Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Was Interviewed About His Impression on the Answers Given by the Trump Defense Team on the Senate Floor. 10-11p ET
Aired January 29, 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]
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: That's why you need witnesses. That's why you need to look at the documents and to see what his House's views were characterized. That's why you need to hear John Bolton.
But the idea that it's some unfathomable mystery to know what the president's intent is, is just ridiculous. Because that's what trials determine all the time. And it could be here if they wanted to hear witnesses.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right. Let's switch the watch over to Don Lemon before the Senate reconvenes for more questioning. Don Lemon takes it right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: You're not going. Not so fast. We're going to talk about what happened. I'm so glad -- I saw you with Joe Manchin there. I'm glad you asked him about the relevance of having Hunter Biden or Joe Biden as witnesses. Because neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden were on any of those phone calls or the phone call with President Trump and leader of Ukraine. I'm not sure exactly how they are relevant to any investigation unless you want to muddy the waters.
CUOMO: Yes. The senator is a smart guy. I was surprised to hear that he would think that either Biden is relevant in the context of this issue. Whether or not the president abused his power with this pressure campaign.
I'm not saying that they're not relevant in terms of whether what Hunter Biden was wrong. And I think it looks wrong. It smells wrong. I totally get it.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: But it was Joe Manchin said to us just moments ago he never said that either Biden was relevant. He said that's immaterial what he thinks. It's what the Republicans think and the chief justice should be the arbiter.
LEMON: Well, I saw it live this morning when he was on another network. And I got from it that he thought that Joe and Hunter Biden were relevant. I'm glad he cleared it up because that's what I thought he meant all day. Yes. Does it look bad? Absolutely. Has anything illegal happened? I don't know. But if the president thinks as we wait on the senators. And we're going to talk a little bit longer here. As we wait and they're in recess now. They said they're going to start back at 10 o'clock. But as you know they don't start exactly on time, Chris, here.
We just saw Mitch McConnell walk by so they maybe on the way back in.
But listen, so as we know, we don't know if there's anything that was illegal that we know now -- that we know. The investigation had been dormant into Burisma. They fired the prosecutor because he wasn't investigating anything. And now they want to bring it into here.
I don't -- I don't understand -- there's not one lawyer I know other than the lawyers who are speaking for the president who can understand why either Biden is relevant as a witness in this particular impeachment trial at this point.
CUOMO: Because it's just about politics. It's not about relevant legal analysis. And there's another step that makes it even less useful for the president's perspective.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: The investigation was dormant into Burisma under Shokin. The prosecutor who was thrown out by vote in the Ukraine Parliament.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: They then looked at it under Lutsenko, the new prosecutor supposedly at the suggestion of Rudy Giuliani --
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: -- and they later closed the case.
LEMON: Because there was nothing there.
Chris, I'm going to put you on standby because I want to get to someone really quick. Thank you, sir.
This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Thank you very much for joining us.
Listen, the senators are in recess. And while we're doing that, I want to get to Chris Van Hollen real quick. He's a dick -- a Democrat from Maryland. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you joining us here.
(CROSSTALK)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Good to be with you, Don.
LEMON: You know, you of course a juror after hearing both the House managers and Trump defense answer questions, what's your impression? VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, again the House has put forward a mountain of
evidence in support of their two articles of impeachment. But we need to get all of the information before rendering a final decision.
And that means calling relevant fact witnesses and documents. If anything, this question period has highlighted the need to call John Bolton as a fact witness, to call Mick Mulvaney as a fact witness. Because when you have the president's counsel contesting John Bolton, right, even though John Kelly, the former chief of staff says John Bolton is telling the truth and President Trump is lying. That's exactly when you need to call your fact witnesses like John Bolton.
And so that is the main highlight in my view that's come out of these questions.
LEMON: Yes.
VAN HOLLEN: The under scoring the importance for that -- of that.
LEMON: I'm not sure if you heard the conversation that I had with Chris Cuomo. he just interviewed Senator Joe Manchin who said that he believes that relevant witnesses should be called. Earlier he did an interview saying that he believes that if Hunter and Joe -- Joe Biden and Hunter Biden that they are -- that they should be possible witnesses. What do you think of that? Are they relevant, are hey pertinent to this case to have them testify as witnesses?
VAN HOLLEN: So, Don, I think they're a total side show here. I think the president and his lawyers are trying to distract everybody on Joe Biden's son as opposed to focusing on the scheme that went on here, which was to essentially extort a foreign government to President Trump's political advantage.
That being said, I just issued a statement that I'm going to make the motion that I made earlier but a quite different version on Friday. And what I'm going to say is to resolve these questions about who should be called as a witness and who should not, who is relevant, who is not.
[22:05:02]
We should say the chief justice of the United States should make that decision in the first instance. So, if the president's lawyers want to make the argument to the chief justice as to why hunter Biden is relevant, they make it and he can rule. Same with Mick Mulvaney, same with John Bolton.
We also learned that we can insist the chief --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: You're going to make that motion when? On Friday you said?
VAN HOLLEN: On Friday.
LEMON: OK. Friday. VAN HOLLEN: On Friday.
LEMON: OK. Go ahead.
VAN HOLLEN: We also learned -- we also learned that we can say that the chief justice shall make decisions with respect to privilege, including executive privilege. So that takes away the Republic -- the president counsel's argument that this has to go on forever and ever.
The chief justice of the United States can be invested by the Senate with the authority to make those decisions with respect to executive privilege.
So, let's bring in John Bolton. He's not going to contest a subpoena. He'll show up here. If the president's lawyers want to challenge something he's going to say on grounds of executive privilege, we can deal with that issue right then and there.
LEMON: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: Now, Adam Schiff, on behalf of the House managers said that they won't try to appeal the chief justice decisions in the other courts. And he challenged. He challenged the president's counsel to do the same. They have not done that yet but that something they could do if they're interested in getting to the truth.
LEMON: I know you got to go, just one more question. Do you think are you any closer to getting witnesses?
VAN HOLLEN: Again, I don't know what's in the minds of our Republican senator colleagues at this point in time. We know a few of them. But you know, trying to explain why you don't want somebody who is going to shed light on the truth in such an important moment as this, when every other presidential impeachment trial in history has had witnesses, and to say you're going to close your eyes you want to be blind by the truth. That's awfully hard to explain to people back home who understand what a fair trial looks like.
LEMON: Thank you, Senator Chris Van Hollen. We appreciate you joining us.
VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.
LEMON: Let's bring in now CNN congressional correspondent Mr. Phil Mattingly, White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. We appreciate you joining us both of you.
Phil, you first. So many questions aimed at getting those witnesses. You heard me I just asked Senator Van Hollen. He says he's not sure what's in his -- the Republican colleague's mind. Especially they want to get Bolton. Right? Any sense of where senators are right now?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, we obviously had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tell us conference behind closed doors yesterday he did not have the votes yet. Let me tell you, right now they are on the brink of having the votes. That's what I've been told by multiple Republican officials.
They aren't there officially yet. There are still some undecides hanging out there. But, Don, over the course of the morning we heard from several of the Republicans we were, assuming were undecided or hadn't said anything publicly coming out and officially saying they were voting no on the idea of whether or not to move to witnesses and documents. Again, it's not locked in yet but they are very close right now, Republicans to blocking that, Don.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Phil, I got to get back in there. Thank you very much, both of you. We'll see you later. Let's get back to the Senate.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And Senators Blackburn, Hyde, Smith, Cotton, Holly, Barrasso, Purdue, Fischer, and Cornyn.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
[22:10:00]
LOEFFLER: I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Blackburn, Hyde-Smith, Cotton, Hawley, Barrasso, Perdue, Fischer and Cornyn.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
LOEFFLER: Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: The question from Senator Loeffler and the other Senators is for Counsel for the President. "As a fact witness who was coordinating with the whistleblower, did Manager Schiff's handling of the impeachment inquiry create material due process issues for the President to have a fair trial?"
PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, thank you for that question. And I believe the straight answer is yes, it did create a material due process issue. And as I explained the other day in portion of my argument, there were three major due process violations -- the lack of an authorization so that the whole proceeding started in an illegitimate and constitutionally invalid manner. Second, the lack of basic due process protections related to fundamental rights to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, present witnesses. And then the final one is that Manager Schiff or his staff had some role in consulting with the whistleblower that remains secret to this day. And all attempts to find out about that to ask questions about that were shut down.
Manager Schiff has said today that he had no contact with the whistleblower. It was only his staff, but the extent to which there was some consultation there hasn't actually been probed by any questioning. All of the questions that Republican members of the House tried to ask about that were shut down. And any questions -- as a result, any questions into determining who the whistleblower was and what his motivations and his advice were also shut down. The inspector general for the intelligence community noted we heard that earlier this evening in his letter to the Acting Director of the DNI that the whistleblower had -- there were indicia of political bias because the whistleblower had connections to a presidential candidate of another party. But the testimony from the inspector general of the intelligence community remains secret. It was an executive session. It hasn't been forwarded from HPSCI to the House Judiciary Committee and, therefore, is not part of the record here.
There hasn't been any ability to probe into the relationships between the whistleblower and others who are materially relevant to the issues in this inquiry. If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement?
When issues were raised, we know from testimony the questions were raised about the potential conflict of interest that the Vice President then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma, was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that? Did he have some reason to want to put the deep six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens in Burisma, and firing Shokin, and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo -- you won't get this billion dollars until you fire him. We don't know.
And because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process because he was the chairman in-charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions, that creates a real due process defect in the record that has been presented here. So yes, that is a major problem and a major defect. And the way the House proceedings occurred that infects this record, it means that it is not a record that could be relied upon to reach any conclusion other than an acquittal for the President. Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
Senator for Michigan?
PETERS: Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for the House Managers that I will send to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Peters asks the House Managers, "Does an impeachable abuse of power require that a president's corrupt plan actually succeed?"
LOFGREN: Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, the answer is no. Just as -- although this is not a criminal offense -- if you attempted murder but didn't succeed, you would not be innocent. The President has attempted to up-end the constitutional order for his own personal benefit. He used the powers of -- and let's put Slide 11 up if we could. He has used the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference. And we know this by the President's own statements, the Acting Chief of Staff confession, substantial documentary evidence and witness testimony, and this has grave consequences for our national security, for a threatened election security as well as undermining U.S. credibility and our values abroad.
Now, because the President continues to
[22:15:00]
act in this manner, we believe that this is an ongoing threat. While the impeachment was going on, the President's personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, was in Ukraine continuing this scheme. And when he landed, he was still taxing the President. He were on the phone and the President was asking him, "What did you get? What did you get?" So this is an ongoing matter. The fact that he had to release the aid after his scheme was revealed does not end the problem.
Now I have listened with great interest to the back and forth in the questions, it's hard because I want to stand up and answer all the questions that I can. But I do think that -- that the President has made clear that he believes he can do whatever he wants -- whatever he wants. And there's no constraint that is being recognized by the Congress.
Mr. Mulvaney, as we've noted, has acknowledged that the President directly tied his hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation. And he told us just get over it.
Now, the President's lawyers have suggested we should not believe our eyes. When Mr. Mulvaney -- when I was a kid, they'd say don't believe your lying eyes because he walked that back later. We have an opportunity actually to hear from a witness who directly spoke to the President who apparently can tell us that the President told him that the only reason why this aid was held up was to get dirt on the Democrats.
Now if we just think about it, put Ukraine to one side. If a chief executive called the Department of Justice and said, "I want you to investigate my political opponents. I want you to announce an investigation," there wouldn't be any question that that would be an improper use of presidential power. And it's really no different when you involve a foreign government except that it's worse because one of the things that the founders worried about was involvement of foreign governments in our matters, in our election.
So yes, the fact that he didn't succeed in that particular instance does not mean that we are safe. And the idea I was stunned to hear that now, apparently, it's OK for the President to get information from foreign governments in an election. That's news to me.
You know, the -- the election campaign laws prohibit accepting a thing of value. A thing of value is information. If you or I accept -- accepted a material information from a -- a source, e-mail, databases alike without paying for it or from a foreign nation, that would be illegal. The -- the thought that this, as we go forward in this trial itself, we are creating additional dangers to the nation by suggesting that things that have long been prohibited are now suddenly going to be OK because they've been asserted in the President's defense.
I yield back. J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
BARRASSO: Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Wyoming?
BARRASSO: Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Risch, Hawley and Moran.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Barrasso and the other Senators for Counsel to the President, "Can the Senate convict a sitting U.S. president of obstruction of Congress for exercising the President's constitutional authorities or rights?"
PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, thank you for the question. And I think the short answer is constitutionally, no, the Senate may not convict the President for exercising his constitutional authorities.
The theory that the
[22:20:00]
House Managers have presented, I think, Professor Turley testifying before the House made it very clear is itself an abuse of power by Congress and is dangerous for the structure of our government because the fundamental proposition at the heart of the obstruction of Congress charge that the House Managers have brought is that the house can simply demand information. And if the executive branch resists, even if it provides lawful rationale, perhaps ones that the House Managers disagree with that are consistent with longstanding precedence and principles applied by the executive branch, the House Managers disagree with them, they jump immediately to impeaching the President. And that's dangerous for our structure of government.
We're talking about principles here, one based on simply the failure of the House to proceed lawfully. We've heard a lot about the President is not above the law, but as Professor Dershowitz rightly pointed out, the House of Representatives is not above the law. It has to turn square corners. It has to proceed by the proper methods to issue subpoenas to the executive branch.
So if the House hasn't issued valid subpoenas, if the House attempts to subpoena a senior adviser to the President and the President asserts the immunity of his senior advisers, a doctrine that has been asserted by virtually every president since President Nixon and goes back earlier than that, then there is a confrontation between the branches that doesn't suggest an impeachable offense. What it suggests, what it shows is the separation of powers in operation. That friction between the branches is part of the constitutional design. And as Justice Louis Brandeis explained that the separation of powers was enshrined in the constitution not because it was the most efficient way to have government, but because of the friction that it caused, and the interaction between the branches was part of a way of guaranteeing liberty by ensuring that no one branch could aggrandized power to itself.
And what the House Managers are suggesting here is directly antithetical to that fundamental principle. What they're suggesting is once they decide they want to pursue impeachment when they make demands for information to the executive, the executive has no defenses. It can have no constitutional authorities or prerogatives to raise. In response to those subpoenas, it has to just turn over everything or it's an impeachable offense.
And what that would lead to, as Professor Turley explained, is transforming our system of government by elevating the House and making it really a parliamentary system. As Professor Dershowitz was explaining, in the parliamentary system, the prime minister can simply be removed by a vote of no confidence. But if you make it so easy to impeach the president, all the House has to do is demand some information, go to response from the President that this is contrary to the principles that all presidents before me have asserted, I'm going to stick by the executive branch prerogatives. And then the House can say, well, that's it, you'll be impeached. And if the votes (inaudible) remove the president, you make the President dependent on the legislature.
And that's Gouverneur Morris warned against specifically during the constitutional convention that he warned the framers when we make a method for making the president amenable to justice, we should make sure that we do not make him dependent on the legislature. It was the parliamentary system making it easy to remove chief executive that the framers wanted to reject.
And this theory of obstruction of Congress would create exactly that system of easy removal -- effectively a parliamentary system of a vote of no confidence -- that is not the structure of the government that the framers been trying in the constitution for us. Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Senator from Connecticut?
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Warner, Heinrich and Harris.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Blumenthal and the other Senators is for the House Managers. It reads as follows, "Before the break, the President's Counsel stated that accepting mere information from a foreign source is not something that would violate campaign finance law and that it is not campaign interference to accept credible information from a foreign
[20:25:00]
source about someone who is running for office.
Under this view, acceptance of the kinds of propaganda disseminated by Russia in 2016 and Facebook and other social media platforms using bots, fake accounts, and other techniques to spread this information would be perfectly legal and appropriate.
Isn't it true that accepting such a thing of value is, in fact, a violation of law and isn't it true that it's one of the highest priorities of our intelligence community including the CIA, NSA, DNI, and FBI to do everything possible to prevent such foreign interference or intervention in our elections?
SCHIFF: It is without question, among the very highest priorities of our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement, to prevent foreign interference in our election of the type and character that we saw in 2016. When Russia hacked the databases of the Democratic National Committee, the DCCC, when they began a campaign of leaking those documents, when it engaged in a massive and systemic social media campaign, our intel agencies and law enforcement have been devoting themselves to preventing a recurrence of that type of foreign interference.
If I'm understanding counsel for the president correctly, and I think that I am, they're saying that not only is that OK to willingly accept that, but the very allegation against the president that Bob Mueller spent two years investigating didn't amount to criminal conspiracy, that is could he prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime of conspiracy.
Again, we're talking about something separate from collusion here although my colleagues keep confusing the two. Bob Mueller didn't address the collusion. What we did address is whether he could prove the elements of criminal conspiracy and he found that he could not.
But what counsel for the president is now saying is even if he could have, that's OK. It's now OK to criminally conspire with another country to get help in a presidential election as long as the president believes it would help his campaign and therefore it would help our country. That's now OK.
That's now OK. It's OK to ask for that help. It's OK to work with that power to get that help. That's now OK.
I mean, it's been a remarkable evolution of the presidential defense. It began with none of that stuff happened here. It began with nothing to see here. It migrated to, OK, they did seek investigations of the president's political rival and that it became, OK, those investigations were not sought by official channels to official policy. They were sought by the president's lawyer and his personal capacity.
And then it migrated to, OK, we acknowledge that while the president's lawyer was conducting this personal political errand, the president withheld the money, but we think that's OK. We have -- we've witnessed over the course over the last few days and the long day today a remarkable lowering of the bar to the point now where everything is OK as long as the president believes it's in his reelection interest.
You could conspire with another country to get their help in your election either by intervening on your behalf to help you or by intervening to hurt your opponent. And now we're told that's not only OK, but it's beyond the reach of the constitution. And why? Because abuse of power is not impeachable.
Because if you say abuse of power is impeachable, well, then you're impeaching people or precedents from your policy. Well, that's nonsense. They're not the same thing. They're not the same thing.
I asked Professor Turley who's argued, they're not the same thing as Bill Barr has argued. They're not the same thing as Professor Dershowitz argued 21 years ago. And they're not the same thing today. They're just not.
You can't solicit foreign interference. And the fact that you're unsuccessful in getting it does not exonerate you. A failed scheme doesn't make you innocent. If you take a hostage and you demand a ransom
[20:30:00]
and the police are asking and you release the hostage before you get the money, it doesn't make you innocent, it just makes you unsuccessful, an unsuccessful crook.
But it doesn't mitigate the harmful conduct. And this body should not accept nor should the American people accept the idea put out by the president's lawyers today that it is perfectly fine, unimpeachable, for a president of the United States to say, hey, Russia or hey, Ukraine, or hey, China, I want your help in my election because that's the policy of the president.
We're calling that policy now. It's a policy of the president to demand foreign interference and withhold money from an ally at work unless they get it. That is what they call policy.
I'm sorry. That's what I call corruption. And they can dress it up in fine legalese, but corruption is still corruption.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
COLLINS: Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Maine?
COLLINS: I send a question to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Collins is for the house managers. The House Judiciary Committee report accompanying the articles of impeachment asserted the president committed criminal bribery as defined in 18 USC Section 201 and honest services fraud as defined in 18 USC Section 1346.
But these offenses are not cited in the articles of impeachment. Did the president's actions as alleged in the articles of impeachment constitute violations of these federal criminal laws? And if so, why were they not included in the articles?
JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and thank you, Senator for her question.
Article I alleges corrupt abuse of power. Corrupt abuse of power connected to the president's effort to try to cheat in the 2020 election by pressuring Ukraine to target an American citizen, Joe Biden, solely for personal and political gain. And then to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.
And the scheme was executed in a variety of ways. No, Professor Dershowitz has indicated based on his theory of what is impeachable, that it has to be a technical criminal violation, though the weight of constitutional authority says the contrary, but he said it should be something that is either a criminal violation or something akin to a criminal violation. Akin to a criminal violation.
And what we alleged in Article I falls into that category. Because what happened here is that President Trump solicited a thing of value in exchange for an official act. The thing of value was phony, political dirt in the form of investigation sought against Joe Biden, his political opponent.
And he asked for it explicitly on that July 25th call and to his intermediaries repeatedly in the spring throughout the summer into the fall. Solicited a thing of value in exchange for two official acts.
One official act was the release of $391 million in security aid that was passed by this senate and by the House on a bipartisan basis. And the president withheld it without justification. Witnesses who said there was no legitimate public policy reason, no substantive reason, no legitimate foreign policy or national security reason for withholding the aid.
It was withheld to solicit foreign interference.
[20:35:00]
Yes, that is akin to a crime. That's your standards, sir.
The president also solicited that political dirt in exchange for a second official act, the White House meeting, that the Ukrainian leader desperately wanted, so much so that he mentioned it on the July 25th call and even when President Trump met with President Zelensky at the sidelines of the U.N. in late September, the President of Ukraine brought up the oval office meeting again because it was valuable to him.
President withheld it, withheld that official act to solicit foreign interference in a 2020 election. That is not acceptable in America. That undermines our Democracy. That's a stunning corrupt abuse of power. And yes, sir, it's akin to a crime.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
GILLIBRAND: Mr. Chief Justice, I sent a question to the desk on behalf of Senators Casey, Murphy, Rosen, and myself to the House managers.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator from New York. A question from Senators Gillibrand, Casey, Murphy, and Rosen is to the House managers. How did the president's actions differ from other holds on foreign assistance and how is the hold in release of congressionally appropriated assistance to foreign countries supposed to work?
CROW: Chief Justice, thank you, senators, for the question.
To be very clear, what the president did is not the same as a routine withholding or reviewing a foreign aid to ensure that it aligns the president's policy priorities or to adjust the geopolitical developments because indeed, if that were the case, if the president had engaged a process, had gone through the interagency review process, had gone through the routine congressional process, we would have the documents, we would have the facts to back that up.
But indeed, what we have are none of those facts. None of those documents. In an almost two-month period where none of the individuals who would normally be involved in that process were aware of the reason for the whole.
Now, let's look at some prior holds. In the cases of Obama's, President Obama's temporary holds, Congress was notified for the reasons for those holds.
And it was always done in the national interest whether it'd corruption, national security, in support of our alliances. Never the president's own personal interests.
But let's look at even President Trump's other holds. In Afghanistan, because of concerns about terrorism or in Central America because of immigration concerns were done for reasons related to official U.S. policy. They weren't concealed. They were public, widely publicized and had engaged not only congress but the Department of Defense, Department of State and the entire apparatus that's involved in conducting those holds.
Again, none of which happened here. So, all of these goes to shows -- that there is no legitimate policy reason. Why violate the Impoundment Control Act? Why keep all of the people involved in these holds in the dark? The president's agencies and advisers confirmed repeatedly that the aid was in the best interest of our country's national security including
[20:40:00]
Secretary Esper, Secretary Pompeo, Vice President Pence, Ambassador Bolden -- Bolton.
Over and over again, everybody was imploring the president to release the hold to no avail.
The evidence also shows that even the process was unusual as I've talked about earlier and you've heard over the last week. A career OMB official, Mr. Sandy, explained that Mr. Duffey, the president's hand- picked political appointee who has refused to testify the president's direction took over responsibility to authorize the aid.
Mr. Sandy confirmed that in his entire career at OMB, he'd never seen or experienced career officials having their apportionment authority removed by a political appointee.
Senators, this is what we're talking about. There's been a lot of discussion. You haven't heard from me in a little while and i suspect there's a reason for that. I suspect this because we don't want to talk about the big issue. We don't want to talk about what happened here.
The president abused his authority, put the interest of himself, over the interest of the country, over the interest of our national security, over the interest of our free and fair elections, that is what we are here to talk about, that is what happened, that is what the evidence shows, there is no evidence that shows a legitimate engagement of U.S. policy processes to forward legitimate ends.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Missouri?
BLUNT: Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators McCaskill -- McSally, rather, Lankford -- it was a terrifying moment.
(LAUGHTER)
On behalf of myself, Senator McSally, Senator Lankford, Senator Gardner, Senator Capito, and Senator Wicker, this is a question for the president's counsel.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
A question from Senator Blunt and other senators is for the counsel for the president. What does the supermajority threshold for conviction in the senate created by the framers say about the type of case that should be brought by the House and the standard of proof that should be considered in the Senate.
DERSHOWITZ: There were several debates among the framers. Of course, should you have impeachment at all, we talked about, what the criteria for impeachment should be.
But then there was another debate. Who should have the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether the president should be removed. James Madison suggested the Supreme Court of the United States as a completely nonpartisan institution.
Alexander Hamilton was concerned about that issue as well, but he said the Supreme Court would be inappropriate because the judicial branch should not become involved directly as a branch, OK, to preside over the trial because, ultimately, an impeached president can be put on trial for crimes, if he committed crimes. And Hamilton said that if you were to be put on trial, he would then be put on trial in front of the same institution, the judiciary that had already impeached him and they might have a predisposition. So, in the course of the debate, it was finally resolved that the senate which -- it was a very different institution back at the founding.
Obviously, senators were not directly elected. They were appointed by the legislature. They were supposed to serve as an institution that checked on the House of Representatives, more mature, more sober, elected for longer periods of time with an eye to the future, not so concerned about pleasing the popular masses.
Remember, the framers were very concerned about democracy. Nobody ever called the United States of democracy, a republic if you can keep it, not a democracy. Very great concern about that.
And then when it came time to assign it to the Senate, there was discussion about what the criteria and what the, obviously, vote should be and the selection of a two-third supermajority was plainly designed -- plainly designed to avoid partisan impeachments. Plainly designed to effectuate the very wise philosophy
[20:45:00]
espoused by the congressman and the senator during the Clinton campaign. That is, during the Clinton impeachment.
Never ever have an impeachment or removal that is partisan. Always demand that there'd be a widespread consensus, a widespread national agreement, and bipartisan support. What better way of assuring bipartisan support than requiring a two-thirds vote?
Because almost in every instance, in order to get a two-thirds vote, you need members of both parties. Johnson case was a perfect example. In order to get that vote, you needed not only the party that was behind the impeachment, but you needed people from the other side as well.
And when seven republicans dissented based -- I believe largely on the arguments of Justice Curtis and others, arguments that I paraphrase here the other day, it lost by merely one vote. The Clinton impeachment, if I remember correctly, achieved a 50-50 split. Am I right about that? I think I'm right about that.
And it only lost, I mean, it could have been 51-49. It wouldn't have been enough.
And so, I think it's plain that not only does the two-thirds requirement serve as a check on the House, but I think it sends a message to every senator. Ii sends a message even to those senators who would be in the one third reconsider.
Because if you're voting for a partisan impeachment, you're violating the spirit of the two thirds requirement. There are any institutions where at the end of the day, for example, political conventions, they seek a unanimous vote just to show unity. And I would urge some senators who favor impeachment to look at the two-thirds and say if there is not going to be a two thirds, there should not be an impeachment and therefore we're going to vote against impeachment even though we might think that the criteria for impeachment have been satisfied.
Do not vote for impeachment. Do not vote for removal unless you think that the criteria articulated by the senator and the congressman and I believe by the Constitution and Hamilton are met. Namely, bipartisan, almost universal concern by the United States of America, that criteria is not met and the two-thirds requirement really illustrates the importance the framers gave to that criteria.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: Senator from Connecticut?
MURPHY: Mr. Chief Justice, I rise to send a question to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice, while the question is coming up, I understand there are two more Democratic questions and two more Republican questions.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Murphy is to the president's counsel. The House managers have committed to abide by rulings by the chief justice regarding witness testimony and the admissibility of evidence and that they will not appeal such rulings. Will the president's counsel make the same commitment thus obviating any concerns about an extended trial?
SEKULOW: Members of the Senate, we've had this question and we'll say it very clearly. We are not willing to do that. And we are not willing to do that because the constitutional framework upon which an impeachment is based and the constitutional privileges that are at stake.
With no disrespect to all to the chief justice, that's not the constitutional design. It's the same thing they're doing again.
Surrender constitutional prerogatives you have and then we will proceed in this way. Give us documents, give us witnesses, and if you don't, we're going to charge you with obstruction of Congress.
In this case, it's we are willing to live, according to the managers by whatever the chief justice decides but that is not the way the constitutional framework is setup. And it's putting us in exactly same spot again.
Give up your right to challenge and subpoena in court.
[20:50:00]
Rely only on the -- who's here -- by the way, again, with no disrespect to the chief justice. The chief justice is here as a presiding officer of this proceeding.
So, the president is not willing to forgo those rights and privileges that he possesses under the constitution, under article two, for expediency. They tried that below, in the House. We trust that will not be the decision here in the Senate.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
The Senator from Mississippi?
WICKER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for Professor Dershowitz on behalf of myself and Senators McSally and Moran.
J. ROBERTS: The question for counsel to the president directed to Professor Dershowitz by Senator Wicker is this, Professor Dershowitz, you stated during your presentation that the House grounds for impeachment amount to the, quote, "most dangerous precedent," end quote. What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic to its citizens?
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you, Senators. I came of age during the period of McCarthyism. I then became a young professor during the divisive time of the Vietnam war. I, as all of you, lived through the division during the Iraq War and 9/11 and following 9/11.
I have never lived at a more divisive time in the United States of America than today. Families have broken up, friends don't speak to each other. Dialogue has disappeared on university campuses. We live in extraordinarily dangerous times.
I'm not suggesting that the impeachment decision by the House has brought that on us, perhaps it's merely a symptom of a terrific problem that we have facing us and likely to face us in the future. I think it i's the responsibility of this mature senate whose job it is to look forward, whose job it is to assure our future, to make sure the divisions don't grow even greater.
Were a president of the United States to be removed today, it would pose existential dangers to our ability to live together as a people.
The decision would not be accepted by many Americans. Nixon's decision was accepted, easily accepted. I think that decisions that would would've been made in other cases would be accepted. This one would not be easily accepted because it's such a divided country, such a divided time.
And if the president is established that a president can be removed on the basis of such a vague and recurring and open-ended and targeted terms as abuse of power, 40 presidents have been accused of abuse of power, I bet you, all of them have, we just don't know some of the charges against some of them. But we have documentation on so many.
If that criteria were to be used, this will just be the beginning of a reoccurring weaponization of impeachment whenever one house is controlled by one party and the presidency is controlled by another party.
Now, the House managers say there are dangers of not impeaching. But those dangers can be eliminated in eight months. If you really feel there's a strong case, then campaign against the president. But the danger of impeachment will last my lifetime, your lifetime, and the lifetime of her children.
So, I urge you, respectfully, you are the guardians of our future. Follow the constraints of the constitution. Do not allow impeachment to become a normalized weapon in the word of one of the framers. Make sure it's reserved only for the most extraordinary cases like that of Richard Nixon, this case does not meet those criteria.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
The Senator from Arizona?
[20:55:00]
SINEMA: Mr. Chief Justice, I sent a question to the desk for president's counsel.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Sinema to the president's counsel is this, the administration notified Congress of the hold of Northern Triangle countries funds in March 2019, announced its decision to withhold aid to Afghanistan in September 2019 and worked with congress for months in 2018 regarding funds being withheld due to Pakistan's lack of progress meeting its counterterrorism responsibilities.
In these instances, the -- excuse me -- receiving countries knew the funds were being withheld to change behavior and further publicly- stated American policy. Why, when the administration withheld the Ukrainian security assistance, did not notify congress or make Ukraine or partner countries publicly aware of the hold and the steps needed to resolve the hold?
PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, Senator, thank you for the question. I think that in all of those instances that were listed in the question, it was clear that withholding the aid was meant to send a signal. It was done publicly and meant to send a signal to the country.
I think in the testimony before the House, here, Ambassador Volker made clear that he and others hope that the hold would not become public because they did not want there to be any signal to the Ukrainians or to others. And people have talked here, the managers, House managers have talked about how well even if the aid, when it was withheld, it didn't lead to anything not being purchased over the summer. It was still dangerous because it would send a signal to the Russians. But the whole point was it wasn't public. The Ukrainians didn't know, the Russians didn't know. It wasn't being done to send a signal. It was to address concerns that president had raised concerns and he wanted time to have those concerns addressed.
He wanted to understand better burden sharing, the issue that was reflected in the June 24th e-mail that I referred to earlier that's referred to in the July 25th call transcript, and he wanted to understand corruption issues. He raised corruption issues.
And over the course of the summer, the testimony, Mr. Morrison, in particular, below explained that there were developments on corruption over the summer. President Zelensky had been elected in April. At that time, multiple witnesses testified that it was unclear, he'd ran on a reform agenda, but it was unclear what he would be able to accomplished because it was unclear whether or not he would secure a majority in the Ukrainian parliament.
Those elections didn't occur until July. That when the July 25th call occurred. Right after those elections, he won the majority in parliament.
But then the parliament still wasn't going to actually be seated until later in August and Mr. Morrison testified that when he and Ambassador Bolton were in Kyiv, right at the end of August, I think around August 27th, that the parliament had just been seated and Zelensky and his ministers were tired because they had been up all night, they kept the parliament up late in session to pass through a reform legislation agenda right then, including things like eliminating immunity for members of the parliament from corruption prosecutions and the legislation to set up the new anti-corruption court.
And so, these developments were positive developments that then Mr. Morrison testified President Zelensky, when he spoke to Vice President Pence in Warsaw, they discussed these and President Zelensky went through the things that he was doing and then that information was relayed back to the president.
So, the hold had been in place so that the president could, within the U.S. government, privately consider this information not to send a signal to the outside world. And so, this plays in to some of the ideas that the House managers have presented that somehow this was terrible, it sent a signal to the Russians.
Part of the whole point, Ambassador Volker explained, was that there was concern that it not become public because it would then not send a signal and that is what happened until the Politico article came out August 28th.
And I think that's the best way to understand the difference in an approach there. Thank you.
[21:00:00]
