Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Senate Debates Amendment To Subpoena Mick Mulvaney; Senate Votes Against Hearing Mick Mulvaney Testimony; Debate Over Subpoena Of Department Of Defense Documents. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 21, 2020 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): --trial. What is President Donald John Trump hiding from the American people? The Constitution requires a fair trial. Our democracy needs a fair trial. The American people deserve a fair trial.
A fair trial means witnesses. A fair trial means documents. A fair trial means a consideration of all of the available evidence. A fair trial means testimony from Mick Mulvaney.
Mr. Chief Justice, the House Managers reserve the balance of our time.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Cipollone?
PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Mike Purpura, from the White House Counsel's Office, Deputy Counsel to the President, will make the argument.
ROBERTS: Thank you.
MICHAEL PURPURA, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, good evening. My name is Michael Purpura. I serve as Deputy Counsel to the President.
We strongly oppose the amendment and support the resolution. There is simply no need to alter the process on witness -- witnesses and documents from that of the Clinton trial, which was supported by this body 100-0.
At its core, this case is very simple, and the key facts are undisputed.
First, you've seen the transcripts which the President released transparently, unprecedentedly. There was no quid pro quo for anything. Security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call.
Second, President Zelensky and the highest ranking officials in the Ukrainian government repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo, and there was no pressure.
Third, the Ukrainians were not even aware of the pause in the aid at the time of the call, and weren't aware of it, did not become aware of it, until more than a month later. Fourth, the only witnesses, in the House record, who actually spoke to the President, about the aid, Ambassador Sondland and Senator Ron Johnson, say the President was unequivocal in saying there was no quid pro quo.
Fifth, and this one's pretty obvious, the aid flowed, and President Trump and President Zelensky met, without any investigations started or announced.
Finally, and I ask that you not lose sight of the big picture here. By providing lethal aid to Ukraine, President Trump has proven himself to be a better friend and ally to Ukraine than his predecessor.
The time for the House Managers to bring their case is now. They had their chance to develop their evidence before they sent the articles of impeachment to this chamber. This chamber's role is not to do the House's job for it.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Cipollone.
CIPOLLONE: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, just a couple of observations.
First of all, as Mr. Purpura said, all we're talking about is when this question is addressed. Under the resolution, that'll be next week. This resolution was accepted a 100 to nothing.
[21:05:00]
Some of you were here then, thought it was great. If we keep going like this, it'll be next week. For those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet.
We are here today. We came hoping to have a trial. They spent the entire day, telling you, and the American people, that they can't prove their case. I could have told you that in five minutes and saved us all a lot of time.
They came here talking about the GAO. It's an organization that works for Congress. Do you know who disagrees with the GAO? Don't take it from me. They do. They sent you articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law.
By the way, you know what also doesn't? You can search high and low in the articles of impeachment. You know what it doesn't say? Quid pro quo, because there wasn't any.
Only in Washington would someone say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough, even if you spend them on time.
Now, let's talk about the Judiciary Committee for a second. Two days in the Judiciary Committee, two days, the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be in charge of impeachments.
The delivery time for the articles they produced was 33 days. I think this might be the first impeachment in history where the delivery time was longer than the investigation in the Judiciary Committee.
They come here and falsely accuse people. By the way, they falsely accused you. You're on trial now. They falsely accuse people of phony political investigations. Really?
Since the House Democrats took over, that's all we've had from them. They've used their office, all the money that the taxpayers send to Washington, to pay them, to conduct phony political investigations against the President, against his family, against anyone who knew him.
They started impeaching him the minute he was elected. They've weaponized the House of Representatives to investigate incessantly their political opponent.
And they come here and make false allegations of phony political investigations. I think the doctors call that projection. It's time for it to end. It's time for someone, for the Senate, to hold them accountable.
Think about what they're asking. I said it. They didn't deny it. They're trying to remove President Trump's name from the ballot. And they can't prove their case. They've told you that all day long.
Think about what they're asking some of you Senators to do. Some of you are running for President. They're asking you to use your Office to remove your political opponent from the ballot.
That's wrong! That's not in the interest of our country, and to be honest with you, it's not really a show of confidence. So, we will, I suppose, have this debate again, next week, if we ever get there.
It's getting late. I would ask you, respectfully, if we could simply start, maybe tomorrow we can start, and they can make their argument, and they can, I guess, make a case that they once called overwhelming. We'll see.
But this resolution is right, and it's fair, and it makes sense. You have a right to hear what they have to say before you have to decide these critical issues. That's all this is about. Is it now, or is it a week from now? Seriously, can we please start? Thank you.
[21:10:00]
ROBERTS: The House -- Mr. Cipollone, is your side complete?
CIPOLLONE: Yes, we are, Mr. Chief Justice.
ROBERTS: Thank you. The House Managers have 14 minutes remaining.
JEFFRIES: Counsel for the President indicated that we have not charged President Trump with a crime.
We have charged him with crimes against the United States Constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors, abuse of power, strikes at the very heart of what the Framers of the Constitution were concerned about, betrayal of one's oath of Office for personal gain, and the corruption of our democracy.
High crimes and misdemeanors, that's what this trial is all about.
Now, Counsel for the President, again, has declined to address the substantive merits of the amendment that has been offered, tried to suggest that House Democrats have only been focused on trying to oust President Trump.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
In the last year, we passed 400 bills, sent into this chamber. 275 of those bills are bipartisan in nature, addressing issues like lowering healthcare costs and prescription drug prices, trying to deal with the gun violence epidemic.
We've worked with President Trump on criminal justice reform. I personally worked with him along with all of you on the First Step Act. We worked with him on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. We worked with him to fund the government.
We don't hate this President. But we love the Constitution. We love America. We love our democracy. That's why we are here today.
The question was asked by Mr. Sekulow, as he opened before this distinguished by -- why -- why -- why are we here? Let me see if I can just posit an answer to that question.
We are here, Sir, because President Trump pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen for political and personal gain. We are here, Sir, because President Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election, and corrupted our democracy.
We are here, Sir, because President Trump withheld $391 million in military aid from a vulnerable Ukraine without justification, in a manner that has been deemed unlawful.
We are here, Sir, because President Donald Trump elevated his personal, political interests, and subordinated the national security interests of the United States of America.
We are here, Sir, because President Trump corruptly abused his power, and then he tried to cover it up.
And we are here, Sir, to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the Constitution, and present the truth to the American people. That is why we are here, Mr. Sekulow. And if you don't know, now you know.
I yield to my distinguished colleague, Chairman Schiff.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I -- I thank the Gentleman for yielding. And I just want to provide a couple quick fact-checks on my colleagues at the other table.
First, Mr. Purpura said that security assistance funds were not mentioned at all in the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Well let's -- let's think back to what was discussed in that call.
You might remember from that call that President Zelensky thanks President Trump for the Javelin anti-tank weapons and says they are ready to order some more. And what is President Trump's immediate response? "I have a favor to ask though."
[21:15:00]
What was it about the President of Ukraine bringing up military assistance that triggered the President to go immediately to the favor that he wanted? I think that's telling that it takes place in that part of the conversation.
So, yes, security assistance, military system, did come up in that call. It came up immediately preceding "The ask." What kind of message you think that sends to Ukraine? They're not stupid. The people watching this aren't stupid.
Now, Mr. Purpura says, "Well they never found out about" or "They didn't find out about the freeze in the aid until a month later." Mr. Purpura needs to be a little more careful with his facts.
Let me tell you about some of the testimony you're going to hear, and you'll only hear it, because it took place in the House. These were other witnesses you wouldn't be able to hear it.
But you had Catherine Croft, a witness from the State Department, a career official at the State Department, who talked about how quickly, actually, after the freeze went into place, the Ukrainians found out about it, and she started getting contacts from the Ukrainian Embassy, here in Washington.
She said she was really impressed with their diplomatic tradecraft. Now, what does that mean?
It means she was really impressed with how quickly the Ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the American people. Ukraine found out about it.
In fact, Laura Cooper, a career official at the Defense Department, said that her office started getting inquiries from Ukraine about the issues with the aid on July 25th, the very day of the call.
So much for Ukraine not finding out about this for a month later!
But I thought this was very telling too. The New York Times disclosed that by -- by July 30th, so within a week of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky, Ukraine's Foreign Ministry received a diplomatic cable from its Embassy, indicating that Trump had frozen the military aid.
Within a week, that cable is reported to have gone from the Ukrainian Embassy to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.
And the former Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister, Olena Zerkal, said, "We have this information. It was definitely mentioned that there were some issues." She went on to say that the cable was simultaneously provided to President Zelensky's office.
But Andriy Yermak, who you'll learn more about later, a top aide to President Zelensky, reportedly directed her to keep silent, and not discuss the hold with reporters or Congress.
Now, we heard testimony about why the Ukrainians want to keep it secret that they knew about the hold. You can imagine why.
Zelensky didn't want his own people to know that the President of the United States was holding back aid from him.
What does that look like for a new President of Ukraine who is trying to make the case that he's going to be able to defend his own country because he has such a great relationship with the great patron, the United States?
He didn't want Ukrainians to know about it. But you know even more than that, he didn't want the Russians to know about it, for the reasons we talked about earlier. So, yes, the Ukrainians kept it close to the vest.
Now, Mr. Purpura also went on to say "Well the Ukrainians say they don't feel any pressure."
That's what they say now. Of course, we know that's not true. We've had testimony that they didn't want to be used as a political pawn in U.S. domestic politics. They resisted it.
You'll hear more testimony about that, about the efforts to push back on this public statement, how they tried to water it down, how they tried to leave out the specifics, and how Giuliani, at the President's behest, forced them "No -- no, this isn't going to be credible if you don't add Burisma and you don't add 2016."
You'll hear about the pressure. They felt it. So, why isn't President Zelensky now saying he was pressured? Well, can you imagine the impact of that!
Can you imagine the impact of President Zelensky if he were to acknowledge today, "Hell yes, we felt pressured. You would too. We're at war with Russia, for crying out loud! Yes, we felt pressure. We needed those hundreds of millions of military aid.
But you think I'm going to say that now? I still can't get in the White House door. They let Lavrov in, the Russian Foreign Minister, they let him in. I can't even get in the White House door. You think I'm going to go out now and admit to this -- this scheme?"
I mean anyone who's watched this President in the last three years knows how vindictive he can be.
[21:20:00]
Do you think it would be smart for the President of Ukraine to contradict the President of the United States, so directly, on an issue he's being impeached for? That would be the worst form of malpractice for the new President of Ukraine.
We shouldn't be surprised he would tonight. We should be surprised if he were to admit it.
Now, let me just end with a couple observations about Mr. Cipollone's comments. He says "This is no big deal.
We're not talking about when we're going to have witnesses or -- or if we're going to have witnesses. We're just talking about when, just talking about when," as if well later they're going to say "Oh yes, well we're happy to have the witnesses now. It's just a question of when," OK?
As my colleague said, let's be real, there will be no when, there will be no when. Do you think they're going to have an epiphany, a few days from now, and say, "OK, we're ready for witnesses?"
No, no, their goal is get you to say no now, get you to have the trial, and then argue, make it go away. "Let's dismiss the whole thing." That's the plan.
A vote to delay is a vote to deny. Let's make no mistake about that. They're not going to have an epiphany, a few days from now, and suddenly say, "OK, the American people do deserve the answers."
Their whole goal is that you'll never get to that point, you'll never get to that point. When they say "When," they mean "Never."
I yield back.
ROBERTS: The Majority Leader is recognized.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I'll make a motion to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
ROBERTS: Is there a sufficient second?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
ROBERTS: There is. The clerk will call the roll.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Alexander?
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Baldwin?
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): No.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, this is our continuing coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump.
What's been going on is the Democrats are pushing a series of amendments, which is basically to get documents and witnesses. The pushback from the President's Defense Counsel is "Why now? Can't we do this after?"
The Democrats' rejoinder on that, their response is "It will never happen if it doesn't happen now."
They want to go through both sides, and hope that they will have political capital that the Senators have already rejected the requests, and they will have heard both sides, and there will be pressure for them to end it.
Right now, they're going through a roll call. We've seen with the other amendments so far today, and this is what we expected, by the way, the idea that arguments would start in earnest today, was never expected.
We expected them to be fighting over the process, and procedures, and the specifics. We didn't expect Mr. McConnell to back off of the idea of two days, and making it over three days, which has different conveniences for the people who are going to be listening, and for you monitoring at home.
That's not what it was with Clinton. With Clinton, it was four days to do the 24 hours. The difference is how much do you have to take in, what is the level of fatigue, doing it faster versus doing it slower, even with the same amount of hours?
Now, we expect these amendments to continue. This one is about getting in Mr. Mulvaney, getting in Mr. Bolton will be argued, getting in Secretary Pompeo may be argued. So, let's dig into the strategy, and what this tells us about what we'll see going forward.
Preet Bharara, and Andrew McCabe, I'm happy to have you both with me tonight. Thank you.
Preet, I want the strategy question. But first, it's not just me, right? This is a real recycle fest. What we're hearing from both sides, I've heard absolutely nothing new in terms of how they contextualize their feelings--
PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Yes.
CUOMO: --about the amendments. They're recycling. But their strategy play?
BHARARA: Yes but -- but that's because you've been paying attention. You're paid to do so. I am, kind of, so -- so are you.
CUOMO: So, for those who are just joining us.
BHARARA: And a lot of Americans are not paying attention.
CUOMO: OK.
BHARARA: And so, I think what they're doing now, we were talking about a couple of minutes ago, is many people, for the first time, are paying attention to the first day of the "Trial" although it's not really a trial.
They want to educate everyone else who is not as vested and -- and not as expert on this, as the three people sitting at this table.
CUOMO: Why ask for the witnesses now, instead of how they did it during the Clinton trial, which was after openings?
BHARARA: With respect to the Clinton resolution, you had, I think, near or virtual unanimity--
CUOMO: A 100 people.
BHARARA: --a 100 people, right--
CUOMO: Yes.
BHARARA: --said here's how we should proceed. Here, the fault lines are along the issues of procedure.
You know, everyone wants to make the strongest argument that they can that makes common sense understanding to -- to the American people, and something that people understand, and Republicans have some of these arguments too.
[21:25:00]
Everyone understands, at a trial, whether or not you've been a prosecutor, or an FBI agent, like Andy has been, you need witnesses. And if there's no witnesses, it's not a good trial. So, the fight is to get the witnesses.
And in the absence of getting witnesses, you want to show that you've fought hard for them, so you can say "Well this sham thing that you took -- that -- that took place, and unfolded, that was -- it was not a trial because there are no witnesses, and therefore any acquittal that takes place at the end of that can't be credited."
CUOMO: So--
BHARARA: And so, I don't think it's a terrible strategy, given the hand that they're dealt.
CUOMO: So, they're front-loading it. The negative is "Well, last time, you guys were different," to the extent that anybody is going to observe history in this.
And the other part that they're using is basically that, "You know, why do we need them now? You, in the House, had the chance to do all this work, that now you're trying to put on the Senate. I mean you didn't do your job, why should the Senate have to do it?"
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FBI: You know, the -- this is the Democrats' opportunity to draw a dark red line under each of those witnesses who they think are absolutely essential to having a successful and a credible trial.
So, why not wait until after all the openings are done, and the questioning is done? Because they're not sure they'll actually get those witnesses at that point.
So, they want to make sure they're on record with the Senate, and with the American people, like these are the folks who we think you absolutely need to hear from. They have material facts to contribute to this finding.
And again, I think, as you mentioned, as we've heard in many of the debate around the specific amendments, the debate's gone far beyond the scope of the amendment, they're essentially arguing the case.
Repetition is the soul of learning. The more times they can hit their themes, they can hit the basic messages that they're trying to get across. They're hoping those messages will start to sink in.
CUOMO: And a big part of this, maybe even more than the House, Preet, is the audience of America. To your point, about introducing everybody to the arguments on both sides, but we know where the votes are, with -- with some subtle shifts.
BHARARA: Yes, look--
CUOMO: We know where the votes are in that room.
BHARARA: Yes. But we're a cynical few people who appear on television. Sometimes, votes change. We saw it with respect to Brett Kavanaugh's hearing. It didn't change the ultimate result.
Remember, there were some skirmishes about whether or not there should be more investigation. But there should be more people heard from, just in the last 24 hours, and it's a small thing.
But Democrats railed really hard against this idea of having 24 hours of argument in two days--
CUOMO: All right, hold on. They -- they--
BHARARA: --Mitch McConnell relented.
CUOMO: --they finished the vote, Preet. Let's listen in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF-MIKE) change his or her vote.
ROBERTS: Can we skip that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF-MIKE).
ROBERTS: OK. Are there any Senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If not, the yeas are 53.
ROBERTS: If not, the yeas are 53 and the nays are 47. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The amendment is tabled.
ROBERTS: The amendment is tabled.
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice?
ROBERTS: Mr. Majority Leader is recognized.
MCCONNELL: I would ask consent, to ask the Democratic Leader, since there's a certain similarity to all these amendments, whether he might be willing to enter into a consent agreement to stack these votes?
ROBERTS: With -- without objection, the inquiry is permitted.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
The bottom line is very simple as has been clear to every Senator, and the country. We believe witnesses and documents are extremely important. And a compelling case has been made for them. We will have votes on all of those.
We will also -- the Leader, without consulting us, made changes, a number of significant changes that significantly deviated from the 1999 Clinton resolution. We want to change those. So, there will be a good number of votes.
We are willing to do some of those votes tomorrow. There's no reason we have to do them all tonight and inconvenience the Senate and the Chief Justice. But we will not back off on getting votes on all of these amendments, which we regard as extremely significant and important to the country.
MCCONNELL: As I've said--
ROBERTS: Consent was for -- question?
MCCONNELL: As I've said repeatedly, all of these amendments, under the resolution, could be dealt with at the appropriate time. I suggest they ask for a quorum.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Call the roll.
ROBERTS: The clerk will call the roll.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Alexander?
CUOMO: All right, so what we're observing right now is the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said "You know what? These amendments kind of all go to the same situation, and we keep having party-line votes.
How about we put them all together, everybody that you want, everything you're not happy about, let's argue at once?"
The Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, stood up, and said, "No. We want to do them individually," probably present -- presumptively because they know they're going to lose the votes.
[21:30:00]
But they want to have everybody's name out there, have all this introduced to you. "These are the people we want. These are the things we want. This is what we've been denied."
So, this is largely, as Preet Bharara and Andrew McCabe were pointing out earlier, this is the introduction to America, of this case, and the state of play.
Now, on that, what they're doing is, they're voting to figure out now, McConnell called for what's called quorum, do we have enough votes to make a move on this to bundle these things together without the Democrats' consent.
And they're doing a roll call right now, through the list of Senators, to see how many side with Senator McConnell. We expect that to be a party-line vote as well. We will monitor it.
If so, then we'll see where it takes them in terms of their negotiation. Schumer would only offer up that they'll do some of these tomorrow, instead of all of them straight through the night.
We'll see where it is. We'll pick that up as soon as they're ready to tabulate and give us the next step.
But the analysis of the strategy, Schumer's trouble is, again, not that the -- everybody is aware of this, but they'll be made aware of it.
Schumer had the opposite position, largely with Clinton. He didn't want witnesses. He thought expanding it was a problem. And this is part of people's frustration that you switch the R and the D--
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: --and the arguments change.
BHARARA: Yes, look, they changed for a lot of different people. I think, in this particular instance, the argument, I think, falls more on the side of the Democrats for a reason that is very apparent.
And that is because of the way this investigation was done, in limited fashion by the House, the Intelligence Committee, not even the Judiciary Committee, the record is limited.
With respect to the Clinton impeachment, you can argue about whether or not there were more or fewer witnesses in the trial.
But, as everyone knows, Ken Starr who now happens to be lawyer for the President of the United States, in -- in an odd turn of events, they had interviews with, you know, the sister-in-law of the housekeeper of the neighbor of the friend who owned the dog.
CUOMO: Dozens and dozens of them. BHARARA: Every single human being of any relevance and not-relevance got deposed. And there was a record with respect to those people.
The frustration here is, a little bit on the part of the Democrats, they were -- they -- they set for themselves a clock because it's, you know, year three, before President's going to get reelected.
It's the only impeachment trial that we've ever had, I mean there have only been a couple, where the person is seeking re-election, so they felt the heat of making sure they get this done quickly.
And so, they decided the lesser of the two evils is getting it done quickly. We have sufficient evidence.
But that leaves them in a bind because there are lots of relevant witnesses who are left to the side, including John Bolton, which I think they should have a vote, and they should argue about it, and they should have a debate about it.
Because the American people don't understand how you can have a guy, whose testimony has been described, or would be -- it's been described what it would be, by other people, who has a book deal, and who has talked about this -- these shenanigans as being a drug deal orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani, who has said "I'm prepared to entertain a subpoena and come testify."
Why on Earth is that man not in the chamber testifying in connection with the trial? It makes no sense, and that's a winning argument.
CUOMO: Right. Why does he get the convenience of deciding when he wants to fulfill his patriotic duty?
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: Let's quickly get to the Hill, and Phil Mattingly, for this state of play.
Phil, what's your understanding? McConnell wanted to bundle all these. Schumer said "No." So now what?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're going to have a long night, I think, is the -- the short way of looking at this, Chris.
Look, what you heard Senator McConnell say is essentially this. "We know you have several more amendments. We feel like the arguments, at this point in time, are getting somewhat repetitive.
Can we stack all of the votes together and essentially make this a quicker process, especially given the fact that we know that the opening arguments, over the course of the next couple of days, will be rather lengthy, as well?"
What Schumer responded, in his point, was "Look, I'm willing to push these votes in this remaining debate until tomorrow. But we are going to have the full debate before we have the votes." And he made clear he has several more amendments left. Chris, keep in mind that we have not had amendment votes yet on somebody -- something like subpoenaing John Bolton or subpoenaing the other two White House aides, the Democrats have made clear they want to hear from.
The next amendment that's up is subpoenaing documents and information from the Department of Defense. So, Democrats have several more amendments to go.
McConnell was trying to move this process along much quicker, this evening, because he has made clear he wants the underlying organizing resolution for the rules, the McConnell resolution, to be done tonight, so the trial can start in earnest with opening arguments tomorrow.
Schumer said "I'm willing to push that -- the votes in the debate on that -- we're dealing with tonight into tomorrow. But I am not willing to short-circuit this process." And therefore, here we are. There is going to be a lengthy process ahead, unless some agreement is reached.
That first effort for an agreement, Chris, was attempted on the floor just now. And I would note, McConnell and Schumer have barely spoken over the course of the last several weeks, so they actually made an effort to talk to one another, did not reach an agreement. And, at least at the moment, that means there should be a rather long night ahead.
CUOMO: Couple more things before I let you go. This--
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CUOMO: --call for a quorum that they're doing right now.
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CUOMO: They're going through the roster of Senators. What's that for?
MATTINGLY: It's essentially an attendance vote right now.
What's coming next, and I think, the next substantive thing that's coming is Schumer will introduce and -- and read on the floor an amendment to subpoena documents from the Department of Defense.
[21:35:00]
And the next substantive vote you're going to see will be after the debate. Both sides will once again be given one hour to present their argument either in favor or in opposition to that Schumer amendment to subpoena documents for the Department of Defense. That will come after that debate.
This vote is essentially kind of a procedural vote, setting the tone of where things are before they continue, in earnest, the debate over amendments that we've seen over the course of the last seven -- eight hours, at this point, Chris.
CUOMO: So, this is like a little bit of a timeout, gave him a chance to talk--
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CUOMO: --figure things out. You say they talked, but they didn't figure anything out.
They want the DoD because that goes to the substance of the allegations within the impeachment about the aid being withheld. When it was authorized by the DoD, which is the way military aid works, goes from Congress to the DoD?
When was it authorized? When could it have been released? And what can we do to document that?
Schumer also said, Phil, that McConnell had changed the rules from Clinton in some ways, sneakily he was suggesting, what -- what changed?
MATTINGLY: Yes, so this is in reference to what happened earlier this morning, and this was actually a Republican on Republican issue.
Obviously, last night, Chris, we saw, finally, the initial McConnell resolution, essentially the "Rules of the road" for the first stage of the trial.
And, in that resolution, while, like Clinton, in 1999, each side would be given 24 hours apiece for their presentations. Then Senators would be given 16 hours for their questions. That timetable would be compressed to which those 24 hours would have to occur within two days.
Now, internally, that caused major problems, I'm told, within the Republican Conference. There was a closed-door lunch before the trial was gaveled into session earlier, where several Republicans made clear they were uncomfortable with that language.
They were uncomfortable with the fact that they felt they were giving Demming -- Democrats a talking point to attack them for short- circuiting the trial. McConnell then made a change.
Here's the rub. McConnell did not inform anybody of that change until right before the actual text was read aloud. In fact, we didn't figure it out until somebody flagged it for me a couple minutes before it was actually read on the Senate floor.
And this goes along with what we've seen over the course of the last several weeks. It's really frustrated Democrats. They felt like they were shut out of the process on this initial "Rules of the road resolution."
They were not informed. They did not see the initial resolution until last night. They did not see the changes until shortly before it was read this morning.
And so, Schumer's point is "Look, if you didn't want to include us, throughout this process, we're not going to help you out by shortening tonight. We are going to keep moving forward on amendments because, basically, we were cut out up to this point. And now, you're going to have to deal with it."
CUOMO: Cute -- cute play by McConnell to try to advance the theory that "Look, I give them what they want. I mean this is completely fair. They complained about this. Fine, I changed it to something else. I think we should get it over faster. They want to drag it out."
That's the political play. The too-cute-by-half response for the Democrats will be "Look how he is lording this over us. Look how he's hiding from any type of transparency. This is so different than the last time when we were a 100-0 when Daschle"--
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CUOMO: --and, you know, for the Democrats and the Republicans had -- had figured it out.
All right, Phil, thank you very much. Anything you get, pass it along. Appreciate it.
MATTINGLY: Sure.
CUOMO: So, this is a timeout period, we're told. They go through the roll call, a quorum call. It's an attendance check. But it gives them time to talk.
We expect the night to be filled with the amendments, which are going to be the rules of play, chance for both sides to tell you why this matters to them, and on the Democrats' side, why they believe the process has been stifled by this President.
Now, in understanding this, as this state of play, the idea then becomes "Well where does this go?" They'll start, after all these amendments are done, you assume the Democrats lose them all, right?
BHARARA: By the same vote.
CUOMO: Yes, 53-47, all the way through. Now you start in the -- if -- if you are on the side of the Democrats, one of the House Managers, you don't know whether you're ever going to get witnesses. What do you do?
BHARARA: I think you make all the arguments in the strongest way possible. And the reason you do this, in part, it's an exercise in calling BS.
I think one of the most effective things that happened today was not making an argument based on what happened in the House, and in the Intelligence Committee, but putting up a video of Donald Trump.
The President of the United States himself, who said falsely, because he lies all the time, in an act of bravado, and said, "I want these people to testify. Maybe I'll come testify. I want John Bolton to testify," it's BS, and you have to call it out. And I think the more they do that, and the more repetitive they are about that, and if they can do it effectively, and show everybody, at the end of the day, all they wanted to do is hide the ball, and all we wanted to do is show the truth. If they can be successful at that, that advances their cause, as far as it goes.
CUOMO: I know this won't happen. But Andrew, imagine this then -- and then, please comment as you--
MCCABE: OK.
CUOMO: --as you want.
Imagine if the Democrats said "You know what? Forget it. We don't want any of these other people. We don't want any of the documents. Forget it. We want the President. If the President wants to come in, we won't ask for anything else."
What an interesting pressure that dynamic would be, as once again, the President would have to back away, just as he did during the Russia probe?
MCCABE: Such a tantalizing offer, right, because you know the President, of all people, he is not the type of guy who wants to turn down a challenge.
You know he feels some very strong motivation to come in there and -- and duke it out with them, probably be a terrible, terrible mistake. But my guess is, initially, he'd want to do it.
[21:40:00]
I think one of the things we can't emphasize enough is that lunch that Phil just told us about, where some Republicans pushed back on McConnell's resolution. That is the first small but first crack in the Republican wall that the Democrats have seen since this entire thing began.
So, I actually believe that some of what you're seeing now with the insistence on dragging every amendment out, using the entire hour of argument for every amendment, this is the Democrats' way of putting additional pressure on that small handful of Republicans, who might be inclined to lean in the direction of fairness, and transparency, and putting on a real trial.
CUOMO: Well, look, he didn't feel he could get the motion to dismiss, which would be a simple majority.
BHARARA: That's right.
CUOMO: McConnell.
BHARARA: Right.
CUOMO: So -- when he talks about having votes. But the reason I asked you about the strategy thing, and then again,
please, make whatever point you think is relevant, is if you're not sure you're going to get them, do you architect your argument a little bit differently to say, "And if we were able to have this person, we would then be able to answer this big question."
BHARARA: Right.
CUOMO: "And if I were able to have gotten these documents, then we'd know for sure if," you know, do you do it that way?
BHARARA: Yes, no, I think so. But I think, at the end of the day, what -- what's important is to show, I'm going to repeat myself, so the repetition is important, why didn't we get these other witnesses?
And, by the way, time, as evidenced so far, people complained about Nancy Pelosi. I was one of those who said "I don't understand why you would wait the number of weeks?"
Time is the Democrats' friend here in the context of they're not making any headway and getting witnesses.
Because unlike any other impeachment case that I'm aware of at this -- or trial that I'm aware of, at the same time these official proceedings are happening on television, and in the Senate, all this other stuff is going on.
Lev Parnas is coming and testifying on television, on this network, and other networks. You have people who are coming forward.
And you -- and you have John Bolton, by the way, during that interim period decide "Well if I'm subpoenaed by the Senate, I'm -- I'm prepared to testify."
So, there's a little bit of a Hail Mary pass thing going on, probably in the mentality of some Democrats, which is as days go by, and investigations continue, and some people feel the heat, maybe they'll come forward, and they will have new shocking revelations about stuff, maybe not.
But, in case that happens, that then puts more pressure on Mitch McConnell because the world will have changed a little bit from what we're seeing today.
CUOMO: So, it becomes a substance point versus a style point because the pushback is "Well see you should have just done your job in the House, and you should have litigated it out, and you should have fought."
And you know who will decide whether this is right or not, as a tactic. You. You will decide. No, not Preet and Andrew. You are going to decide whether or not which side you believe.
Was this about the Democrats rushing it through or was it about them being denied, categorically, by a pattern, by the President and people around him, so that now you see there is so much more that could have come out, but it's being kept?
What do you think of that? This trial's as much about how you feel as anybody in that room.
Let's take a break. When we come back, more of CNN's continuing coverage, the first day of the trial of President Donald John Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: All right, we came quickly back out of break because, in a surprise move, we have the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, is up making another move. He wants to start a new vote, on a new amendment, which means new arguments. Let's listen in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --pursuant to Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of Procedures and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, one, the Chief Justice of the United States, through the Secretary of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena to the Secretary of Defense, commanding him to produce, for the time period from January 1, 2019, to the present, all documents, communications, and other records within the possession, custody or control of the Department of Defense, referring or relating to, A, the actual or potential suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of any kind to Ukraine, including but not limited to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, USAI, and Foreign Military Financing, FMF, including but not limited to, one, communications among or between officials at the Department of Defense, White House, Office of Management and Budget, Department of State or Office of the Vice President.
[21:45:00]
Two, documents, communications, notes or other records created, sent, or received by the Secretary Mark Esper, Deputy Secretary, David Norquist, Under Secretary of Defense, Elaine McCusker, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Laura Cooper, or Mr. Eric Tuning (ph).
Three, draft or final letters from Deputy Secretary, David Norquist, to the Office of Management and Budget, and, four, un-redacted copies of all documents released in response to the September 25, 2019 Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Public Integrity, tracking number 19-F-1934.
B, the Ukrainian government's knowledge prior to August 28, 2019, of any actual or potential suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign assistance, military assistance or security assistance to Ukraine, including but not limited to all meetings, calls, or other engagements with Ukrainian officials regarding potential or actual suspensions, holds, or delays in United States assistance to Ukraine, including but not limited to, one, communications received from the Department of State concerning the Ukrainian Embassy's inquiries about United States foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to Ukraine, and, two, communications received directly from the Ukrainian Embassy about United States foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to Ukraine.
C, communications, opinions, advice, counsel, approvals, or concurrences provided by the Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, or the White House, on the legality of any suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to Ukraine.
D, planned or actual meetings with President Trump related to United States foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to Ukraine, including but not limited to any talking points and notes for Secretary Mark Esper's plan, or actual meetings with President Trump on August 16, August 19, or August 30, 2019.
E, the decision announced on or about September 11, 2019 to release appropriated foreign assistance, military assistance and security assistance to Ukraine, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, documentation or correspondence related to that -- to the decision.
And, F, all meetings and calls between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, including but not limited to documents, communications, and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation for, and follow-up from the President's April 21 and July 25, 2019, telephone calls, as well as the President's September 25, 2019 meeting with the President of Ukraine in New York.
And, two, the Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to utilize the services of the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms or any other employee of the Senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this action.
ROBERTS: The amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours, equally divided. Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent?
SCHIFF: We are a proponent, Mr. Chief Justice.
ROBERTS: Mr. Cipollone?
CIPOLLONE: Mr. Chief Justice, we are an opponent.
ROBERTS: So, Mr. Schiff, the House Managers can proceed first, and reserve time for rebuttal.
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Mr. Chief Justice, the House Managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of the Counsel for the President.
Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, Counsel for the President, and the American people, I'd like to begin by getting something off of my chest, something that's been bothering me for a little while.
Counsel for the President and some other folks in this room have been talking a lot about how late it's getting, how long this debate is taking. It's almost 10:00 P.M. in Washington D.C. They say let's get the show on the road, let's get moving. And the whole time the only thing I can think about is how late it is
in other places because, right now, it's the middle of the night in Europe, where we have over 60,000 U.S. troops.
[21:50:00]
There are helicopter pilots flying training missions, tankers, maneuvering across fields, infantrymen walking with hundred-pound packs, and yes, Ukrainian soldiers getting ready to wake up, in their trenches, facing off against Russian tanks, right now.
And I don't think any of those folks want to hear us talk about how tired we are or how late it is. We have time to have this debate.
And that's why the House Managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key documents from the Department of Defense, because just like the subpoena for OMB, these documents from DoD speak directly to one of President Trump's abuses, his withholding of critical military aid from our partner, Ukraine, to further his personal political campaign.
$250 million of taxpayer-funded military aid for Ukraine was managed by the Department of Defense as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
These funds, approved by 87 Senators, in this very room, would purchase additional training equipment, and advising to strengthen the capacity of Ukraine's Armed Forces.
The equipment approved for Ukraine included sniper rifles, rocket- propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radar, night vision goggles, and medical supplies. And this equipment was to be purchased almost exclusively from American businesses.
This equipment, along with the training and advising provided by DoD, was intended to protect our national security, by helping our friend, Ukraine, fight against Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Earlier, Counsel for the President tried to make the argument "Well the -- it had made it there. The aid eventually made it there. The delay doesn't really matter." And you heard me talk about why the delay does matter.
But what Counsel for the President didn't say is that all of the aid has not made it there.
Congress had to pass another law, so that $35.2 million of that aid wouldn't expire and lapse. We did. But, to this day, $18.5 million of that money remains outstanding, and hasn't made its way to the battlefield.
It was DoD that repeatedly advised the White House and OMB about the importance of the security assistance to not only Ukraine but also U.S. national security.
It was DoD in August of 2019 that warned OMB that the freeze was unlawful and that the funds could be lost as a result. And it was DoD that scrambled after the hold was lifted without explanation on September 11th to spend the funds before they expired at the end of the month.
Without a doubt, DoD has key documents that the President has refused to turn over to Congress, key documents that go to the heart of the ways in which the President abused his power. It's time to subpoena those documents.
DoD documents would provide insight into critical aspects of this hold. They would show the decision-making process and motivations behind President Trump's freeze. They would reveal the concerns, expressed by DoD and OMB officials, that the hold was violating the law.
They would reveal our Defense officials' grave concerns about the impact of the freeze on Ukraine and U.S. national security. They would show that the Senior Defense Department officials repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to release the aid.
In short, they would further establish the President's scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign. We are not speculating about the existence of these documents.
And we're not guessing about what they might show, because during the course of the investigation in the House, witnesses who testified before the Committees, identified multiple documents directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry that DoD continues to withhold.
We know these documents exist. And we know -- and we know that the only reason we do not have them is because the President himself directed the Pentagon not to produce them because he knows what they would show.
To demonstrate the significance of the DoD documents, and the value they would provide in this trial, I would like to walk you through some of what we know exists, but that the Trump administration continues to refuse to turn over.
[21:55:00]
And again, based on what is known from the testimony, in the few documents that have been obtained through the public reporting and the lawsuits, it's clear that the President is trying to hide this evidence because he is afraid of -- of what it would show the American people.
We know that DoD has documents that reveal that as early as June, the President was considered holding military aid for Ukraine. As I mentioned earlier, the President began questioning military aid to Ukraine in June of last year.
The President's questions came days after DoD issued a press release, on June 18th, announcing it would provide its $250 million portion of the aid to Ukraine. According to public reporting, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Elaine McCusker, who manages the DoD's budget learned about the President's questions. We know this email exists because in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Trump administration was forced to release a redacted email.
But DoD provided none of those documents to the House. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Laura Cooper, and her team, were tasked by the Secretary of Defense with responding to the President's questions about the Ukraine assistance.
Ms. Cooper testified that she put those answers in an email, and described those emails during her deposition. She testified that DoD -- DoD advised the security assistance was crucial for both Ukraine and U.S. national security, and had strong bipartisan support in Congress.
But DoD provided none of those documents to the House.
With this proposed amendment, the Senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the President was holding the aid.
Laura Cooper also testified about the interagency meetings that occurred in late 2019, the meetings at which DOD was shocked to learn that President Trump had placed a mysterious hold on the security assistance.
We know what happened at several of those meetings because Ms. Cooper participated in them, in some cases, with other senior defer -- Defense Department officials.
However, we don't have Laura Cooper's notes from those meetings. We don't have the emails she sent to Senior DoD officials, reporting the sunny (ph) news about the President's hold.
We don't have the emails that show the response from the Secretary of Defense and other Senior Defense officials because DoD has refused to provide them.
Separately, Laura Cooper testified about when the Ukraine -- when Ukraine first learned of the President's secret hold on the military assistance.
The same day as the President's July 25th call with President Zelensky, DoD officials received two emails from the State Department, indicating that officials from the Ukrainian Embassy and Congressional staff had become aware of the hold, and were starting to ask questions.
Ms. Cooper testified that she was informed "The Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about the military aid," and that "The Hill knows about the FMS situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian Embassy."
All of this shows that people were starting to get very worried. Again, this amendment for a subpoena to DoD would compel the production of these important documents. But again, there is more.
DoD documents would also reveal key facts about what happened on July 25th, after OMB directed DoD to, quote, hold off on any additional DoD obligations for the assistance to Ukraine.
How did DoD officials react to OMB's directive to keep this order quiet? Did DoD officials raise immediate concerns about the legality of the hold, concerns that they would eventually vocally articulate to OMB in August?
Did DoD officials hear from the American businesses that were on tap to provide the equipment from Ukraine? Was DoD informed that the President's hold would undermine American jobs?
Answers to those questions may be found in DoD emails, emails that we could all see if you issue the subpoena.
Earlier, I mentioned that, by late July, officials in our government raised significant concerns about the impact and the legality of President Trump's hold on the military aid. We know this from witness testimony, public reporting, and documents produced in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
For example, at an interagency meeting on July 31st, Laura Cooper, one of the officials at DoD, announced that because there were two legally available options to continue the hold, and they did not have direction to pursue either of those -- those legal options, DoD would have to start spending the funds on August 6th.
