Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Pressure Builds on GOP Senators to Call Witnesses After Bolton Bombshell; Trump Team Goes After Bidens on Day 2 of Arguments; Remembering the Life and Career of Kobe Bryant. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired January 28, 2020 - 00:00   ET

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

[00:01:55]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, everybody. I'm Chris Cuomo. We have a whole new day of arguments and newer surprises. Today as a main player comes back to potentially haunt the Trump defense.

Our special impeachment trial coverage continues right now.

The elephant in the room. What would the Trump defense do when it comes to dealing with the obvious elements of what's in the news about Bolton and what would they do. Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: If a president, any president, were to have done what the "Times" reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not institute impeachable offense. Let me repeat. 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: Now, I was surprised that you heard even that from the defense. I didn't understand why they'd want to introduce Bolton at all when it's just not good for them. Now you'll hear arguments that well, they talked about Bolton, they opened the door. That a rule of evidence that doesn't apply here. This is about politics.

You talk about what's good for you and you try to ignore what's bad for you. And this Bolton situation at least optically is bad. If you're one of these senators who is nervous about what to do and now you hear that someone who's being kept from you as a witness directly spoke to the president about exactly what he's being accused of. That's tough.

So, now we have even more news dropping on this about what is in the manuscript from Bolton. What is it? Well, not only does Bolton suggest that he spoke directly to the president, and we don't know if he can prove that and the president says it's not true, but he also says that he went to the attorney general, Bill Barr, and said that he felt that the president was effectively granting personal favors to autocrats in different countries. Not -- this wasn't about Ukraine specifically. Turkey, China. That's

what he was talking about. And he says that the attorney general was equally concerned and pointed to investigations that were going on with specific companies in foreign countries and saying he was worried that the president was exerting undue influence.

How come nobody had said anything at the time?

Let's bring in the A team to weigh in on this situation.

Andy McCabe, I'll start with you on this. They brought up Bolton. I didn't think they would. I'm trying to combine the idea of what he means in a case in terms of legalities and what he might or might not mean in this particular theater that we're in.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: Well, Chris, in any normal case to find out on the eve of the defense presenting their case that there is another witness, a direct witness, who heard statements from the subject of the case, subject of the investigation, making incriminating statements especially in a situation like this where you had so much criticism that there isn't direct evidence, which of course we know is not true.

But there's been so much criticism about the witnesses, it's all hearsay. Here you finally have a witness who is coming forth with direct information that is highly relevant to the one of the central allegations of this case. And the idea that that witness will not be heard from is ridiculous in the normal criminal case.

Now as you said, this is not a normal criminal case. It is politics, it is a trial in Senate. Not in federal court. And so where this plane lands I don't think anybody knows.

CUOMO: Asha, what's being argued by the defense team and echoed by many Republican senators is even if this all happened and Bolton heard what he heard and Trump did what they say he did, they're not crimes. It's not impeachable. Dershowitz obviously accented that most heavily today. Your take.

[00:05:01]

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: My take when I heard that, because it was appended on to the rest of his argument which is that any quid pro quo that's done with any kind of policy goal even if there's a personal benefit or there's some mixed motive, is not a crime. It's not impeachable. And my take away was then what is there to investigate with Joe Biden? Because he has the same defense.

I mean, he can claim the same thing. He was working on behalf of the Obama administration. So Dershowitz actually kind of undercut everything that the other lawyers had been saying earlier in the morning. I think he threw that out there because he kind of had to address, as you said, the elephant in the room. But it actually destroyed the rest of the case they were making about why the Bidens needed to be investigated. CUOMO: Jennifer, the defense -- we just talked about this before the

show started -- obviously you don't bring in fact witnesses who can't know anything about the facts that you're looking at a trial. But again not that kind of trial. They want to bring in the Bidens, we hear, because well, if we can show that there's stink on the Bidens then what the president did is OK because he believed there was stink on the Bidens. We just showed you the stink on the Bidens. So the way he did it is irrelevant.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. It makes no sense at all, right? Because the issue here is why the president asked for that investigation, really he asked for the announcement. Why did he do that? Because he genuinely thought it was good for the United States or because he wanted as a personal benefit, right? Well, what is Hunter Biden going talk about? He's going to talk about what he actually did in Burisma and how much he got paid, et cetera.

He doesn't know anything about what Trump was thinking or he doesn't know anything about what Trump was thinking other than what the rest of us was thinking from the evidence, right? But he doesn't have any special individual knowledge about that. So his testimony is entirely irrelevant here.

CUOMO: So, yes, but, if they wanted to and they vote for witnesses, and now there's going to be a process. Right? That process is entirely up to the senators, is it not? So, you know, Jennifer obviously making a very cogent argument, could be irrelevant. Right? Because the Republicans would say, no, (INAUDIBLE), stay a little more quiet if you're on the Republican side because that's not the way we're going. They can have whomever they want. It's more about number than any subjective qualification for the person who's called, right?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. And so a lot of what's going on even today is political theater. The lawyers are trying to engage in political talking points, trying to make political case for themselves, appeal to the base, make the president happy. As they're doing that, they're also trying to argue about the law. And as somebody who cares about the law my concern is the more they push their political case, the more of a mess they make about the law. And it may succeed politically, it may get the acquittal as are they will, but at the end of the day if that's what happens, the law appears to be torn in pieces at the end of the trial.

CUOMO: You think part of this analysis, it doesn't seem to be. But do you think the Democrats should be thinking about well, what happens if we do have witnesses? Do we change votes? What do we expose versus what we could do in the house and what happens if they get Joe Biden on the stand for four, six, eight hours, asking him about things, the chance of a mistake? The chance he says something is not true. Should that be part of the calculus?

GERHARDT: That is part of the calculus. Of course everybody is playing to different audiences. The Democrats are only -- or the House managers are really only playing to the senators to some extent. They're really making the most important case to the American people. And if and when Joe Biden appears, I'm not sure he will but if he shows up, he's going to understand that this is a political trial or theater for himself as well. It's not just what's happening in that room. It's how it's going to play with the American people. So Joe Biden is going to keep an eye on that as well.

CUOMO: All right, let's take a break. And when we come back let's discuss, well, where are we now? What difference has this made? Even the Bolton, even these big developments about what could be in his book, or should he just give an interview? Come on down, we've got plenty of time for you, Mr. Bolton. You could make your case right here whenever you want. Or can he? We'll answer these questions, next.

[00:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Now, you cannot forget the strategy component and the political component to all of this. The president's team knows that most of you aren't going watch this wall to wall. Maybe you will see some distance there for between the arguments. For example, the president's phone call with the Ukrainian leader. The White House counsel started with this on Saturday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: OK. But on Monday, former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT RAY, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Now I know that many of you may come to conclude or may have already concluded that the call was less than perfect. And I have said on any number of occasions previously and publicly that it would have been better in attempting to spur action by a foreign government and coordinating law enforcement efforts with our government to have done so through proper channels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, that is actually what Robert Ray thinks. He said it right on this show. But now what are they doing and what is the effect?

We've got a group to talk about this.

Andrew McCabe, we'll go around the horn again. What is that? Why isn't that just, you know, obviously inconsistent argument? What's the strategy behind it?

MCCABE: Well, it seems that Mr. Ray is the only who's willing to embrace the reality of what happened on that phone call. If you listen to the arguments today about -- particularly the arguments put forth by Pam Bondi about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and the -- you know, this pile of innuendo and suggestion that all sorts of corrupt things took place there.

[00:15:01]

If that were the case, if there was a single credible allegation of corrupt practices perpetuated by Hunter or Joe Biden, the proper place for those allegations would have been to the Department of Justice. It is not ever to go to direct to a foreign government especially one whose criminal justice is legendarily corrupt as Ukraine, and essentially heave the fortunes of a U.S. citizen into the jaws of that justice system.

We don't do that. We investigate our own people here. We have the laws and the agencies to do that. But the Trump administration took absolutely no effort in that direction. And I think that undermines their argument now that they were merely seeking some sort of coordination on corruption.

CUOMO: Asha, it's the something for everybody strategy that's going on here. Cipollone, nothing wrong, perfect. Robert Ray, it wasn't perfect. But even if he did all these things the wrong way, it's not impeachable because he didn't commit a big crime. And then you've got Bondi, and don't forget who the real criminals are, the Bidens. Something for everyone. Could be effective. Seems to be with the GOP.

RANGAPPA: Yes. You know, I do think that it's ironic that their argument is, you must stick to the evidentiary record that was created in the House and then a lot of what they put out there is not in the evidentiary record because they never brought any witnesses into the House. So there's some irony there.

I do think that a lot of this will come down to the questioning. And I think if the Democrats can be strategic in their questioning and not go down the rabbit hole of challenging the president's lawyers, but instead asking their own lawyers the assertions that were made by the defense, and let the House managers bring up the clips again, the video clips that will contradict everything that they put out, I think that could be very effective. But as Michael know, the Democrats aren't always great about being strategic in that way. And they -- I'm worried that they'll go down that rabbit hole.

CUOMO: But that's clever. And I'm actually surprised to hear it from you. You know why? Because you, Andrew, Jennifer, Michael, you know what the problem is with you guys? You're too smart. And you guys are so smart and the analysis is so sophisticated, and that's why I love you and I need you on the show.

But, Jennifer, here's my point. They're like creating this argument for senators who are, A, desperate to get out of this situation. OK. They couldn't be more I don't care which way it comes out, they all care which way it comes out. And secondarily their audience is people who will never absorb it in this kind of granular way because they don't care. And they won't get the concepts because they're complicated. So the whole, you know, is inconsistent as, you know, contemptible it

is for people who have done real legal argument. He did nothing wrong, and if he did, it doesn't matter because he certainly didn't commit a crime. And by the way, if you want to talk about bad people and crime, look at these guys. Wouldn't fly where you are. Could be perfect for you.

RODGERS: Yes, and that's why it's all really about the sound bites. I mean, these Republican senators need to have something to say. They need to have a reason to give.

CUOMO: And they have been echoing it. To your point.

RODGERS: For why they acquit the president. And that's why this whole Bolton thing threw them all for a loop because, you know, all of a sudden somebody's talking points were called into question. And so they need to get comfortable again with those talking points and that's why, you know, it's a shame that the House managers won't get a rebuttal period because that's where you would stand up and be like, this argument, no, wrong. This one wrong, this one wrong. And go through them systemically and quickly, and point all of that out.

And instead we're going to have these questions and, you know, I hope that Asha is right that the House managers will use that time properly but there's no immediate follow-up. They go to the judge and the judge -- I mean, it's going to be very awkward and it's not going to work very well in terms of kind of getting those rebuttal points in.

CUOMO: Right.

RODGERS: So I worry that, you know, these talking points Republican senators are getting, they're going to stick.

CUOMO: Andrew, how effective you think you can be in this questioning period of senators' questions in terms of vetting the argument?

MCCABE: You know, I think the questions have to be very specific. I mean, hopefully they will reference actual theories or actual statements by presenters on the defense team. So you could imagine a Democratic senator saying, I'd like the House managers to address the claim from Miss Bondi that Hunter Biden supposedly took whatever action.

CUOMO: Right.

MCCABE: And that would essentially tee up the House managers to kind of focus on that theory or that innuendo that they want to -- that they want to kind of cut off. So hopefully we'll get specific questions like that, that are directed to theories or statements of some of the defense presenters. But again, it's a really shaky process. It's kind of hard to imagine how this thing is going to go forward.

CUOMO: My immediate thing, Professor, was to ask you about would you just stick to the obvious?

[00:20:03]

The defenders have been somewhat helpful in terms of cross-questioning by saying things that aren't true. You know, whether it's they didn't ask Bolton to come in, you know, or they could have had all these people if they want them. Things like that. That was my instinct. But is there a risk in that as well that nobody is here vetting this on the facts? The Republicans who don't want to vote, and I'm not trying to be cynical, but those who feel we don't need witnesses, this is done. It's not because they believe everything the president is saying. They just think it doesn't amount to what it needs to.

GERHARDT: Well, I think what you're going to see, and we're already seeing it, is that two completely different narratives. It's almost like two ships passing in the night. So for the House managers it's the evidence they presented and they'll largely stick with that because that's the factual record and that helps -- it's good for them. That's their case. For the president's lawyers, facts don't matter. They have an entirely different narrative. And you're hearing it. It's their political talking points, and they'll keep pushing it.

It could be there are a few things the president has done or the White House lawyers have done, which opened doors for the House managers. And you'll see them try and go through those doors, but they're not going to waste a lot of time nitpicking the White House arguments because it's simply going into the weeds and losing your audience. And their audience again is the American people.

The White House's audience are the base and those senators. And so that's what each argument is being tailored for different audiences.

CUOMO: We'll see, and I want talk to you guys a little bit about this more. But I think that I bet you it will come out, you know, Asha, today the best, the most compelling for them was Ray. Because Ray gave them a little space to not say it was not perfect but give them room to say but here's why it's not enough. We'll see.

Anyway. thank you all very much. Thank you for being a gift to the audience and helping us understand what matters so, so much.

More ahead on impeachment, of course. But first, it's been 24 hours and look, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what took the life of these nine people in this helicopter. And of course you know the face on your screen, Kobe Bryant. The incredible layered loss of him, also losing his young daughter. And these other eight people lost their lives. Why did this happen? And why has this taken the world the way it has?

We have someone here to help us shine a light on why this NBA superstar is so much more than just that, a friend, a teammate, who loved him, next.

[00:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: It's hard not to be thinking about Kobe Bryant and hopefully all the victims of Sunday's helicopter crash. It's going all over the world. The Empire State Building here in New York lit up in Lakers colors. Philippines, you see the shrine being created in Manila. Friends, coaches, players, fans, mourning the death of the Black Mamba.

And for all the danger that that suggested about him on the court, it was the love that he gave off of it. The sincerity, the intelligence and the drive. That is what's really resonating with somebody who is bigger than the game.

Now, Caron Butler, all right, was not only a teammate. But he was a friend, he was a father raising kids with Kobe, a brother, and a mentor. This is why he says Kobe must be remembered.

Caron Butler, thank you so much and I am very sorry to meet you under these circumstances.

CARON BUTLER, RETIRED NBA PLAYER: Yes. It's tough. Just been sitting at home this entire day surrounded by loved ones and positive energy. And just, you know, reminiscing and sharing stories about, you know, my brother and his beautiful daughter.

CUOMO: Is it helping you to talk about it, to tell people who he was and help really cement the legacy of the man who you knew, let alone the ballplayer?

BUTLER: Yes. I think it has helped a lot. You know, I have been crying, I have been emotional, I've been high, I've been low. Somewhere in between. My grandmother, a strong woman of faith, she told me don't ever question the Lord's will and ask why. And in the beginning I was asking why. I was asking that question. But, you know, now I'm just, you know, trying to find some resolve in the situation. And, you know, just tell everyone to pray for the Bryant family and the family of, you know, so many more that lost loved ones in this devastating tragedy.

CUOMO: Yes. This is I guess we put something like this under the category of the mystery of faith. You know, we don't know why stuff like this happens and you just have to trust that there's some meaning somewhere. But the man, the father, the friend that you knew, when did you meet him?

BUTLER: Yes. I first met Kobe when I was playing the game of basketball that I love. And I remember in one of the off-seasons after my rookie season, I came to Los Angeles and he was training. He was always at, you know, the UCLA facilities and at the boys and girls club. And I -- you know, just admired him and I wanted to see his workout, his legendary blackout sessions. What he was known for. And I just wanted to understand the method to the madness and the secret recipe. And he gave me all the ingredients.

He showed me in real time. And not long after that I was eventually traded and he became my teammate and ultimately my big brother and my mentor, and, you know,

[00:30:00] someone that I can lean upon, you know, and any time.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: What was the depth of what he was willing to share and what he meant to you man to man?

BUTLER: He was -- he was everything honestly. I'd take numbers and accolades aside, you know, he was just an unbelievable human being. And I think a lot of that get lost in the story telling when you're talking about Kobe. And he was an unbelievable husband. He was an unbelievable father. He was an unbelievable, you know, confidant. You know, someone that you can just rely upon. He was a guy that elevated the people around him and believed in the people around him.

He was a visionary. You know, he saw things before it happened. And I'll never forget our conversation that we had in Sacramento during his farewell tour where he was talking about all the things that has come into fruition. You know, writing books and being a best seller. One day holding up an Oscar trophy. He accomplished those things and creating content and giving a platform to his beautiful daughter, Gigi, and the creating the Mamba Academy and so many more. And inspiring lives. And that's exactly what he was doing. And his work will continue.

CUOMO: Love these kids. They're young. Some of them very young. Gigi was the one who had taken at this point most to basketball. What was that bond like? And what was it like for him and for her to try and like bring her down the path of basketball?

BUTLER: It was precious to watch. You know, and it was special. I'm a father of four girls myself. And we are always communicated or text we were talking about that. I have a daughter as well that loves the game of basketball and all she was talking about is, you know, going to the next level one day and playing in high school and he was talking about the importance of fundamentals and spending that time with his daughter Gigi, and just elevating her and making her understand that you've got to put in all that hard work and that sweat equity in.

He was with her all the time. That's what brought him back around the game of basketball because of her passion. He began to love the game again like he always have and he started coming around the game more and he was coming to the courtside games to, you know, critique and game and study the game with her.

CUOMO: So much for him, it was about her, though, and that's the beautiful part about it. When you think about, as you're starting to come to grips with what you've lost, what is the hardest part for you in this emotionally?

BUTLER: It's -- like you can't even put it into words. You really can't. Like I lost a big brother. I lost a friend. I lost someone that was always an asset to my life. Far away from the game of basketball. And when I arrived in Los Angeles many years ago, you know, back in 2004, he told me that we're going to be friends long after basketball and we shared a lot of things in common. And he was always just someone that I could rely upon. You know, he made time even when he didn't have time. And that's a

true testament to, you know, who Kobe Bryant was. And you see the outpour of love all around the world. Globally. Not just in professional sports. But people in all walks of life just talking about what a great person and individual he was. And that's what he stood for. And that's ultimately his legacy and his legacy will continue through all the loved ones and everybody that was inspired by his hard work.

CUOMO: Now, this may be a little tricky for you but I've read that he didn't have a lot of basketball buddies. Some people say it was because he was so intellectual and so intense. But you were one of them. What made you special to Kobe?

BUTLER: We just had an honest rapport. We had an honest relationship. I've never been an individual to judge anyone by a conversation that I have with someone else. You know, I always want to see for myself. You know, the narrative was created about me long before, you know, I came on that platform. You know, my adversity that I went through in my life. So I've never fell victim to that phrase of just judging someone from reputation.

And when I immediately arrived to Los Angeles, I just wanted to pick his brain. I played for the legendary Pat Riley and he was telling me these things, these conversations about how to prepare for the game of basketball. And then fast forward I come to Los Angeles, and I'm playing with arguably the greatest player ever to play the game of basketball in real time. You know, watching this preparation. I'm seeing how he's preparing for these big moments that look like routine shots.

[00:35:03]

And I'm just like, man, this dude is on the next level. And I just embraced him and he embraced me because I've never shied away from workouts, I've never shied away from being educated or being told the hard, hardest truth. And that's how we just -- you know, we just jammed immediately.

CUOMO: So what are you telling yourself? How do you make this OK?

BUTLER: It will never be OK. But I think in order to move forward, I have to get out my own way. You know, my emotions, my feelings. Like I said, I have some highs, I have some lows. I surrounded myself with a lot of loved ones and now I'm just thinking about his family.

CUOMO: How to help them.

BUTLER: Thinking about Vanessa. I'm thinking about his kids. Yes, how to help them. You know, and how to be strong for them. And, you know, I don't want to talk about basketball.

CUOMO: Right.

BUTLER: I just want to talk about what a great human being he was. And that's what we continue to do. You know, all the stories that we're sharing at the round table with my loved ones, we just, you know, talking about the moments that we went up and he has Sesame Street at his home and all our kids enjoyed the moment. And just stuff like that. So we just shared the stories and just trying to get through this window of hard time. But forever going forward it's going to be hard for the Bryant family but, you know, we have to be there for them. All of us.

CUOMO: That's what friendship is about. What do you think he'd tell you to do?

BUTLER: Yes. Keep going, CB. Keep going. That was always his advice. He told me to stay goal oriented. I recall when I felt like I was feeling myself at one point in my career and I had a major accomplishment, an individual accomplishment, and I was just happy. And I kind of, you know, rested there. And he was like, now what? You know, like, what are you going to do now, like what's next? Like -- and then when you do that, what's next after that?

So now, that we dealt with something so devastating and the love and the support is there, and it's real and we see how much his legacy meant to the world, globally, not just sports, now what? Now what do you do? Like, what do we have to do together, collectively, to comfort his family and be there for them? And I think that's what's next.

CUOMO: Caron, I am so sorry for your loss. I hope that the friendship and the lessons and the stories stay with you. He was so young. You're so young. You have so much life in front of you. And I hope it helps. I hope it helps on some level for you to achieve what's next as your friend would have wanted you to do. God bless to you, his family, and your own.

BUTLER: Thank you. Appreciate it.

CUOMO: You've got to feel for everybody who's lost. There's never anything right to stay in these situations. I'm sure many of you have suffered loss yourself. I know I have. You almost feel for the people who were trying to make you feel better because there's nothing to say.

But we shouldn't forget who else was lost here. Kobe Bryant, his young daughter, Gianna, Gigi he called, but he's got three other girls. One of them was just a toddler. Think about the challenge of reminding that child who her father was. Of course there's the -- she won't have the memories the same way. And that adds to the tragedy for the mother and for the other kids.

Ara Zobayan was the pilot who's so well trained. He was a certified instructor and was instrument trained. We still don't understand this but he's gone.

The Altobellis, a family traveling to play. Keri, Alyssa, John. They leave a son and a daughter. Now they lost their mother and their father. Imagine that challenge for young kids.

Sarah Chester, Payton Chester, mother and daughter. They played on the team, too. They were -- she was a ballplayer. And now they're gone. Think about the rest of their family.

Christina Mauser, assistant girls basketball coach. Also an assistant coach on Gianna Bryant's Mamba team. She has a husband, she has three kids.

And, you know, when we get caught in these situations the reason it's important to remember, of course Kobe loomed large. He's bigger than the game, he was just coming into his full. He was only 41 years old. And his family just broken in a way that is hard to repair. And so many families were broken. And it has to give the rest of us a little bit of perspective about appreciating what we have because you just never know.

No matter how lucky you have it, no matter how good it is, how quickly it can be gone. And now we're searching for answers. Some that we can't have, some that hopefully we will. The NTSB says it's going to spend days at that crash site. I don't know if you've looked at the flight path. But there are a lot of weird things going on. I'm not speculating. I'm trying to paint anything as wrongdoing, but we have answers to get about why this happened. There are too many who have been affected not to.

Now, ahead, you're going to hear the account of a witness and a leading aviation expert. So much loss we have to do what we can to understand how this happened. We'll do that next.

[00:40:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So what happened on this helicopter flight that killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter and all these other good people? The NTSB is investigating, helping to try to piece everything together. We're using witnesses as well. Listen to one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What did impact of the helicopter sound like to you?

SCOTT DAEHLIN, WITNESS: It was not very loud. You could hear -- you could hear the crashing and collapsing of fiber glass, the flexi glass. I did note -- the thing that stuck in my mind is when it impacted, the rotors stopped literally immediately. There was no secondary. The rotors weren't like breaking off and hearing things fly off. It just all stopped.

The clouds were low enough that the helicopter went in basically right at the cloud line. He must have just come out of it but he flew straight -- probably straight into the hill. I didn't hear any malfunctions on the aircraft. He had power and it sounded like he was in control because it was in a slow -- it's hard to control a helicopter when you're in a hover that are slow. You've got to have command of the aircraft. So I think he just was disoriented. He did not know where he was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, CNN safety analyst David Soucie is an accident investigator.

From what you understand at this point, how did this make sense to you?

[00:45:03]

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: It really doesn't yet, Chris. There are still so many questions that I have about it. If you look at flight path and then listen to this witness, they're just contradictory. Everything about it is contradictory. This helicopter is well equipped. The pilot was extremely experienced. And there was really nothing wrong with what was going on at the time.

People are speculating that he was in the clouds. He couldn't see what was going on. It's just too early to see that. If you look at the flight path of the aircraft, that doesn't make sense. He climbs very steeply towards the end and then he falls very steeply towards the end of that. That isn't the way you react in a cloud situation or a low visibility situation. It just doesn't make sense to me that that would be the cause here, Chris.

CUOMO: Now he was instrument rated. So he didn't have to just use what you call VFR, Visual Flight Rules. Why would he have been asking to do so? Why would he have been flying so low, instead of higher where you could just depend on the instruments?

SOUCIE: Well, it's -- what he was flying under, Chris, is actually special VFR. And what special VFR means is that he's below 1,000 feet. And you have to request that to the tower because you said that well, the surface of the cloud ceiling has reduced or limited itself down. With IFR, you really want to call an IFR before you even take off and make that plan. In this case it was VFR. He felt that he had enough visibility.

And when he got the special VFR clearance from the tower, he went down below that 1,000-foot mark so that he could get below the clouds and see where it was that he was going.

CUOMO: When you see all the circling and then him taking this path far away from where he was intended to go, what does that suggest?

SOUCIE: Well, the circling that you, you know, earlier on in the flight, what that is typically in the area, you would hold in that area to make sure that you're clearing or you could be holding for -- waiting for the clouds to come up or down. But that circling is not the sign of disorientation because if you notice the circling was in one spot. It was very clear that he knew where he was. It's not going 200 yards one way or 200 years the other.

It's actually staying in that same area. Then when he breaks off and goes up the side he could have been holding for traffic, he could have been holding for visual or again waiting for those clouds to rise before he asked for that special VFR clearance. CUOMO: Obviously so many families ruined by this. We'll need more

answers hopefully it comes. We know there's not a black box involved. Hopefully the tower or the investigators can let us know more. When we do, I'll come to you, David.

David Soucie, thank you very much.

All right, the impeachment trial. Obviously it's a major focus. It must go into next week if there are going to be witnesses. If there aren't, could be shorter. Could end this week. And then lead right into the Iowa caucuses.

How big a deal are the Iowa caucuses in the scope of this trial? And how will it affect them? The political picture next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:52:13]

CUOMO: Here's one potential reason why you heard about the Bidens today in the impeachment trial. It comes from Republican Senator Joni Ernst.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters. Those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Ron Brownstein is here. What's your answer to the question?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, talking about saying the quiet part out loud, right, for Senator Ernst there.

Look, I was just in Iowa. I mean, you do meet some Democratic voters who worry that all of this smoke around Hunter Biden could create problems for Joe Biden as a general election nominee against Donald Trump. But that is not the dominant reaction. The dominant reaction I think amongst most Democratic voters is that this show that Republicans are most concerned about Joe Biden as a possible opponent.

And, you know, whatever else is going on with Biden in the polls, whether he's up or down in individual state, he has generally maintained a consistent lead over the other Democrats when they are -- when voters are asked which one of the potential nominees you think would have the best chance against Trump. And in fact, in the polling in states -- in most states and in the national polling, the ABC- "Washington Post" that just came out, Biden does run better usually against Trump than any of the other Democrats.

CUOMO: What's going to matter on the ground where you just were in Iowa? BROWNSTEIN: Well, and you know, look. You know, the question really, I

think, as is often the case is turnout. You know, 2008, we had the biggest turnout ever in the Iowa caucus. Up to 240,000, double what it had been before. In 2016, it kind of rolled back to about 170. Biden is competitive at a lower turnout. I think even his campaign believes that if it gets realty big, they kind of run out of voters.

And then to me, the core question is, if it gets really big, where does it get really big? If it's primarily young people in the college towns at, you know, Iowa State and University of Iowa, that obviously benefits Bernie Sanders. But there's another possibility which is a lot of those suburban, white-collar voters, especially women who crossed over, might even Republican leaning before voting Democratic in 2018. If a lot of them show up and they're kind of the principal driver of increased turnout, I think that could benefit Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren who are primarily the college -- the candidate of those college educated white-collar voters in Iowa.

CUOMO: How big a deal is it to lose these two weeks or maybe more for these senators?

BROWNSTEIN: It doesn't help. I mean, you know, but I think the cake is pretty well baked in Iowa. I mean, you all have gotten a lot of chance to look at the candidates. I know, you know, the famous -- the joke about people saying, well, I've only met them all twice, how can I decide?

[00:55:02]

But I think people have really had their chance to look at these candidates. And it's a tactical disadvantage, but I think, you know, the people have had a chance to evaluate these candidates, and I don't think it's that big a demerit for those who have to stay in Washington.

CUOMO: What's the chance of a shocker in Iowa?

BROWNSTEIN: Always. Always. A caucus is a weird beast. You know, Chris, I mean, you know, it's not a primary. There is the whole reallocation question of candidates who don't reach that 15 percent threshold. Literally get up and go stand with others. And so who doesn't reach threshold? If Amy Klobuchar doesn't reach threshold in some places, that's probably going to be benefit Biden. You can imagine that happening.

And the bigger question for me is what is the impact of Iowa on what comes next? I mean, the last four Iowa winners have won the Democratic nomination, even when New Hampshire has gone another way. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think it's largely a function of the way the modern media has gotten. You know, there's so much media now that there's enormous value in dropping that first rock into the pond and all the ripples that flow.

But each of those previous four Iowa winners who got the nomination, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton, subsequently ran very well with African-American voters. It's entire possible that the Iowa, whether Sanders, Warren, or Buttigieg, you know, will face an uphill climb with African-American voters. So it would have kind of a new situation that we haven't seen at least in this century.

CUOMO: That is such a key insight. It's not just the result, it's how that result plays in the media, who they talk about more. More importantly, who they talk about less.

Thank you very much, Ron Brownstein. Appreciate it.

All right, the rest of you, keep it here for special coverage of the Trump impeachment trial. More highlights from the defense arguments. Day two, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)