Return to Transcripts main page


Trump's Defense Team Tries To Undercut Dems' Case; Recording From Giuliani Associate Shows Trump Talking With Indicted Businessman Trump Has Said He Doesn't Know; Dems Say WH Counsel Helped Make Case For Trial Witnesses; Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Accused Of Berating A Reporter; Schiff's Role In Impeachment Trial Boosts His Profile. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 25, 2020 - 19:00   ET



WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The flight to treat anyone with the virus and try to keep it contained. The U.S. has two confirmed - two confirmed cases of coronavirus. One in Seattle and the other in Chicago. I'm Wolf Blitzer.

Thanks very much for watching our special coverage of the Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump. Our coverage continues right now with our special edition of "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT." Thanks very much for joining us.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett and welcome to a special edition of OUTFRONT. Tonight, Team Trump on the attack on the first day of their opening arguments. The President's legal team choosing to speak for only two hours. Now their arguments boiled down to a few key points.

Democrats are trying to steal the upcoming election and that there is no evidence they say that Trump did anything wrong. Their presentation though did lack a lot of facts and we're going to get to much more about throughout the hour.

But first we want to get to Lauren Fox who is OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill and Lauren, what are you hearing from Republican senators today, now that Trump's defense has started?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I talked to Roy Blunt, a member of the leadership just a few hours ago and what he told me was, he was very happy with the tone and the tenor from President Trump's defense team on the Senate floor.


PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The President did absolutely nothing wrong.

FOX: That was the refrain of the President's legal team as they began their defense, trying to shoot holes in the Democrats' nearly 24 hours long arguments.

CIPOLLONE: We don't believe that they have come anywhere close to meeting their burden for what they're asking you to do.

FOX: Over two hours, the President's team emphasized the high stakes of the impeachment trial.

CIPOLLONE: They're asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but as I've said before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months.

FOZ: And claiming that Democrats were not forthcoming in their case, ignoring some of the testimony from the impeachment inquiry like that of former National Security Council Official Tim Morrison.

CIPOLLONE: Do you believe in your opinion that the President of United States demanded that President Zelensky undertake these investigations?


CIPOLLONE: The fact that they came here for 24 hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they don't really believe in the facts of their case. Impeachment shouldn't be a shell game. They should give you the facts.

FOX: The President's team repeated the Republican argument that the transcript of President Trump infamous July 25th call with Ukrainian President Zelensky exonerated President Trump.

CIPOLLONE: The President did not link security assistance to any investigations on the July 25 call. There was no discussion of the paused security assistance.

FOX: Just as the House managers tried to use the administration's own words against them, the President's team played a clip of the lead manager Adam Schiff paraphrasing the call in September to attack his credibility, blasting him for mischaracterizing that call.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And then not so many words this is the essence of what the President communicates.

CIPOLLONE: That's fake, that's not the real call.

FOX: The President's team elected not to get into as much detail as the House managers did when they opened their case.

CIPOLLONE: You heard the House managers speak for nearly 24 hours over three days. We don't anticipate using that much time.

FOX: They said the best evidence was that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine with the words of the Ukrainian President himself.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: I think and you read it that nobody push it.

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: They think you can read minds. I think you look at the words. FOX: The President's outside legal counsel, Jay Sekulow also brought

up the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine may have meddled in the 2016 election.

SEKULOW: Mr. Schiff and his colleagues repeatedly told you that the Intelligence Community assessment that Russia was acting alone responsible for the election interference implying that this somehow debunked the idea that there might be you know, interference from other countries including Ukraine and this is basically what we call a straw man argument.

FOX: The impeachment managers later pushed back on the idea that they didn't present all of the facts, renewing their call to allow witnesses. This follows Adam Schiff impassioned plea Friday night as he closed out the manager's case.

SCHIFF: President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. That has been proved. Now you will also hear the defense.

The President said there was no quid pro quo. That doesn't hold up in any court in the land. It shouldn't hold up here.


FOX: The President's defense team will come back on Monday to Capitol Hill where they will continue to make their case, Erin on Monday. Potentially even into Tuesday. Then senators will have 16 hours to ask questions. There'll be more debate over whether or not lawmakers want to hear from witnesses.

If there are not enough Republican senators to cross the Iowa Democrats for witnesses, the president could be acquitted by the end of the week. Erin.


BURNETT: All right, thank you very much Lauren. OUTFRONT now Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator, I appreciate your time tonight. What was your main take away from the President's defense today as it launched?

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Well, the defense lunched with these three key words, burden of proof and they were absolutely right. That is - that is what the House managers have, the burden of proof and that is the heart of any trial but there's three other words to go with the burden of proof and that's witnesses and documents.

And every American understands that in a trial of both the prosecution and the defense have access to witness and documents to make their case. But in this situation, the lawyers for the President were saying they have the burden of proof but we're going to block them from access to the witnesses. They have the burden of proof but we're going to block them from

access to the documents and so I mean that's what you would expect in a trial in Russia or in China, not here in the United States of America. We're pushing for a full and fair trial and clearly, the President's lawyers are pushing for well, a cover up.

BURNETT: So one of White House counsel, Pat Cipollone's main arguments today was - was essentially put all of that aside that. That here we are just a few months out from a presidential election with a president who voters selected to be their president and let the voters decide. Here's what Pat Cipollone said.


CIPOLLONE: They're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months. They're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history and we can't allow that to happen.


BURNETT: Your reaction, senator?

MERKLEY: Well, clearly Cipollone does not like the U.S. constitution because the counter factor, the check and balance to a president who's out of control is impeachment. It is an impeachment hearing in the House. It is impeachment trial in the Senate and it is about removing a president.

And so if he doesn't like this maybe he should, I don't know propose a constitutional amendment and get rid of impeachment but it is a key check on abuse of power and a key check on solicitation of a foreign government getting involved in election and because this record has been presented from the House, because of the substantial amount of information, we have a responsibility to hold a full and fair trial.

BURNETT: I want to play for you Senator, a videotape that CNN has just obtained from an attorney for Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas. This is a video where you hear President Trump at a dinner in 2018 talking with partner about getting rid of the then Ukrainian ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.


LEV PARNAS, ASSOCIATE TO RUDY GIULIANI: That's why you're having such, I think if you take a look, the biggest problem there where you need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration.

TRUMP: What? The ambassador of Ukraine?

PARNAS: Yes, she's basically walking around telling everybody, wait he's going to get impeached, just wait. (laughter) It's incredible.

VOICE: She'll be gone tomorrow. (laughter) (crosstalk)

VOICE: So one of the things that will be now that we have a secretary of state that's--

TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out. Take her out. OK? Do it.


BURNETT: When you hear the President's voice Senator, what do you think?

MERKLEY: Well, I can - I can tell you, he's making it very clear. She's standing in the way of your operation and by the way they were talking about a natural gas operation. She's standing your way, get rid of her. Get her out. Do it.

And that was a year before we were at the point where the same individuals, Parnas and his companion were working with Giuliani to get rid of the ambassador because she was posing an obstacle, not to natural gas adventure but an obstacle to their request to Poroshenko to be able to do investigations of the Bidens.

And then they did succeed in arranging that by April of that year 2019, almost - almost a year ago and at that same moment, something else happened, a new election that brought in an anti-corruption government in Ukraine and then they had additional reason to have to get the U. S. government to help to remove the obstacle to allow the Biden investigation to go forward.

BURNETT: All right, Senator, I appreciate your time, tonight. Thank you very much.

MERKLEY: You're welcome, Erin. Thank you.


BURNETT: And next Trump's team arguing today that the President was just concerned about corruption in Ukraine, not the Bidens but that argument simply does not add up. Plus Mitt Romney says he will likely vote for witnesses.

So will other Republicans follow? And an NPR reporter says Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacked her verbally after being asked about Ukraine.


MARY LOUISE KELLY, NPR REPORTER: He asked do you think Americans care about Ukraine. He used the F. word in that sentence and many others.


BURNETT: Tonight Pompeo's stunning response.


BURNETT: Tonight did Trump's lawyers actually help Democrats make a case for witnesses in the impeachment trial? Democrats including key Senator Doug Jones saying they did just that pointing to these comments by White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin.



PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination in our legal system is regarded as the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. It's essential.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT now Co-Editor-in-Chief of Just Security and former Special Counsel of the defense department, Ryan Goodman. Anne Milgram who is the New Jersey Attorney General and Joe Lockhart who was President Clinton's press secretary during his impeachment investigation.

Ryan, let me start with you, did Philbin's comments, obviously this was not his intent, but did his comments make a case for why there should be witnesses here?

RYAN GOODMAN, CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, JUST SECURITY: I think so. I think it's an unforced error on his part, didn't really serve his purposes to make that comment but then it puts us right into frontly having to face the fact that you're not providing for witnesses. The President's side is saying there shouldn't be any witnesses and what would witnesses do but under cross examination get to the truth?

If we want the truth, let's get John Bolton, put him under cross examination under oath. Let's get Mick Mulvaney, put him under cross examination under oath and we'll find out the truth.

BURNETT: And yet in this very eloquent way, it is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. I mean it's pretty incredible.

ANNE MILGRAM, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, there are like three or four points today where they in my view, completely opened the door to witnesses and documents. In addition to Philbin saying this, they talked about the burden of proof which is the burden is held by the democratic managers.

They have the right to prove their case which would mean that they could call witnesses. They talked at one point where Pat Cipollone said they should give you all the facts. They were cherry picking, right? If you want all the facts, let them call - you know let them call witnesses and let - that you cross examine them, right?

It is true that in a normal trial you call witnesses and both sides ask questions. They did some of this in the House but that's exactly what they should be doing here and the Republican Senate has blocked it and so they literally, argument after argument today I was listening, I was like, I can't believe they've literally walked into that.

BURNETT: And as you say said, it's unforced, right? I mean this is how they choose to make their case. So Joe look, they also were trying to make some key arguments some of which we've heard before, right? One of them is that the phone call with Zelensky and the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine, right? That this had nothing to do with Joe Biden. It was all about corruption and it was about - it was about sharing the burden with other countries.

That's what this was about. Mr. Purpura made that argument. Here he is.


MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: So what did President Trump and President Zelensky discuss in the July 25 call? Two issues; burden sharing, corruption.

SEKULOW: To say that the President of the United States did not - was not concerned about burden sharing, that he was not concerned about corruption in Ukraine, the facts from their hearing, the facts from their hearing establish exactly the opposite.


BURNETT: The thing is there are these problems. Here's what the Democratic House manager said about those claims, right? They knew this was what they were going to say and here are the facts.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): During the July 25th call, President Trump didn't raise legitimate corruption concerns as it relates to Ukraine. President Trump did not mention the word corruption once.

SCHIFF: If the President was fighting corruption, he wanted Europeans to pay more, why would he hide it from us? Why wouldn't he be proud to tell the Congress of United States and I'm holding it up because I'm worried about corruption.

Why wouldn't he? Because of course, it wasn't true.


BURNETT: And they made that point. They showed that he had approved aid to Ukraine and total you know, almost $1 billion in aid to Ukraine. Other years it's totally fine till Joe Biden was in the race. Does Team Trump's defense here hold water?

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, let me do a defense of their defense which is they had both hands tied behind their back because I believe Donald Trump insisted they start with he did nothing wrong.

They had no running room. But as both Anne and Ryan were saying even in that you know those two sound clips, they put facts in dispute and the way you resolve factual disputes is bringing everyone in who knows something about those facts and finding out.

BURNETT: So we're back to witnesses.

LOCKHART: So we're back to witnesses. So and they it constantly. What - what they could have done was just say that the transcript says nothing's wrong. We're not arguing the facts here. The transcript is the fact. Now all you have to do on all their arguments was do is basically either go back to the transcripts on the House or go on Google you know on burden sharing.

Their number one argument, that's what they led with. We find out that in fact Germany's done just what the U.S. has done but Trump went on about Merkel and on and on. In his talking points, we learned from the Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who wrote them, he talked about corruption, he talked about the progress that we were making on corruption but that was an issue we've had to make more progress on, never came up.

You know and as Adam Schiff said there, if this was about corruption and not about his own political interest, they would have put that out and remember, in the read out of - they did say, they talked about corruption, they lied.


BURNETT: Well, and of course investigations was mentioned. I mean, Ryan, I mean, this is the reality. Didn't come up on the call and if they were - there were other times when they did hold up aid, which they mentioned these other times, right? Mentioning Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Well, they announced that the Congress and they told them about it. They were proud about it and in this case, they never told Congress they weren't releasing the aid Congress had approved and in fact when they were told legally, they needed to do it, the President still refused to do it.

GOODMAN: That's right. Congress is actually asking them why - what's going on and they wouldn't tell him and then all the departments and agencies within the administration were saying what's going on and they were not told something.

They weren't said - they weren't told, oh it's because of burden sharing. They weren't told it's because of corruption. They didn't have a reason and then Laura Cooper, the senior Pentagon official testified not only that but when they restored the aid, they weren't told why it was restored.

So wasn't like over this short period of time, the Europeans have now come through on burden sharing. Nothing changed in that period of time except for the discovery of the whistle blower. That led everything loose and then that's when they restored the aid.

So the idea of it being about corruption doesn't really work.

BURNETT: And Anne, you know when it comes to witnesses, the Senate minority leader Schumer today argued that Trump's arguments you know, helped make the case for new witnesses which we just heard that of course. Rejecting concerns that there would be a long court battle over

subpoenas, right? Which is that's what Mitch McConnell's been trying to say. It doesn't add up. Here's what Schumer said.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): In terms of length of time, I don't - I think that's a red herring. When you have a subpoena signed by the Chief Justice, supported by both parties and enshrined in the constitution, I don't think that any court is either going to - is not going to honor that subpoena and I think it'll happen very fast.


BURNETT: Is he right?

MILGRAM: Yes, he's right. I agree with that completely and I think that the argument it will take a long time, it just doesn't hold water. There's a lot of court cases I think that would support what Schumer said today and the bottom line is I think it's just a way to distract and to get people not wanting to go through a process, which is not really going to be a process.

It's just a way to cut off having witnesses.

BURNETT: Right but it's important that those facts get put out there that there wouldn't be this long drawn out battle. If they want witnesses, they can have them which you know, hopefully a lot of Republicans do understand that, as they face is very significant decision on whether to vote for them.

Mitt Romney meanwhile, Senator Romney saying he will likely vote in favor of witnesses. The big question though is, will other Republicans join him? And Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo doubling down after being accused of berating and cursing out an NPR host to question him about Ukraine.




BURNETT: Tonight Republican Senator Mitt Romney signaling, he may very well vote for witnesses at impeachment trial, telling reporters today after the President's team presented the beginning of their case, "I think it's very likely that I'll be in favor of witnesses but I haven't made a decision finally yet and I won't until the testimony is completed."

Joining me now, Republican Senator James Lankford who is on the Homeland Security Committee and Senator, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much. So have you spoken to Senator Romney at all about his thoughts on witnesses?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): No, I haven't. I haven't recently spoken to him but everybody has their own perspective. They're trying to be able to work through the process and what information they need. All of us are flowing the arguments, taking notes, trying to be able to determine what questions they have. What questions are being answered. What's not answered.

BURNETT: So when Mitt Romney says, I think it's very likely, I'll be in favor of witnesses, do you share that sentiment at all?

LANKFORD: I think it's a great idea to ask Mitt Romney where he's coming from on that one. Right now I'm looking at trying to be evaluate what's in front of me. There is a question, some people have to say, this should go on for a while. We should open this investigation up and take on things the House did not take. I think the first thing we have to answer is what the House sent us.

The House did their investigation, about 78 days total. They gathered their information, their evidence, their witnesses. They're sending them to us. They could have gone much longer. In fact it's the shortest impeachment in history from the House. They could have gone much longer, gathered a lot more information, sent us over.

They're still welcome to be able to do that. If they choose to be able to do that but we got to respond to what is in front of us right now, not say, we don't see anything here but let's go, look for more. That's not really the Senate role, that's the House role.

BURNETT: So some of the things we have heard of course that have come to you from the House, right? Testimony that we all, the American people saw, when it comes down to what the President did and who he asked to do what include Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hale. Let me play those for you.


DAVID HOLMES, ACTOR: At dinner, President Trump asked so he's going to do the investigation.

DAVID HALE, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, UNITED STATES: The President had so directed through the Chief of Staff, Acting Chief of Staff.


BURNETT: He's referring there of course to the hold on aid. Do you want to hear from the Chief of Staff so you know once and for all what the President of United States asked Mick Mulvaney to do or not do when it came to withholding aid and why?

LANKFORD: I actually, I don't need to hear every conversation the President has with his Chief of Staff just like the President can't walk into my office and ask for every conversation I have with my Chief of Staff.

We have two separate branches. That's been an issue that has been argued for a very long time. There are some conversation the President has with his Chief of Staff that are perfectly fine to be able to go through an impeachment process and to be able to ask. There are others that are not.

What the House is asking us to do is not allow the President to be able to go to court. Skip that whole process and for the first time ever say to the executive branch, you don't have the right to go to court. What has been true of every other branch. I do not agree with that and the House said we're going to get the courts early on if anyone challenge it and say they're going - they want to go to court, they said no, just drop it. Then you're encouraging--

BURNETT: And you're talking about subpoenas, of course you know, legal experts say, it will very easy for you to get subpoenas and have them honored. There would be no delay and you could here what these people have to say. You'd be able to cross examine them and do everything that you would be able to do in a court.

LANKFORD: Yes, you bet that's exactly what legal experts say. There's also a whole another sane group of legal experts that say, this will go out and take about two months to be able go through court. The same process the House of representatives to go through. The politics of this is different than the facts of this. The first thing we got to deal with is the facts that the House is actually stating in front of us.

Let's answer those questions.

The politics of what the House did is go as fast as they could through an impeachment process into the Senate and then say, now, we want you to go as slow as possible. We want you to be able to drag this out through the election time. We did something quickly. We sent it to you, now you go very, very slowly.

That's why they dragged it out for a month before they actually send it over. That's why they're going to demand witnesses, extra testimony, extra evidence, and they're saying either go to court and resolve it or just take away executive privilege from this President and every President in the future forever. I don't think that's something you just flippantly decide.

BURNETT: I want to play for you, Senator, one of the key arguments from the President's lawyer today. They had several, right?

LANKFORD: They did.

BURNETT: They were trying to say that the President was worried about corruption, and we just -- we were just talking about that a little bit on the program.

Another one was that there was no pressure and here's that argument that was made today.


MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: They tell you that the Ukrainians must have felt pressure. Regardless of what they've said, President Zelensky said he felt no pressure.

The House Managers tell you they know better.


BURNETT: Here, though, Senator is what the House Manager showed in their presentation on that very specific issue.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Here is Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony explaining just how important the United States is to Ukraine.


MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: The U.S. relationship with Ukraine is the single most important relationship. And so I think that President Zelensky, any President would, you know, do what they could to, you know, lean in on a favor or a request.


BURNETT: As you and I both know, Senator, the United States provides an incredible amount of aid to Ukraine, especially on the military front, right? The estimate is 90 percent of the foreign military aid -- military -- that goes to Ukraine comes from the United States.

Don't the numbers show that the Ukrainian President would care a whole heck of a lot what the President of the United States wanted him to do?

LANKFORD: Sure, he would. But again, you're assuming a lot of things that the White House counsel actually blew out of the water today on the facts on that.

The first thing that he started with is the House Managers began with the assumption that not only that President Trump lied, that President Zelensky is also lying as well. So neither of them are telling the truth. Both of them are involved in this conspiracy to be able to cover it up.

BURNETT: Why would President Zelensky come out and say, you know what, I felt pressured. I'm a weak loser of a guy. I felt pressured. Do you really think he would come out and say that?

LANKFORD: Sure. Well, again, you're back to the same thing the House Managers are, don't take what he said, take what he actually meant. Read his mind to be able to be able to get through the process.

BURNETT: No, I'm taking the facts. If you get 90 percent of your income that comes from a person, you're going to come out and tell the world, you're going to just come out and say, you know, hey, no big deal. No, I mean, the numbers show that he relies --

LANKFORD: Well, actually the defense number is actually 10 percent. Ninety percent come from other sources. Ten percent of his military budget is from the United States. So it's actually just the opposite of that.

But the challenge that you have is, now you're into the point of trying to be able to read someone's mind. So you've got to be able to get the facts around it. The facts around it are there.

BURNETT: So just to be clear. My understanding is 90 percent of Ukraine's foreign military aid comes from the United States of America. That is the statistic I quoted.

LANKFORD: Okay. So yes, the 10 percent number that I was quoting is actually their total military budget. You may be very well right on that. That was part of President Trump's frustration when he said the European Union should be more engaged to be able to help. It's the first part of that so July the 25th call.

But again, the House Manager said the President wasn't concerned about the aid from other countries, when that actually was the first thing in the call that got pointed out today as well.

What the White House did today is finish the rest of the story. If you go back to an old Paul Harvey comment from years ago, the House Managers brought up a lot of different comments, but didn't read the sentence around it.

For instance, this whole thing, Zelensky was really, really trying to get a White House meeting except in the phone call transcript itself, President Zelensky said, well, if we can't meet in the White House, why don't we meet in Poland September the first and the President said, sure, let's do that. And they set that meeting up to be able to do that.

So it wasn't about a White House meeting that's hanging over him, and on the aid question --

BURNETT: Well, of course, that meeting did not happen and a White House meeting, as you and I both know is a very, very different thing --

LANKFORD: Well, that meeting actually happened with the Vice President.

BURNETT: -- in terms of its power and prestige than a meeting on the side of some meeting overseas.

LANKFORD: Sure. Sure it is. Absolutely. Sure it is. But Zelensky is the one who raised the question about let's meet in Poland. The reason the Poland meeting didn't happen is because we had a hurricane coming through, so the Vice President of the United States was sent and then they set up the next available time for the next bilateral meeting on September the 25th.

So it wasn't they were blocking a meeting the whole time. That meeting was already in process of being set up months before in that process, and you had to be able to work out the security and the details and everything else. So that was already in process. As far as the aid actually coming to them, it was pretty clear today

that the Ukrainians didn't know about the aid not coming to them until the end of August. What again, the House Managers have left out is if you go back to 2018, the aid was not delivered until the 28th of September.

This year, it was the 30th of September. If you go back to the year before that it was also a similar time period.


LANKFORD: So this is not atypical, but again, they're stating one fact and leaving out the rest.

BURNETT: Well, on this issue of when they knew, we also know of e- mails and calls that were the very afternoon of that phone call from Ukrainians. Two people at the State Department saying what's up with the aid? Where is the aid?

Another, you know, former foreign defense official in the Ukrainian government said that she knew in July. So there are questions on those when they knew, right? So I guess one of my questions to you, Senator is, why not have more witnesses so you know?

So it isn't me giving you facts that are facts, and you giving the facts of what someone else said. Let's get more witnesses. What's the problem with that?

LANKFORD: So the interesting thing about that is we're asking that same question of the House, why they rushed this process? Why they didn't do their background? Why they didn't do their work? All this could be done in the House. Instead, they didn't want to do this? Politically, they want to land this in the Senate.

BURNETT: Now, the buck stops with you. But now the buck stops with you.

LANKFORD: It does. It absolutely does and we have to answer the question the House sent us. The House is not sending us saying do a Mueller investigation. Do two years' worth of work here to be able to cram all this in. That's not what this is. This is an impeachment process. It's a constitutional issue. It has constitutional long term ramifications.

Whether it's Clinton, whether it's Johnson, whether it's Trump, this is a whole different issue. You're asking for it to be a Special Counsel report. Just open it up. Look at everything, all the time, spend the rest of the year investigating that. That's not what I think an impeachment is supposed to be.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I appreciate your time, Senator. Thank you very much.

LANKFORD: Sure. You bet.

BURNETT: And next, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused of berating a reporter. Here's how she described it.


MARY LOUISE KELLY, REPORTER: He asked, do you think Americans care about Ukraine? He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.


BURNETT: Our NPR colleague is OUTFRONT next. Plus Adam Schiff is now a household name. But do you know, just who is Adam Schiff? And how did his past prepare him for the most important days of his career?



BURNETT: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacking NPR reporter, Mary Louise Kelly calling her a liar, and let me play the exchange that sparked it.


KELLY: Do you owe Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch an apology?

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, I agreed to come on your show today to talk about Iran. That's what I intend to do.

KELLY: I confirmed with your staff last night that I would talk about Iran and Ukraine.

POMPEO: I just don't have anything else to say about that this morning.


BURNETT: So that was the exchange. Then the interview ended. Kelly then told everyone what happened. She explained on NPR that a State Department aide asked Kelly to come with her. This is how Kelly described it.


KELLY: She did not say we were off the record, nor would I have agreed. I was taken to the Secretary's private living room where he was waiting and where he shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the interview itself had lasted.

He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, do you think Americans care about Ukraine? He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.

He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map. I said, yes. He called out for his aides to bring him a map of the world with no writing. No countries marked. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said, people will hear about this.


BURNETT: And so they are. Pompeo responded to Kelly telling this story in the following statement, saying in part, "NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly lied to me twice, first last month in setting up our interview and then again yesterday in agreeing to have our post interview conversation off the record."

"This is another example of how unhinged media has become and its quest to hurt President Trump and his administration."

All right OUTFRONT now, David Folkenflik, NPR media correspondent and host of NPR's "On Point," and Samantha Vinograd, CNN national security analyst, former senior adviser to the National Security adviser in the Obama administration.

Okay. David, look, there's this exchange. He doesn't like that she is asking about Ukraine. What's your reaction to his statement and the way he treated Kelly.

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, NPR: So let me say one thing first, as NPR's media critic, I don't speak for the institution of NPR. It's sort of my own remit.

That said, looking at this closely, the Secretary provides no evidence for the claim that Mary Louise Kelly, an exceptionally experienced journalist in the areas of national security and foreign affairs. She's been a foreign correspondent before.

And she's the host of all things considered, somebody who has real stature and experience. The idea that she has lied to him, he provides no evidence for that. I've seen the e-mails back and forth between Mary Louise and the State Department for the night before. And she indeed says, I intend to spend a good amount of time on Iran, but I want to talk about Ukraine, too.

And indeed, I went back this evening and look, she asked 11 questions about Iran, which was the subject the Secretary said he wanted to talk about. That was some serious meat there on that interview, but she followed through as she promised to ask about Ukraine, too, because it's the issue of the moment of course. There's this impeachment trial happening in the Senate very closely linked to that piece.

BURNETT: So his claim that she wasn't going to ask about that and didn't tell him, that's not -- that's false. Okay. If he's going to be angry with anyone, he should be angry with his team for not saying anything and agreeing to it.

FOLKENFLIK: He may not have wanted to be asked about Ukraine.

BURNETT: Well, that's clear. He didn't want to, but that's not her problem, and she is an incredibly experienced and respected person. She's not lying, Sam, I mean, she's not -- she's not lying. I'm just going to come out and say it. That's an absurd thing to say.

What do you make of the map, Sam, that he had a blank map ready to put in her face? SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it brings

back memories of "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" in the 1980s. I mean, who really has a blank map laying around, but more broadly, Erin, what relevance does Kelly's knowledge of geography have on the Secretary of State refusing to answer a question?

I mean, I know we're all focused on this map, but the Secretary of State was using this to embarrass a reporter whose question he didn't want to answer. And his history of doing this, Erin, let's be clear, you listen to his tone during interviews with Margaret Brennan, you look at his comments to reporters out of Nashville, Judy Woodruff of PBS, with whom he accuses of working for the D.N.C. because they ask about professionally a key issue.


VINOGRAD: He has rainbows and unicorns when asked questions that he wants to answer, and goes into attack mode, when he's asked questions that he doesn't want to respond to, and as a security professional, I can tell you, this is castrating the ability of the State Department to do what used to be a core focus, which is advancing freedom of the press abroad. They don't have a leg to stand on based upon the Secretary's behavior.

BURNETT: What I find, David, just kind of stunning is that he goes straight to saying she is a liar. I mean, it's -- really, I find it stunning that this would be what the Secretary of State of the United States says when the records that exist shows it's not the case and it's just -- it's just not what she would ever do.

FOLKENFLIK: So two things that strike me about that, as somebody who has covered the Trump administration's relationship with the press and the relationship with the truth.

One is, is it's very Trumpian in tone. The other is he has taken issue with none of the facts she presented, other than saying she's a liar, he doesn't argue with any of her representation of their encounter off tape, right?

I talked to one of my colleagues who's in the room as well. She said too that she heard nothing from the aide saying come back without recorders and this is off the record.

No, she said don't come with colleagues. Don't come with a recorder. There was no question of off the record. I want to say one other thing journalistically, clearly to Mary Louise Kelly, this was on the record, just a continuation of the interview, it's why she was there. It's the only reason she was there to talk to him.

However, had it been off the record, which it wasn't, according to Mary Louise and her colleagues, had it been off the record, off the record is not a shield to allow a public official of great stature to go on a profane rant or tirade against a reporter doing her or his duty.

Off the record is supposedly, you're having conversation in which you can convey things or subtleties that are complicated to do on the record. That is an agreement, that is not a dictate.

And so first, as a senior official to assume that somebody is going to be deferential and protect you from the blowback from an obscene tirade I think is quite presumptuous.

BURNETT: But that's -- he tends to lose his temper and then regrets.

VINOGRAD: Yes, I mean, he's been polluting the State Department with his partisanship and petulance for some time, but what's clear from all this is, he does not want to interact with members of the press.

Secretary Pompeo, like President Obama --

BURNETT: Then why does he keep giving all of these interviews?

VINOGRAD: Because he views the press, whether it's Ben Shapiro or Fox News, as surrogates, as platforms for getting his talking points off -- his talking points out. That is not the duty of the press.

The duty of the press to ask questions. And so Pompeo, again, is entirely composed when engaging with members of the media with whom he agrees, and then when somebody asks him a tough question, which by the way, he should have an answer to at this point, he turns into attack mode.

BURNETT: Right. Well, it's interesting is this what happened in Kansas recently, too, when he was asked questions, what he thought would be friendly interviews, Ukraine came up and he didn't want -- he didn't talk about it. I mean, the same thing. But yet David, it still seems it has not sunk into him that these are the questions he's going to get.

Thank you both so very much, and next, Adam Schiff has been a lightning rod since the start of Trump's impeachment. So how did his past prepare him for truly what has been the brightest spotlight he has ever faced?



BURNETT: Tonight, Schiff in the spotlight. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has seen his profile rise in the Ukraine investigation. Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Does anybody really questioned whether the President is capable of what he's charged with?

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): It has often been said when it comes to politics, much of it is about their performance; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff showed why it is also about substance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHIFF: If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't

matter, we're lost.


CARROLL (voice over): Democrats calling his closing argument for removing President Trump from office, a speech for the history books.


SCHIFF: You can't trust this President to do what's right for this country. You can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump. He'll do it now. He's done it before. He'll do it for the next several months. He will do it in the election if he's allowed to. This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters, because right matters and the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.


CARROLL (voice over): Soon after delivering those remarks, the #RightMatters trending on Twitter. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had named Schiff to lead the team of seven House Impeachment Managers prosecuting Trump's trial.


SCHIFF: You will learn further evidence that has been revealed in the days since the House voted to impeach President Trump even as the President and his agents have persisted in their efforts to cover up their wrongdoing from Congress and the public.


CARROLL (voice over): Schiff spoke for much of the trial and got to the heart of their case, by evoking one of the founding fathers Alexander Hamilton.


SCHIFF: The framers of the Constitution worried then, as we worry today that a leader might come to power not to carry out the will of the people that he was elected to represent, but to pursue his own interests.


CARROLL (voice over): And while Republicans criticize Schiff saying he was wrong when he said last night, their heads would be on pikes if they broke with their President, one of the President's staunchest supporters, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham congratulated Schiff earlier in the week for his presentation.

Those who know Schiff are not surprised he rose to the occasion given his background. The father of two is a former assistant U.S. Attorney from California, noted for his prosecution of an F.B.I. agent who sold secrets to the Soviet Union.



SCHIFF: Well, it does feel at times like my life has come full circle.


CARROLL (on camera): And while Schiff has clearly left his mark as impeachment manager, despite some of the accolades, the real question remains, was he or anyone else able to change any minds -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right, Jason. That of course is the crucial question we will know the answer to in the coming days. And we'll be right back.