Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Candidates Arrive To CNN Debate Stage For Critical Showdown; Pelosi To Hold House Vote To Send Impeachment To Senate Tomorrow; Pelosi Demands Congress To Be Briefed On Russian Attack Of Burisma. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired January 14, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:25]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Hi there. You are watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you for being with me. You are live at the CNN debate stage. There it is in Des Moines, Iowa where just two hours from now, six Democratic candidates will face off in their last showdown before the Iowa caucuses.

Senator Bernie Sanders is expected to do his walk through on that CNN stage at any moment, so we've got our eyes glued there. And tonight, we may see quite the showdown between the Vermont senator and other top progressive candidate in the race, Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Just on Monday, Warren said Sanders told her back in a meeting between the two of them in December of '18, that he didn't believe a woman could win the presidency in 2020. Senator Sanders has since called that claim, ludicrous.

CNN Arlette Saenz is there at the debate site, and so, Arlette, big picture, first of all, what are you watching for tonight?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Brooke, we're going to have six of the Democratic contenders on the debate stage here in Des Moines, Iowa as we're 20 days out from the caucuses, and these candidates are really heading into crunch time, trying to make their case for why they should be the Democratic nominee and the host of issues are really going to be at the forefront tonight.

You're going to have impeachment, foreign policy, that always continuing debate over healthcare for Democrats. But also you've seen these tensions that have been brewing over the past really 48 hours between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and as you mentioned, we reported yesterday that Elizabeth Warren says that Bernie Sanders told her that a woman could not win the presidency during a private 2018 meeting.

Now, the Sanders campaign has pushed back on that saying that some wires have crossed in the interpretation of that meeting. But that debate has so far, you know, really taken place off the debate stage, so the question is, are they going to clash tonight on the debate stage?

We're going to have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders right in between them, Joe Biden. And could the two of those candidates who have really been friendly throughout this debate, could they decided to go ahead and go after each other?

Now, one thing that it could be troubling for progressives who do not want to see their two candidates taking each other on, that's something that we're going to be watching for tonight among many of those topics.

BALDWIN: Arlette, thank you. And as we mentioned, we're waiting and watching for Senator Sanders, as soon as we see him on that stage, we'll pop it back up.

Let's turn our attention though now to Capitol Hill where for almost a month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has kept us guessing about her next steps in the impeachment process. But tomorrow, those guessing games will all come to an end. The Speaker announcing that the House will hold a vote tomorrow on transmitting those two Articles of Impeachment as well as select the lawmakers who will make the case to the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi first told members of the Democratic caucus of her plans this morning during a closed door meeting; afterwards, several defended her decision to delay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): I think many things have come out since we passed it on December 18th, but what she wanted is the American people to understand that we needed to have a transparent process and that the trial must be fair.

There were people in the Senate that were moving to dismiss it, to not even have the American people understand the issue, and I think you're going to see that there will be a fair process now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CNN's Phil Mattingly is watching all of that from Capitol Hill. And so Phil, do we have any idea who the House Impeachment Managers might be?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The short answer is no. But that's not, Brooke, because I'm bad at my job necessarily. It's because I literally just spoke to a member who we all think is kind of in the running for one of those positions who said I have no idea. Do you know?

Members themselves are in the dark right now. Here's what we do know about who we expect to be the impeachment managers. We expect Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who actually led the Impeachment Inquiry in the House, certainly to have a lead role in the group of managers that will essentially prosecute the case in the United States Senate. We also expect House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler also to have a role.

One other thing to keep in mind, in 1999, in the House Impeachment Inquiry, and then the Senate trial, they had 13 managers. I'm told pretty firmly the expectation is it will be far fewer than 13. But we don't necessarily know who yet and just why this is important.

Basically, how the trial is set up right now. It'll be largely in line with what we saw in 1999. These House Managers will have 24 full hours to really lay out the case. These are the people that America is going to watch as this kind of momentous occasion, only the third time in history that a Senate trial to potentially remove a President will be taking place. They will be the face of the case. They will be the individuals making that case on the Senate floor, so it's a very important selection process.

We expect at some point in the next 24 hours before that vote to figure out who the managers are and what role they will play, but right now everybody including the members, including some of the members who may be selected, Brooke, still in the dark as we wait for that final vote to occur tomorrow to transmit those articles over to the Senate.

[14:05:14]

BALDWIN: OK, tomorrow is the big day for all of you guys on the Hill. Phil, Thank you. One senior Democrat says the next step is for the Senate to hold a fair trial, and that the only way to do that is to include witnesses.

Well, it turns out there may be a small group of moderate Republican senators who would agree -- Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins -- all stating publicly that they would be interested in hearing from the key players in this impeachment trial.

Collins going so far as to assemble a group of lawmakers to figure out a way to make it happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I am working with a group of Republican senators and our leaders to see if we can come to an agreement on some language that would be in the initial resolution setting now the parameters of the trial in the Senate that would include an opportunity for the House to call witnesses and the President's counsel, to all so call witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Anne Milgram is the former Attorney General for the State of New Jersey. She is also a professor at NYU Law School, and is a CNN legal analyst, and so a pleasure.

You know, you hear from these Republicans saying with regard to maybe calling witnesses, maybe I'm open to it, or I'm open to hearing arguments, you know, for and against it, what do you think it will take to get them on board?

ANNE MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So I think we're moving -- I think we're moving actually much closer there than I would have even expected at this point. BALDWIN: You do.

MILGRAM: So what McConnell did was say, let's have the beginning of the trial without making a decision on calling witnesses and it seems like he got the votes to go along with that, but they need 53. The Democrats need four Republican senators to want to call witnesses and it looks like what Collins is saying is that she is committed to witnesses.

Now, what I think you and I don't know is who they'll call, whether they'll agree to the four witnesses that the Democratic senators wanted. John Bolton was one of them, but there are a few others on that list. And so there might be a little horse trading with that.

BALDWIN: Okay.

MILGRAM: But I now believe, which I didn't even a couple of weeks ago, I think we will see some witnesses at the trial.

BALDWIN: Okay. As we watch for that, we know Mitch McConnell made news because he signed on to that motion that would dismiss Impeachment Articles. Roy Blunt, he is the fourth ranking Republican in the Senate, he said that the idea is going nowhere. This is what he told reporters, quote, "I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard."

He went on to say, "Certainly, they're not 51 votes for motion to dismiss." So let's just set aside the fact that again, on the numbers game, Mitch McConnell just doesn't have them.

The resolution specifies, "Failure to prosecute." What does that mean and would the Constitution even allow for that kind of thing?

MILGRAM: So, I think what's really fascinating about this is that impeachment is a political process. So the House votes, and then the Senate tries.

And so the Senate has wide latitude. If you and I were to talk about a regular criminal case, it happens every single day that defendants and defense lawyers ask to dismiss the case before the trial even starts.

So there's nothing unusual about that specific. It happens all the time. It's almost always rejected. And judges at that point will say, let's go ahead with the trial. And you can renew that motion later.

I would expect them to move again to dismiss the case. It's potentially before it's over, they could move again. But I think that there's a fundamental fairness question here of having no vetting, no process whatsoever, even though politically and legally they could do it.

I think there's an appearance question that it would really look like they weren't taking it seriously, and so they're not doing it.

BALDWIN: What do you think of even when you look at some of these Republicans, you know, these are Trump supporting Republicans standing up to the White House, pushing back? What do you make of that?

MILGRAM: Yes, I mean, so one of the things that's interesting is I do think that Americans have a very strong sense of fundamental fairness and sort of how we see the world and it strikes me that, you know, there are a number of supporters of the President who do have to answer to their constituents, and the constituents, I think are at the point of sort of looking at this, expecting a trial to take place.

And it's a really fair question, if the President has said he's done nothing wrong, the Republicans have said, the President will be acquitted, why not have that full airing of the facts? Why not have that public vetting of the evidence?

And so I think that there's a really -- it really puts them in a very difficult position, if they say, there's nothing to see here. And so it makes it feel like they're hiding something in some ways.

BALDWIN: The other -- one of the best stories of the day, you know where I'm going with this -- is when it comes to strategy, right, that the Trump legal strategy. Who wants in on all of this? Two words: Rudy Giuliani. This is the man largely responsible for President Trump getting impeached in the first place.

Is there any scenario in the realm of reality that would include a Rudy Giuliani on the team?

MILGRAM: So I think every -- well, I don't want to speak for other legal analysts, but I certainly think it would be fascinating to see him as an impeachment manager, and it would be fascinating television, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Remember, he is also a witness. You just said, you know, he is all tied up in this, so he potentially could be charged as a -- could be called as a witness.

[14:10:10]

MILGRAM: He is not on the witness list, but I would -- and I also think that the senators have said, they want it to be very professional. They don't want it to be a circus.

But would I like to see it? Yes.

BALDWIN: In the Trump show, it would be something to watch, but I don't think it's happening either. Anne, thank you very much.

Right now, there he is, Senator Bernie Sanders in Des Moines, Iowa arriving at the CNN debate site.

CNN correspondent Ryan Nobles has been following the senator and his campaign and so, Ryan, you know, the big question as coming out of all the MJ reporting in the last 24 hours, is did he, did he not say back in Senator Warren's apartment in December of 2018, I don't think a woman can win.

A lot of people watching him and Senator Warren tonight. What do you think he does?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the way he responds to this tonight, Brooke, is going to be very telling about the next stage of his campaign.

I think the Sanders campaign is not willing to just leave this at a he-said-she-said, that we had a different opinion as to what exactly occurred in this conversation between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

They want to make it clear that Sanders never in any way, shape or form meant to leave the impression that he didn't think a woman could win the White House.

And in fact, you know, they've pointed back to a number of different times that Sanders has said publicly, that he thinks that a woman could win the White House, and oh, by the way, in 2016, he actually pleaded with Elizabeth Warren to run for President because he thought that she could win.

I do think though, Brooke, the way that he answers these questions, and I am assuming he gets a question along these lines, is going to be important, because I do think that the impression that was left from Elizabeth Warren under any circumstances was that was Bernie Sanders' point.

And so Sanders is going to have to explain that and I think his campaign has told us and they've said this publicly as well that the point he was trying to make is that it is difficult for a woman to run in the environment that we're currently in, especially when you're running against someone like Donald Trump.

So the way he articulates that, the back and forth between he and Senator Warren, I think is going to be important tonight. You do get the impression though, Brooke, from what Elizabeth Warren had to say in her statement last night that she doesn't really want to go into this all that in depth.

She thinks that it was a private conversation. Some of it got out, and they'd like to just move on. But I do think that this could be a pivotal moment for the campaign because they came in with a ton of energy and momentum, a lot of fundraising help and were really doing well in the polls, and they were hoping to score another big victory tonight.

BALDWIN: What about -- we saw Senator Sanders on with Anderson last week, critical as the story with Iran has been front and center and you know him criticizing the former Vice President Joe Biden's Iraq War votes. Do you think he will pick a fight with Joe Biden tonight?

NOBLES: I think you can almost guarantee it, Brooke, and I do think that's part of the frustration that the Sanders campaign has with this story about Elizabeth Warren and that conversation that they had in person back in 2018. They didn't want to talk about this. They never had any intention of picking a fight with Elizabeth Warren. They wanted this to be about a distinction between Joe Biden and

Bernie Sanders, who they at this point feel are the two frontrunners in this race. And they believe that the world events right now, the situation in Iran, and in the Middle East, is the perfect launching point for that conversation about the two competing visions that Sanders and Biden have for the future of this country.

And it starts with the foreign policy in the way that Sanders would go about handling foreign policy, but then it dovetails into a conversation about priorities, domestic spending, overall Federal budget spending, what are you prioritizing? And the Sanders campaign believes that, you know, Bernie Sanders has a much different version or vision, I should say, of America than Joe Biden, and they've been spoiling for a fight.

You know, Sanders has been very publicly critical of Vice President Biden's Iraq War vote when he was in the U.S. Senate. They've put out countless videos in different campaign material and literature where they draw that distinction. So they're ready for that fight, they want that to happen here tonight, and I'm quite sure that they would prefer that to be the conversation than any kind of dust up with their fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren.

BALDWIN: Ryan Nobles. You're so good. Thank you very much -- in Des Moines, Iowa. Appreciate all of that previewing some of what's to come this evening. Again, the debate tonight, nine o'clock Eastern.

Ahead, they are at it again. The same Russian hackers who attacked the 2016 election to benefit President Trump, they're now targeting the same Ukrainian company at the center of the impeachment investigation. We have that for you.

And screening the Queen: Why Duchess Meghan decided against dialing into an emergency meeting with the rest of the Royal Family.

And why is the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani's indicted associate trolling the President with pictures of his client with the Trump family set to the tune of -- and I'm not making this up -- "You Can't Touch This."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:19:31]

BALDWIN: We are back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. It is the reason that of all the countries in the world, President Trump exerted a pressure campaign on Ukraine.

Burisma, the energy company that employed Joe Biden's son, Hunter, now the center of this impeachment trial has been hacked by the Russians according to cyber security researchers and now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding that Congress be briefed on what the Trump administration knows about it.

[14:20:03]

BALDWIN: The online security firm, Area 1, detected this hack. Its report indicates that Russia's military intelligence unit, the GRU launched a phishing campaign in early November, and the report goes on to detail, "The timing of the GRU's campaign in relation to the 2020 U.S. elections raises the specter that this is an early warning of what we have anticipated since the successful cyberattacks during the 2016 U.S. elections."

With me now, CNN National Security Analyst, Matthew Rosenberg, he was one of the reporters to break this story for "The New York Times." So Matt, you report that it's not quite clear what they found or what they're even looking for, but you believe it has everything to do with Joe Biden and his son, right?

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's the appearance here. You know, there are limits to what the technology can tell the researchers in this one. They could see the hacks going on. They could trace it back. It began around early November, just as the Impeachment Inquiry was ready to begin in public. Burisma, Biden, Ukraine -- that was on the news. This is not a company that had been previously targeted by the Russians.

And there are a lot of parallels. You know, it's the same group of hackers from the Russian military intelligence group known as Fancy Bear. They're using the same kind of phishing scheme where in this case, they set up fake websites to look like subsidiaries of this company, Burisma and that hit employees, apparently tricking a number of them into handing over their credentials.

The researchers do believe that the hackers were able to get into Burisma servers. What they found and what they took isn't clear. But you know, Burisma is at the center of this impeachment, in this entire impeachment saga.

BALDWIN: Do you think that this is just more evidence that Putin fears Joe Biden in terms of his candidacy and is actively trying to help Trump out?

ROSENBERG: I mean, that's how the Biden campaign wanted to play it. I don't know if fear is the right word. You know, I think by now, it's fairly well established and we all believe, and there's a lot of evidence to back it up that, you know, the Russians have been interfering in 2016 and continue to try and interfere and kind of shape our political debate and to sow division.

And in this case, you know, finding some dirt on the Biden's would probably help them do that.

BALDWIN: Not only that, doesn't this show that they just don't -- they don't care. I mean, that they feel like they'll face no consequences for hacking or interfering with U.S. elections?

ROSENBERG: I mean, certainly. You know, in some instances, there is evidence of the Russians getting stealthier. They were pretty sloppy in 2016 because they could afford to be and nobody was looking for them. They still obviously can be found out. But what are the consequences? Have there been any consequences yet? You know, a number of GRU officers were indicted, military

intelligence officers were indicted, but they're never going to stand trial in the U.S. at this rate.

But I do think this is a sign that like, look, the timing here is, you know, we're a few months -- the primaries are about to begin, about half a year away from the General Election. This is back when kind of hackers in 2016 we're collecting e-mails, we're digging into the Democrats. They are trying to get into them so they could get the material so they can then push out.

BALDWIN: Deja vu. Matt Rosenberg, thank you.

ROSENBERG: Thank you.

BALDWIN: With two billionaires in the 2020 Democratic race for President, it's no surprise they are outspending their competition. But my next guest also says they're setting a dangerous example.

Plus, what is the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani revealing to Congress and why is his lawyer trolling the President?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:28:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): ... sentiment in Republican conference for a motion to dismiss. Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the argument, and we've laid out in this resolution an opportunity for everybody to sit there.

Remember, senators can't say anything, so they'll have to sit there and listen, to listen carefully to the arguments by both the prosecution and the defense, to follow that up with written questions submitted through the Chief Justice. And that means listening to the case, not dismissing the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: All right, so it's go time when it comes to the Senate impeachment trial. Let me just give you the skinny of what the Senate Majority Leader just laid out.

He just talked to his caucus and so he was just standing in front of cameras and a couple of takeaways. Number one, he says the trial -- this impeachment trial will likely start next Tuesday. Number two, he said they will decide witnesses whether they want to call any witnesses as the trial progresses.

He's said that -- he said no to dismissing charges against Trump. He says that the Senate has an obligation to listen to everything. And lastly, he would not say if it's a fair trial if there are not witnesses called. Mitch McConnell there. Any minute now, actually, right now, we are seeing Democratic

presidential candidate and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer there on the debate stage in Des Moines.

He is one of the six candidates who qualified for this final debate before the very final or excuse me, very first votes are cast in next month's Iowa caucuses and Eric Levitz is a senior writer for "New York Magazine's" "Intelligencer." He has his new piece out examining what he calls concerning about the "vanity campaigns" of both Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, the other billionaire in the Democratic race.

So Eric writes, "Even if neither candidate wins a single delegate, their campaigns will have demonstrated the ease with which any individual billionaire can affect meaningful changes in public opinion through paid messaging alone. The real hazard is that vain tycoons may learn from their example."

And so Eric is with me now. Thank you so much for joining me here at CNN.

[14:30:10]