Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Dershowitz: Bolton Revelations Still Not Impeachable; Trump Team Claims Giuliani "Is Just A Minor Player"; NTSB: No Black Box On Bryant Chopper That Went Down. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired January 27, 2020 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: But then, you would be happy because you would have an easy answer, and you can be done with your law school exam, and it would be you immediately reject the articles of impeachment.

(IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP ON THE SENATE FLOOR, CAPITOL HILL)

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Without objection, we are adjourned.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, everybody, I'm Chris Cuomo. The Trump Team finishing for the day, they'll continue more tomorrow.

Some of the big headlines from today, you all know about this talk about Bolton and whether or not he'll come in, or his manuscript will come in, but a big part of the defense strategy today was taking on the Bidens.

Now, they all say that the door was open for them. But those rules don't apply here. They went after the Bidens, made them part of the case. And now, the question becomes "Well what happens next with witnesses?"

They have one more day here, questions from the Senators through the Chief Justice, and then what? Now, we got a glimpse of it there at the end about how the White House Counsel feels this is supposed to go.

Let's discuss with the panel that we have amassed tonight, perfect for this.

So, Jeffrey Toobin, when you take a look--

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Sir.

CUOMO: --at how this went today, high points, low points?

TOOBIN: Three big events today.

First of all, The New York Times scoop in the morning with John Bolton - John Bolton's book, which is as explosive as expected, apparently says that the President agreed to a - or initiated a quid pro quo that - that, you know, that he held the aid for Ukraine in return for dirt on the Bidens.

CUOMO: Direct evidence directly from the President.

TOOBIN: Very - you know, it's the evidence that is - is crucial to the case, which of course raises the issue of whether he will be a witness.

The second big event of the day was the attack on the Bidens that came from two of the President's lawyers, where I thought they certainly made Hunter Biden look very bad.

I mean the - the fact that Hunter Biden was hired for a job that he was unqualified for, for the only reason that he was - is the only reason that he was this Vice President's son, it - it certainly looks bad.

[21:05:00]

However, they also completely distorted the facts about Joe Biden's behavior. The - the accusations against Joe Biden don't stand up to scrutiny.

Finally, at the end of the day, we have Alan Dershowitz, who gave the defend - gave the - the Senators, who want to get rid of this case, an off-ramp, because he basically said "Look, even if everything the accurate - the articles are true, if everything the House Managers say is true, it's still not an impeachable offense, so you don't have to hear any more witnesses."

That is an argument that will certainly be used to try to get rid of the whole witness issue, when it comes up later this week.

CUOMO: And Carl, that's what they want people to think about, even if Bolton were to testify.

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

CUOMO: Even if the President did everything that seems painfully obvious that he did, none of it was wrong. So, why are we--

BERNSTEIN: Right. That's their ultimate argument. But really, they still are looking for a way not to have witnesses.

I thought the most interesting high point, relevant point, of the day, was the Senate Chaplain, quoting Jesus at the beginning, and saying, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." And he said it almost in an admonishing way to the Senators there.

And all along, the Senators - the Republican Senators have been saying "We have no firsthand witness. We have no ability to find the truth." There now is a firsthand witness. There is an ability to know the truth. That's what today was about.

Mitch McConnell now is in a little bit of a bind. He's telling, and I think we know from talking some of this reportorially, to some of the Republicans, we know that he was trying to get the Republicans to hold back, not to say publicly "We want witnesses."

He wants this to go away. Perhaps, he was totally blindsided, I'm told. He had no idea this was coming, the Bolton bombshell, and unprepared for it. But he thinks that as in the Kavanaugh hearings that maybe if they just don't go too far out front, he can keep this thing within - holding his reins.

CUOMO: Well we--

BERNSTEIN: But back to - back to the Chaplain.

CUOMO: Well--

BERNSTEIN: That's what counts, the truth here.

CUOMO: We assumed that the defense would stay away from Bolton. You don't want to talk about - you don't want to introduce facts that are bad for your case.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Right.

CUOMO: Let somebody else do it. Hopefully, it never happens. But Dershowitz mentioned it a little bit. I want to play it. And I want to get your take about how it fits into the mix here. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: How does that play, Bianna?

GOLODRYGA: Well "Even if true" are the operative words, right, him saying once again that even if the President did this, which all of the evidence suggests that it did happen, especially now that we have confirmation from Bolton, that it's not impeachable and, in fact, there was nothing wrong with it that Ukraine ultimately got the aid, Zelensky, they keep going back to this, and it's so infuriating, when they keep saying Zelensky said he wasn't pressured.

BERNSTEIN: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Let's use common sense. Of course, Zelensky is going to say he wasn't pressured. He's going to say anything to get aid from the United States when he's in the middle of a hot war.

But Alan Dershowitz also used the example of a President's prerogative, saying let's give an example of - of Israel, and if we all the sudden withhold aid for Israel, because they continue to build settlements, that's a quid pro quo, and that's exactly the scenario that's playing out. Well it's not because every issue that we've had with Israel, thus far, has always involved Congress. It has always been public. Money that has been appropriated by Congress has had a President respond to Congress, if there is in fact an issue that he wants to uphold the aid for.

And remember, the Defense Department signed off on Ukraine complying with this anti-corruption plan.

So, none of that was parallel to what is going on now, but it's an example of him saying "Even if the President did what he's accused of, it's not impeachable, and it's not a big deal, and it's happened before."

CUOMO: No - key fact also, Professor Gerhardt is if you want to play hypotheticals, which again, you know, with all due respect to the - the trade of lawyering, you know, you use hypotheticals when the direct set of facts aren't the best for you.

And here, that's what they're running away from. You have to build in that imagine if the President went to Israel, and said, "Oh, I'll give you the money. But first, you have to help me with this thing in my election."

GOLODRYGA: Right.

CUOMO: You know, this - we would have never gone through this process. So, the idea of Dershowitz laying out this case, "Even if it all happens, it means nothing," how much weight you think that has for Senators?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, UNC LAW PROFESSOR: It may have some substantial weight for Senators because it sounds good and because it gives them a kind of fig leaf they can hide behind, and say, "Well, you know, this great Harvard professor has just said that this is not an abuse of power, isn't an impeachable offense. Therefore, we don't have to think about whether we need to remove the President."

Very quickly, I just want to offer a different lesson in constitutional law, to cut to the chase here.

[21:10:00]

Basically, the President of the United States is obliged, under the Constitution, when he enforces the law, either to do it pursuant to a policy made by Congress, or the Constitution.

When President Trump, according to John Bolton, and every other witness who's testified, took action, in order to get announcement made about the Bidens, he was not following Congressional policy, and he was not following the Constitution.

Therefore, that's an abuse of power. An abuse of power is exactly what his impeachment - impeachment was designed to address. TOOBIN: Alan Dershowitz, to his credit, said that his own view was very much a minority view of what the - what the impeachment provision means.

To his discredit, the reason why it's a minority view is because he's wrong. It's because the - the - the idea that you can only impeach a President because he committed an actual crime or, as he says, a criminal-like behavior--

CUOMO: Right.

TOOBIN: --which I don't even know what that means. But, as Professor Gerhardt, and every other serious scholar of the Constitution, has said, abuse of power, contempt - obstruction of Congress are impeachable offenses.

CUOMO: Right.

TOOBIN: And that's why we're here because this - these are legitimately impeachable.

GOLODRYGA: And--

CUOMO: So, I want to - I want to get a--

BERNSTEIN: Plus, it was also a set of very--

CUOMO: Hold on one second, Carl. I want to get in a quick break.

BERNSTEIN: Go ahead.

CUOMO: And we'll tee up a couple things that come back just for some context here. We're going to go to the Senate, and we have Phil Mattingly there, and he's going to tell us how this is playing. What's he hearing about people as they exit that room?

And a second big development that happened in this argument, the President's defense team wants you to believe that Rudy Giuliani is "Rudy who? Rudy what? He's another Coffee Boy. I - I guess he's an Espresso Boy."

Why would they argue that? Oh, they argued it big - big time with arguably the President's best lawyer on the staff.

We'll take you through both, why it happened, what it means, next.

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So, the President's team tried to put their best foot forward today. How did it impact those in the Senate, especially the GOP Senators who might be in play? Let's go to Phil Mattingly on Capitol Hill.

What are you hearing? PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Chris, at the end of Alan Dershowitz's presentation, more than a dozen Republican Senators walked up to him, to shake his hand, including Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, you can hear, say, "Wonderful," to Dershowitz.

And let me explain why that's important. The Senate GOP Conference right now is in a different place than they were this morning. I'm told that they were very unsettled by the Bolton revelations The New York Times broke last night.

As Carl mentioned, Senate Majority Leader, McConnell had not been looped in on the manuscript before it was reported by The New York Times, as of it's even put out a one-sentence statement saying he had no advance knowledge, a rather terse statement that I think was pointed for a reason, and here's why.

I'm told, behind the scenes, several Republican Senators made calls to the White House, out of frustration, saying, "Look, we need to know about these things, if you know about in advance. We're on the frontlines here. And we feel like we were left out of the loop."

Chris, there was a closed-door lunch before the Senate gaveled into session today, where several Republican Members voiced their concerns about where things were headed.

They were so unsettled, in fact, that one Senate Republican, Pat Toomey, raised an idea that's been pinging around the Republican Conference for the last couple of weeks.

Basically, if we're going to get to the point where witnesses are going to be pursued, we need to do a one-to-one exchange, one Republican witness for one Democratic witness.

But here's the reality. McConnell and top Republicans still do not want witnesses, and still believe they can defeat that vote that will happen after the White House presentation and Senator questions.

What McConnell told Senators, in that closed-door meeting, I'm told, was this. "Take a deep breath. Wait for the presentations. Hear the White House out, and wait for your Senator questions, before you make any definitive statements on next steps."

The reality is two Republican Senators, Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, made clear today they are closer than they've ever been to voting to pursue witnesses. But Republicans can afford to lose three.

As of now, that third and fourth is not quite apparent. The expectation is Lisa Murkowski is probably likely in that camp. But the fourth Senator or fifth or sixth has still not been identified.

That's what Senate Democrats are pushing for. That was what their hope the Bolton revelations would produce. But, at this point in time, there has been no breakout of Republican Senators.

And McConnell's advice and McConnell's warning to Senators has been the same. "You don't want to prolong this trial. You don't want any new precedent. Stay away from witnesses."

We'll see if that holds, in the days ahead, Chris.

CUOMO: What will be interesting to see is if they go from three to four GOP Senators does all the sudden to jump to eight--

MATTINGLY: Yes.

CUOMO: --once people know that the threshold is met, do they want to be on that side, if they're in a tough district, going forward. Phil, thank you.

MATTINGLY: Right.

CUOMO: Anything else you hear, just quickly, get in my ear, I'll come right back to you.

All right, so let's think about how this plays now. That's the Republican side. What about the other side? We have Paul Begala here and Joe Lockhart as well.

Paul, now, the idea of where this day started - Asha Rangappa also, good to see you - that "Oh boy, Bolton, oh, this is it. This is the guy," from that place to now, what do you think the state of play is, in terms of leverage for witnesses?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well I think these Republican Senators are making a gamble. And the gamble is that nothing more will come out, and it's a terrible bet. More will come!

By the way, Nancy Pelosi looks very smart for delaying walking over those articles, so that more journalists could do their jobs.

The - the Bolton bombshell is not the last. I don't have any special knowledge. But I've been through this before, OK? If something's going to - if something exists, it is going to come out, I promise.

And so, these Republicans, they're betting that there are no other shoes to drop. And let me tell you, this - they're - they're living in Imelda Marcos' closet there's so many shoes.

It's a - they're going to have to - to - to bet their career that there's no more information that's going to come out if they vote against witnesses, that is a very bad bet.

CUOMO: All right, now, in terms of what else could happen, they may have created a potential problem for them going forward.

Jane Raskin, who, by all accounts, great lawyer, fundamentally important to this President, during the Russia probe, she made an argument today about Rudy Giuliani, and what he means in all this or, in fact, does not mean, that may have some heavy implications.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JANE RASKIN, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player, that shiny object designed to distract you. Senators, I urge you, most respectfully, do not be distracted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: "A minor player."

TOOBIN: Yes, I mean that - that - that took, to use a legal term, a lot of hutzpah to--

CUOMO: Latin.

[21:20:00]

TOOBIN: --to say that - it's - it's a Lat - Latin-like.

And - but - but, you know, Rudy Giuliani, they - they sort of made - she made a kind of a joke of how often his name came up during the House Managers' presentation.

CUOMO: Yes and the call between the two Presidents.

TOOBIN: Well, yes, that's right.

They didn't - they didn't make that, you know, pick his name out of the phonebook. I mean he - he comes up because everyone is reacting to his behavior over the course of the months leading up to and after the July 25th phone call.

He is the person who is pushing the President to pressure the Ukrainian President into doing this investigation, or announcing the investigation. So, you know, I thought Jane Raskin's presentation was sort of bold, but it was thin on evidence, and brief.

CUOMO: Yes.

TOOBIN: Again, I think it was an opportunity to give an argument to the Republicans, if they want to use it. But she didn't have a lot of facts to--

CUOMO: Joe, let me bring you in here real quickly. I mean, first of all, I don't know how Rudy Giuliani is going to take this.

But, you know, when the President was speaking to the man that he says he doesn't know, Lev Parnas, in great detail about the plan that he said he knew nothing about, when asked to explain why he'd be saying that to Lev Parnas, he said, "Oh, no, no, I wouldn't have said that. I would have said that to Mayor Rudy Giuliani or something like that."

Rudy Giuliani's at the center to all of this. What is the play and what's the potential downside?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, HOST, "WORDS MATTER" PODCAST: Well, I mean, listen, there were a lot of bizarre moments today. You had Ken Starr re- litigating 20 years ago, and what his role was.

But the Raskin presentation was maybe the most bizarre in saying that Rudy's just a bit player in this. You know, she also said that he wasn't trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Well I seem to remember one Chris Cuomo asking him that question, and on television--

CUOMO: Yes. That's where this part of my hairline went--

LOCKHART: --Rudy saying, "I was - I was trying to dig up dirt."

BERNSTEIN: "And I got the dirt."

LOCKHART: So, it's - it's--

CUOMO: Yes. He got it.

LOCKHART: --it's bizarre and, you know, it just goes to--

CUOMO: Yes.

LOCKHART: --you know, this sort of sense that if they say it enough times that their base will believe it, and maybe some other people will believe it, and that, you know, truth is dead.

CUOMO: Well I'll tell you what. I - look, again, the reason I brought it up in this context of what else may come, Rudy Giuliani has a lot of pride.

And a big aspect of his pride is what he has done for this President. And to hear himself called "Nothing" by the President's legal team, I wonder, how he's going to take that.

But just so you all remember, how clearly untrue this suggestion is from Ms. Raskin, and again, all respect to Ms. Raskin, by all accounts, a very formidable attorney, the idea that Rudy didn't look for dirt on the Bidens, and wasn't part of this, we went through right here in painful detail.

Here's a taste.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Of course, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So--

(PANEL LAUGHS)

BERNSTEIN: Can I pick up on something that-- TOOBIN: I - that was ambiguous. I don't--

(PANEL LAUGHS)

BERNSTEIN: Let me pick up on where - where Paul left off, and it goes right to Giuliani, and - and what this is about in real time, extortion, that behavior, and the kind of bribe, exactly what - what Alan Dershowitz was saying today, he kept saying "Well if the - the crime is akin to," well that's what we're looking at, something that is akin to.

And I think Dershowitz has opened up a door, particularly for the Democrats, to walk right through and exploit, and say, this is exactly about what Dershowitz was talking about, extortionate, bribery, that's what the President did. That's what Giuliani participated in.

CUOMO: Well--

GOLODRYGA: And don't forget, every fact witness said that they were told "Talk to Rudy."

CUOMO: Yes, including Zelensky.

GOLODRYGA: Right? Every single one on the Right.

TOOBIN: Including the - yes, the President.

GOLODRYGA: Including Zelensky.

CUOMO: Zelensky brought him up. The President said he was a great Mayor in America. He's - you can trust him, you're - I don't get where they were going with that. But here's another thing that it reveals.

What you guys have been calling out throughout this process of "Boy, they really abused the facts here. And boy, they're really wrong about that--"

GOLODRYGA: That's right.

CUOMO: --that may all be revisited from the questions by the Senators through the Chief Justice. Remember, there may not be a rebuttal officially, but they're going to hear about what they said here.

Let's take a break. And when we come back, let's look at some of the tracks that are being laid now that will be revisited in the future.

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right, calls for witnesses. That's what it seems to be about, at this point. The top House Democrat Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, says they will consider bringing in John Bolton, if the Senate doesn't.

Now, what does that do to the state of play? Let's discuss with Democratic Senator, Chris Van Hollen.

Senator, thank you for joining us.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Good to be with you, Chris.

CUOMO: Your take, after today, you feel differently?

VAN HOLLEN: I feel more strongly than ever that the President's case is number one, all over the map. As you were all talking, we have the great shrinking role of Rudy Giuliani, who was a featured star in the July 25th call, and now, is a bit player.

You have Ken Starr, who was on every other side of the issue now than he was just a little while back.

But, most of all, you have the Republicans digging in on this key factual question, denying that the President was involved in withholding military aid to Ukraine, and withholding a White House visit until they did these political favors for them.

And that just highlights the need to call a John Bolton, especially after these revelations that we're hearing about what's in his book. So, they just made the case today for the importance of additional witnesses.

In my view, there's already a mountain of evidence on the issue of quid pro quo. But if there's anyone still doubting that, they just made the case for calling witnesses and getting documents.

CUOMO: Any of your brothers and sisters on the Right, the Republican side of the aisle, suggesting that to you?

VAN HOLLEN: Well no more than you've already reported. We've heard that Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are talking about it. There's some others that are thinking about it.

[21:30:00]

But I - we - we still haven't gotten to that magic number of four Senators. But I do think it's getting harder by the day because we don't know what more is going to come out.

Every day, every other day, more information comes out, and they are going to look increasingly, like they're, you know, part of the effort to rig the trial. That's what their votes on opening day indicated.

CUOMO: Right.

VAN HOLLEN: The question is what will happen when we get to the moment of truth, a few days from now, when they have another opportunity to vote for witnesses and documents, and if that passes, who will that be?

CUOMO: Well to answer - answer your own question for me, in this context, and I'll let you go. I know it's been a long night.

VAN HOLLEN: Yes.

CUOMO: It happens. You get the four, maybe you get six or eight, because the - the Republicans then seek some - some shelter in saying they were fair process. And you say "Great, we want Bolton." And they say "Great, we want Joe Biden."

Now, do you feel that that will be worth what might happen if Joe Biden takes the stand?

VAN HOLLEN: No, we're not going to get into political horse trading in a--

CUOMO: But you won't have control of it.

VAN HOLLEN: --in a judicial-like proceeding. So, here--

CUOMO: You won't have a control of it, Senator.

VAN HOLLEN: So what--

CUOMO: Once you say you want one, it's up to them.

VAN HOLLEN: So - so here's what I propose.

I'm - I'm planning, as of now, to renew the amendment I proposed on opening night, which is to allow the Chief Justice of the United States to make that decision, just like the judge - trial judge does in courtrooms every day, all over the country.

If you want impartial justice, that is the fair way to do it.

And so, if Republicans vote against that a second time, at this stage in the trial, they will be telling America they do not want an impartial trial. Let them make the case to Chief Justice Roberts why they want the Bidens or why they want anybody else.

We will make the case as to why John Bolton's a fact witness, Mick Mulvaney is a fact witness, Blair's a fact witness, and why the documents are relevant.

So, that is the way to have this decided, if you truly want an impartial trial. And I, at this point in time, plan on renewing that motion.

CUOMO: All right, it went down in a straight party-line vote the first time. We'll see what happens if it comes up then.

VAN HOLLEN: That was when - right, that's when McConnell had everybody lined up--

CUOMO: Right.

VAN HOLLEN: --in advance to say "No." If we have the vote to allow witnesses, and documents, this is the fairest way to resolve which witnesses and what documents.

CUOMO: I hear the case. We'll see how it plays.

VAN HOLLEN: All right.

CUOMO: Senator Van Hollen, thank you.

VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you.

CUOMO: All right, so where is this headed after today? Are witnesses more likely? Why? Why not?

And, that back-and-forth with Van Hollen, what happens if there are enough votes for witnesses, and the Republicans get to pick theirs? Do you really think the Chief Justice will police what the Republican Senators want? We'll discuss it, next.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right, the Bolton headline from this morning has grown, not just in its significance, but in its substance, OK? More information, breaking news from The New York Times, and it's two-pronged.

First, The Times says Bolton's book claims he privately told the Attorney General, Barr, last year, he was worried about President Trump, in effect, granting personal favors to autocratic leaders in Turkey and China.

Then there's more, hence two-prongs.

The Times report says Barr responded by pointing to DOJ inquiries of companies in those countries. And Barr, supposedly, said to Bolton, he worried that the President was creating an appearance that he had undue influence over what should be independent investigations.

What does all that mean? Let's discuss. Let's go first to Asha Rangappa, FBI background, legal professor, as well.

How significant is this second part? So, we know Bolton says "Trump told me, I'm holding up the aid until I get the investigations," now, these two new pieces.

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: So, I think that it first goes to what Paul said earlier.

It means that it's going to be raining shoes pretty soon, not just on the Ukraine issue, but there is going to be other stuff that comes out. And this principle that we are looking at in this trial is going to be - come into play again and again.

What I think the second point is, is where - what is Barr's role in all of this? He has clearly been made aware of these very problematic issues with regard to the President, including with Ukraine.

And yet, he was the person and it was his Department of Justice that tried to block the whistleblower complaint from going to Congress that basically said there was nothing to investigate.

So, you know, he hasn't been mentioned as a potential witness. But based on what is allegedly laid out in Bolton's manuscript, I think he could be one, too.

CUOMO: So, Jeffrey--

TOOBIN: How--

CUOMO: Go ahead.

TOOBIN: Well how can - how can we be talking about this manuscript that is highly relevant to the impeachment of the President of the United States, an ongoing trial in the Senate, and Simon & Schuster are saying "Well wait till March 17th when the trial is over?"

BERNSTEIN: Absolutely. Carolyn Reidy, the Head of Simon & Schuster--

TOOBIN: Well where - where is John Bolton--

BERNSTEIN: --ought to just put this out.

TOOBIN: Yes. I'm - and I'm not saying they should give it away. They should sell it, you know, like--

BERNSTEIN: Yes.

TOOBIN: --I'm not trying to take John Bolton's royalties away. But John Bolton should be here giving an interview to you and - and - and, you know, on - on Fox, and just telling what he knows.

He has - there's nothing stopping him from doing that. And the idea that he has to, you know, wait until March 17th, because that's the pub date, I just think that's outrageous.

BERNSTEIN: Really under - another thing here, which is the - the true danger of John Bolton, and whether through manuscript, or particularly through testimony, and now these references to Turkey, to China, all along, all the national security principles, almost all, Mattis, McMaster--

CUOMO: Right.

BERNSTEIN: --Tillerson, all have come away, Kelly, from their service with Trump, saying "Our President is a danger to the national security of the United States and Putin is the beneficiary."

CUOMO: So--

BERNSTEIN: And that is a big deal, as we head toward the election. Forget just about this trial. As everybody has noted, this bears on the election, and Bolton--

[21:40:00]

CUOMO: Well bears on the election regardless. BERNSTEIN: --and Bolton has a--

GOLODRYGA: Right.

BERNSTEIN: --huge role.

GOLODRYGA: But think about every single Deputy who worked under Bolton, who testified--

BERNSTEIN: That's right.

GOLODRYGA: --and said that he was there, here is what happened. Bolton has access to reporters, as we all know. If there was something that was not true, we would have heard that, right.

CUOMO: Right.

GOLODRYGA: He was radio-silent. But what--

CUOMO: He also never said anything about these big concerns--

GOLODRYGA: Right.

CUOMO: --which is the President. So--

GOLODRYGA: But he said it behind closed doors at fundraisers we've known.

CUOMO: Yes, fair point.

So, the President says, and we don't have to put up the statement because there are a lot of things in what he put out in the tweets today that are demonstrably false. So, let's try to keep the record as clean as possible.

But he denies having ever told John Bolton, all right? Let's just leave it at that.

For that to be true, John Bolton would have to be lying about the President having told him, and having no supporting proof, you know, that which would help him. He doesn't have to have it, but that's a problem.

All of these people that you were referring to, who said "Bolton told me, go to the lawyer. I told him this. He said, go to counsel," they're lying, right, in terms of just the universe of it, because that's very convenient to Bolton, so how is that not true?

Going to Barr, Barr would now have to say "This never happened. He never came to me about this."

BERNSTEIN: And he'd have to give back--

(CROSSTALK)

GERHARDT: It's a pattern. It's a pattern. CUOMO: There's a lot of layers of credibility.

BERNSTEIN: He'd have to give back his book advance.

CUOMO: He'd have to give back his book advance.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

GERHARDT: And so - so there's a pattern.

Everybody who's testified under oath is telling a rather similar story. And yet, the President keep, and his lawyers say, they're lying. And they keep saying anybody that reveals something bad about the President is lying.

And, at some point, I think we have to realize that maybe they're not lying, then in fact, maybe they're telling the truth, and it's the President who may not be actually telling the truth. And so, that's one thing.

TOOBIN: You think?

GERHARDT: That's one thing.

TOOBIN: It's possible, well.

GERHARDT: At some point, realization has to kick in.

The second is I think this also applies to the lawyers. The more - the deeper we go into this trial the lawyers take even greater and greater liberty - liberties with the facts and the law.

And, at this point, and I've said this before, but I still feel it strongly, I think they're actually violating rules of professional conduct because they're engaging in misleading false statements repeatedly.

CUOMO: Cipollone--

GOLODRYGA: But it's backed up--

CUOMO: --just an easy one, Cipollone said today, and they've all said this several times, "Why didn't they ever ask Bolton to testify?" That's demonstrably false.

GOLODRYGA: Right.

CUOMO: And that's going to come back. Go ahead.

GOLODRYGA: Right. And Bolton said, "I will sue you if you ask me to testify" right, "And we're going to be in court forever."

But think about it that what really confirms what we are hearing from this book are the President's own actions.

Look at his actions towards Turkey and Erdogan. In an interview, a few years ago, before he was even President, he said that he was conflicted because he had towers and then he had business in Turkey.

He had Erdogan come to the Oval Office, and try to convince those around him, including Lindsey Graham, about why it was fine to just throw the Kurds under the bus.

Look at his actions with China, and look at the business dealings even his children have with China. The President is all about making trade deals and all about these unilateral trade relations.

CUOMO: Right. And he'd be the first person I've ever seen in a major situation who hides his own alibi. He says he has people who can clear him that the documents clear him and he won't offer them up.

All right, we got to take a break now. We're going to turn back to the trial, no question about that. There are a lot of un - untraveled roads to go down here.

But I do want to bring you the latest on the crash that killed basketball great Kobe Bryant because he was more than a basketball player. He was a father. He was an innovator. And he really had a whole life in front of him.

Someone who loved him as a person, who knew him as a kid, and who knew what was yet to be told about Kobe Bryant, and his young life, only 41, fellow Lakers legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is ready to speak about his friend, next.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: You know, it's been more than 24 hours since the crash that killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and members of all these other families, and it's like it just happened.

The NTSB said tonight there was no black box on board that chopper. So, you're going to have limited information. They do have some of the back-and-forth between the pilot and the Control Tower that show that he was asking for help and what that would mean.

Investigators say they will be on the scene for days collecting evidence. But what we already know is what makes it so tragic. Kobe Bryant is gone. His young daughter is gone. These other families destroyed by this event.

The Lakers put their game on hold for Tuesday night because they are dealing with this so profoundly, as is the entire sports, and really, the larger community as well.

So, I spoke to another basketball legend, a Laker legend, about this loss. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar knows the game, knows this man, knew him as a boy. He knows what he meant.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Kareem, as I said before, it is always a pleasure to speak with you, but I'm really sorry to be speaking with you under these circumstances tonight.

KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR, RETIRED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER: Yes, it's been a - a very tough several hours now, Chris. You know, it's very hard to deal with this, to see someone that had so much more to share with us gone so suddenly and so needlessly, it's really tough.

CUOMO: You, to those who get to know you, you are very deep thinker. You believe things deeply. You take a lot of time to figure out what things mean to you. Where are you with trying to have any sense of how something like this could happen?

ABDUL-JABBAR: There - there - you - you can't make sense out of it, Chris. You know, things like this don't make sense, to have someone that had so much more to share with us that would have been a leader.

Look how Kobe made it possible for a lot of young athletes to leave high school and come into professional basketball and - and do well and succeed because he - he was the exception that - that proved the rule.

He had that type of leadership quality. And he had so much more to give along those lines.

[21:50:00]

CUOMO: What I keep hearing said about him is that the basketball was like the third greatest quality that he had that people didn't get a chance, unless they knew him, to appreciate his intelligence, and they didn't get a chance to see what he had made of himself, in terms of what his family meant, what his kids meant.

ABDUL-JABBAR: Yes. What - what his - his children meant so much to him. I - I stopped coaching with the Lakers, so I only got to - to know Natalia kind of well, you know, the - the younger daughters I didn't know very well.

But for - for me, some of the things that - the - the one thing - Kobe's sense of humor was amazing. You know, I - I want to share this with - with - with people.

Luke Walton was having a - a weird day at practice. He - he - about three or four times up and down the court, Luke almost made a spectacular play, but just missed doing it, you know, a blocked shot, a - a three-point shot, and great defense, you know, a tough rebound.

So, but that - you know, Luke was struggling and - and Kobe, from the sideline, sounding exactly like Alec Guinness, says, "The Force, Luke, use The Force." And it just broke the whole place up. We - we - we started dying laughing.

It was amazing that he put it all together like that and said it so timely. But he had that kind of - he had that kind of timing, and he had that type of insight and, you know, that's what he was about.

CUOMO: As a great player yourself, what made him what he was? ABDUL-JABBAR: And I was at the game where Kobe got 81 against the Raptors. And, you know, I - I had a chance to see some really great performances.

And Kobe is 81 points that there was nothing they could do. I mean he was pulling up shooting three pointers from well beyond the three- point line, attacking the basket, made all the free throws.

He just - there was no way you could stop him. He had that indomitable will and the skill to execute whenever he felt like it. And the five World Championship rings attest to that.

I think, his dad, Joe Bryant, really schooled him on how to play the game and, you know, Kobe took it, and expanded on it.

CUOMO: You knew him as a kid. Did you see anything in him then?

ABDUL-JABBAR: Well, when I met Kobe, he was with his family in Italy, since the early 90s over in - in Rome, when I met him, and he had aspirations then. He wanted to be a great basketball player.

And I told him "All right, all right, I get that, and just listen to what your dad tells you, and you want to be like your dad. You don't want to be like Darryl Dawkins." And - and Kobe got it, you know.

CUOMO: Now we have the other layer of this tragedy, which it wasn't just Kobe.

ABDUL-JABBAR: Yes. That's the - that's the hard part.

CUOMO: He died far too young and with this daughter. And I - I think that's a big part of what is bringing the country on the same page here is that, you know, all of these different families destroyed in this one accident.

Kobe, of course, the one who's known best, his daughter with all the promise, leaving three other kids now without their father, and the wife without a husband, these other families destroyed.

I mean, can - the scope of this tragedy is tough to understand.

ABDUL-JABBAR: It's - it's tough to understand. It - it's useless. It - it serves no purpose, except to make us know that we have to be even more careful in all - we - we don't understand, at this point, you know, what the circumstances were about the - the flight.

You know, there could have been some problems with that. And, you know, it's not time to - to point fingers. But it's just time for us to be more cautious and to not let something like this happen again in - in - in any way.

The - the - the loss is, is just too much. You know, I'm - I'm - I'm just glad that you, you know, you didn't see me yesterday because I, you know, I was a mess yesterday, and it was - it was - it was very difficult day yesterday. CUOMO: Kareem, thank you so much. I know this is a hard time for you. Thank you for helping us remember what was lost, who was lost, and in the right way. I appreciate your perspective. And I'm sorry for your pain.

ABDUL-JABBAR: Thanks. And thanks for having me on, Chris. I'm - I'm - I'm glad you gave me this opportunity. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: We appreciate having Kareem. I know this isn't easy for him. This was a family friend. He knew his father. He knew this kid his entire life. Now he's gone.

Nine lives gone, many of them children, parents, people who are involved in just trying to do the best by their families, including Kobe Bryant, and one of his four daughters.

Much more to come, throughout the night, on the crash that took Kobe Bryant's life, and his daughter's and, again, the other seven people, and all the families affected as well.

When we come back, we have a reality check on something for you on the impeachment side. Look, the fighting for the facts isn't over, just because they're in the presentation phase.

The facts are being abused, and we're going to lay it out for you, next.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Just because you argue something, doesn't make it true or even fair. Take this for instance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HERSCHMANN, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: It's not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income. Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interests and their government responsibilities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: This is their argument against Hunter Biden who didn't work for the government.

Conversely, Trump's daughter and son-in-law work for the government, yet are still picking up Chinese trademarks and real estate deals, including while meeting on behalf of the campaign or on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States.

Two of his other kids sold more than a $100 million of Trump's real estate, since he took Office. They've moved forward with projects in Ireland, India, Indonesia, Uruguay. They've licensed the Trump name in places like Turkey and the Philippines.

If Hunter Biden's work demands a major investigation, because of his parent being VP, what about the Trump kids? I am not saying that there is any proof of illegality. I'm saying that if it works for one, it works for all.

All right, thank you very much for watching us. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Well if you're using their argument, maybe they should be called as witnesses too.