Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Senator Alexander A "No" On Witnesses, Senator Collins A "Yes"; Dershowitz Defends Controversial Impeachment Argument; Crucial Vote On Witnesses Expected In Hours; Senator On Shaky Ground Heading Into Impeachment Vote; Crucial Vote On Witnesses Expected In Hours. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired January 31, 2020 - 01:00   ET

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

[01:00:54]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Chris Cuomo, you're watching special coverage of the Trump impeachment trial that will resume at 1:00 pm Eastern. But it is in a very different place, we do not have the question marks that we've had after every after night.

We know that Senator Lamar Alexander, who was going to be a key potential swing vote says there is no need for witnesses. Susan Collins remain says, she's a yes. Does that help her politically, we'll talk about it.

The only hope now is that Senator Murkowski, Republican, is also a yes. Then you have a 50/50 tie. That means that Democrats have to hope that Chief Justice Roberts would break the tie.

Now, the rules do not give him the ability to vote, so does that mean -- doesn't say he can't vote either, it's not the way this usually works. Even if it did, you then have a Senate with the ability to overrule the chief justice with a simple majority vote. And likely, this would either be a circle which doesn't make any sense, or we'd end up exactly where we are now which is the party with the most votes wins.

So let's take through the lens of what happens tomorrow, and what it means even beyond that, great people for exactly that. First, tomorrow, all likelihood, OK, they will make an argument to the chief. You know, nudge-nudge, wink-wink. He doesn't bite because there is no express power as I understand the professor, that he can and he will not read an inherent power in it.

Ellie's earlier argument is the VP usually has that power with a normal Senate, and he is a substitute for him, the counter is, you're very handsome.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

CUOMO: However, that this is not normal Senate course. It is transformed into a different kind of tribunal and the chief justice is not the VP. MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Correct, that's right. I think that's a fair reading. With all due respect to Ellie's point, the vice president, because he's not a member of the Senate, needs the constitution expressly to give him the authority to cast that tie breaking vote.

The chief justice doesn't have any analogue. There's no other -- the rules don't give it to him, the constitution doesn't give it to him. And I think he's going to be reluctant to become a major player in this controversy.

HONIG: The Senate has its own set of rules, right? Those 27 rules are kind of archaic and ceremonial. And they do say that the chief justice presiding officer can decide issues of evidence. So if I'm in Adam Schiff's shoes, I am arguing, great, we're coming to you on the ultimate issue of evidence. I'm interested.

GERHARDT: Yes, yes. The rule actually says, the chief justice may rule on all evidentiary questions. The same rule says any ruling he makes may be appealed to the entire Senate in which via majority vote may be able to avoid him.

HONIG: Sure, sure. But that's a separate issue, and so that's saying Chief Justice Roberts can rule, and then the Senate can vote to overrule it.

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. I mean, the reality here though is that, he has another institution to protect, which is the Supreme Court. He cannot afford for the rest of his court, for all of the decisions that are going to come out from there to even have the appearance of having a political bias. And I think anything that he does voluntarily that is not literally written out in black and white for him, will raise the risk that he is seen as doing that.

CUOMO: Right. You also have the issue of do your damn job. You know, this isn't the chief justice's place. We don't have him to like have to decide this because you guys can't figure it out.

Ron Brownstein, you have covered Lamar Alexander in the past you know his root to where he got. For him to do an announcement like this, to create this moment and to create this odd, what I say is a contrast in thought. You tell us the way you see it.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

CUOMO: No need for witnesses, the people should decide, but how. If you're not giving them the full information, so take us through the analysis.

BROWNSTEIN: Right. Well, first, his position is internally incoherent right, because for exactly the reason you say. If you're saying the people should decide, and then you say we're not going to give them the information that will help them decide. I mean, the logic of his statement is that he should have voted for witnesses and for acquittal. But, of course, he did not. [01:05:03]

Lamar Alexander began his career standing up to corruption. He was elected governor in 1978 in Tennessee to replace a Democrat, Ray Blanton, who was accused of selling pardons for cash, and who was removed from office three days early. Lamar Alexander was sworn in three days early because the state leaders saw a clear and present danger that he would issue more pardons for cash, including the man who shot Martin Luther King.

And here we are, you know, 42 years later at the end of this arc, Lamar Alexander in some ways, are almost perfect symbol of what is happening to the Republican Party in the Trump era and the Faustian bargain that just kind of gets worse and worse. You can think of Billy Dee Williams in "The Empire Strikes Back" talking about, you know, how the deal gets worse and worse with Darth Vader.

Here is Lamar Alexander who has begun his career standing up to corruption voting to basically cover it up, and while acknowledging that it is corruption.

And one last point. You know, one thing -- we've talked about this before, Chris. The country has been divided 50/50 all the way through on whether it was appropriate to remove Donald Trump from office because of this. There's always been a larger share of the country that believes what he did is inappropriate.

And now Lamar Alexander may be the most prominent, one thing he did put out there was he said this was inappropriate. It was wrong. And I think that is going to put a lot of pressure on other Republicans at a moment when most of the country thinks that what the president did was wrong to say whether they agree.

What is Joni Ernst going to say, and Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally and Thom Tillis? I will be very interested to see how they handle that in states where they will be facing competitive races to varying degrees in November.

CUOMO: And especially, Joe, because -- what's one of the counter pressures here? One of the counter pressures is that the Democrats had urgency, why? Because we're afraid of what he'll do. That's what they keep accept saying.

We are afraid he'll do more of this. He'll compromise the election. What does that create now as an environment for this election with a boldly reinforced president?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, remember the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi who speaks for the Democrats in the House, did not want to impeach the president. They had all of the Mueller information, they had all of the obstruction, and they were not -- she was not moved by that.

What moved the Democrats and the entire caucus was the fact that looking back wasn't a reason to impeach Trump. But looking forward, the fact that he might cheat and steal on the election, that was a reason to impeach him.

CUOMO: You've got a lot of work to do on that narrative, though, Joe.

LOCKHART: Yes.

CUOMO: Because I think the more popular narrative is they wanted him. And they were looking for a reason and he gave them one with Ukraine.

LOCKHART: Well, you know, they were not looking for a reason and Pelosi I think was clear in the record. And that you're right, they have to get out.

But moving forward, they do have a narrative now, which is, this is about corruption. This president is a corrupt president. He corrupted the process. He silenced the witnesses. He's done all of these other things. You can bring in all of the things, the emoluments. We haven't seen his tax returns.

This will go -- I think they'll attack him two ways. One is, on issues where he has failed the people , prescription drugs, Obamacare, all the things said, as Ron knows better than I do, were the deciding factors in the 2018 election. But they'll also make a direct attack on the character of this president that they did in 2016, but we didn't have the evidence in 2016. We now have the evidence.

CUOMO: Ron, how does that work?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, I could say one thing. You would think the kind of the -- there is a silver lining for Democrats here is that, a trial that is seen as illegitimate for not calling witnesses is much less likely to create any sense that Trump was exonerated.

I mean, I assume that we're going to end up with this in polling where we have been, with essentially half of the country saying that what he did justified removing him from office. And in even larger majority saying that what he did was wrong.

I mean, you know, as you know, in recent few polling, over 60 percent of Americans, he committed a crime. He has committed, probably committed a crime while in office.

Now, look, he has a significant tailwind behind him in a sense of growing optimism and satisfaction with the economy. But all of this is a huge headwind that he is facing at the same time, doubts about his values and behavior.

I don't think the way this trial ends will dissipate or, you know, remove to dispel any of those doubts. And so, the election fundamentally to me stands on a knife's edge between the doubts about his behavior, which are producing unprecedented levels of defection among voters who are satisfied with the economy. But nonetheless as the number goes up, the voters are satisfied with the economy. He remains in a competitive position.

CUOMO: If there is no censure, if there's no statement from the Republican senators that he shouldn't have done it this way, we don't like it, but removing him is not that. What is, to give any assurance that this president doesn't say good, or that, you know. I'm going to do this any way I want because I've proved once again this game is stupid.

[01:10:00]

RANGAPPA: I think even if they do say it, there's no assurance. I mean, at this point, he is going to take the acquittal as, you know, being home-free, and especially with no witnesses coming forward.

I think with regard to the political analysis, we have to remember that this analysis is already, you know, people seeing this as illegitimate today. There is still more information that is going to come out.

CUOMO: Bolton is coming out.

RANGAPPA: Bolton's going to come out.

CUOMO: His book comes out right on the ides of March, right? March 17, it comes out.

RANGAPPA: You know, remember eight months ago when the Mueller report came out. We couldn't have imagined that we would ever even be in an impeachment hearing and trial. That was all self-created by Trump in the months after.

So, there is much more to come. And I don't think that we can call, you know, the damage that he is going to do to himself right now.

CUOMO: I think as one aspect -- I've got to take a break. I think one aspect to this that's worth discussing is blame. Not for the president. That's been talked about plenty and will be talked about plenty more in the election, but who is to blame for what happened here, because you are going to be denied access to information that really you should have.

You could make good faith arguments that what the president did was wrong, but not worthy of removal. It's hard to do that when you haven't heard from the people who are instrumental in deciding what he did.

One of the people who were caught in that mix -- is caught in that mix is Professor Alan Dershowitz, OK? Now, the arguments that he's been making he says are just about the constitution. But I argue that he has been playing with the facts to advantage, and as such, he shaped the perception of what this president did that does not meet the facts of what this president did. The professor disagrees, we will test that because look at where we are, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:15:49]

CUOMO: All right. I had a heated discussion with Alan Dershowitz, why? Because fairness demands it, that's why. Dershowitz says I just represent the constitution. But he's on the president's team, and he uses a lot of the facts to advantage. And if he does that then how can he not own the facts?

For example, where we left off this interview, the professor and I were getting into it about why he talks about Obama and Biden, and Lincoln, if what he's talking about is the constitution and not trying to mitigate what this president did, which does not match the facts of any other president that we've ever seen. So we pick it up mid interview. Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: You know what this president did was wrong. You know he did it the wrong way and you know he did it for the wrong reasons. And we both know the obvious point of proof on that which is nobody hides a good alibi. Nobody hides proof that they did the right thing.

And that's all this President has done is hide the people that he says will clear him who know what happened, who the team that you're on, whether you like it or not, keeps saying don't exist. We don't have any witnesses that could tie the president to what happened there, no first person. They won't let them on. They won't let the documents on. He lies about knowing the people involved.

He doesn't tell the truth about Rudy Giuliani. Why does he do all that if he was doing this in the public interest? The answer is he wasn't.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Let me tell you --

CUOMO: And you now own the defense of his actions.

DERSHOWITZ: No, I don't.

CUOMO: You must.

DERSHOWITZ: I'm a constitutional lawyer. Let me tell you who is doing the wrong thing here and why I'm in this case. The Democrats are impeaching him without a broad consensus. They're impeaching him on the basis of made-up criteria, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They are endangering the constitution.

They did it in the House without allowing cross-examination. They abuse the process. They are creating a horrible precedent that will be weaponized and used against Democrats in the future.

They have hurt themselves --

CUOMO: Two of those arguments are not yours.

DERSHOWITZ: I'm very, very sorry that the Democrats have hurt themselves.

CUOMO: Two of those arguments are not yours. You're borrowing them from the rest of the team, and they stink. The first one is --

DERSHOWITZ: Which arguments? CUOMO: I'll tell you.

DERSHOWITZ: Yes.

CUOMO: The first one was they weren't fair to him in the process. The process was the same as it was for Clinton. The difference is the investigatory phase --

DERSHOWITZ: Wasn't it the whole process is unfair. It wasn't fair to Clinton. It wasn't fair to Nixon.

CUOMO: No, but, no, hold on. But again --

DERSHOWITZ: I complained about the process --

CUOMO: Professor, no, it doesn't work like that.

DERSHOWITZ: -- when it happened to Nixon too.

CUOMO: It doesn't work like that.

DERSHOWITZ: Of course it does.

CUOMO: He -- because no fairness is --

DERSHOWITZ: If I think something is unfair, I'm going to say it.

CUOMO: Fairness is relative to the standard. You're making it sound like the Democrats did something to Trump that wouldn't have been done to somebody else, and that's not true because it was. You're making it sound --

DERSHOWITZ: Let me explain why it is.

CUOMO: -- like if this were Biden or Obama, it would be OK.

DERSHOWITZ: OK.

CUOMO: And that's not true.

DERSHOWITZ: No, no, no. Let me explain. First of all, I would never make that argument. Of course, I would make exactly the same argument.

CUOMO: That's the argument that you were making by saying if Biden did this and if Obama did this, even Lincoln.

DERSHOWITZ: Nancy Pelosi -- let me make my point.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

DERSHOWITZ: Let me make my point.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

DERSHOWITZ: Nancy Pelosi, who recently called for my disbarment and the disbarment of other members of the team. Nancy Pelosi said it doesn't matter, even if he is acquitted, he is still impeached. That is a permanent mark on his record.

CUOMO: That's true.

DERSHOWITZ: That's different from indictments. When you have an indictment and you're acquitted, the indictment disappears.

CUOMO: What's your point?

DERSHOWITZ: If impeachment in fact stays with you.

CUOMO: That's right.

DERSHOWITZ: If impeachment stays with you, then you must have the right to cross-examine witnesses, call your own witnesses. It has to be an adversarial determination. You can't have it both ways.

CUOMO: They were invited into the House Judiciary proceeding.

DERSHOWITZ: You can't say it sticks with you and it's a permanent stigma on you, and yet we're going to treat you as if this wasn't a trial, as if it was a grand jury proceeding.

CUOMO: It's the same thing they did to Clinton.

DERSHOWITZ: You cannot have it both ways. That violates core civil liberty. They did it with Clinton and they did it with Nixon, and they did it with Andrew Johnson. And it's been wrong from the beginning, and I called them out on it.

CUOMO: You're in the middle of the trial right now.

DERSHOWITZ: Don't call me inconsistent. I make the same arguments whether it's liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican.

CUOMO: No, but you're having it both ways. You're having it both ways.

DERSHOWITZ: I always make the same arguments.

CUOMO: You're having it both ways, because you're making the argument here on a bad set of facts. I heard what you said with Clinton. I got what was going on there. I was just starting my career. This is a bad set of facts of what's going on here now. And you play with analogies.

[01:20:00]

DERSHOWITZ: I wasn't called in to comment on the facts.

CUOMO: You don't get a pass on facts.

DERSHOWITZ: I was called in to comment on the constitutionality.

CUOMO: Professor, I told you this would happen.

DERSHOWITZ: If they had impeached Trump on a constitutional ground, if they had impeached him on treason, bribery, I wouldn't be in this case. I'm only in this case because they impeached him on unconstitutional grounds, abuse of power.

CUOMO: So you're OK if they have no witnesses because senators --

DERSHOWITZ: I don't care what the facts are because if for this argument --

CUOMO: How can you not care with the facts?

DERSHOWITZ: -- the facts don't matter. It's like -- let me give you an example --

CUOMO: You care what the facts are.

DERSHOWITZ: Let's assume somebody --

CUOMO: Don't say you don't care what the facts are. You care what the facts are. Professor, you care about the facts.

DERSHOWITZ: I care. Of course I care as a citizen. It will determine who I vote for, but let me tell you an analogy.

A person is indicted for dishonesty. Then they give a list of terrible things that he has done, dishonest things. I'm his lawyer. I go to court and say dismiss on the ground that dishonesty is not a crime.

CUOMO: OK.

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, but we want witnesses. We want to prove his dishonesty. No you can't do that because in indicting phase the dishonesty is invalid --

CUOMO: Abuse of power is what the founding fathers --

DERSHOWITZ: -- and impeachment based on obstruction and abuse is invalid.

CUOMO: I know. But professor --

DERSHOWITZ: That's my point.

CUOMO: -- if you were giving me a test on this --

DERSHOWITZ: That's was what came in to argue. That's what I argue.

CUOMO: -- if you were giving me a test on this, I would expect a lower grade, but this is not academic. This is abuse of power manifest in a bribe.

DERSHOWITZ: It is to me.

CUOMO: This is abuse of power manifested in a bribe. I don't know why they didn't go strong with the bribe in the article, the first article.

DERSHOWITZ: Why didn't they charge him for bribery?

CUOMO: I don't know.

DERSHOWITZ: Why didn't they charge him --

CUOMO: That's on them. But you know that's what it is.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you should ask them that question.

CUOMO: But you are defending a process --

DERSHOWITZ: You should ask them that question.

CUOMO: -- as being unfair when you know you're defending a bribe by extension.

DERSHOWITZ: No. Let me ask you this. If somebody commits a bribe and they indict him for dishonesty, and you're the defense lawyer, do you make a motion to dismiss? Of course you do. And you say oh my god, the guy committed a bribe but they didn't indict him for bribery. You have to dismiss. Go back and indict him for bribery. Go back and impeach him.

CUOMO: It's part of the first amendment. They could have gone heavier with it.

DERSHOWITZ: If you think there are the grounds they are constitutional --

CUOMO: But you know that's what it is. And do you really think that in this situation, you're giving cover to the president for what he did? He may well do it again, and you're OK with that?

DERSHOWITZ: You're -- that you're giving cover to the president. I gave cover to OJ Simpson.

CUOMO: And you're giving cover to him.

DERSHOWITZ: I gave cover to Harvey Weinstein. I gave cover to Epstein.

CUOMO: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: I give cover to Claus von Bulow.

CUOMO: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: I'm a lawyer. I don't give cover to anybody. I defend --

CUOMO: You just said --

DERSHOWITZ: I defend the constitution. I defend their rights. Did I give coverage to the Nazis marching through Skokie when I defended the rights to march in Skokie? Did I give cover to communists who I defended when I was in college against McCarthyism?

CUOMO: This is not a criminal trial.

DERSHOWITZ: No. CUOMO: It's a political process where we have to make the determination.

DERSHOWITZ: What's the -- no, well, when I went to college there were firing professors. It wasn't a criminal trial.

CUOMO: Here is the difference. We have to make determinations about acceptable conduct by a President. That's the difference. It's not about the criminal code.

DERSHOWITZ: When I went to college, they were talking about -- when I went to college, they were talking about acceptable conduct by Professor Slochour (ph) who pleaded the Fifth Amendment in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee. I defended him, and as a result of that, the president of the university wouldn't write me a recommendation to Yale Law School because he said I was a commie symphony, a fellow traveler. We had a name for that. It was called McCarthyism.

And I will continue to defend people without being covers for them. I will defend them because I love the constitution, because I love my country, and because I live by principles and live by a single standard, and I'm nonpartisan.

CUOMO: I hear you. I'm just saying, professor, --

DERSHOWITZ: OK.

CUOMO: -- you don't disagree with the statement when I say he did something wrong. He did it the wrong way --

DERSHOWITZ: That's not --

CUOMO: -- and he did it for wrong reason.

DERSHOWITZ: -- my bailiwick. That's not my answer. If we want to talk off camera at the voting booth, at the polls about who we're going to vote for, we can have an interesting conversation about that.

CUOMO: I think it matters.

DERSHOWITZ: But you're not going to blur my arguments about constitutionality by getting into a fight with you about facts.

CUOMO: I think it matters here. I think the facts matter. But I'll tell you what. I have this conversation with you --

DERSHOWITZ: Of course, the facts matter.

CUOMO: I know. But you can't have it both way you get -- all right, listen. We've gone through this enough time for the audience to get it.

DERSHOWITZ: They don't matter for the constitutional issues if you've been indicted on unconstitutional ground.

CUOMO: I understand.

DERSHOWITZ: But they do matter in terms of who we should vote for and what we should be looking for and how to make America a better country and support our constitution.

CUOMO: Professor, thank you for doing this with me. Thank you for doing it thoroughly.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you. It was a very fair, tough and good interview, and I really enjoyed it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Really enjoyed it. Now, listen. This is why it matters. I want you to hear the full analysis from him of why he's doing what he's doing because this is an event, and a period in our collective history that is going to be remembered for a long, long time.

Now, another name that is going to be highlighted will be Senator Lamar Alexander. Why did he come out this way with it, why did he say that what the president did was wrong but we don't need witnesses, but you should make the decision, but you won't have the information for it, what are the possible scenarios if there is a 50/50 tie tomorrow, next.

[01:25:02]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So, as you saw from our conversation with Trump Attorney, Alan Dershowitz. It's a sticky wicket for the people who have been part of the conclusion that we are all coming to. Let's discuss now.

Professor, the professor I believe in good faith thinks that he is just fighting about the principle and that it doesn't matter who it is. But isn't it just the truth that he is helping motivate an outcome here that he will have to own politically as well as the precedent of constitutionality?

GERHARDT: I think you're exactly right. He is going to own this for all time.

One of the things we've got to remember is, everything happening in this impeachment trial is being recorded. It's on video. People will have this and they'll be studying it for years and years, and years, and he will be aligned with somebody as Asha and others have pointed out, aligned with somebody whose corruption is going to be reported on and better known over time. And he is helping to bury that.

[01:30:00]

One other thing I just might point out because I'm obliged as a constitutional law professor to say this, Dershowitz has ignored this basic principle which is really important to remember. The President is constitutionally required to act either pursuant to a policy that Congress makes or the constitution. And Trump was not acting pursuant to either of those when sought to coerce the leader of Ukraine to announce an investigation which was just fiction in order to hurt Joe Biden.

CUOMO: His piece is that OK, fine. Then what was the crime?

GERHARDT: That he was acting illegally. If you're not acting according to policy or constitution, the President is acting illegally.

CUOMO: But yes, he says -- but what's the -- I want to hear the crime. That's he bought into that part for sure.

Now, so, look, I think that -- I couldn't ask for better in terms of legal analysis on this, but now I think we're moving past that, right? This is going to be about perception and political analysis on this. And Dershowitz, Lamar Alexander, all of these people, good, bad, right, wrong, they own this. And what does that mean for the GOP in terms of what their posture has to be, Joe, coming out of this?

LOCKHART: Well, I mean I think you're seeing play out in very real- time the decision that all the Republicans are making. And they are in a sense being caught between a rock and a hard place. They cannot get suburban women voters if they climb in bed with Trump, but they can't get the Trump base to vote for them if they defy him. So this is -- there's environment of intimidation and fear, and that's the biggest motivating factor for these Republicans right now. They are --

CUOMO: They also praise.

LOCKHART: Yes.

CUOMO: And that's coming -- Elie made a great point about this.

LOCKHART: Yes.

CUOMO: That's coming for what, three days now, right?

HONIG: Yes.

CUOMO: So if he gets acquitted, right, Trump is going to own the airwaves, right? And he will own that, then comes the Super Bowl.

HONIG: Super Bowl.

CUOMO: And then comes --

HONIG: Iowa caucus.

CUOMO: -- Iowa caucus. And then --

HONIG: State of the union.

CUOMO: State of the union.

HONIG: Yes.

CUOMO: And in each one of those, there is a magnification effect. HONIG: Yes, I mean, look, he is a master of TV, I think we all know that, and it couldn't have timed out better for him to get this done tomorrow and then have a three-day nationwide victory tour. But I think who he may leave in his wake here is some of the vulnerable Republican senators. I mean, it's a tough question to answer. Why no one witnesses?

Maybe I can understand ultimately why he didn't vote to convict, but why no witnesses? I think the average person agrees with that.

CUOMO: Seventy-five percent of them.

HONIG: Yes, I think it's a tough puck for a Republican senator to explain that.

LOCKHART: But if you look at political precedent, not legal precedent, and everybody wants to compare this to Clinton. President Clinton did everything differently than Trump. But let's remember what he did the day of his acquittal. He went out and gave a speech saying, I'm sorry I put the country through this. I took a little heat internally at the White House because three or four days before, I went to the podium and said the White House is a glute-free zone because we didn't want to be seen as dancing on the grave of the Republicans.

So I think there is a, you know, his base is his base. But I think there may be a backlash, because Trump only knows one speed, full speed ahead. It's all about me. I'm exonerated. So he'll do that with Sean Hannity. He'll do that at the state of the union.

I think there is a real potential for a backlash that is going to hurt definitely down ticket, but it might be the reason he is not reelected.

CUOMO: Asha, give me a take on the biggest variable that they have to worry about.

RANGAPPA: I think they have to worry about how Trump is going to characterize this. It doesn't matter what kind of statement they give when they acquit him. He is going to make up his own version of what happened, and that's going to be the version that sticks. No one will ever remember any kind of statement that they make.

He will, you know, and he lie if he has to make it seem as though it was the best outcome every for him and gloss over everything else.

CUOMO: So not only this outcome, but they're going to own his version.

RANGAPPA: They will own his version of it.

CUOMO: All right. Please stick around. Who are they going to go? No. Nobody gets to go until I get home, OK? Thank you very much.

All right, so, what does a Democratic juror make of Alexander's no announcement? What does this mean for tomorrow, what does this mean for the election? We have a senator trying to personally replace this president in November. His take, next. [01:34:25]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Tomorrow, Democrats are going to make a final push for witnesses. But after Lamar Alexander tonight put out a statement saying he doesn't think they're necessary, it doesn't look like it's going to be in the cards.

Let's discuss the state of play and where we could be on vote tomorrow, or today, frankly. Juror, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Michael Bennet joins us.

Senator Bennet, thank you for joining us.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: Your reaction to the news that Senator Lamar Alexander is a no, meaning no for witnesses.

BENNET: I'm deeply disappointed in it. I think that makes it likely that this Senate may have the first impeachment trial in history that have no witnesses at all. And it's hard to imagine that this is a fair trial under those circumstances.

CUOMO: What happens if you still get a split vote tomorrow of 50/50? The answer is you lose, but what about the judge? What do you think of that as a variable?

BENNET: We lose probably at 50/50 because a Supreme Court justice probably is not going to break the tie. You know, I think what happened today on the floor is just stunning because the senators' lawyers basically said you don't need to hear John Bolton's testimony because even if everything John Bolton has said is true, it's not an impeachable offense.

[01:40:05]

CUOMO: Right.

BENNET: That can't be the standard, but that -- we're within that were within 24 hours of that being the new standard in America, they're so scared of hearing John Bolton testify that they're will -- that instead they're making an argument that what the president did is OK.

CUOMO: Right.

BENNET: And it's not.

CUOMO: Senator Alexander explained it this way, senator. I want to get your response to his reasoning. It was inappropriate is the word he uses, for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigation, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the constitution doesn't give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from the ballot for actions that are simply inappropriate.

BENNET: On one level, refreshing to hear somebody on the other side describe it as inappropriate when all day long we've heard people describing it as appropriate. But the question in front of us today still is, you know, are we going to hear these witnesses? And now, I think we're reaching a premature conclusion about what those witnesses would say and that's unlikely to mean that the American people going into selection are going to know the truth about what the president did.

CUOMO: The rules right now don't state affirmatively that the chief justice has a vote. They don't say that he doesn't have a vote either, where do you think that leaves you?

BENNET: I think that that will leave the chief justice disinclined to get involved, which means there were a 50-50 tie and we won't be able to get the evidence in.

CUOMO: What do you think of that approach?

BENNET: Well, I would much rather have the American people have the benefit of having witnesses and documents. We said over and over again today that we would be happy to have the chief justice make any and all decisions that were contested about evidence or about the relevance of witnesses. The president's lawyers were unwilling even to accept that because they're so scared of what John Bolton is going to say.

And the problem for these guys is, we're going to know in the end what John Bolton is going to say. The question for the Senate is, did we want to do that at a moment when we were doing our job as the only 100 people out of 330 million Americans with the responsibility to try this case or whether we were cover our ears and cover our eyes and let this go forward the way it has.

CUOMO: I do think it's fair to say that you could in good faith argue this was wrong. It was almost illegal. It was incomplete bribe. But it's not removable, and here's why and then make arguments. The problem here is, they're not letting it get to that point.

BENNET: Right.

CUOMO: This is about not even thinking there's enough to hold a real trial.

BENNET: That's right.

CUOMO: Do you any this affects the election that you're running in?

BENNET: I think this is going to affect every election this year. I think that's not really what's in front of us tonight. But I think it will be very important for us to communicate to the American people that the minute Mitch McConnell insisted on the rules that he forced on to the Senate, a cover-up of what the president had done had commenced.

And if we finish tomorrow without having heard witnesses or documents first time in history, that's what this will have been. The president of the United States stonewalled the House of Representatives in ways that have never happened before in the history of the country. The Senate could have resolved that. We still could overcome that, but if we don't, we'll have covered up his activity, and we're going to have to litigate this in a court of public opinion. And I wouldn't -- I'd much rather be in our position than theirs.

CUOMO: Senator, thank you.

BENNET: Thanks for having me, appreciate it.

CUOMO: The position I worry about is yours, because this is obviously a big deal. Just from what you know already, you know the president did the wrong thing. I said here many times to the, you know, dismay of people on the left that you can make good faith arguments that it wasn't worthy of removal.

But what I don't think is going to be easy for you guys to accept is that, you weren't given the information to make a decision for yourself. Now, we'll see in the hours ahead how this plays out in the vote tomorrow. But here is something to look at.

Lawmakers from both parties have to think about what this is going to mean for them after the trial. Analysts on who's most vulnerable and which Democrats could pull out a surprise when it comes time to vote, next.

[01:44:52]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All week we've been watching Republican senators thought to be the most likely to join Democrats on wanting witnesses. Maybe not on acquittal or removal, that always seemed to be fairly secure in the president's favor. But so far, Senator Susan Collins is the only certain yes vote, maybe Romney. Swing state senators facing uphill reelection battles, they have it or maybe can't be convinced. And Lamar Alexander saying it's not necessary the way he did, it may be just enough to make this a done deal.

What does that say about the state of this trial? You kind of get that, I think, but how about the road ahead for the 2020 elections? Let's bring in Ron Brownstein and Patrick Healy. Thank you, fellows, for being with me, especially at this hour.

So is it better, Ron Brownstein, for the democrats politically -- let's leave the constitution, I've had enough of that tonight.

[01:50:05]

Politically to have not had witnesses and the president gets acquitted as a narrative for the election. RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think, first of all, for the country. It's an ominous moment because it is really, the Republican Party saying that they will not hold this president accountable or constrain him.

He is a student of power, and he going to take from this, the belief that no matter what he does, they are going to be afraid to really draw a line against him. So where this goes, especially gets reelected. I don't think anyone can say, with a lot of confidence.

Politically, it probably is a better outcome for the Democrats, than having the witnesses. If, in fact, the information ultimately comes out, because I do think that think this trial will be seen as illegitimate by most people, most Americans. And therefore, it will not change the verdict in public opinion, that while only about half of the country, the country is split half equally on whether he should remove from office, a higher majorities, somewhere closer to 60 percent said that what he did in Ukraine is wrong. I don't think he can wash that off with this kind of process.

CUOMO: Now, Patrick, obviously as journalists, we're in favor of more information. And this situation screamed for it because just from what we know, you know it's wrong. Even Lamar Alexander used the word inappropriate, which I think is as mild the one as you can use, but always have a good faith argument. It's not worthy of removal, but it was clearly wrong.

We only know a little bit from the bottom players, not the top. The narrative that will lock in what this means, I think may come just over the next few days, Patrick, because you have the president celebrate tomorrow if he gets out of it, celebrate at the Super Bowl, celebrate after the Iowa caucus, and celebrate during his state of the union. What could that do to the state of play?

PATRICK HEALY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. I think you're going to see a big Trump victory lap. And you saw it tonight in Des Moines where I am, Chris, where he's trying to sort of set the narrative that all of these Democrats were running against the is Democrats, so he feels are persecuting him in the Senate, are really kind of b-list players compared to where he feels like he's taking the country.

And, Chris, I think you've framed it just right. I mean, this series of days that could climax with the president coming in to the House of Representatives, standing in the well, where he wasn't impeached so long ago on these charges. And probably, we'll see. We know this president, Chris, you know, perhaps thumping his chest and saying, you know, I was acquitted. I was acquitted.

I mean, you're just -- you have to wonder how aggressive he is going to get in his messaging. Because, Chris, he knows what's coming. He knows that he's going to face months and months of heavy Democratic advertising and spending as they try to win in the court of public opinion. And he's also going to face these unpredictable, you know, potential bombs like John Bolton's book. And the degree to which more, you know, can and probably will come out. So, it's going to be -- he's going to really try to set the narrative on the politics in the next few days.

CUOMO: I totally understand the idea of why we would expect him to be ever the pugilist, Patrick. But, you know, Ron, you know, logic dictates, political science dictates, human persuasion dictates that you say enough is enough when you're the president. And you're doing the state of the union.

That you say, look, yes, it's over. You tried, you failed, we have to get other things done. Leave it alone now, let's heal. He has to say it, says all of the books or will he not?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Look, he may mouth the words but he won't stick with it. That's not, you know, his message. He is not going to run on are you better off than you were four years ago, as much as Republicans want him to?

He is much more comfortable with the language of American carnage from his convention speech in 2016. Convincing his voters, they under siege from threats, elites that distain them, immigrants that threaten them, and if he alone can protect them. And that is kind of, you know, it's much more about mobilization than persuasion. He is, you know, he does have a big tailwind as I've said before in the form of a positive economy.

But, you know, I'm in Des Moines too and Joe Biden today was in Iowa. He was delivering a very powerful speech this morning, about kind of the moral case against Donald Trump. And that is why, despite an economy that would have most incumbent presidents cruising towards re- election.

He is still on a knife's edge because there are too many people who are satisfied with their 401(k) and satisfied with the way the economy is humming around them, who still believe he does not have the values and behaviors they want as president. That's not enough to beat him necessarily, but it's certainly enough to ensure that he is in a much closer race than any other president would be with this economy I believe.

[01:55:07]

CUOMO: And what about the senators, Patrick, who are in close races on the right? Obviously, tomorrow matters for them. I think if we're here to debate about the removal --

HEALY: Yes.

CUOMO: -- it's because McConnell is trying to give them a chance to explain themselves, what does this mean for them?

HEALY: Yes. I mean, it's -- there are different dynamics on the right and on the left. I mean, you're seeing Senator Collins is facing a very tough race in Maine, you know, will come out for witnesses but will -- from all that we can tell, at least, sees like votes for acquittal.

Witness may help her, you know, at least look like she was sort of opening to pushing this further in Maine. But, you know, ultimately, you know, it's hard to see her flipping entirely on the president. And you know folks like Cory Gardner and Thom Tillis who've face tough races on the Republican side, but who pretty much fallen in line. But god, Chris, they're keeping such a low profile. They just like -- they want this over. They don't want to talk about it.

The Democratic side is a little trickier, Chris --

CUOMO: Well, let's leave for --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I got to kill it there, because we're out of time.

Healy: Yes. OK, OK.

CUOMO: But thank you, fellows, I appreciate it. We're going to keep our coverage. We're going to take a break now. Stay tuned, there will be more news on CNN right after.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)