedence. There has never been -- never before been a full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness.

In fact, you can see in the slide in every one of the 15 prior impeachment trials, the Senate has called multiple witnesses. Today, we ask you to follow this body's uniform precedence and your common sense. We urge you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents.

Now I'd like to address one question at the offset. There has been much back and forth about whether if the House believed it -- it had -- it has sufficient evidence to convict, which we do, why do we need more witnesses and documents?

So I'd like to be clear. The evidence presented over the past week and a half strongly supports a vote to convict the president. The evidence is overwhelming. We have a mounting of evidence. It's direct, it's corroborated by multiple sources and it proves that the president committed grave impeachable offenses to cheat in the next election.

The evidence confirms that if left in office, President Trump will continue to harm our, America's national security. He will continue to seek to corrupt the upcoming election and he will undermine -- he will undermine our democracy all to further his own personal gain.

But this is a fundamental question that must be addressed. Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly and unequivocally no.

It was the president's decision to contest the facts and that is his right but because he has chosen to confess the -- contest the facts, he shall not be heard to complain -- he shall not be heard to complain that the House wishes to further prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise.

He complains that few witnesses spoke directly to the president about his misconduct beyond his damning conversations with Sondland and Mulvaney. OK, let's hear from others, then. The witnesses the House wishes to call directly to the president's own words, his own admissions of guilt, his own confessions of responsibility.

If they did not, all the president's men would be on their witness list, not ours. These witnesses and the documents that their agencies produced tell the full story. And I believe that we are interested in hearing the full story. You should want to hear it. More than that, the American people -- we know they want to hear it.