Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Is Interviewed About The Atmosphere Inside The Senate Chamber; The Impeachment Trial Of Donald J. Trump; Dem House Managers Make Their Case Against Trump By Playing Clips Of Former Officials And Trump Himself; House Managers Wrap First Day Of Case Against Trump. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired January 22, 2020 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think that to me, the House managers really were pitching at those undecided Republican senators today --

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Right.

GLASSER: -- in trying to make the appeal for witnesses. I thought that's what their case was for today.

CUOMO: Well, we'll see. We keep talking about it and it will be interesting if it winds up 50-50, then what happens. This is one of the things we'll think about more as we get into next week. Next week will be big but every day is going to matter in building to that point.

Susan Glasser, thank you so much. Jim Baker, Manu Raju, and of course, Mike Isikoff, I appreciate it.

All right. Now, the arguments are over for the day. It will be digested in full. We'll be back for two hours. A special late edition of CUOMO PRIME TIME. "CNN TONIGHT" with Don Lemon is right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Yes. We used to chat but I got a lot to get to, buddy.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

LEMON: And you got -- you got to get ready for some more hours, so we'll soon. Thank you very much.

This is our breaking news, everyone. Thank you for joining us.

The Democratic House managers wrapping up their first day of opening arguments in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. Thank you so much joining us.

Again, as I said, House managers led by Congressman Adam Schiff presenting their case against President Trump for almost nine hours in the first day of what's expected to be three marathon days. Walking through the president's infamous July 25th Ukraine phone call. Playing testimony from key witnesses including Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Bill Taylor.

Some of the most damning evidence in the case coming the president's own words and those people in his administration.

Day two of the House managers' opening statement set to get underway tomorrow afternoon at 1 p.m. You heard Mitch McConnell asking the Chief Justice John Roberts if they could start at 1 p.m. tomorrow, if they could adjourn. The chief justice saying yes, gaveling, saying we're done until tomorrow at one.

I want to bring in now Susan Hennessey, Laura Coates, David Axelrod, and Scott Jenning -- Scott Jennings. Gang is all here. Thank you very much.

Listen, I heard something I told you guys as we're listening to it, that really caught my ear when Jay Sekulow was being questioned. So, I'm going to -- I'm going to put it to you, Laura. I'm going to read. And this was, I think this is the reporting.

This is from Politico. And Politico says, to one Republican -- to one Senate Republican the firehose of evidence was an education in itself for him and his colleagues. And he said, nine out of 10 senators will tell you they haven't read a full transcript of the proceedings in the House.

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a Republican of Louisiana quip and the tenth senator who says he has is lying.

So, did they burst these House impeachment managers, the impeachment bubble that has been around the Republican lawmakers in Washington and maybe in the Senate who's the people who are going to decide the fate of this president?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, if by bubble, you mean are they now more inclined to change their minds in favor of conviction?

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Or just hearing the evidence.

COATES: I don't think that's true. yes.

LEMON: No, no, not that, but just hearing the evidence.

COATES: I think so we'll -- I mean, it's actually accurate. Because remember, this is the first time -- you may have heard the sound bites. You may have heard Gordon Sondland. You may have heard Bill Taylor. You may have heard Jennifer Williams or you may have heard different people. Kurt Volker and Alexander Vindman.

But to have it comprehensively put into this perspective is the first time most people, even those who have been the most devoted watchers are hearing. For the very first time, you're hearing about which agencies, what are the documents that underlie what we want to hear from? What corresponding testimony? Which witness brought this in?

It's really laying out the case and that is really the whole reason you are having the impeachment trial. To say here is not just a narrative. Here is what has actually happened. Here is the chronological timeline. Here is the -- the background information you're going to need to know. And here is why the documents are so important.

But this is really the first time -- the first time -- well, the second time in two days it laid it out -- but the first time that in the trial phase of this you are having this really big, important moment to connect the dots. Will it change their mind, ultimately, Don? That's a different story.

LEMON: Yes. I'm just going to go around. Change minds?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. Look, I think that what Senator Kennedy said was smart. I think you want to appear as if you are absorbing the material. And it's like I'm interested. I'm paying attention before I acquit the president. I want to make sure I hear everything.

But look, I think this thing is baked in the real suspense. And you could see where Adam Schiff and others were playing in this. The real suspense in this whole proceeding is not whether or not the president will be acquitted. But whether there will be witnesses.

And much of the argument today was geared toward not just laying out the case against the president but how that case could be further illuminated by calling some of the principal witnesses who were involved in what Schiff calls this scheme.

LEMON: They're not going to change their minds on the president I don't think. But they may change their mind on witnesses. And that's the whole -- isn't that the key here?

Well, the question is, for the senators who may want to hear witnesses, the competing thing would be how long do you want to possibly shut down the Senate over an issue where the outcome is already baked?

[22:05:02]

And do we want to sit here for weeks or months fighting out which witnesses can come? Is there executive privilege? Et cetera, et cetera.

And I think that's actually an argument, probably, that the White House and the Senate leadership will make to the conference is we have things to do and we're threatening to shut down the Senate for a long period of time. I think that will be actually pretty compelling.

AXELROD: They sent -- they sent Michael Mukasey, the former attorney general into the, to speak to the senators today to explain to them what it would mean to call witnesses and all the legal entanglements that that would involve and how it might delay these proceedings. So, I think that is a --

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: And for what?

AXELROD: -- the counterargument is it politically tenable for those vulnerable senators to vote against having witnesses? And I think Schiff and the others are trying to make it as uncomfortable for those senators as possible.

LEMON: Yes. Susan?

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Look, and this clearly goes to what is the president's legal defense team's strategy? Which is they understand that minds aren't going to be changed on the facts.

And so, what we are seeing them do is sort of a kitchen sink approach. Throwing out basically every single legal argument, factual argument, constitutional argument. So, the senators who want to find a reason to vote to acquit the president can have something to hang on to.

And if it's executive privilege, if it's separation of powers arguments, if they're saying that they don't believe that the House has proved its case, whatever it is that makes that individual Republican senator feel most comfortable and most justified in making that decision, they've laid it out.

And I think we saw that really in the first day of sort of motions back and forth. We really saw them kind of throw even things that were not logically consistent with -- with what they were saying five minutes earlier.

And so, the idea that this is going to be water lost on the facts in terms of the actual acquittal vote, the place it might be really significant though is the extent to which it educates the American public.

LEMON: Right.

HENNESSEY: That the American public is also hearing this for the first time. And some of their constituents are learning about this and have questions and are going to be picking up the phone and they're calling their members.

LEMON: I think -- I think that's where the impeachment managers are going. I think they are trying to educate the American public. But it's really sad because all those senators raised their right hands and took an oath to be impartial and to have an open mind. But they're basically -- they basically have made up --

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: I think --

LEMON: I got -- I've got to get to the reporters. We'll continue our conversation. But I want to get to the folks who are there who are covering this and who have been watching it all day.

Let's get to CNN's Jeff Zeleny. Also, Kaitlan Collins. Thank you so much for joining us on this very long day for a lot of people especially the senators, and you guys are covering it.

Jeff, you were in the room for the past few hours. What did you see? How are senators reacting to another marathon day?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Don, good evening. There is no question that the Republican senators who everyone has their eyes on here were paying very careful attention throughout the evening.

As Congressman Schiff and the other impeachment managers were laying through this, it's clear that I was watching Susan Collins. I was watching Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Cory Gardner and others. And they were paying very close attention. We do not know what they are thinking. We do not know how they are processing this.

But I can tell you, sitting in the chamber several Republican senators were absent through a lot of the evening. Lindsey Graham was out for at least half of the time. Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Democratic side was out as well.

But the people who were in the room, which was the majority, were clearly paying attention. But it was clear what Chairman Schiff was doing throughout the evening. He was telling these senators, if you want these documents, ask for them. You have the ability to subpoena these documents. Specifically, on John Bolton.

The Senate chamber was silent as he was saying if you want to know what John Bolton was thinking, ask for these documents. So, it's clear that Chairman Schiff was making an appeal in primetime to the American public, as well. No doubt about it. They were -- you know, that was his intent.

But today was all about the chronological order of events. Tomorrow is about the law. But certainly, much more of a pro forma feel. Not as much acrimony because we were of course hearing from only one side. After the prosecution presents its evidence, then the president's lawyers will also have their side.

But that was his goal today. Trying to make the argument. And in the very final moments, he said these government officials who came forward had courage. I hope that some of you senators have the same courage. Don.

LEMON: And also, Jeff, another question. At the very end, the Chief Justice Roberts referred to one-page classified document that will be received --

ZELENY: Right.

LEMON: -- but not made a part of the public record. What -- what do we know about that? ZELENY: We are told that that is a document from Jennifer Williams.

Of course, she is the national security advisor to the vice president, who gave her testimony here a couple months ago in November. And then she had some additional testimony.

So that was given to the House committee at the time at the end of November. It was entered in the record. The House Democrats believe that it shouldn't be classified but they say the vice president's office has not responded to efforts to declassify it. So, they are entering that in as part of the record.

It's one page of supplemental testimony. We don't know exactly what is in there but it clearly is something she was answering in addition to her testimony from the time in November, Don.

[22:10:03]

LEMON: All right. Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

ZELENY: Sure.

LEMON: Kaitlan, I want to bring you in now. How much is President Trump paying attention to his impeachment trial on Capitol Hill? I know that he was probably watching it on the plane back from Davos. But how much is he paying attention?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. They did have the TVs on Air Force One, Don. Turned to this as the president was flying for several hours. Something he normally does when he's on long flights from overseas trips where he does watch television and especially when it's his own Senate trial.

So, he's been paying very close attention to this. Watching it closely today. Evaluating how his team was doing yesterday during those very contentious debates that Jeff was talking about. And also, he's been on the phone with lawmakers a lot of the time. Some senators. A lot of those House Republicans that the president put on his impeachment defense team last week or earlier this week that you saw the president lay out.

And he's been watching very closely. But what we also know from speaking with sources is he is eager to get his argument out there. And you have not seen a substantial portion of that so far.

Yesterday, you did see them going back and forth. But the House Democrats were taking a lot more time to make their arguments during those debates over those resolutions yesterday than you saw the White House team making because they felt like they were defending themselves against it.

So the president is eager for his team to start defending him on this. To lay out his side of the story, he believes. So that's something notable. And of course, Don, you have to look at who was the Democrat that really leading this argument today? And of course, that was Adam Schiff, who spoke at much longer -- for

much longer of a time than you saw any of those other House managers speak. And, of course, that is one of the members who irritates President Trump the most.

Adam Schiff is someone he rails against privately. Criticizes publicly, regularly. So, it's got to be notable that that is who the president was watching criticize him all day long.

LEMON: All right. Kaitlan Collins. I can see right in front of the White House. Kaitlan, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I want to bring in now Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Senator, I appreciate you joining us. I know it's been a long day.

(CROSSTALK)

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

LEMON: So, again, thank you so much. You were on the floor for over eight hours today. Over 12 hours yesterday. What's it like being in that room? Take us there.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, it's still sort of, an overpowering experience in the sense of the historical moment. Whoever had the idea way back of making sure that senators cannot take their communication devices on to the Senate floor had it exactly right because it does mean that you're more focused on the arguments being made. You're more focused on the presentation, the testimony, and the facts. Rather than everybody distracted looking for their latest e-mail or text.

So, both the weight of the moment I think sinks in as a result of that, I will say sitting for those long hours is hard. You see a lot of us after a couple hours get up, sort of stretch our legs a little bit and listen from -- from the back of the room instead of from our desks.

LEMON: Is that a little odd? I don't know if uncomfortable is the word. I'm not sure having your device. Because people, you know, you take them everywhere. you check -- I check mine at the commercial break. Sometimes during sound bites, you check your phone. What is it like not having that device with you?

VAN HOLLEN: You're right. I mean, look, all of us are now sort of totally wired and connected to these devices 24/7. On the one hand, you know, you feel like you're -- you need your -- you're addicted to it. On the other hand, it's good to take a break. And I think forcing that break to focus on the trial is important. Of course, that's why you see everyone dash to the other rooms as soon as the breaks are there to check the devices.

LEMON: I thought you guys had to go to the restroom. You know, I didn't know. But listen, I've got to ask you this. Have you been speaking at all about this to your Republican colleagues? Have you had conversations with them? VAN HOLLEN: Not -- not since the trial began. But I do hope starting

tomorrow to have a chance to connect with some of them. After all, today was the sort of first full day of the House putting on evidence. And I must say they put on a mountain of evidence. And put together a very compelling case in support of the two charges.

And so, I am interested in asking my Republican colleagues what they think of it. And of course, the House managers, again, made the point that if anyone wants to contest their story, they're going to need to present facts and if they are presenting facts that are not on the record, we're going to need witnesses and we're going to need documents to really litigate this case fully.

LEMON: What do you think your chances are of getting that since you mentioned witnesses and documents?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, I think that the House managers made a compelling case on their existing record for the charges. But they also made many -- showed many examples of why it would be very helpful to the Senate to get contemporary -- contemporaneous notes that have been taken. Other documents.

[22:14:55]

Look. There's that whole back and forth where OMB -- OMB ordered the freeze on aid. I asked for that GAO report back in December that we received recently. And now, we know that there were lots of documents involved in withholding aid to Ukraine that have not been produced to United States Senate. Those should be produced. Covering up is not a justification for hiding documents from the Senate and from --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Just real quickly because I want to get to the president. But Politicos reporting that Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is saying this was some -- some -- many of his colleagues had never heard the evidence laid out like this. It was -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- eye opening for them. Is that surprising to you?

VAN HOLLEN: No. I think some senators did not follow the House proceedings that closely. I kept a very close eye on the House proceedings. But many senators decided to either wait till it got here or were not closely monitoring what was happening. So, for those who are seeing all this evidence for the first time, it would be very eye opening.

LEMON: Do you think that will change minds? Have any sort of effect on them?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, that's another question, right, Don? But, you know, the administration right now has two arguments to make. One is to sort of dispute the facts. And that is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do because the record here is so complete and so convincing.

Their other argument, of course, is the Alan Dershowitz argument is, hey, even if all this really terrible stuff happened, who cares? Because the president can do whatever he wants. He's above the law and abuse of power does not apply to crimes against the Constitution unless there's some other criminal violation.

That's a lot of nonsense. But maybe that's -- that is their last resort. That's what they're going to trot out Alan Dershowitz for, I guess. But I don't think it's going to be very compelling after this.

But then again, the president's lawyers are trying to satisfy a party of one right now. That's the President of the United States. And the question is who are the senators going to be, essentially, showing their allegiance to? Is it going to be to the Constitution? Or are they also going to be looking to Donald Trump? That's the big question in this trial.

LEMON: I said we were going to move on to the president but you answered it in your response already my question. So, thank you, Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate your time. Get some rest.

VAN HOLLEN: Good to be here.

LEMON: Thank you. Thank you for staying around for us this late into the evening.

Up next, how impeachment managers are using the president's own words as evidence against him.

[22:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We have a lot more on our breaking news.

Democratic House managers wrapping up the first day of their case against President Trump just minutes ago.

Susan Hennessey, Laura Coates, David Axelrod, Scott Jennings are back with me. So, Scott, I'm going to start with you. Because before leaving for Davos President Trump weighed in on the impeachment trial. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Does this seem like the president essentially bragging about withholding evidence from Congress?

JENNINGS: Yes. I was puzzled by that remark frankly. I mean, I -- look, I guess -- I guess what he is foreshadowing here is a big fight over, you know, executive privilege if the Senate decides to go down the road of subpoenaing witnesses and documents. I mean, frankly -- (CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Why is it puzzling though? Him saying --

JENNINGS: I mean, if it were me, I don't think I would say anything. I would say yes, seems like it's going fine. Now, the big -- the big moment --

(CROSSTALK)

AXELROD: If it were you, you probably wouldn't be impeached right now.

JENNINGS: Well, that's true. But the big moment for him, to me, and the big announcement today was that he's going to speak at the March for Life rally on Friday, which is a lot of people. And that will be the first time he in person in the United States, I think, I imagine will fully weigh in on this.

And so, I'm curious if he continues to follow that sort of line of thinking he laid out there in a longer speech to, you know, hundreds of thousands of supporters.

LEMON: Yes. He said it's surprising but as I sat there today watching them lay out the president really incriminating himself with his own words. And him saying we've got all the material. My jaw dropped when I heard that today.

COATES: Maybe it's because, yes, we know that's why we have an obstruction of Congress article of impeachment against you because you have the information. You're withholding it from us. We want to exercise -- apparently, I'm in Congress. I'm saying we right now.

We would like to be able to have some sort of oversight o be able to get the documentation or witnesses and you're holding it. Now the reason the strategy is kind of effective for them is because this stonewalling campaign has put Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone in the position to say this. Listen, you're unable to make your case. You don't have enough evidence.

But the reason you don't have it is because I'm withholding the material from you. This catch 22 has carried them through the impeachment inquiry. And now, here we have it again. And so, it's the damned if you do, damned if you don't that they have to actually articulate at this point in time.

Ultimately, however, the insufficiency argument cannot hold much weight if you look at this in terms of impeachment as a deterrent for future conduct or misconduct. It's what Adam Schiff talked about today and a collective abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Not just the House but of the Senate as well. You're thumbing your nose.

LEMON: As executive privilege, can that be, that -- is that obstruction at some point when you keep claiming executive privilege? Because Jay Sekulow keeps talking about executive privilege, executive privilege. COATES: Just because you say the words doesn't seen you actually are

corresponding to an actual legal argument here. He is talking about the reason saying well, they can't see anything because of executive privilege.

Well, that's not a carte blanche to actually either not produce witnesses or testimony. One of the ways you can -- Hakeem Jeffries talked about this issue today was you can resolve the issue through testimony. You can't just tell someone, in a blanket assertion, you can never speak because the President of the United States say -- excuse me -- spoke to you.

LEMON: Yes.

[22:25:03]

COATES: There has to be an actual, articulable legal claim. And I haven't seen them make one yet.

LEMON: Susan, let me ask you about this, Susan. I know you want to weigh in and you can -- you can probably say what you want to say in this because there is lots of moving parts here. There is phone call, there is a video of the president. The House witness testimony. Text messages. Meetings in Ukraine and on and on.

There is a clear narrative of what happened here. Go on.

HENNESSEY: Yes. I do think that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that is already on the table. And so, the idea that there still -- you know, we really don't know what happened here. We don't -- we really don't know whether or not the president engaged in impeachable conduct or not. That's just not the case.

We have overwhelming evidence. What we don't know is how bad it actually was and really being able to sort of make that kind of airtight case that allows for, you know, even the bad faith, sort of objections of pretending.

On the executive privilege issue, clearly, for assertions of executive privilege can be obstruction. If we took the president's arguments on its face, imagine what this would mean. It would mean that the president of the United States could decide what information to give to Congress, unilaterally.

Whatever he decided was privileged, he would not have to give it over. That would mean that congressional oversight would be based on the good will of the President of the United States. The president wanting to share information. It defies constitutional logic.

JENNINGS: But isn't the place to work all that out in the confines of the federal court system and not in the middle of a messy impeachment that's divided the country?

HENNESSEY: But impeachment is the confrontation of two branches. It's the confrontation of the legislative branch and the executive branch. And so, the idea that the remedy here is to constantly run to the courts, by the way on a timetable that delays and, therefore, advantages the president who is, let's be honest, trying to cheat in the upcoming election.

You know, that just strikes me as the kind of delay tactic that it's not really about getting genuine answers to real constitutional questions here. These are frivolous assertions.

LEMON: This is what the Constitution --

AXELROD: And look, I mean, --

LEMON: -- says is supposed to be worked out.

AXELROD: Yes. But I think the fundamental point and it's been made is that when you start off by making a blanket assertion that no one is going to cooperate and no documents are going to be turned over, this becomes more than just a court case. This is a strategy that was announced and it is basically a declaration of obstruction.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: And by the way, the president --

HENNESSEY: Not to mention they never asserted the privilege.

COATES: Yes.

HENNESSEY: We are talking about executive privilege but the president never asserted the privilege.

JENNINGS: Well, they didn't have to for Bolton because they never subpoenaed him.

(CROSSTALK)

HENNESSEY: They just decline -- they just decline to file a subpoena.

JENNINGS: If his assertions of privilege are so outrageous, wouldn't you be confident in going to court and get seeing -- get knocked out?

COATES: But, Scott, the rest of that sound bite, the president was talking about as to why not to call say, a Bolton, is that you don't want somebody who left the White House on bad terms to go giving interviews and testimony.

Now that's not executive privilege, that's not saying that the deliberative process or (Inaudible) is private. It's saying I think you might not like me. I don't want you to speak. That's not privilege.

LEMON: I got to get to the break. You guys are going to come back.

AXELROD: OK.

LEMON: House managers will be back tomorrow and Friday. Then the impeachment trial continues with the president's team taking a turn Saturday. John Kasich weighs in on all of this. He's next.

[22:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: And we're back. House Democrats on the first day of opening arguments, laying out in precise detail to the Senate why they believe President Trump should be removed from office. Congressman Adam Schiff, were arguing the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power to cheat in the upcoming election and then obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Joining me now is John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Kasich, I appreciate you joining us. Listen. This just in now, Chuck Schumer did an interview and I'm going to quote here something that he says.

He says, we will work something out, I think that at least gets the four witnesses and four sets of documents that we have requested. They're essential. He is hopeful that they're going to get in what they wanted. So, the key witnesses I believe. So do you think -- my question is do you think the public pressure is working on the Democrats' part?

JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look. I think, first of all, I think Adam Schiff has done a very good job. And I'll tell you, Don, how I can look at him as the chairman of the committee, which is a different role than the role he's playing now. Now, he's sort of being lawyerly, prosecutorial. He's not running a committee. And I think that he's presented himself a lot better and in a compelling way along with a number of his colleagues.

And I think because of that, there are Republicans that are listening now intently, probably a number of them that had never really listened or thought about all this before. And I think there's probably a sense of fairness that's descending upon them. And if, in fact, they can work something out, it's very significant.

I wrote three words down that I wanted to make sure were absent from all this, mockery, derision and contempt. If those words enter that chamber, either a little bit the other day, going forward, or when it's over, it will create a poisonous atmosphere, Don, that will prevent us from doing many of the things that this country has to see happen in Washington. So the idea that they can work this out, that means they can -- they can -- they can have an agreement. That's a good thing going forward, not just now but for the future.

LEMON: So you think it is working. You think --

KASICH: Yes.

LEMON: -- in that answer, you think this is working. OK. So listen. It is -- it is -- it's clear, pretty clear, that some new witnesses, like John Bolton, like Mick Mulvaney, which is two of the witnesses that they want, they could add to the story and that there is a lot of documentary evidence that is being withheld. Should Republicans want to hear that? Maybe some of it would be -- maybe some of it would clear the president. Maybe it's exculpatory.

KASICH: Yes. I think it should all be heard. I mean, you know, you and I have been talking about this now for a long time. The more information, the better. When you go back to the Clinton impeachment, and you know, I was in the House when we did that. Over in the Senate, they did it by videotape. You know, they weren't on the Senate floor, but they heard additional testimony even after an exhaustive investigation by Ken Starr.

[22:3515]

So it happened there. And if somebody said to me today, well, if you have a trial but nobody -- you don't have any witnesses, what does that mean? So, I think it makes common sense to the public. You know, I think there was a poll -- I don't go by polls -- but I think 70 percent of the public said there should be more witnesses. It's just common sense. And without them, people are going to wonder what the heck went on over there?

And I think that works against the idea that your Senator is somebody who's been fair. And I think they're feeling some of the heat from that. I would guess that. I think they're probably back talking to their staff saying what do you think? And they are trying to gauge where how they move forward now.

LEMON: So you think Americans know a fair trial when they see one?

KASICH: Yeah. I think that, you know, for those that are following this, Don, and you know, I don't know how many people are actually watching this, the idea that we want more information, that these charges are serious.

LEMON: I think from my trusty sidekick Laura Coates here who was doing the research before we went on the air, she said 7 million people were watching last night. Is that right, Laura?

COATES: Yes.

LEMON: Yes, seven million people.

KASICH: Well, that's a pretty good number. I mean, it's not 24 million like we had in the debates a few years ago. But it's still a significant number and they're seen in primetime. And Don, it's like -- it's a narrative. It's going over time. It's not chopped up or just a little bit of, you know, sort of cut-off sentences. But rather, it's sort of a full narrative.

And I guarantee you there are some Republicans in the Senate who are saying, you know, I didn't know all that. What do you think about that? They're talking to their staff. They're talking to their buddies who are their colleagues. And some of them I think I'm really surprised to hear Schumer say this. I didn't think that they would actually get to these witnesses but now with that comment, maybe it looks like they will and the country will be served better because this has to end in a right way.

LEMON: Yes.

KASICH: A degree of fairness and respect.

LEMON: Yes. Listen. I've got to ask you because this -- this is going to set a precedent. However this ends up going. If they get the witnesses in. If the president stays in office. If he is removed, whatever. Whatever the outcome. Do you think that the separation of powers is at stake here? And why are Republicans so willing to give up their own power? Because this -- this will set a precedent going forward forever.

KASICH: Well, it's very important, Don. I mean, you're hitting on something, which is they're co-equal branches of government. Not the Senate and the White House, but the House and the Senate, the Congress is a co-equal branch with the White House. And, look, if you're -- if you're an executive, you want to cling to your power.

As the governor, I wanted my executive power. But the legislative branch has to be very, very jealous of their authority. And sometimes, actually, some of them in the legislature didn't like me, because I was -- I was, you know, frankly, being a powerful executive.

But it's up to the Congress to make sure there's a balance. It's important. And one other thing that I think needs to be noticed -- needs to be mentioned here. Other presidents have withheld foreign aid. But I have never heard of one who withheld foreign aid on the basis that you need to do an investigation of my political opponent. That is not what goes on among presidents that I have watched and I've learned about. This is much different than that.

At the end, however this comes out, Republicans, Democrats, there has to be a sense that it was fair without the contempt, the derision, and the mockery. We got to respect one another because there's many things to do beyond this.

LEMON: You are watching me talk back to the television when Jay Sekulow said that today that -- about Barack Obama holding up aid to a foreign country. He held up aid but it wasn't to investigate his political rival. It was for different reasons. So, thank you.

KASICH: It's exactly right and we shouldn't be confused about that.

LEMON: Yes. Thank you, John Kasich. I appreciate your time. talk to you soon.

KASICH: No, you got a lot to do tonight, Don. Thanks.

LEMON: Thank you. Stay with us to our breaking news coverage of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Democrats arguing impeachment is the remedy for a president who wants to cheat to win. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22"40:00] LEMON: Congressman Adam Schiff and his Democratic House Manager

colleagues arguing that President Trump needs to be removed from office for what they say he has already done and what they say he'll continue to do. Back with me now, Susan Hennessey, Laura Coates, Scott Jennings and David Axelrod, who you heard talking. That's why I'm smiling. Because (inaudible) in the impeachment.

(LAUGHTER)

So, I will start with you then, because there is a bigger case being made here. Democrats are arguing that the president is cheating and that he won't stop unless he is removed.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Listen. I think if you take a step back from all of this, you know, what struck me about Schiff's remarks today, the opening remarks, were the close of them when he talked about the stakes here. I think there are stakes on both sides. And Scott and I were talking about this earlier.

It is a grave thing to remove a president. It's never been done before. We've never removed a president through the impeachment process. We're a deeply divided country. It would be very disruptive to do that and that's something that you have to weigh if you're a Senator.

On the other hand -- on the other hand, if the president is acquitted and -- and he will undoubtedly take from that -- by the way, an argument that he did absolutely nothing wrong, which is what his lawyer said, that is like carte blanche to continue to do what he's done. And so this is a very, very thorny issue.

LEMON: What makes you -- what makes anybody think -- because it was a day after the Mueller --

AXELROD: Well, yes. I mean --

[22:45:00]

LEMON: And then he says we have all the evidence. And he says China, you know, I mean --

AXELROD: This would -- this would -- this would, essentially, give him the green light and knock down barriers. And I do think that he would be encouraged to do similar things in the future, because he wasn't punished for doing this. And so, you know, this is a very weighty matter.

LEMON: You say that this -- that it can't be solved at the ballot box. That's Adam Schiff, that his strategy him saying, that you said, you think that's wrong.

JENNINGS: Yes, look. This is a fundamental disagreement between the Republicans and Democrats. They view Schiff as the principal sort of spokesperson for Donald Trump stole the last election. I have all the evidence to prove it and it didn't pan out in the Republican view point. And now, here he is on the Senate floor the same guy who drained his credibility saying he's going to steal the next election and they just don't buy it.

LEMON: But Scott -- go ahead.

COATES: Schiff was also far more prospective. He wasn't just saying that it would embolden this president. But future presidents would also not be deterred.

AXELROD: Yes, that's right. That's a precedent.

LEMON: Susan.

HENNESSEY: You know, I think that there are powerful separations of powers arguments. You know, the history of impeachment in this country is failed impeachment, not removal. The mere fact that we are here I think is sort of miraculous and I do think -- that I hope that the Senators listening to Schiff's words tonight, you know, think about it and think what their oath means.

LEMON: Can you do it in five seconds?

AXELROD: Well, the fact is that the president did not ask Zelensky to open an investigation into Biden for any reason other than he wanted to sully a political opponent. Now you may not view that as cheating in the election. But it certainly was meant to have an impact on the election.

LEMON: All right. Thank you all. I appreciate it. Thanks, everyone. A lot to talk about. The founding fathers today. What would they really think about tonight? Our experts weigh in. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

LEMON: House impeachment managers back in the Senate again tomorrow. They are arguing that the evidence is overwhelming that President Trump abused his power and obstructed justice -- obstructed Congress, excuse me, and that he should be removed from office.

Let's discuss the gravity of all of this with CNN Legal Analyst, Michael Gerhardt and presidential historian, Douglas Brinkley. Gentlemen, good evening. Boy, what times we're living in, huh. Interesting.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Unbelievable.

LEMON: Michael, I'm going to start with you. Adam Schiff began the first part of his presentation with Alexander Hamilton, he ended with Benjamin Franklin. He wanted to remind his Senate colleagues of their constitutional duties.

MICHAEL GERHARDT, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Yes, and I thought those were powerful. I thought his presentation was terrific. You know, both as a law professor and a lawyer. I was very impressed by his command of the facts and command of the law. Unfortunately, I think, GOP Senators were largely not listening. Some of them walked out, went on to other business, which I think

unfortunately really reflects what's going on here. Democrats are invested in this. They believe in the facts. Republicans don't care about the facts and they walks away.

LEMON: Douglas, you know, we've talked a lot about this. Throughout this process, we have seen Republicans more interested in supporting the president and the executive branch rather than their own constitutional powers. The framers could not have ever anticipated this.

BRINKLEY: No I don't think so, I mean, the fact that this hyper partisan. I mean, we really didn't have the political party system until 1800 when John Adams went against Thomas Jefferson and they beat each other up, so, you know, ugly. But you know, Nancy Pelosi is right. This is historic that forever impeachment is on Donald Trump. So we're watching. Millions of Americans, and all of this is happening.

Yet it's not on ABC, it's not on CBS, it's not on NBC, it's not in the bars and the restaurants that people are leaning forward and talking about it. And I think that's the opening that Mitch McConnell is looking for, just the voting public. If half of us don't vote, a bunch of us aren't watching this and that they can stonewall for a while.

And you know, Mitch -- I've been praising a-plus Nancy Pelosi for what she did in Congress. She needed to -- Mitch McConnell is going to go down in history as a power broker and the thought that he can herd cats, that he's going to let four roam off the reservation, it may let Mitt be Mitt, he might led Susan Collins or one other, like, Lisa Murkowski got off -- left on the Kavanaugh that the idea that four are going to say I was moved by Adam Schiff.

And Lindsey Graham today telegraphed that Donny left for like, you know, for hours, just saying -- but so they're waiting their turn. They're going to have it. And it's a tall order to get those witnesses coming up.

LEMON: I wonder if it's probably a better question for a media reporter if the networks have an obligation to run this.

BRINKLEY: I feel so.

LEMON: They should have done that.

BRIGGS: I'm disappointed in them all. And I wonder if their witnesses will have to cover it or not.

LEMON: My colleague Jake Tapper, Michael, spoke with George Conway today and he talked about the GOP, why the GOP doesn't want to see any evidence in this trial. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY, HUSBAND OF KELLYANNE CONWAY: What are they afraid of? Wat are they afraid of? They're going to hear evidence that they don't like? They must be afraid of something. And that's the thing that I find most disturbing about it. Is they don't want to hear the evidence because they know the truth. They know he's guilty and they don't want to hear the evidence, because they don't want the American people to see it, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Isn't that the opposite of what they pledged to do?

GERHARDT: That is the opposite of what they pledged to do. And I think what we're going to see is exactly what George just suggested. Clearly Republicans are afraid of the facts and they're going to run from them and they're going to support the president because that's the most important thing for them right now.

It helps their reelection, it helps their party. Doug knows this much better than I do, but I think this will be a short victory for them. They may get out of this trial in one piece, but in the long run I think, you know, history catches up with you. And I think it will judge them very harshly for basically facilitating the cover up.

[22:55:13]

BRINKLEY: I agree with that, but February 4th is the big date. All Mitch McConnell is worried about, Don, is State of the Union Address. Donald Trump saying I don't want to be under -- in a trial while I'm delivering it, so they're really rushing through that in a way maybe that the Democrats rush to Congress before Christmas.

The mystery here to me is John Bolton. I mean, he could come out any minute and spill the beans. He's got a book coming out sometime in the late spring, and my hunch is he's going to go after Rudy Giuliani, throw him under the bus and not go after Donald Trump.

LEMON: Gentlemen, thank you. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

And thank you for watching our live special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump continues with Anderson Cooper.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, BREAKING NEWS SHOW HOST: Good evening.