Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
The Impeachment Trial Of Donald J. Trump; Questions And Answers Sessions Concludes; Interview With Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), About His Insight On How He Thinks Senator Lamar Alexander Might Vote; GOP Sen. Collins Will Vote For Witnesses. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired January 30, 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]
PHILBIN: The first is on their face, the articles of impeachment, as they've been laid out by the House managers, even if you take everything that's alleged in them, they don't, as a matter of law, rise to the level of an impeachable offense because even the House managers haven't characterized them as involving a crime.
So, that's one level of the answer that an impeachable offense would require a crime. Even going beyond that to a second level.
The theory of abuse of power that they've alleged, put aside whether or not it's a crime. The theory of abuse of power that that they have asserted is not something that conforms with the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
It depends entirely on subjective intent and it is subjective intent alone. And as Professor Dershowitz explained and as I've explained, and I don't mean in a more radical portion of his explanation as theory, I mean, just in terms of what is high crimes and misdemeanors.
He explained that something that based -- is based entirely on subjective intent is equivalent to maladministration. It's equivalent to exactly the standard that the framers rejected because it's completely malleable. It doesn't define any real standard for an offense.
It allows you to take any conduct that on its phase is perfectly permissible and on the basis of your projection of a disagreement with that conduct, a disagreement with the reasons for it to attribute to bad motive to try to say there's a bad subjective motive for doing that and we'll make it impeachable. That doesn't conform to the constitutional standard.
So, in -- at the common law, they would call the reaction to a charge like this a demurrer. You demur and simply say even if everything you say is true, that's not an impeachable offense under the law and that is in appropriate response here. Even if everything you allege is true, even if John Bolton would say it's true, that is not an impeachable offense under the constitutional standard because the way you try to define the constitutional standard, this theory of abuse of power, is far too malleable. It doesn't -- it goes purely the subjective intent and it can't be relied upon.
Then, third level of my answer is this. We've demonstrated that there is a legitimate public policy interest in both of the matters that were raised on that telephone call. The 2016 election interference and the Biden Burisma affair.
Because there is a legitimate public policy interest in both of those issues even if it were true that there were some connection, even if it were true that the president had suggested and/or thought that, well, maybe I should hold up this aid until they do something, that's perfectly permissible where there is that legitimate public policy interest.
It's just the same as if there -- there is an investigation going on, the president wants a foreign country to provide some assistance. It's a legitimate foreign policy interest to get that assistance. It's legitimate to use the leverage of foreign policy to secure that assistance.
So, because there is a legitimate public policy interest in both of those issues and I think we've demonstrated that clearly, it would be permissible for there to be that linkage.
But, again, I'll close with where I began which is there was no such linkage here. I just want to make that clear. But taking further to the sake of argument, the question is phrased even if Ambassador Bolton would testify to that, even if you assume that were true, there is no impeachable offense stated in the articles of impeachment.
Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
The Senator from Illinois? Thank you.
The question from Senator Durbin for the House managers, would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the president's counsel?
SCHIFF: Senators, it's been a long couple days. So, let me be blunt about where I think we are. I think we all know what happened here. I think we all understand what the president did here.
I don't think there's really much question at this point about why the military aid was withheld or why President Zelensky couldn't get in the door of the Oval Office. I don't think there's any confusion about why he wanted Joe Biden investigated, why he was pushing the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory.
[22:05:00]
I don't think there's really much question about that and I don't think there's any question about what we could expect if and when John Bolton testifies, although the details of which, we certainly don't know. I don't think there's really much question about that. But what's extraordinary is, although they can claim that this was a radical mistake or notion of Professor Dershowitz that they seem to be distancing themselves from right now, I guess they're accusing Dershowitz now of some maladministration in his argument of the defense, they're still embracing that idea. Because what they just told you admittedly in outline of A, B, and C, what they just told you is accept everything the House said, accept the president withheld the military aid to coerce Ukraine into helping him cheat in the election, accept that these investigations are a sham, accept that he obstructed all subpoenas and witnesses, accept all of that, too bad, there's nothing that you can do.
That's not impeachable. A President of the United States, this is now where we've come to in this moment on our history, the President of the United States can withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of aid that we appropriated, can do so in violation of the law, can do so to coerce an ally in order to help him cheat in an election, and you can't do anything about it except hold up a nomination. That's non- impeachable.
They can abuse their power all they want, the president. This president, next president, can abuse their power all they want in the furtherance of their reelection as long -- here's the limiting principle -- as long as they think their reelection is in the national interest.
Well, that's quite a constraint. That's where we've come now after two and a half centuries of our history.
I think our founders would be aghast that anyone would make that argument on the floor of the senate. I think they'd be aghast. Having come out of a monarchy, having literally risk their lives, having taking this great gamble that people could be entrusted to run their own government and choose their own leaders?
Recognizing that we are not angels, setting up a system that would have ambition, counter-ambition, that we would so willingly abdicate that responsibility and say that a chief executive now has the full power to coerce our ally, a foreign power to intervene in our election because they think it's in the national interest that they get reelected, is that really what we think the founders would have condoned or do we think that this is precisely the kind and character of conduct that they provided a remedy for?
I think we know the answer to that. They wrote a beautiful Constitution. They understood a lot about human nature. They understood as we do that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And they provided a constraint but it will only be as good and as strong as the men and women of this institutions willingness to uphold it, to not look away from the truth. The truth is staring us in the eyes.
We know why they don't want John Bolton to testify. It's not because we don't really know what happened here. They just don't want the American people to hear it in all of its ugly graphic detail. They don't want the president's national security adviser on live TV or even in a non-live deposition to say I talked with the president and he told me in no uncertain terms, John...
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
SCHIFF: To be continued.
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Georgia?
Question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Hawley, Cruz, Purdue, Gardner, Lankford, Hoeven, me, Scott of Florida, Portman, and Fischer.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
[22:10:00]
The question from Senator Loeffler and the other senators is for the counsel for the president. As reported by Politico, quote, "in January 1991, then Senator Joe Biden argued strongly against deposing additional witnesses or seeking new evidence in a memo sent to fellow democrats ahead of -- excuse me -- of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial." End quote. Politico reports Senator Schumer agreed with Biden. Why should the Biden rule not apply here?
SEKULOW: Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate.
In a memorandum dated January 5, 1999, that is captioned "Arguments in Support of Summary Impeachment Trial," Senator Biden discussed some history first regarding two senate impeachment proceedings that were put forward in the Senate that were summarily decided.
And this is what he said. These two cases demonstrate that the senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking any evidence. To put another way, the Constitution does not -- excuse me -- impose on the senate the duty to hold a trial.
In fact, the Senate need not hold a trial even though the House wishes to present evidence and hold a full trial in the elements of jurisdiction or precedent. He went on to say in a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that in its constitutional role, a sole trial of impeachment does not require it to take new evidence or hear a live witness testimony.
This follows from the senate's considerations for motions for summary position disposition in at least three trials and it listed the three trials of Judges Ritter, Claiborne and Nixon. And each of the Senate considered a motion for summary disposition on the merits and no case did the Senate declined to consider a motion for summary disposition is beyond the Senate's authority or forbidden by the Constitution.
The framers did not mean that this political process was to be a partisan process. Instead, they meant it to be political in the higher sense. The process was to be conducted in the way that would best secure the public interest or in their phrase, the general welfare. That was the Biden doctrine of impeachment proceedings. Now, some members in this chamber agree with that. Some members that serve on the -- as managers also agree with that.
But now the rules are different. The rules are different because Manager Schiff, just moments ago did what he's now famous for and created a conversation, purportedly from the President of the United States regarding Russia hacking of Burisma. And he did -- it's the same thing he did when he started his hearings.
So, this is a common practice. But if we want to look at common practice and common procedures, the Biden rule is one. I'd like to address something else because we've heard it time and time again about two judges have decided this issue of executive privilege.
I want to address two things very quickly. My very first case at the Supreme Court of United States, it was a long time ago. Over 30 -- no, 30 -- over 30 years ago, 33 years ago.
My client lost in the district court and I said, well, we'll appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was not so successful. We didn't win there either.
My client said, well, what do we do? I said, well, we have one option. We could file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. Chances are, they're not going to take the case.
But at this point, it's an important issue to you, so why don't we proceed? My client agreed to proceed.
A petition for certiorari was granted and the court reversed, nine to zero, the Court of Appeals in the district court. And that's why you continue to utilize courts when appropriate. That's why you do it.
And you don't rely on what a district court judge says. And the last thing I want to say, they are asking you, as a Senate body, to waive executive privilege on the President of the United States. Now, think about that for a moment.
They are asking you to vote -- to determine or have the chief justice, is individual capacity as presiding judge, vote to waive executive privilege as it relates to the President of the United States and that is what they think is the appropriate role for this proceeding to continue.
[22:15:00]
I think you should adopt the Biden rule. Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
BENNET: Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: Yes. The Senator from Colorado?
BENNET: Thank you. I'd like to send a question to the desk in behalf of myself and senator Warner.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senators Bennet and Warner is to the House managers. Mr. Sekulow said that if the Senate votes for witnesses, he will call a long chain of witnesses that will greatly lengthen the trial. Isn't it true that the Senator will establish by majority vote which and how many witnesses there will be? Isn't it also true that prior impeachment trials in the Senate commonly have heard witnesses who did not testify in the House?
JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I thank the distinguished senators for their questions.
Certainly, this is the case that all we are asking the Senate to do is to hold a full and fair trial consistent with the Senate's responsibility. Article I, Section 3, of this Constitution, the Senate shall have the sole power with respect to an impeachment trial.
And this great institution has interpreted that they're in a 15 different impeachment trials that have taken place during our nation's history. That a full and fair trial means witnesses, because this institution, every time it's held a trial has heard witnesses, all 15 times including, in several instances, where they were witnesses who did not testify in the House who testified in the Senate.
The point was raised earlier about Benghazi. And Trey Gowdy, he's a good man. I served with him. He's a very talented lawyer. I'm sure he's pleased, the distinguished gentleman from the Palmetto State and his name has been brought in to this procedure.
But Trey Gowdy, according to one of the questions, said that the administration didn't cooperate. The White House in that instance and the State Department turned over tens of thousands of documents pursuant to a House subpoena. That's cooperation.
Several witnesses appeared voluntarily in Benghazi including General David Petraeus, former CIA director, Susan Rice, who at the time, was the national security adviser; Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser; Admiral Mike Mullen, Former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff; General Carter Ham, former commander of AFRICOM; Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, he also showed up.
General Michael Flynn, former DIA director. Who else showed up? The Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She testified publicly, under oath, for 11 hours. That's cooperation.
What happened in this particular instance in the House? No documents, no witnesses, no information, no cooperation, no negotiation, no reasonable accommodation. Blanket defiance.
That's what resulted in the obstruction of Congress article. So, all we're asking is for the senate to hold a fair trial consistent with past practice. In every single trial that Senate has held, the average number of witnesses is 33.
You cannot normalize lawlessness. We cannot normalize corruption. We cannot normalize abuse of power, a fair trial.
[22:20:00]
Lastly, of the witnesses that did testify, voluntarily showed up, what did they have to say?
These were Trump administration witnesses. Ambassador Sondland, how did he characterize the shakedown scheme, the geopolitical shakedown at the heart of these allegations? Ambassador Sondland, quid pro quo. Ambassador Taylor, crazy. Doctor Fiona Hill, a domestic political errand. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, improper. John Bolton, drug deal.
What would the framers have said? The highest of high crimes against the Constitution.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
ROMNEY: I have a question...
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Utah?
ROMNEY: I have a question I sent at the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Romney is for both parties and I believe the House manager will go first. Do you have any evidence that anyone was directed by President Trump to tell the Ukrainians that security assistance was being held upon the condition of an investigation into the Biden's?
SCHIFF: Senator, the evidence that's currently in the record, there are two people who had direct conversations with the president about the conditioning of aid on performance of the investigations.
The first was Gordon Sondland who on September 7th had a conversation with the president that thereafter he related to Tim Morrison as well as Ambassador Taylor. And in the conversation that Ambassador Sondland described at the time, he said the president -- on the one hand, he said no quid pro quo. But then went on to say that Zelensky has to announce his investigations and he should want to.
So, the president made the direct link to Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland then made the direct link -- or had already made the direct link to Andriy Yermak but after the conversation with the president, had a conversation with Zelensky himself and conveyed what he had been informed by the president that Zelensky was going to have to conduct these investigations and that's when Zelensky made the commitments to go on CNN.
So, Ambassador Sondland has acknowledge the tie between the two. So, did Mick Mulvaney. And I think that video is now etched in our minds for all of history. Walk -- try to walk that back as he may, he was quite adamant when he was asked about that.
And the reporter even followed up when he said that part of the reason why they held up the aid was the desire for this investigation into 2016. And the report said, well, what you're saying is a quid pro quo. You don't get the money unless you do this, the investigation of the Democrats. And the chief of staff's answer was we do it all the time. Get over it.
So, you have it from the president's own chief of staff, you have it from one of the three amigos, one of the president's point people, and bear in mind, Ambassador Sondland, of course, not a Never Trumper, million-dollar donor to the Trump inaugural, someone the president deputized to have a significant part of the Ukrainian portfolio, someone who given that is the EU ambassador, if this was about burden sharing, when I said this was about a burden sharing, but he didn't, of course. He said it was about the investigations.
The third direct witnesses will be John Bolton if we are allowed to bring him before you. But there already are witnesses and evidence in the record and people spoke directly to the president about this and to which the conditionality was made clear. After the conversation...
J. ROBERTS: Mr. Manager...
PURPURA: Mr. Chief Justice. Senator, thank you for your question. I believe the question was is there any evidence that anyone told that President Trump had anyone tell the Ukrainians directly that the aid was linked? I believe that was the question.
[22:25:00]
And the answer in the House record is no. And I described this on Saturday when I walked through at length. And so, I'd refer back to that presentation, Ambassador Sondland and Senator Johnson.
Ambassador indicated in approximately the September 9th timeframe as we all heard the statement, he asked the president and the president said I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. And you've heard a lot from the House managers about go out to the microphones or make -- that he need to do the right thing, but I believe the statement was he needs to do the right thing. He needs to do what he campaigned on.
Even earlier, Senator Johnson, again, because Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador -- told Senator Johnson that there was a linkage. So, Senator Johnson asked the president directly. And we know the answer to that.
The president said, was there any -- when Senator Johnson asked if there was any connection between security assistance and investigations, the president answered, no way. I would never do that. Who told you that? And the answer was Sondland.
And Ambassador Sondland had come to that presumption prior to speaking to the president. And we saw the montage from Ambassador Sondland about presumptions and assumptions and guessing and speculating and belief.
So, we also remember the montage in which Ambassador Sondland was asked did anyone on the planet tell you that the aid was linked to the investigations? And his answer was no.
So, in the House record before us, there is no evidence that the president told anyone to tell the Ukrainians that the aid was linked. And in fact, the article from The Daily Beast yesterday...
J. ROBERTS: (OFF-MIKE)
PURPURA: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Oregon?
Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for Senator Schatz, for Senator Carper, and for myself.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question is for the House managers from Senators Merkley, Schatz, and Carper.
Yesterday, Alan Dershowitz stated that a president cannot be impeached for soliciting foreign interference in his reelection campaign if he thinks it's in the public interest. The president's counsel stated that the president cannot be prosecuted for committing a crime and the president himself has said, quote, "I have the right to do whatever I want as president." End quote.
Aren't these views exactly what our framers warned about? An imperial president escaping accountability? If these arguments prevail, won't future presidents have the unchecked ability to use -- to use their office to manipulate future elections like corrupt foreign leaders in Russia and Venezuela?
SCHIFF: Senator -- thank you for the question, senators.
Before I address it, I just want to complete my answer to the last question. On September 7th, the president has a conversation with Gordon Sondland and the president says no a quid pro quo but Zelensky has got to go to the mike and he should want to do so.
This is in the context of whether the aid is being withheld in order to secure the investigations. After that call, on the same day, Sondland calls Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, and says you're not going to get the money unless you do the investigations. So, you've got the communication between the president and Sondland and Sondland conveying the message to the Ukrainians. In short, succession.
And so, I thank you see that the message the president gave to Sondland was, in fact, communicated immediately to the Ukrainians. And of course, Sondland went on to explain to Ambassador Taylor and to Tim Morrison that the president wanted Zelensky and a public box. And what was meant by that is he wanted to have to go out and announce publicly these investigations if he was going to get the money.
[22:30:00]
Remember Sondland explained that the president meaning he wanted him to announce publicly these investigations if he was going to get the money. Remember, Sondland explained that the president's a businessman and before he gives away something, he wants to -- before he signs the check, he wants to get the deliverable. And Ambassador Taylor says, that doesn't make any sense, Ukraine doesn't owe him anything.
So, it was clear to everyone including the Ukrainians, they weren't going to get the money unless they did the investigations that the president want it. And that's the connection on September 7th. It makes it crystal clear.
In terms of the Dershowitz argument, when coupled with a president who believes that under Article II, he can do whatever he wants, yes. I mean, this is a prescription of a president, not just an imperial president, but an absolute president with absolute power because if a president can take this action and extort -- one country can extort any country. If he can make a deal with the president of Venezuela or take an action antagonistic to what Congress has legislated in respect to that country, can violate the law in doing it to get help in his reelection and I think that example that the Senator King asked about is directly on point.
There's no limiting principle here as long as the president thinks it's in the interest of his reelection. So, yes. He can ask the Israeli prime minister to come to the United States and call his opponent an anti-Semite if he wants to get U.S. military aid.
And that principle can be applied anywhere to anything to the grave danger of the country. That is the logical extension, not just of what Professor Dershowitz said yesterday, but to what the president's counsel said today. You can accept every fact in the articles. We still think it's fine and beyond the reach of the Constitution.
The president can extort an ally by withholding military aid, can withhold meetings, can ask them to do sham investigations even if you acknowledge the fact that they are sham. In fact, they don't even have to done, they just have to be announced and there's nothing Congress can do about it.
Now, that is a prescription for a president with no constraint.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. manager.
Mr. Chief Justice?
J. ROBERTS: The Senator from Indiana?
BRAUN: I, along with Senator Lee, send at the desk a question for the president's counsel.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
A question from Senators Braun and Lee is for the counsel for the president.
Under Professor Dershowitz's theory is what Joe Biden is alleged to have done potentially impeachable in contrast to what has been alleged against President Trump?
PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, thank you for the question.
And I believe that under the Professor Dershowitz's theory, remember, he tried to categorize things into three buckets. One is purely good motives, one is, well, you might have some motive for your personal political gain as well as public interest motives for doing something or intent.
And then there was a third bucket of purely private pecuniary gain. And he said that's the one if you're doing it for purely private pecuniary gain, that's a problem.
And I think that would be the distinguishing factor in the -- what is potentially present in the facts known about the Biden and Burisma incident because the conflict of interest that would be apparent on the face of the facts that are known is that there would be a personal family financial interest in that situation.
Vice President Biden is in charge of Ukraine policy. His son is sitting on a board on a company that is known for corruption. The public reports are, that apparently the prosecutor general was investigating that company and its owner, the oligarch at the time. Then Vice President Biden's quite openly said that he leveraged billion dollars in U.S. loan guarantees to ensure that that particular prosecutor was fired at that time.
One could put together fairly easily from those known facts the suggestion that there was a family financial benefit coming from the end of the investigation.
[22:35:00]
Because it protected the position of the younger Biden on the board. So -- and that would be a purely private pecuniary financial gain. That's the third bucket that Professor Dershowitz was describing and the one that is necessarily problematic where he said that's where there's going to be a problem. That's where you would have a crime and a potentially impeachable offense.
So, I think that would be the distinction there that that is one that if all of those facts lined up under Professor Dershowitz's categorization of things would be the problematic category.
Thank you.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
KLOBUCHAR: Mr. Chief Justice, on behalf of myself and Senator Cardin and Senator Van Hollen, I have a question for the House managers that I will submit to the desk.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you.
The question from Senator Klobuchar and the other senators. Yes. This one. Sorry. This one's from Senator Cardin. I think this is the right question and it is directed to the House managers. No. We don't have the question before us.
From Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
The question from Senator Klobuchar is to the House managers. Could you please respond to the answer just given by the president's counsel and provide any other comments the Senate would benefit from hearing before we adjourn for the evening?
NADLER: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate.
We've just heard from the House from the president's counsel is the usual nonsense. There are only three -- as we draw to a close tonight, there are only three things to remember.
One, this is a trial. And it's a trial as any 10-year-old knows, we should have witnesses. We are told we can't have witnesses because after all, the House says we proved our case as we have and so why should we need witnesses?
Well, that's like saying that in a bank robbery, the D.A. announces that he's proved his case. He's had all the witnesses. And then an eye witness shows up and he shouldn't be allowed to testify because after all, the D.A. was sure he prove this case first.
That's absurd, any 10-year-old knows that's absurd and that's the president's case against witnesses that we've had enough. There's always more. There aren't too many more here, but the fact is when there are witnesses to be asked, they should be asked.
Second, there's only one real question in this trial. Everything else is a distraction. A three-card monte game being played by the president's counsel. Distractions. Don't look at the real question. Look at everything else.
Everything else is irrelevant. Look at the whistleblower. Irrelevant. Look at the House procedures. Irrelevant. Look at Hunter Biden. Irrelevant. Look at whether President Obama's policy was as good as or better than President Trump's policy with respect to Ukraine. Irrelevant. Look at the Steele dossier. Irrelevant.
There's only one relevant question. Did the president abuse his power by violating the law to withhold military aid from a foreign country to extort that country into helping him -- into helping his reelection campaign by slandering his opponent? That's the only relevant question for this trial.
The House managers have proved that question beyond any doubt. The one thing the House managers -- the president's counsel got right was quoting me as saying it was beyond any doubt. It is, indeed, beyond any doubt.
That's why all these distractions. That's why the president's people are telling you to avoid witnesses because they were afraid of the witnesses. They know the witnesses, they know Mr. Bolton and others will only strengthen the case.
And yes, we hear, well, if the house managers say the case is so strong, why do you need more witnesses? Because the truth can be bolstered.
I yield back.
J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel.
The majority leader is recognized.
[22:40:00]
MCCONNELL: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1:00 p.m. Friday, January 31st.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT: Without objection, the trial is adjourned.
(IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ADJOURNED)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And there you have it. Question time is over, except it's really not. And the ones that remain could change everything. Question one, will Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander vote yes or no on witnesses at the trial and what happens if the answer is no? He promised a decision once tonight's session is over and it just finished, so we wait.
Going into the evening it looked like there were three Republican votes for witnesses. In other words, enough for a 50/50 tie on the question, which raises all kinds of other questions of its own. The biggest one being will the chief justice of the United States decide to break the tie if there is one? As we wait to hear from Senator Alexander we are joined by Elliott Williams, Mike Shields, Kirsten Powers and Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey? What did you heard tonight? What do you expect from him?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know what, it's kind of a coincidence. We started at 1:00 and it's now almost 11:00. Which means -- today the proceedings were almost as long as the Irishman. But -- it's been a long day. It was pretty -- it was pretty repetitive today. I mean, these were arguments we've heard from all -- from both sides.
COOPER: It really is about Lamar Alexander.
TOOBIN: Oh, my gosh. And Lisa Murkowski. And towards the end of the day we heard questions from Lisa Murkowski and the first question from Lamar Alexander that --
COOPER: Lisa Murkowski's question was essentially, why shouldn't Bolton testify?
TOOBIN: That was her first question, which suggested that she wanted to hear from Bolton. But then she participated in a question that said, even if Bolton testifies, will it make any difference in the result? Which would suggest, you know, and she asked the defense lawyers and they said, of course, it wouldn't make any difference. So that would suggest that she doesn't want to hear from witnesses. In other words -- I don't know what she's thinking.
COOPER: Elliott?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Same thing. It's hard to read where Lisa Murkowski is right now on account of those two questions. Because earlier today, we all let out a gasp when she asked that question about, you know, really suggesting that she really wanted to hear from John Bolton. When she joined that Lindsey Graham question, this is maybe about an hour or two ago, that just said -- even -- and they used the lawyerly language of read in the light most favorable to the impeachment, does it even matter and they sort of said, well, you know, it really doesn't go.
COOPER: CNN's Manu Raju is standing by. He has spent the day and the night watching the proceedings, working his sources. He joins us now. SO, one of the key votes, we're not sure about Murkowski. One of the key votes here, Senator Lamar Alexander, he is expected to announce on how he'll vote on witnesses tonight. Do you know how that's going to happen, when that's going to happen, is it going to happen?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Anderson, we do expect a statement to come out from Lamar Alexander. Probably a paper statement that would details where he stands. I did catch up with him earlier this evening after dinner time. He had just met with Lisa Murkowski, that other swing vote. And he told me that he was definitely going to announce a statement tonight. He said, he's going to make his decision after that final question. So we should expect any minute that statement.
And, of course, that is hugely significant because essentially whatever he decides will determine the fate of the president's impeachment trial. We do expect at the moment two Republican Senators to vote to move forward on witnesses and documents. That's Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney. We don't know where two others are going to go. That's Lisa Murkowski and there's Lamar Alexander.
And of course, if four Republicans break ranks, that's enough to move forward on documents and witnesses and that could lead to a whole new chapter of this impeachment trial. But if there are three witnesses, that means there's a tie vote, and most likely a tie vote probably means that vote will fail. But if there are, of course, if there are only two votes, then that means, of course, the Republicans will win that vote and will defeat any effort to bring forward witnesses and documents and that could mean the conclusion of this trial as soon as tomorrow night.
[22:45:12]
So what Lamar Alexander is about to announce will be enormously significant. Everybody is watching this. I asked him earlier, which way are you leaning on this? He said, I'm standing right up in the middle. He has not tried to show his cards at all. Been very quiet throughout these proceedings. But those questions that he did join tonight raise some questions about the case of the House Democratic managers have put forward and has a lot of people thinking that he ultimately will side with the Republicans.
But we just don't know for sure until we see that statement and that statement, of course, will determine whether these guys -- the Senate gets out of town late night into tomorrow to acquit this president or whether this could go on for a matter of days, if not, weeks in determining more whether more witnesses will come forward, Anderson.
COOPER: Well, I mean, even if Lamar Alexander tonight announces that he will go with Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and vote for more witnesses or more evidence. That doesn't -- we still don't know about Murkowski, correct?
RAJU: Yes. That's right. And we're not -- it's not certain she's going to announce her position as well. And it's not sort that they have -- going to take the same position. I asked him, Lama Alexander, if they were coordinating, him and Murkowski. And he said they're not coordinating, they just met to touch bases as they do from time to time.
I also saw the (inaudible) in the cloak room -- after -- just off the Senate floor this evening tonight during that question/answer period, and that soon after that they joined together on the question that they had to raise some questions about the case about bringing forward of other witnesses. Or perhaps they were just talking about their question and not necessarily the ultimate decision.
But you're right, Anderson, if he decides to vote for witnesses, then it will put all the pressure and focus on Lisa Murkowski. And she has said she is curious, wants to hear from John Bolton. But I can tell you in the last day and a half or so, she has refused to entertain any questions about witnesses. She does not want to talk about it at all. She has met privately with Mitch McConnell. She talked to him yesterday, she also talked to him today on the Senate floor.
So, we'll see where she ultimately comes down. But the pressure is very, very significant particularly from the Senate Republican conference where members want to get this done with. Republicans who are running for reelection, want to get this done with. They believe that they don't want to hear from any witnesses and they want these two Republicans to vote their way, Anderson.
COOPER: And so if witnesses aren't going to be called, there is a chance the president could be acquitted as soon as tomorrow night. Do we know what the process would be tomorrow? And what would tomorrow look like? It starts at 1:00.
RAJU: It starts at 1:00. We expect four hours of debate between the two sides about whether to move forward with witnesses. In that 5:00 hour Eastern Time, that's when they will actually be a vote on witnesses. And let's say that vote goes down. Then afterwards, where John Thune is head of the majority told me, things that have two sides will have their own private meetings.
And then after that there will be an effort by Mitch McConnell to have a motion to be voted on to move to closing arguments. So each side would have closing arguments. But that motion that McConnell would offer would be amendable meaning that Democrats could offer amendments to that motion. And so -- then that could be leading to -- that could lead to a lot of debate on the floor between the two sides. That could lead to a lot of amendments.
So the process could drag on for potentially several hours into the night. Which is why that -- a lot of people up here tonight, Anderson, expect this to be a late night vote tomorrow to acquit this president. And I asked John Thune, if he's concerned at all about the optics of making -- the president being acquitted in the dead of night. He didn't seem to be too concerned about that, but he said, his members are pushing very hard to make sure all of this is done tomorrow and they can get back home.
COOPER: So, Manu, you are expecting like a paper statement or an email statement? You're not expecting Lamar Alexander to actually come out and announce in front of cameras?
RAJU: That's not our expectations, he has not been speaking at the cameras. He's been very difficult to track him down. I manage to find him in some of the corners here at the Capitol, but he's not expected to come to the cameras. Maybe by issue papers and hopefully imminently, Anderson.
COOPER: All right. We'll check back in with you imminently. Kaitlan Collins is standing by as well for the White House. Kaitlan, you're at the White House. They're clearly watching Lamar Alexander closely in the waiting as well, I assumed.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Incredibly closely. He has been the wild card for them. And they had been trying to get a read on him, they are essentially reading the tea leaves just like everybody else, but how these moderate Republicans were going to vote. But he is really the one who is the unknown to them.
Now, they know he's close to McConnell. He has got that relationship that Manu was just laying out there. But they essentially didn't know where he was going to go. And the president has been asking aides, how did they think he was going to vote? And they've really been unsure about it. And we were speaking with people in the White House today, close to the president's legal team. They were pretty confident that the Republicans were going to be able to block witnesses from being called to testify.
But, Anderson, they have been scared to essentially be too confident here after what happened on Sunday night. They had been feeling really good about how everything was going. They thought they were going to get a really easy acquittal. And then, of course, The New York Times reported that story about Bolton's manuscript. It really threw everything out the window for them. And they were worried on Monday, on Sunday. They were going to lose as many -- as 10 Republican on the witness vote.
[22:50:10] Now they have come a lot way -- a long way since then. They feel a lot
more confident now. They've been essentially going through all these questions today. They and feel good about who's been signing on to certain questions, including Alexander and Murkowski. But of course, they are still watching just as closely as everyone else. And they truly do not know which way this is going to go.
COOPER: So the -- they won't get a -- or will the White House get a heads up about Lamar Alexander's decision or will they learn as everybody else does?
COLLINS: They certainly do not think they are. They did know that he was going to announce tonight what his decision was going to be. We actually broke that news to some White House officials after Manu reported that earlier on our air that he was going to announce tonight after this question (inaudible).
COOPER: OK. I'm sorry, Kaitlan, I got to go to Manu. He's got some new information, Manu?
RAJU: Yes, that's right. Our colleague Ted Baer just caught up with Lamar Alexander, as he was leaving the Senate. He said a statement will come within the hour. He said that he has informed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of his decision and he was asked if it was a difficult decision and he said he would let the statement speak for itself. So, he would not tip his hand one way or the other where it's coming down, but he has made his decision. He has told the majority leader. We will see if the Majority Leader likes that decision or not, but expect that in the matter of moments, with sometime within the hour, and where Lamar Alexander may clear where he stands on this critical --
COOPER: We just saw the majority leader kind a slowly walk by, no indication, certainly wasn't jumping up and down, either way. So, no indication. We will see playing it close to the vest, no doubt. So within the hour, all right, Manu, we'll continue to check back in with you and also with Kaitlan as well for White House reaction. We have folks all over the Capitol. I'm going to go back to here to our panel. Joining us, Carl Bernstein and John Dean. Carl, I mean, it is fascinating, it all comes down right now in this next hour or two, Lamar Alexander and then Lisa Murkowski.
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It does and he has a chance to be a real hero and to exhibit some real courage. Because what we have seen thus far is a partisan impeachment. Partisan because the Republican Party has shown absolutely no interest in establishing the truth here. Rather what we've seen are attempts to continue to make the issue Joe Biden, the whistleblower, everything but the conduct of the president of the United States. It's been a travesty.
Let's -- and it's been a cover-up. And if, perhaps, four of these Senators decide they will not be party to a cover-up, that they will exhibit some courage, there is a chance that the Republican Party, if they pull some other people with them, might redeem themselves. But this is something for the ages because the whole idea, Trump sitting next to John Dean, John Dean was the critical witness in Watergate. These Republicans have been saying they have no witnesses, they have
no -- no testimony that the Democrats have produced that would show us in the room with the president that he had ordered this quid pro quo. Well, they've got Bolton, who is the John Dean, if they want to have him.
COOPER: John Dean on this night, what are you thinking?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, I've been thinking about Lamar Alexander, who I knew from the Nixon White House. The Lamar Alexander I knew would vote for witnesses. So, I'm curious to see what all these years have done to him.
COOPER: I want to go to -- sorry, I got to go to Manu Raju. Manu?
RAJU: Yes. Two bits of news. Susan Collins, the main Republican making clear she will vote in support of the motion to move forward for witnesses, and documents, part of President Trump's impeachment trial. That is not a surprise. She has indicated she was moving in that direction. She's making very clear here, in her statement, that she just put out, saying that she's talking about how she worked with colleagues to ensure that there's an opportunity to vote for witnesses. She believes hearing from certain witnesses would give each opportunity to side, to make their case. And she said, therefore I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed.
So, she makes that clear in the statement. Now, also Lisa Murkowski, the other key vote, put out a statement saying I am going to reflect on what I have heard, re-read my notes and decide whether I need to hear more. So, Lisa Murkowski indicating perhaps her decision is not final, she's still thinking about it. Everything that she has heard up until that vote. So there will be at least one vote that we don't know tomorrow.
Mitt Romney has not said officially yet he will vote for witnesses and documents but though we expect that to -- to be him, to be a yes. He has indicated as much. So, really the big question is going to be -- still Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski. But we should get the answer out of Lamar Alexander here, Anderson in a matter of minutes and so forth.
COOPER: All right. Manu we are going to take a quick break as we approach the top of the hour, with Susan Collins now a yes for witnesses. Lamar Alexander's decision is just minutes away. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
COOPER: Just before 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time, we are about to hear from a pivotal vote on the witnesses at the impeachment trial. Lamar Alexander, Senator, the retired and moderate Republican Senator promising a statement shortly within the hour, we're told. Just a couple of minutes ago his moderate colleague from Maine, Susan Collins says that she will be voting yes. Senator Lisa Murkowski says, she is not making an announcement tonight. Things just got certainly very interesting. It is very close. Joining us now, another one of the jurors, Delaware Democratic Senator, Chris Coons. Senator Coons, do you have any insight on how you think Senator Alexander might vote?
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I don't, Anderson. A lot of us were trying to discern this evening either from his body language, the questions he asked or from sidling up and chatting with him during the breaks exactly how he might go this evening and I'm as much in the dark as you are. This is going to be a very close vote.
What is striking to me, first, is the answer that we got to a question that was asked earlier this evening which was -- and this was a question I asked.
END
