Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Managers Begin Final Day of Arguments; Interview with Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) on the Impeachment Trial; House Managers to Soon Begin Final Day of Arguments; China Locks Down Millions of People in 10 Cities as Coronavirus Crisis Grows. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 24, 2020 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:17]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Busy Friday morning. I'm Jim Sciutto from the capitol today.

It is day three, the final day for Democrats to make their case against the president, and convince Republicans to call for witnesses. And of course, convince the country to remove him from office. But is it working?

Republicans seem impatient at this point, complaining now about what they say are repetitive arguments that the Democrats say are crucial in building their case against the president.

HARLOW: That's right. And those Democrats have just eight hours left to try to change minds. The clock is also winding down for the White House to prepare for its arguments. The president clearly not happy with the Saturday start for his legal team.

SCIUTTO: So where do we start? With CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox here on Capitol Hill this morning.

And this is a crucial day for Democrats. Their last day to make the case, not just to the American public but to their colleagues on the removal of office of the president, unlikely but still in question calling witnesses.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, exactly. And that has been the Democrats' focus this entire time, Jim. They have to convince those four moderate Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with them on witnesses. And that is getting more and more difficult. What we've heard from some of those moderates is that, look, if the House Democrats didn't want to go to court and fight for these witnesses, why should we as part of the Senate trial?

And I think that is the argument that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is making to his conference behind closed doors. I also know that Republicans are struggling a little bit with the fact that this has been wall-to-wall Democratic coverage over the last three days. Now we know that's going to shift tomorrow, on Saturday, when the president's defense team begins to make their case.

But what happened yesterday during the Republican lunch was leadership actually encouraged their members, go out, talk to the cameras. Go talk to the press. And that's getting tougher because there are so many restrictions up here about where we can go, who we can talk to. We can't walk and talk with members like we normally would. So that's why Majority Leader McConnell made the case yesterday. You guys need to go out during these breaks and make sure that you are pumping up the president.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, maybe that the Republican strategy there backfired to some because they were deliberately restricting your access and now going the other way, Poppy.

Of course, I want to bring now CNN legal analyst Elie Honig on what exactly Democrats will be arguing today.

So, Elie, listen, we've heard a lot of arguments from them. This is really their final day focused on obstruction but also making their closing argument.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, you're right. So let's remember, there are two articles of impeachment in play here. Yesterday Democrats focused on article one, abuse of power relating to Ukraine. Today they're shifting over to article two, which is the obstruction of Congress.

So what exactly does that mean? Now when the House Democrats began investigating Donald Trump relating to Ukraine about four months ago in September of 2019, they served 71 subpoenas on the executive branch. A subpoena is just a formal legal command to produce evidence or testimony. They served subpoenas on the White House, the vice president's office, the OMB, the Departments of Defense and State.

And you know how many documents they got from the executive branch total? Zero. Not a single one. And Democrats say this is because of an intentional stonewalling effort by Donald Trump.

How do we know this came from Donald Trump? He told us. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're fighting all the subpoenas. Look, these aren't like impartial people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So, Elie, the key here, right, is convincing folks not just that there was -- this was inappropriate behavior by the president but it is an impeachable behavior by the president. Tell us how they make that argument.

HONIG: So House Democrats are making two arguments as to why this is impeachable. First of all, they're saying a president could hide his own wrongdoing to prevent Congress from discovering impeachable misconduct. They can use it to hide the truth. This is from the House managers' brief. And second, they say it effectively nullifies Congress' impeachment power. Impeachment is one of the most important checks that Congress has on the executive branch. And if the executive branch, the president, can just squash evidence, then it takes away that power.

Now Republicans are going to fight this. And they write in their defense brief that the president does not commit obstruction by asserting legal rights and privileges. What they're saying here is, yes, you serve subpoenas but we have the right to fight those subpoenas in court. It almost never wins. Judges almost always uphold subpoenas, but that is going to be the Republican defense here, Jim.

SCIUTTO: In effect saying, you know, let the courts decide, are they not, Elie?

HONIG: Exactly. It's exactly what they're saying. And what the Democrats say in response is, in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry. They are saying this is unprecedented.

[09:05:03]

And in fact, they're correct. If you look even at Richard Nixon, the House served a whole bunch of subpoenas on Nixon's administration. Now he blocked some of them, but he actually did comply with others. So Nixon actually gave more than Donald Trump has here. And Richard Nixon faced an article of impeachment that went through the House Judiciary Committee charging him with this very same obstruction of justice. Of course, he resigned before full impeachment.

And Adam Schiff has taken pains over the last couple of days to stress just how damaging this obstructionism has been. Take a listen to some of the arguments that Adam Schiff has been making.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Would you like me to read that to you right now? I would like to read it to you right now. Except I don't have it. Because the State Department wouldn't provide it. But if you'd like me to read it to you, we can do something about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HONIG: So, Jim, that's the point. The bottom line point Adam Schiff is making. The truth is out there. They have it and we don't.

SCIUTTO: And you heard the president even seeming to brag about that the other day.

HONIG: Yes.

SCIUTTO: In answer to a question. Elie Honig, thanks very much. Poppy?

HONIG: Thanks, Jim. HARLOW: All right, joining us now to talk about this, a little bit of

history, perspective here, is Elizabeth Holtzman. She's a member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate.

So nice to have you, your perspective invaluable right now. So take a look at this. I think we have a picture of you during Watergate, if we can pull it up. A much different time, of course.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, WATERGATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: I had longer hair.

HARLOW: What do you think? Look at that. You haven't aged a day. What is the chief difference do you think between now and then? And really has anything stayed the same?

HOLTZMAN: Well, some of the things have stayed the same. You have article three that was voted against Richard Nixon because he obstructed the House Judiciary Committee and he said, I'm not turning over these tapes. I mean, ultimately, they came out because the special prosecutor.

HARLOW: Of course. Yes.

HOLTZMAN: Sued for those tapes. But we did the same thing. We said, you know, we have a right to obtain these documents, to understand, to -- what the president did. And he refused to obey.

HARLOW: Except wasn't one of the chief differences then that I just -- I can't see happening now but who knows what tomorrow will bring, that you had that day. You had the moment, right, the legendary moment, Barry Goldwater, of course a Republican nominee for president, going to the White House with a few other of his colleagues and basically saying, the gig is up. The game is up. The votes are there to remove you from office. I mean, there is nothing that appears to be similar to that this time around.

HOLTZMAN: Well --

HARLOW: But it didn't start that way with Watergate.

HOLTZMAN: No.

HARLOW: It took months, and months and months for the evidence to pile up to get Goldwater and the other Republicans to that point. Could that happen here?

HOLTZMAN: It could happen if they get witnesses and they get documents because what we had bipartisan majority, seven Republicans, all the Democrats, including some of the Democrats to support impeachment, three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, including his failure to produce documents. But when the smoking gun tape came out, everybody said this is the end of Nixon. And that's why he had to resign.

There could be a witness or a document that's going to be the smoking gun. And that would force the resignation of Donald Trump. The way it did then. But without these documents, I think they have a compelling case.

HARLOW: Yes.

HOLTZMAN: I saw the presentation. I was very impressed. But there are documents that obviously we don't have, and the people closest to the president could clearly explain what was in his mind and what he did. When did he know it? What did he do? Why did he do it?

HARLOW: I think the key Republican, even more than frankly Susan Collins, that many of us been watching is Senator Lisa Murkowski. Right? She's one who has not always gone with the president. Just take the Kavanaugh vote, for example. A moderate. But this is what she said yesterday, and it's different in tone.

Quote, "The House made a decision that they didn't want to slow things down by having to go through the courts. And yet now, they are basically saying, you guys got to go through the courts," meaning the Senate. "We didn't, but you guys need to."

If Democrats lose Murkowski as a possible vote to side with them on calling witnesses, have they lost the war over witnesses?

HOLTZMAN: Well, maybe. But go back to the history. That's what I was trying to say. Go back to the history. House Judiciary Committee did not go to court and nobody said to us, oh, bad, bad, bad. You should have gone to court. So oh, we're not going to look at the smoking gun tape. Oh, we're not going to consider these other tapes. Absolutely not.

We didn't go to court because Peter Rodino, the chair, said the courts have no business involving themselves in an impeachment process. Whether you agree with that position or not, there's no question that if the House had gone to the courts, we would still not have a resolution of this matter. Don McGahn's subpoena hasn't been resolved.

So if you want to have an impeachment process that works, then this has to be done in a proper way.

HARLOW: Thirty seconds left. We heard Adam Schiff, one of the House managers, say yesterday, quote, 'You know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country."

[09:10:05]

Is he misreading the audience? For example, look at how many Republicans are thrilled with what he's done on nominating judges.

HOLTZMAN: The audience is the American people in the end. And the American people, I hope, will be fair and understand the need for a fair trial and the complete truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

HARLOW: Elizabeth Holtzman, great perspective. Thank you very much.

HOLTZMAN: Thank you.

HARLOW: Have a nice weekend. Jim?

SCIUTTO: We are live from Capitol Hill this morning with all the latest on the president's impeachment trial.

Coming up next, I'm going to speak to one of those jurors. One of the senators who will decide whether to vote to acquit or remove the president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. We are live from Capitol Hill. Democrats with one final day to make their case to the American people, to fellow senators, including Republicans before the White House team takes over tomorrow, on Saturday.

I'm joined now by Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey. He also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.

[09:15:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Senator, we appreciate you taking the time this morning --

SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, the emerging argument from Republicans both behind closed doors, but also in public, is that to call witnesses, would somehow challenge executive privilege, weaken the office of the president for some time to come. What's your response to that argument?

MARKEY: Well, my answer would be that the president would then say, you can't investigate me, you can't indict me, you can't impeach me. That I'm immune. That I can do whatever I want. And that the Congress is powerless. No matter how great the abuse of power that I engage in as a president, cannot, in fact, be called into question by the United States Congress which, of course, is a complete and total upside-down interpretation of the United States constitution.

We are supposed to be the check-up on him. We are the ones who are supposed to ensure that he is not a monarch, that he cannot act in a way that is not accountable to the American people. So, it's a crazy argument. It's a, A, historical argument, and it's one that we're going to continue to contest extremely vigorously.

SCIUTTO: You hear -- and I've heard some of this from Republicans in private crucially, not in public, that the president's behavior here, yes, inappropriate. I wouldn't have done it. I wish he hadn't done it. But does not rise to the level of being an impeachable offense. I wonder what you say to your Republican colleagues when they make that argument.

MARKEY: I guess the question to them is, if this is not impeachable, what is impeachable? If somebody as a president goes to a foreign government, and says that I want you to investigate my political rival, my principal political rival at that time, in return for $391 million of American taxpayer money, and that's not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. I mean, absolutely nothing.

And no president can ever be held accountable. And so, ultimately, this sets a precedent for the future. All presidents, henceforth --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: And forever, if the Republicans do not make Trump accountable, will have pretty much carte blanche. They'll be able to do whatever they want because the standard for impeachability will have been absolutely eliminated.

SCIUTTO: It strikes me, the score of this argument by Democrats, right, is not just that the president pressured a foreign government to investigate a political rival. But also pressured a foreign government in effect to interfere in a U.S. election. It strikes me that as this is happening, even as the president is being tried on this allegation, his personal attorney is still going to Ukraine. He's still meeting with shady folks over there, gathering information on Biden.

Are you concerned that the president, perhaps emboldened, is still attempting to get a foreign government to interfere?

MARKEY: Absolutely. I mean, what Adam Schiff and the house managers laid out was a blistering, scalding indictment of Donald Trump, of Rudy Giuliani, of all of his political henchmen to try to steal the election of 2020. There's no question about it. And if he's allowed to go scot-free here, then we should just expect --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: That there are no rules. That Giuliani will be overseas, that it will be something that emboldens him to go even further in terms of breaking of the traditions in our country because the Republicans will say there are no rules. You can do whatever you want and I'm afraid for what that means this year. The Russians will be able to feel more freedom to come into our elections and to -- and to interfere with them.

So I just think that what the Republicans decide to do in terms of allowing the Senate to hear from Mick Mulvaney, from John Bolton, from the other witnesses, the other documents is going to be the moment --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: Of accountability for an entire, traditionally respected party to determine whether or not they want to ensure that our elections are free and fair.

SCIUTTO: It'd be difficult to pick the least polite moment in this whole process, but there was a particularly impolite one yesterday when one of your Republican colleagues, Senator Marsha Blackburn, took a very pointed attack on Alexander Vindman, of course, who had testified in the house impeachment, a serving U.S. Army officer, a purple heart honoree from his time in Iraq. I don't need to quote her tweet again, but it was a very personal

attack, questioning his patriotism. What do you say to your colleague, Marsha Blackburn?

MARKEY: Well, no matter which country our forbearers come from -- mine are Irish. Once you're here, you're an American. Once you swear an oath to our country, you're an American.

[09:20:00]

And otherwise, every one of us is subject to question with regard to our patriotism. So this man and apparently every member of his family that was born here in the United States, who was raised here in the United States, served in our military.

SCIUTTO: He served the Soviet Union --

MARKEY: There aren't -- there aren't many families which can say that. His father is giving him instruction that he lives in a special country --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: And asked -- and telling him that he should be proud to be able to serve in a country where you can speak up without fear that the government --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: Can, in fact, suppress you. So, any impugning of the reputation, the honor, the dignity, the patriotism of Vindman or anyone else who comes from another country, but then pledges loyalty --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

MARKEY: To our country is absolutely wrong.

SCIUTTO: Senator Markey, we appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you after the proceedings end.

MARKEY: Thank you --

SCIUTTO: Take care --

MARKEY: Thank you for having me on --

SCIUTTO: Poppy, back to you.

POPPY HARLOW, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: All right, good conversation. Ahead for us, we're going to take you to China because some of the biggest tourist destinations there are now closing. This is as tens of millions of people in that country are told not to travel. Of course, all because of the deadly coronavirus.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09:25:00]

HARLOW: Well, fear is growing this morning over the spread of the deadly coronavirus. So far, more than 900 people around the world have been infected, including at least one person here in the United States with federal officials are preparing to brief lawmakers on all of this on Capitol Hill next hour. Travel restrictions have been imposed on some 30 million people across ten cities in China as officials work to try to contain this outbreak that has already claimed 26 lives.

Let's go straight to our David Culver, he joins us again this morning from Beijing. What do you know at this point, David?

DAVID CULVER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Poppy, the widening scope of this containment effort altogether is what's really surprising. So the virus is one thing, but the response by the government and local officials is what's really catching people off guard. Because you mentioned the numbers right now, we know it's at least 30 million, at least 10 cities.

Those numbers could even grow. And it's not just restriction of leaving those cities. It's also restriction within those cities, right? So, you have the lockdown that's keeping people from getting on public transit because that's been shut down. So, the folks who may in fact have contracted something, trying to get to a hospital for those who rely on public transit has been next to impossible.

And those who do get to the hospital, Poppy, are waiting seemingly for hours, some of them even being turned away. In fact, we're hearing several cases of people with fevers who have been told we don't have time right now, the delays are too long, we can't test you, you have to go back home. So, what is that leading to?

Well, on Chinese social media, we're starting to see the impact of this, and how the government is trying to respond. And in Wuhan in particular, I can show you these tent images that are coming across social media. This is video that shows a makeshift office and kind of aside from the hospital. And then, get this, they're planning to build another hospital in six days time.

HARLOW: Wow --

CULVER: That's what they're hoping to do. Look at these images from state media. You can see already bulldozers and front-end loaders clearing out some land in Wuhan, attempting to open this -- we're told, on February 3rd, Poppy.

HARLOW: Wow. Before you go, talk to us about what we know in the U.S. with at least one person who has contracted this.

CULVER: Right, and that one person of course, we do know is linked to having been in Wuhan and traveled back to the state of Washington, and is currently being investigated there and being looked over. The thing with the U.S. right now is the CDC is leading up a lot of this. And a lot of the testing is strictly done with the CDC because they have the lab. But they're certainly monitoring our region more than anything else

right now. They're looking at what China is doing, and we know that officials are in touch, trying to figure out if the containment effort will be successful.

HARLOW: David Culver, important reporting in Beijing, thank you this morning for doing that, Jim?

SCIUTTO: Well, the White House legal team is set to take a page out of the house managers' playbook, set to use their own video clips to make their case to senators to the American people, that's going to start tomorrow. More coming up on their strategy right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END