Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Senators to Resume Questioning House Managers, Interview with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on Impeachment Trial. Aired 12:30-1a ET

Aired January 30, 2020 - 00:30   ET

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


[00:30:00]

CASEY: Most America is probably -- more than two-thirds and maybe three-quarters want witnesses.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Casey, after yet another long day, thank you for joining us to help the audience understand where we are.

CASEY: Chris, thanks very much.

CUOMO: I appreciate them. After long days like this. And helping us.

Professor, help me with something as a cure to cynicism. Casey, Merkley, who we'll hear from later, Senator Jeff Merkley, Joe Manchin. When I asked them so which part of this argument from the president do you accept, how can you -- they all say well, I haven't decided yet, I haven't decided yet. Is that the right thing to say? Or do you believe that they can be open on wrong or not wrong?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's in all likelihood the right thing to say because what they're trying to do is what they -- what they're saying, which is, look, I may be leaning one way or another but I'm trying to listen to everything that's coming in and there's really no point in saying I'm leaning one way or another. I think everybody understands that.

CUOMO: Unless you're McConnell, who said it out loud, and then took an oath saying the opposite.

GERHARDT: Well, and he knew nothing bad would happen to him.

CUOMO: Right.

GERHARDT: By saying that. In fact, at the meeting, ingratiated himself for the president even more. But Senator Casey doesn't have to do that. He's obviously just trying to do his job and say listen, I'm listening. Some things matter more to me than others. Some are more persuasive than others. And that's -- so he's been honest, I think.

CUOMO: Now, Andy and I have talked about this a lot. So let me give you a rip on this, which is the idea of this is wrong or not. With Andy's, you know, help very early on. You know, it's wrong in terms of how he did this and why he did this. But removal is different. The consequence is different. Do you believe there are good faith arguments to be made that yes, it was wrong, he shouldn't have done this this way, but it's not worthy of removal? First-term president, election around the corner.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's the only good faith argument which is wrong but not impeachable. But that's not what we really heard today. I think what we saw today was the bar being was lowered to just an inch below Trump's soles of his shoes. Right? And we saw, right, today? I mean, and everyone is now embracing the Dershowitz theory, which is, he can essentially do whatever he wants as long as he thinks it will help his election which is good for the country.

But, I mean, that is a -- that is an impossible standard. That standard would clear any kind of conduct of any degree of wrongness. And the fact that it got so much traction to me, even Democrats are trying to argue the Dershowitz standard, I thought was really a problem. And I think tomorrow the Democrats need to bring this back to a straight sense of what's right and wrong.

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: And can I jump in on the removal piece? The reason that removal is really the only remedy in this case is because specifically what he is being charged with is cheating in the election. The only other remedy that's available is remove him through the election. And now we have a legal theory that the president can do anything to help himself in the election including potentially violate the law. So that is not a trustworthy mechanism that you can rely on and therefore removal is the only way to prevent the danger.

GERHARDT: For an administration that claims to follow the original meaning and the text of the Constitution very closely, they disregard both. They read exceptions within the Constitution, oh, there's an election issue so therefore that's an exception to the impeachment process? That's new to me and new to any scholar.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: So I'll take the opposite point just for fun. So to me right and wrong is a question of fact. Do we have the facts to indicate that the president was extorting a foreign government for his own personal political benefit? The question of whether or not he did that we can I guess some folks will disagree I feel the evidence is clearly sufficient to prove that.

The question of removal is one of degree. It's kind of a gray area where you have to then balance the question of should -- is it right for us to interpose the Senate's judgment certainly in an election year when people are thinking about the next election and the American people will get that opportunity to vote and weigh in with their own democratic judgment in the process. So I see the two being a little bit different. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that says he didn't do this or that it was right, but whether or not you think it justifies removal, I can see how that -- people see that differently.

CUOMO: And it is sad that that's not the debate that they're having.

MCCABE: That's right.

CUOMO: That would have been a debate that I think almost all of you would have gotten behind. This is wrong. He shouldn't have done it. The motives are wrong. There were other ways to do it. Why didn't he do it that way? But now what the consequence should be? But that's not the debate we're having.

Let's take a break. Panel is going to stay. Here's a tease for you. Asha Rangappa caught Professor Dershowitz doing something today in terms of she's like what? When he was talking about Maxine Waters and what she argued. He left something out that is really important. We'll give it to you next.

[00:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. We're now just hours away from day two and in all likelihood the final day of questioning of the Donald J. Trump impeachment trial. So, where are Democrats on the arguments? And better yet the conclusion?

Let's take that question to Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley.

CUOMO: Senator, thank you for joining us tonight.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): You're welcome. Good to be with you.

CUOMO: So first, help me understand the process, Senator. I expected this to be people like you testing the other side with questions through the chief justice. There was some of that. But comparatively very little. It was mostly senators from each party sending in questions to kind of boost the arguments of their own side. Do I have it right?

MERKLEY: Yes, you're absolutely right. And the reason for that is that we know when we ask a question of in this case the president's team, that they're going to ignore our question. And we have -- and they just want to use that time to say what they want. And we have no ability to follow up. So there's no way to compel them to actually answer the question.

CUOMO: The idea that as long as a president thinks what he's doing is in the public interest, it can't be wrong.

[00:40:05]

I mean, it really smacks so familiar of Nixon's notorious statement, when a president does it it's not illegal.

MERKLEY: You're absolutely right. What we heard was kind of the divine right of presidents, that if a president says, oh, if I'm going to cheat on my next election, it's OK if I think it's in the national interest for me to get reelected. This theory just is absolutely incredible to hear coming out of team of lawyers because we operate under the rule of law. We operate under a position of accountability to that rule.

And that's what impeachment is all about. And just makes you wonder they realize their own case is so weak that they have to argue that committing a crime isn't a crime, or committing an offense, an abuse of power, a major abuse of power doesn't matter if a president thinks it doesn't matter.

CUOMO: All right. So then help me understand this. So you have Bolton comes out, says, yes, I'll testify and I should because he told me directly that he was holding up the aid until he got the investigation into the Bidens. President says that's a lie. But Bolton says he told him that at the time. Conversely the president said he never said anything. And we know that he went to the lawyers about it and told others, too.

And yet it seems that the more pressure that there seems to be for witnesses the more the votes are falling away since Bolton first came out a couple of days ago. Do you see that also and how do you explain it?

MERKLEY: Well, what I see is an administration that is terrified of witnesses and documents. Bolton knows so much about the other players. What Pompeo did, what Giuliani did, what Mulvaney did. And so to let a witness expose all of these conversations about what is essentially a dramatic abuse of power, to use the power of the state to compel and force another country to intervene to smear your opponent. To -- if you will -- cheat on the next election.

So they are applying such pressure to avoid this. And a piece I explored tonight that I asked about the situation with the manuscript. When did the president's lawyers know about the manuscript? They didn't answer the question. They kind of -- they dodged around it. And they said last Sunday the team was notified. But they didn't answer my question of when did the first person on the team actually know about it. And this suspicion they've known for weeks and haven't been sharing that with the world.

And then the question of the classification of the manuscript. The president's team is saying you can't use this because it's classified. And Bolton says there's nothing in there that's classified. So I asked, well, were professionals involved? Or were political involved basically to protect the president? And they said we don't know.

CUOMO: What percentage of the president's case do you accept as true?

MERKLEY: What part of his case do I accept as true? Of the president's case? Boy, I'm working on that. I listened to the president's lawyers and they argued it's OK for the president to do what he did even if you think he absolutely did this corrupt act. I can't accept that. And I must say Dershowitz, he proceeded to go into strange land. He proceeded to say all of you should vote differently than what you actually believe in order for national unity.

Instead an impeachment trial should never be held when there's division in the country, which is absurd. He said, the House shouldn't push it forward if the Senate is divided. And clearly, they have a responsibility under the Constitution and so does the Senate. Just because the Senate majority leader said he's going to work hand in glove with the president shouldn't mean there's no use or exercise of the impeachment tool when there's abuse of power. So I didn't find a lot in the president's case that resonated for me.

CUOMO: So it seems that thus far you accept none of his case.

MERKLEY: I -- I'm finding as we're coming to the end of this that I -- that the evidence is quite strong for what the president did. It is our responsibility to not only ask what did he do but does it rise to the level of expelling the president from office. And here the defense has some things to consider. They're saying, well, how far away is the election? It's too close. That's something to consider. Are we too close to the election?

The House managers are saying but you're protecting. You have to act to protect the next election. Well, how do you weigh those two things against each other? So I haven't reached a conclusion about where to come down. Bu tin terms of the facts of what the president did, that seems pretty well laid out.

[00:45:09]

CUOMO: What he did has always been clear. What the consequence is, is the question for you to debate.

Senator, thank you so much for taking us through the process itself and your process as well.

MERKLEY: You bet. Good to be with you. Take care now.

CUOMO: Now if you accept that proposition, that this is arguably wrong, what the president did. strongly so, but is it worthy of removal? You have to ask yourself, why have we never heard that argument from the president's defenders? There are good and bad reasons to that. And we will discuss them for the better minds when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Three key questions from today. If you have multiple motives and one is abuse of your power, can it still be OK?

[00:50:01]

Now this one matters because it was asked by the three Republicans who may be most open to calling witnesses. Number two, included Romney, again was one of those three, probing for specifics on when and why the aid was held up. The lack of an answer was noticed to this point and it was followed up on later. Finally, another one from a suspected swing Republican, Susan Collins. Why not include bribery? Wire fraud? When the initial answer didn't seem to deliver, Schiff took time at a later question and made the case that abuse of power is somehow worse than bribery.

Now, the biggest missed question in my estimation was the one we're going to start with here. Why not admit the obvious? He did something wrong. He did it the wrong way. But it's not worthy of removable, not in these circumstances.

I'm back with the best team to break it down.

So, Andrew, we were talking about this. It was wrong, he shouldn't have double it this way, but you can't remove him right now. There's an election around the corner. It's not bigger enough. It's too high a bar. Let the people decide. They didn't even argue it. Why?

MCCABE: It's a compelling argument and I think it was really profound that you never heard it today despite the range of arguments you heard thrown out there by the defense, you never heard that one. It's hard to say exactly why. My best guess is that their client, the president, does not want that argument put out there.

You know, this is guy who has said from the beginning that it was a perfect phone call. That he never did anything wrong. I don't believe the president will ever accept one of his men, one of the Republican senators standing up there in the well of the Senate and saying he did something wrong.

CUOMO: Is it just empty speculation by McCabe? Nope. Because as Elie Honig pointed out, somebody did make the argument yesterday that, listen, it wasn't a perfect call. But who was that person and where are they now?

HONIG: Well, it was Robert Ray who said yes, this wasn't all done correctly but it's not impeachable. And I didn't see him today, I don't think. So I don't know what happened. We can speculate. And look, a normal legal strategy here is you give as much as you can give. Right? And defendants often say, OK, I'll admit this much but not the ultimate conclusion which is a smart strategy. But you have a very difficult client here, as Andrew has said. And he will not give an inch on any of this. It's going to put the senators in a more difficult position but it's what the client wants.

CUOMO: Collins didn't like the answer. Look, judging by her face and what supposedly she said afterwards as to why bribery or some other crime wasn't named. Significance.

RANGAPPA: Well, I think that this is going to be a point where people could get hung up on it. Bribery is clearly delineated in the Constitution. It is clearly a crime and, you know, that could be an easy way out. I think you mentioned before that abuse of power seems kind of loosey-goosey. What is it really? And the defense team has kind of done a big Jedi mind trick around that.

The facts of bribery are alleged in the article but nobody is really reading the article and, you know, I think it could have been a tactical mistake to not separate that out.

CUOMO: What's your take on the questions we picked and what you picked up on otherwise?

GERHARDT: I think you identified some good questions. I think the question, it is a real shame and a terrible mistake that the House managers not to be able to answer that question about why not bribery? Why not wire fraud? As Asha points out, it's there in the fact -- it's there in the articles. That's one obvious thing to say. You know, if you read the articles and I can read it to you, they're here.

That's one way to deal with it. Another way to deal with it, more quickly than they did today is to point out abuse of power is the worst thing a president can ever do. That is the worst thing they can ever do. And then really, again, emphasize the point there is no other remedy for this but impeachment. That's it. Impeachment is the only way to deal with it and this guy won't even say he's wrong. He's never going to say he's wrong. And in fact, he'll repeat it. He'll do it again and he'll corrupt our entire government by doing it.

CUOMO: That's the argument for the acceleration of the process is we have to do something now because he'll do this to hurt the election. I don't know -- I've never seen the American people on that. I've seen the American people on do we want witnesses, and now it's almost 50 percent of Republicans and 75 percent overall, but of course the 50 percent of Republicans would be the Bidens, that they want to see them as witnesses. Maybe not these other ones.

Multiple motives. If we didn't enumerate the charge to people's satisfaction is the burden for the Democrats in this, the House managers, the multiple motives thing has to be the problem on the president's side. I mean, you know, we don't have a lot of access to it but every piece of reporting I've picked up is, really? You can have two pieces of motive before and one of them could be totally horrible and it's still OK? How do they finesse that?

MCCABE: Well, I think the way that this concept of multiple motives actually works for the defense team is that it creates kind of more gray area, less black and white in the minds of those jurors of the Senate. So in other words, they've basically said, look, if you think there is indicators that his motives were good and legitimate.

[00:55:04]

He was actually following through on corruption issues with Ukraine and he may have also had motives to benefit his own political fortunes, you can't separate those things out. If there is a possibility that he had good motive, then you have to let him off the hook.

CUOMO: That's why, Elie, I think you're exactly right, as usual. But that's why Dershowitz argued, here's the hypothetical. Assume the president weren't running again and he found out that the Bidens had done these things. He said oh, my goodness, this man may be president. I have to do something to make sure it's OK. You've made that the hypothetical because it takes Trump's own political fortune out of it, and they don't have any proof that Trump did this for any reason except his own benefit. He never talked about corruption before. He never even talked about the Bidens before.

HONIG: So, first of all, that's a question I want asked tomorrow. To Trump's defenders.

CUOMO: Writing it down.

HONIG: OK. Write this down. Name one case other than Biden and the DNC that Donald Trump has ever exhibited an interest in. One case. There will be nothing. They've asked Donald Trump that, he said I'll have to look. That was like three months ago. I guess he's still looking. But the mixed motives question is important. In criminal law, if someone does something and they have a criminal motive and a noncriminal motive, it is criminal.

CUOMO: Right.

HONIG: Obviously, it has to be. Right? And all Dershowitz did in this hypothetical was take out the bad part, leave the rest, and say see, if you take out the bad part, it's fine.

CUOMO: Got you. Thank you so much for tonight. Thank you for helping the audience understand the questions and where we will go tomorrow.

Thank you for watching our special coverage of the Trump impeachment trial. We're going to have more news coverage ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)