Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

What Would Senate Impeachment Trial Look Like?; President Trump Lashes Out at Whistle-Blower. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 30, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:07]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: An update now on a story we reported Friday, a 12-year-old girl who accused three male white classmates of holding her down and cutting her dreadlocks.

Now the school where it happened, Immanuel Christian School in Springfield, Virginia, says that her story is false and that the girl's family has just issued an apology.

Quote: "We know that it will take time to heal. And we hope and pray that the boys, their families, the school and the broader community will be able to forgive us in time."

The school says the incident is part of a learning and healing process and that they will continue to support all the students and families involved.

We continue on. You're watching CNN on this Monday afternoon. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Got a lot to talk about.

The president moments ago speaking up about this whistle-blower again in the scandal engulfing his presidency, after it's exposed that the president asked a foreign power to interfere in the election and investigate his political rival, a call that the White House is accused of trying to cover up.

That whistle-blower now fears for his or her safety, as the president continues, continues to attack him or her, including this moments ago in the White House:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When you have a whistle-blower that reports things that were incorrect, as you know, and you probably now have figured it out, the statement I made to the president of Ukraine, a good man, a nice man, new, was perfect. It was perfect.

But the whistle-blower reported a totally different statement. Like, the statement was not even made. I guess statement, you could say with call. I made a call. The call was perfect.

When the whistle-blower reported it, he made it sound terrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Take a look at what one of the whistle-blower's attorneys just said moments ago after hearing that -- quote -- "News update: The law is paramount, and there are no exceptions for anyone" -- end quote.

The president -- or, rather, that attorney was responding to this from another attorney -- quote -- "The intel community whistle-blower is entitled to anonymity. Law and policy support this. And the individual is not to be retaliated against. Doing so is a violation of federal law."

So let's start with Kaitlan Collins. She's our White House correspondent. She has a new reporting, that the president's allies are not concerned -- or, rather, are concerned that the president doesn't understand the gravity of what's ahead.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they're focusing on what the White House's defense is going to be, as you see the president there in the Oval Office says he wants to know what the identity of this whistle-blower is.

That's something that he's repeating, a statement that he made yesterday demanding to know the identity of this, also saying that the House intelligence chairman, Adam Schiff, should be investigated for treason after he read a fictionalized version of the president's call with Ukrainian leader.

But as all of this is going on, and the president is insisting still days later that this call was perfect, even though we have all been able to read the transcript of the call that's been in question for several days now, what's going on behind the scenes is, the president's aides and his allies are worried about what their defense strategy is going to be.

They know it's been six days since Nancy Pelosi came out and said they were launching that formal impeachment inquiry into the president, against the president. And they say that they still don't feel they have been able to mount an aggressive defense.

They point to those appearances by Republican lawmakers and the president's attorney on the Sunday shows yesterday, where they struggled to justify at times the president's call and what he said to the Ukrainian leader.

And it comes as, behind the scenes, people are privately appealing to the president to form an impeachment response team, because they say he's going to need a lot of help as he's fighting Democrats and this.

But, so far, he's resisted a call to do that and to hire new attorneys, because he think, Brooke, that both of those things will make him look weak, and he instead is having Rudy Giuliani continue to go out, be the mainstay on television defending him, even though people are privately telling the president, Rudy Giuliani is not doing you any favors when he goes out on television.

BALDWIN: Kaitlan, thank you very much.

For analysis, Paul Callan is next to me. He's our CNN legal analyst.

And let's just start, Paul, with the threats, the public statements from the president, the tweets against this whistle-blower. The president says he deserves to meet him or her. You heard the lawyer saying this person deserves anonymity.

Is what the president has said, does that amount to witness tampering and/or obstruction of justice?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: It's completely bizarre conduct by the president, because you have to remember that the whistle-blower law in question was passed by Congress, and it was signed off on by two U.S. presidents.

So the executive branch and the legislative branch have agreed to this law. The president, by saying he wants to meet and presumably out the whistle-blower, is suggesting a violation of the law.

And I think the president gets in trouble for this. Yes, you could say it's a form of obstruction. It's a form of witness tampering, but it probably doesn't arise to the level of criminal conduct, because, as we all know from the Mueller report, you can't indict a sitting president.

[15:05:02]

However, the thing the president has to be worried about is impeachment. And, clearly, he's added another impeachable offense.

BALDWIN: This could all be used, all be used.

CALLAN: All be used.

And, in addition, the president has the duty under the Constitution to enforce the law. Instead, this president thinks it's his duty to violate the law. That would be an abuse of power and another impeachable offense.

BALDWIN: I read two of the attorneys' statements for this whistle- blower. And one of them had tweeted earlier about how the intel community whistle-blower is entitled to anonymity.

And he goes, it goes on to say, you know, shouldn't be retaliated against. Doing so is a violation of federal law.

If -- big if -- if and when the this whistle-blower is outed, what are the legal ramifications for that person who blows his or her cover?

CALLAN: Well, he's in a very difficult position, because I mean, this is such a bizarre situation, because the president is really his boss.

And, usually, the guy at the top is eager to support his employees and enforce the law. Here, the president is the object of the whistle- blower's complaint. We have never seen anything like this in American history.

And with the president being immune from criminal charges, the only remedy really that the system has is impeachment. And that's essentially a political remedy.

BALDWIN: How about -- we have been talking so much about that this Twitter storm from the president and there was this tweet about -- he writes that -- about Chairman Adam Schiff -- quote -- "Arrested for treason?"

Who is he making the suggestion to? The FBI director? Can the president legally order for anyone who chooses to be investigated?

CALLAN: Well, theoretically, he can, because, remember, the president is in charge of the Justice Department, and he's in charge of the FBI. He could issue in order to arrest Schiff.

I don't know if that's -- that's not a realistic threat. I think that's just political hyperbole, as they say. But it's a particularly dangerous thing to say, because treason is punishable by death. Is he threatening to put to death the head of the House Intelligence Committee?

I mean...

BALDWIN: Well, you heard the threats from him last week in front of U.N. mission, where he was saying, you know what we used to do to spies?

Execution.

CALLAN: I was even looking back over Nixon's impeachment, which is always a good thing to look back to, because a lot of the things...

BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.

CALLAN: The worst, probably in American history. And of course, he resigned eventually.

He never did what Mr. Trump is doing. He never went on the attack against Archibald Cox or the FBI or anybody else. He -- at least, in the end, Nixon honored the system and let it -- let it play its course. So this behavior by the president is totally strange.

BALDWIN: How about Jay Sekulow, another personal attorney for President Trump, tells Axios that the White House isn't planning to organize a war room, right? Like, a lot of talk has been about Clinton had the war room, preparing to respond to these impeachment developments.

And what I have heard from Sekulow, according to Axios, is that they feel like they -- quote, unquote -- "won the Mueller battle." Therefore, they believe that they can win this one. And maybe Trump thinks he really is his best messenger.

CALLAN: Well, first of all, they haven't won the Mueller battle, because the Mueller report can be incorporated into the impeachment articles that may be voted by the House of Representatives. They can add abuse of power, and they can add whatever they want.

And they can base it on the factual findings of Mueller. So I think it's very foolish of them to think that by just letting the president shoot from the hip, that that's going to help him in this way.

BALDWIN: You think they should have a war room?

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: Oh, I think they should.

What they need most of all is a president who will confer with his advisers and his lawyers before he goes public with off-the-cuff remarks, like treason for Schiff, which is punishable by death.

That's really going to help him defend against an abuse of power? It's a classic abuse of power that he's committing via Twitter.

BALDWIN: OK, and then let me shift to the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. He continues to send mixed messages about whether or not he will actually comply with this impeachment inquiry.

And here he was Sunday morning when he was asked if he would respond to a subpoena.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think Adam should be removed.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: You're not going to cooperate?

GIULIANI: I didn't say that. I said I will consider it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you wouldn't do it.

GIULIANI: I said...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you will not cooperate with Adam Schiff.

GIULIANI: I said, I will consider it. I have to be guided by my client, frankly. I'm a lawyer. It's his privilege, not mine.

If he decides that he wants me to testify, of course I will testify.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: He seems to contradict himself there.

CALLAN: Yes, he does.

BALDWIN: What are his options?

CALLAN: Well, Congress has the right to issue a subpoena in the course of a legitimate investigation.

This now has turned into an impeachment investigation, which is really the most important kind of thing that Congress could do in some respects. Congress can enforce a subpoena. As a matter of fact, at one time, they used to keep a jail in the bottom of Congress. And if somebody defied a subpoena, they could be thrown into that congressional prison.

[15:10:04]

Now, that hasn't been done since 1935. Now you get a referral to the Justice Department. But that's problematic because the Justice Department is run by the president.

But they have a third option. They just go to a judge directly to enforce it as a civil subpoena. And that's what you're going to see here. Giuliani would be held in contempt of court by a federal judge and could be imprisoned for contempt of Congress if he doesn't show up under subpoena.

You will see -- Giuliani will show up if he's subpoenaed. Now, what he says is a different that.

BALDWIN: Does he pull a Corey Lewandowski or not?

CALLAN: Yes.

BALDWIN: We will watch.

Congressional jail.

CALLAN: Congressional jail, yes.

BALDWIN: Paul Callan bringing the congressional history to us.

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: I appreciate that.

CALLAN: OK.

BALDWIN: Paul, thank you very much.

Coming up next, a closer look at the serious concerns about the safety of this whistle-blower after some of the language that this president has been using. I will talk to a former Secret Service agent about what can be done to protect this person.

And we are live in Kiev, where CNN spoke on camera to two of the Ukrainians who met with Rudy Giuliani.

And, later, we have details on how Chief Justice John Roberts might oversee a Senate trial if the House votes to impeach the president.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:05]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

The whistle-blower's attorneys are really sounding the alarm today about their client's safety. They wrote to the director of national intelligence that -- quote -- "Certain individuals have issued a $50,000 bounty for any information relating to our client's identity."

These lawyers continue -- quote -- that "We expect this situation to worsen and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistle-blowers."

And the lawyers added that they're even more concerned after President Trump's remarks labeling those who informed the whistle-blower as spies.

CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers is a former federal prosecutor and now a lecturer at Columbia University Law School. And CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackrow was a Secret Service agent under President Obama.

So, good to have both of you here. I have oodles of questions, starting with you, sir.

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes.

BALDWIN: First, the whistle-blower's lawyers also wrote this to Joseph Maguire, the acting DNI -- quote -- "We appreciate your office's support thus far to activate appropriate resources to ensure their safety."

How do they ensure his or her safety?

WACKROW: Well, listen, first of all, you have to understand what the threat environment is.

I mean, typically, a whistle-blower complaint goes unnoticed. Think about how amplified this complaint is. You're having -- you have a bounty on somebody to unmask them, to find what their identity is.

BALDWIN: Well, the president himself is demanding to know.

WACKROW: Well, not just the president, but you have people who are acting as interlocutors for the president.

BALDWIN: Right.

WACKROW: So, who are now taking his narrative and amplifying it and changing it.

The problem is, when you take a narrative that says that this person is potentially treasonous or something else, there's a risk that that narrative transcends into a call to action, of physical harm for this person. I don't think the president would want that. I actually know the president wouldn't want that.

But you can't understand how a message is received by somebody when they think that the president or Mayor Giuliani or anybody else is saying, go find this person, they're treasonous.

So you have to build the appropriate level of protection, and it's physical protection. It's understanding what the threat environment is that this person faces. And then how do you understand inbound threats for the means, opportunity and intent for somebody to cause this individual harm?

BALDWIN: I want to come back to you on physical security.

WACKROW: Sure.

BALDWIN: But you're nodding.

I'm just curious what you think of all of this. And just from a legal perspective, if this person's cover is blown, what are the legal ramifications for that individual?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, what's so interesting about all of this is that the whistle-blower isn't all that important as a witness.

So if you're just thinking about it in terms of the giving of information, taking out the whistle-blower doesn't do anything for anyone, because he already gave us the call. We now have the readout of the crime.

BALDWIN: Right.

RODGERS: So he doesn't need to testify about that. All that we all need from the whistle-blower, frankly, is the names of the people from whom he got his information.

BALDWIN: The multiple officials at the White House.

RODGERS: Right, his lawyers already know.

So, in other words, you're not -- it's not like a criminal case, where you have a witness who's the key witness, and they have to testify in person, and if they're gone, the whole case falls apart.

BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.

RODGERS: It's not that situation.

So the notion that this person, if this person were taken out somehow would help the president is ridiculous anyway, and yet this threat persists, which really kind of just underscores how just nutty some people are trying to protect the president or seemingly protect the president.

BALDWIN: If you're rolling around Washington, D.C., and you see a bunch of black cars with tinted windows, have been in many of them. WACKROW: Yes.

BALDWIN: Everyone on the street is sort of like, what, what, who's that, what's going on?

I mean, if that is the case, can you imagine some sort of motorcade rolling toward Capitol Hill? And then how do you keep that person anonymous then? And you know people are going to be looking out on Capitol Hill? And how do you vet the security around him or her?

How do you pull that off?

WACKROW: So the protection in this instance is a double-edged sword, right?

The person is anonymous right now. So by building a protective structure around them, you're going to amplify their position. Someone who may not have had protection in the past all of a sudden has armed guards around them rolling around in -- with lights and sirens in Washington, D.C., is going to be anomalous.

[15:20:10]

So they're going to say, well, wait a minute, why does that individual have that level of protection? That could be it.

So, unwillingly, they may be unmasking this individual by their protective structure. So it has to be a very measured approach. They have to take a low-profile protective methodology on this individual to protect their identity, because that's what they want, protect them from physical harm, but also protect their identity, to allow this process to continue in the facts to come out in the whistle-blower complaint to be adjudicated the right way.

BALDWIN: If you're this whistle-blower's attorney, how do you go about protecting this person, speaking up and out, when you have the president of the United States demanding to know who he or she is?

RODGERS: Yes, I think what you want is, you want this person to be able to testify, of course, behind closed doors. It's going to be a classified setting.

You want to make sure, do you know what I'm saying, that they can getting there in a way that doesn't draw attention, so that you can keep them anonymous.

And then, as the lawyer, you need to protect this person from retaliation, right? So you need to make sure that, where he works, he's not retaliated against, not fired, not demoted, not any sort of adverse action taken against him.

So that's really going to be the lawyers' job, protect physically by enlisting the right law enforcement agencies, but also protect professionally.

BALDWIN: I mean, all right, protecting professionally is one thing, but outside of that sphere, the person is vulnerable. I mean, it's almost like this person has become this symbol, right, against the president.

WACKROW: Yes, absolutely.

But we have to think about, like, this moment will pass. What won't pass as if this person gets harmed, and we lose the credibility of the whistle-blower act, because you lose the ability for someone to come forward in the future.

So, that's what is really -- we're protecting the sanctity of the act itself for future generations.

BALDWIN: Yes. OK. OK.

Jonathan Wackrow and Jennifer Rodgers, thank you, guys, very much for all of that security-wise.

Coming up next, the Senate majority leader says he would have no choice but to hold a trial if the House votes to impeach President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It's a Senate rule related to impeachment. It would take 67 votes to change. So I would have no choice but to take it up.

How long you're on it is a whole different matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: And then, in that case, the Supreme Court justice -- Chief Justice John Roberts would be forced to preside over that trial. We will take a look at how he might handle such a historic job.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:28]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FEBRUARY 12, 1999)

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: The Senate, having tried William Jefferson Clinton president the United States upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be and he is hereby is acquitted of the charges in the set articles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Twenty years ago was the last time a chief justice handled an impeachment trial.

Presiding over Bill Clinton's hearing thrust Chief Justice William Rehnquist into the public spotlight, something he described as a culture shock.

And if -- if the House were to vote to impeach President Trump, it would fall to the Senate to decide whether to convict or to acquit, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.

And Joan Biskupic is our CNN Supreme Court analyst.

And, Joan, before we even get into the what-ifs with Chief Justice Roberts, tell us how Rehnquist oversaw the Clinton impeachment trial.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Boy, it's amazing that was 20 years ago. It feels like yesterday.

Brooke, most people don't see the Supreme Court in action or how the chief justice does his job, because there are no cameras allowed in the Supreme Court courtroom. And they're known for their mysterious ways.

So there he was thrust in front of everyone. And he's known for -- he was known for his efficiency and being very punctual. So he made the trains run over there, for sure.

And he mainly handled it as sort of a ministerial function, rather than a substantive one. He was well aware that it was the individual senators who were sitting as the court here. So he would assess different questions having to do with Senate rules and evidence, but mainly tried to keep things running smoothly, as his -- was his way over at the Supreme Court.

BALDWIN: And just a fun bit of color, that I understand that Chief Justice Rehnquist's robe from that historic trial is now on display at the Smithsonian.

BISKUPIC: That's exactly right.

About -- in 1992, a few years before the impeachment trial, he had put those four gold stripes on each of his sleeves. It was a play on something he had seen in a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera.

And, afterward, he went back and forth with the Smithsonian about donating it. And, indeed, he got a $30,000 assessment from Sotheby's for the value of the robe and then donated it to the Smithsonian.

BALDWIN: How about that? How about that? Thirty thousand dollars.

And you, of course, are the person to ask because of your book on the chief justice. What would a Senate trial with John Roberts presiding look like?