Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Trump Impeachment Trial: Dems Make Late Night Push for Witnesses and Documents; House Debates Amendment Calling for John Bolton's Testimony. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired January 22, 2020 - 12:00   ET

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


[00:00:00]

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Now Asha, another obvious reason, this isn't about the law; this is about the practice of politics and the kind of conflation with law is this is the minority leader Schumer, this is his only chance, to tactically keep coming at the Republicans.

Not so much as a point of annoyance but of relentlessness that you're not going to get a pass here. You'll be confronted with the facts and confronted with the fact of evasion. The reason we don't have these things, these people, unlike in the Clinton impeachment, where Ken Starr, of course, conducted a multiple years-long with lots of staff, a complete record, where they talked to dozens of possible people, the outer fringes of relevance.

Here, that's been denied. The witnesses in Clinton, the three people picked were already part of the record.

So how important is it to fight this fight?

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's very important. I think it's especially so because the core of the House's case is actually quite simple. When they passed these articles of impeachment I was a little bit on the fence on whether they should have included obstruction of justice from the Mueller report or bribery.

But they didn't. They kept it simple. The narrative is very clear. The president solicited foreign interference in our election, using his leverage over the U.S. Treasury and our funds to do it and he abused his power in this process and he's now blocking it.

What they are able to do now is come at that same story over and over and over again from different angles, highlighting why each of those threads are particularly relevant to that bigger story.

CUOMO: Let's listen in to Chief Justice John Roberts to what the next step is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The amendment is tabled.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Mr. Chief Justice. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic leader is recognized.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to issue a subpoena to John Robert Bolton and ask that it be read.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: The clerk will report.

(SENATE FLOOR)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): This is 226?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

[00:30:05]

SWALWELL: Two sixty-six and 268. But I'm asking you, did that happen, or did it not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, I just want to be -- I want to be clear in characterizing it. OK. Yes, sir, I see.

SWALWELL: Yes, you testified to that. What was the outcome of that meeting between Ambassador Bolton and President Trump?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ambassador Bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the assistance.

SWALWELL: Did Ambassador Bolton inform you of any reason for the ongoing hold that stem from this meeting?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Ambassador Bolton's efforts failed. By August 30, OMB informed DOD that there was, quote, "clear direction from POTUS" to continue to hold.

What rationale did President Trump give Ambassador Bolton and other senior officials for refusing to release the aid? Were these reasons convincing to Ambassador Bolton, and did they reflect the best interests of our national security, or the president's personal political interests?

Only Ambassador Bolton can tell us the answers. A fair trial in this body would ensure that he testifies.

The president does not want you to hear Ambassador Bolton's testimony. Why is that? For all the obvious reasons I've stated. The president claims that he froze aid to Ukraine in the interest of our national security. If that is true, why would he oppose testimony from his own former national security adviser?

And make no mistake, President Trump had no legal grounds to block Ambassador Bolton's testimony in this trial. Executive privilege is not a spell the president can cast to cover up evidence of his own misconduct. It is a qualified privilege that protects senior advisers performing official functions. Executive privilege is a shield, not a sword. It cannot be used to block a witness who is willing to testify, as Ambassador Bolton says he is.

And as we know, from the Nixon case in Watergate, the privilege also does not prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected President Nixon's attempt to use executive privilege to conceal incriminating tape recordings. All these similar efforts by President Trump must also fail.

The president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the House or the Senate, or to a court. And obviously, this is ridiculous. It's been flatly rejected by every -- by every federal court to consider the idea. It's embarrassing the president's counsels would talk about this today.

And again, even if President Trump asserts that Ambassador Bolton is absolutely immune from compelled testimony, the president has no authority to block Ambassador Bolton from appearing here. As one court recently explained, quote, "Presidents are not kings, and they do not have subjects whose destiny they are entitled to control."

This body should not act as if the president is a king. We will see, with the next vote, on this question whether the members of this body want to protect the president against all investigation, against all suspicion, against any crimes, or not.

The framers of our Constitution were most concerned about abuse of power where it affects national security. President Trump has been impeached for placing his political interests ahead of our national security. It is imperative, therefore, that we hear from the national security adviser who witnessed the president's scheme from start to finish.

To be clear, the record as it stands fully supports both articles of impeachment. It is beyond argument that President Trump mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically, and then tried to cover it up. The president does not seriously deny any of these facts.

The only question left is this. Why is the president so intent on concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and testimony here today? Only guilty people try to hide the evidence.

Of course, all of this is relevant only if this here today is a fair trial. Only if you, the Senate, sitting as an impartial jury, do not work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the American people. We cannot be surprised that the president objects to calling witnesses who could prove his guilt. That is who he is. He does not want you to see evidence or hear testimony that details how he betrayed his office and asked a foreign government to intervene in our election.

[00:35:00] But we should be surprised that here in the United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, where we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of political expediency, where we're expected to be honest, where we are expected to protect the interests of the American people, we should be surprised, shocked that any senator would vote to block this witness or any relevant witness who might shed additional light on the president's obvious misconduct.

The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror? Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct? Or will you, instead, choose to be complicit in the president's cover-up?

So far, I'm sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses. An absolutely indefensible vote, obviously. A treacherous vote. A vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president, a vote against an honest trial, a vote against the United States.

A real trial, we know, has witnesses. We urge you to do the -- to do your duty, permit a fair trial. All the witnesses must be permitted. That's elementary in American justice. Either you want the truth or you -- and you must permit the witnesses, or you want a shameful cover-up. History will judge, and so will the electorate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Mr. Cipollone?

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate.

We came here today to address the false case brought to you by the House managers. Sorry. We've been respectful of the Senate. We've made our arguments to you. And you don't deserve, and we don't deserve what just happened.

Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations all of you. He accused you of a cover-up. He's been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you for the way you've addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You're not in charge here.

Now let me address the issue of Mr. Bolton. I've addressed it before. They don't tell you that they didn't bother to call Mr. Bolton themselves. They didn't subpoena him.

Mr. Cooper wrote them a letter. He said very clearly, "If the House chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of Dr. Kupperman and Ambassador Bolton, let the record to be clear. That is the House's decision." And they didn't pursue Ambassador Bolton, and they withdrew the subpoena to Mr. Kupperman. So for them to come here now and demand that, before we even start the

arguments, that they ask you to do something that they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it. It's ridiculous. Talk about out-of-control government.

Now, let me read you a quote from Mr. Nadler, not so long ago: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. There must never be a narrowly-voted impeachment, or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions."

[00:40:17]

Well, you've just seen it for yourself. What happened, Mr. Nadler? What happened?

The American people pay their salaries. And they're here to take away their vote. They're here to take away their voice.

They've come here, and they've attacked every institution of our government. They have attacked the president, the executive branch. They have attacked the judicial branch. They say they don't have time for courts. They have attacked the United States Senate repeatedly. It's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing.

President Trump is a man of his word. He made promises to the American people, and he delivered over and over again. And they come here and say, with no evidence, spending the day complaining that they can't make their case. Attacking a resolution that had 100 percent support in this body, and some of the people here supported it at the time. It's a farce, and it should end.

Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the president of the United States and his family. You owe an apology to the Senate. But most of all, you owe an apology to the American people.

I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Sekulow.

ROBERTS: Mr. Sekulow.

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Mister Chief Justice, members of the Senate.

Chairman Nadler talked about treacherous. And about 12:10 a.m., January 22, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, at this body, on the floor of this Senate, said, "executive privilege and other nonsense."

Now, think about that for a moment. Executive privilege and other nonsense. Mr. Nadler, it is not nonsense. These are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, and to shred the Constitution on the floor of the Senate, to serve what purpose? The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution doesn't allow what just took place. Look what we've dealt with for the last, now, 13 hours. And we

hopefully are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note. Only guilty people try to hide evidence? So I guess when President Obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was guilty of a crime. That's the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that you view the United States Constitution? Because that's not the way it was written. That is not the way it's interpreted, and that's not the way the American people should have to live.

I'll tell you what's treacherous. Come to the floor of the Senate and say, "Executive privilege and other nonsense." We yield the rest of our time.

ROBERTS: The managers have 27 minutes remaining.

NADLER: Mister Chief Justice, members of the Senate. The president's counsel has no standing to talk about lying. He told this body today, the president told this body and told the American people repeatedly, for example, that the House of Representatives refused to allow the president due process. I told you, and it's available, public document, November 26 letter from me, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to the president, offering him due process, offering witnesses, offering cross-examination.

A few days later, we received a letter from Mr. Cipollone on White House stationery that said, No, we have no interest in appearing.

So on the one hand, they're lying, because the -- the House is condemned by the president for not giving him due process after they rejected the offer of due process. That letter rejecting it was December 1.

The president's counsel says that the House should have issued subpoenas. We did issue subpoenas. The president, you may recall, you should recall, said he would oppose all subpoenas, and he did. So many of those subpoenas are still being fought in court, subpoenas issued last April. So that's also untrue. And it's a heck of a nerve to criticize the House for not issuing subpoenas when the president said he would oppose all subpoenas. And we've issued a lot of subpoenas, and he opposes all of them, and they're tied up in court.

The president claims, and most members of this body know better, executive privilege, which is a limited privilege which exists, but not as a shield; not as a shield against wrongdoing, as the Supreme Court specifically said in the Nixon case in 1973 -- '74.

The president claims absolute immunity. Mr. Cipollone wrote some of those letters, saying that the president -- not only saying that the president but that nobody that he doesn't want should testify. And then they have the nerve -- and that is a violation of the constitutional rights of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the American people as represented through them. It's an assertion of a kingly prerogative, a monarchical prerogative: only the president -- only the president has rights. And the people, as represented in Congress, cannot get information from the executive branch at all. This body has committees. It has a 200-year record of issuing

subpoenas, of having the administration of the day testify, of sometimes having subpoena fights, but no president has ever claimed the right to stonewall Congress on everything. Period. Congress has no right to get information. The American people have no right to get information. That, in fact, is Article Two of the impeachment that we have voted.

It is beyond belief that the president claims monarchical powers: I can do whatever I want under Article II, says he, and then acts on that. Defies everything, defies the law to withhold aid from Ukraine, defies the law in a dozen different directions all the time and lies about it all the time and sends Mr. Cipollone here to lie about it. These facts are undeniable. Undeniable.

I reserve.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Mr. Cipollone once again complained that we did not request John Bolton to testify in the House, but of course, we did. We did request this testimony, and he was a no-show. When we talked to his counsel about subpoenaing his testimony, the answer was, You give us a subpoena, and we will sue you. And indeed, that's what Mr. Bolton's attorney did with the subpoena for Dr. Kupperman.

So there was no willingness by Mr. Bolton to testify before the House. He said he would sue us. Now what's the problem with his suing us? Well, their Justice Department, under Bill Barr, is in court arguing, actually, in that very case involving Dr. Kupperman that they can't sue -- Dr. Kupperman can't sue the administration and the Congress. That's the same position the Congress has taken, the same position the administration is taking but apparently not the same position these lawyers are saying.

But here's the bigger problem with that. We subpoenaed Don McGahn, as I told you earlier. You should know we subpoenaed Don McGahn in April of 2019. It's January of 2020. We still don't have a decision from -- a final decision from the court requiring him to testify. In a couple months it will be one year since we issued that subpoena.

Now, the president would like nothing more than for us to have to go through one year or two year or three years of litigation to get any witness to come before the House. The problem is, the president is trying to cheat in this election. We don't have the luxury of waiting one year or two years or three years when the very object of this scheme was to cheat in the next election.

It's not like that threat's gone away. Just last month, the president's lawyer was in Ukraine still trying to smear his opponent, still trying to get Ukraine to interfere in our election.

The president said, even while the impeachment investigation was going on, when he was asked, What did you want in that call with Zelensky, and his answer was, Well, if we're being honest about it, Zelensky should do that investigation of the Bidens. He hasn't stopped asking them to interfere. Do you think the Ukrainians have any doubt about what he wants? And one of the witnesses, David Holmes, testified about the pressure

that Ukraine feels. And he made a very important point. It isn't over. It's not like they don't want anything else from the United States. This effort to pressure Ukraine goes on to this day, with the president's lawyer continuing the scheme as we speak; with the president inviting even other nations to also involve themselves in our election. China, he wants now to investigate the Bidens.

This is no intangible threat to our elections. Within the last couple weeks, it's been reported that the Russians have tried to hack Burisma. Well, why do you think they're hacking Burisma? Because, as Chairman Nadler says, everybody seems to be interested that there's one company out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies. It's a coincidence that the same company that the president has been trying to smear Joe Biden over happens to be the company that Russians are hacking.

Now, why would the Russians do that? Well, if you look back to the last election, the Russians hacked the DNC. And they started to leak campaign documents in a drip, drip drip. And the president was only too happy, over a hundred times in the last couple months of the campaign, to cite those Russian-hacked documents. So now the Russians are at it again.

This is no illusory threat to the independence of our elections. The Russians are at it as we speak, and what does the president do? Is he saying, Back off, Russia? I'm not interested in your help. I don't want foreign interference?

No, he's saying, Hey, come on in, China. And he's got his guy in Ukraine continuing the scheme.

We can't wait a year or two years or three years, like we've had to wait with Don McGahn to get John Bolton in to testify to let you know that this threat is ongoing.

Counsel also says, Well, this is just like Obama, right? This is just like Obama, citing I suppose, the Fast and Furious case. They don't mention to you that, in that investigation, the Obama administration turned over tens of thousands of documents. They don't want you to know about that. They say it's just like Obama.

Well, when you find video of Barack Obama saying that under Article II, he can do anything, then you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump. When you find a video of Barack Obama saying, I'm going to fight all subpoenas, then you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump.

And finally, Mr. Cipollone says President Trump is a man of his word. Well, it's too late in the evening for me to go into that one, except to say this. President Trump gave his word he would drain the swamp. He said he would drain the swamp, and what have we seen? We've seen his personal lawyer go to jail, his campaign chairman go to jail, his deputy campaign chairman convicted of a different crime, his associate's associate, Lev Parnas, under indictment. The list goes on and on and on. That's, I guess, how you drain the swamp, is you have all your people go to jail. We have all your people go to jail.

[00:55:23]

I don't think that's really what was meant by that expression, but for the purposes of why we're here today, how does someone who promises to drain the swamp coerce an ally of ours into doing a political investigation? That is the swamp. That's not draining the swamp; that's exporting the swamp.

I yield back.

ROBERTS: I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.

In the 1905 Swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word "pettifogging," and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.

The majority leader is recognized.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Chief Justice, it will surprise no one that I move to table the amendment. And ask for the yeas and nays.

ROBERTS: Is there a sufficient second? The clerk will call the role.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Alexander.

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Baldwin.

SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Barrasso.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Bennet.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Blackburn.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Blumenthal.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Well, I think that it can be said, here we are, 12:57, 28, 29, 30 seconds and counting. We had perhaps the most memorable moment of the day just now from Chief Justice John Roberts, who after there has been so much more chippy (ph) talk in the later hours here. You see counsel, especially for the president, looking back at the House managers and kind of going face to face with insults about tactics and pettiness. And I use that word, because after one of the latest volleys between the two sides, the chief justice said that he would admonish both sides, that they are addressing the best deliberative body in the world and that civil discourse is the rule.

He then cited a senator once objecting to a House manager for using the word "pettifogging." P-E-T-T-I-F-O-G-G-I-N-G. And that was a word that had no place on the floor of the Senate. I think it was back in, like, 1907 or something like that.

And the chief justice said we're not going to try and maintain that high a standard, but decency. Civil discourse will be the rule in the Senate.

Now, it's remarkable for several reasons. One, already, on the day one, we see the chief justice doing something that we did not see in the last impeachment, which was the chief justice actually doing something to take control of the tone and tenor of the proceeding. OK, that's a smaller point. The bigger point is that, to enforce decorum, decency and civil discourse is something that this country has been begging for, for years. And it's interesting to see our chief justice, the head of the most respected tribunal on the face of the planet, having to point that out to these two.

So now, one other thing to point out. I have Andrew McCabe with me. I've got Jeff Zeleny, who's monitoring the developments for us. We believe there's going to be another amendment still yet tonight.

That brings up a couple observations.