Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Calls U.S. Generals 'Dopes and Babies'; Interview With Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI); Trump Names Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to Defense Team. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 17, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:10]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Welcome back. You're watching CNN on this Friday, I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you for being here.

The lawyer President Trump once called a -- quote -- "freak" is now one of the newest members of his defense team for his impeachment trial. With opening arguments just four days away, the White House has finally named who will be helping make the president's case before all those senators.

And Ken Starr is among them. His work as independent counsel led to the Clinton impeachment trial, so let's start there.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House for us.

And, Kaitlan, it's no the only Starr who's a big name on this team. Tell us who else.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, two others.

And Robert Ray may not be one that's as recognizable as Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, but we should note he's the one who succeeded Ken Starr. He's the one who finished the final Clinton report, the one that was publish instead in 2002, I believe, so he also had a big role in investigating President Bill Clinton.

But, of course, the other big name that's going to be widely discussed over the next several days is also Alan Dershowitz. We're told by sources that Dershowitz had actually been pretty reluctant to join the team, but the president pushed for him. He made clear he wanted him on.

And Dershowitz is saying that, even though he voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election, he is going to come because essentially he views it as vital to the Constitution to come and make the argument.

So, it kind of gives you a preview of what he will be saying on the Senate floor, because all three of these guys that you're seeing on the screen right now are expected to present on the Senate floor.

Of course, Dershowitz is coming under scrutiny for other reasons. And that is one of the reasons people tried to advise the president not to pick Dershowitz. They didn't think it was necessarily in his best interest, because he's come under so much scrutiny for the high- profile clients that he's represented, including, of course, Jeffrey Epstein and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

He's actually in the middle of a lawsuit right now where a victim of Epstein says she was also sexually abused by Dershowitz, something he has denied. And she's sued him for defamation for what he said. He countersued.

And that is something that's playing out in the courts right now, so, essentially, a lot of drama happening there. And that's why people didn't think he was the best fit for the president's team. But the president saw him. He wanted him on.

And, Brooke, we should point out, all three of these guys have something else in common besides being attorneys. They also all have television experience, and we know how important that is to President Trump.

BALDWIN: We will come back to these TV-friendly attorneys here in just a second.

Kaitlan, thank you.

President Trump, as we mentioned, will soon be put on trial, but it's the Senate majority leader who is going to be put to the test. With only four days to the start of arguments in the president's impeachment trial, Mitch McConnell must now determine just how to present it.

And the most pressing question here is, will there be witnesses?

So let's go to Manu Raju, our CNN senior congressional correspondent.

And I know you have some new details on the prep ahead of Tuesday. So what have you learned, Manu?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tuesday's actually expected to be quite a contentious session, because, before they even get into opening arguments, they're going to debate the actual resolution that Mitch McConnell has drafted that will actually set the terms of the trial.

Now, in that resolution, it is not expected to detail any requirement that witnesses come and testify or documents be produced. And, of course, Democrats have been demanding that for weeks. And Democrats are going to force the issue.

On the floor of the Senate, they're going to offer amendments that would try to compel witness testimony, try to compel those documents to be released. And each of those amendments that will be offered will be have about -- will expect to have about two hours of debate each.

So we will expected at least one amendment, potentially more amendments. So this debate could happen over the course of the series of hours. And Republicans plan to beat back these Democratic amendments, and Democrats plan to push forward.

Now, here's where things also get interesting, Brooke, that some of this debate could potentially happen behind closed doors, because in the Senate trial, senators are not allowed to speak on the floor. The only time they can speak is if a majority of senators vote to go into closed session, and then they could debate in closed session.

But also there could be a public debate, but the public debate would only occur between the House impeachment managers and the president's defense team. And that would be in the Senate floor, in an open session debating the amendments that have been proposed by the Democrats.

So this could stretch out for some time and could potentially even delay that beginning of those opening arguments next week. But, as I mentioned, Republicans are going to make it clear that those questions about witnesses should be decided until after the arguments are made and after the senators ask their own questions.

And, at that point, we will see if any Republicans break ranks. Some have indicated an openness to witnesses, but they have not been specific about who they will get behind. So the Democrats need four Republicans to join ranks with the 47 of them to get a majority vote going forward, but at this moment still open questions, as we get set up for what could be a very lively, contentious session beginning on Tuesday -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Tuesday afternoon.

Manu, thank you.

[15:05:00]

And just going back to what Kaitlan mentioned off the top for a moment here, the man whose work led to Clinton's impeachment trial is now joining this Trump defense team.

And it's clear that, some two decades later, Ken Starr has made a vastly different impression on this president than he did back in 1999, the year of President Bill Clinton's Senate trial.

So this is what Donald Trump said about Ken Starr back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think Ken Starr is a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is disaster.

I hated the way the president handled it. It was a long and terrible process. I really think that Ken Starr was terrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Paul Callan is a former prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst.

And what's your read on these guys? PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, hearing the

president say that, we have to remember he went to Hillary Clinton's -- to the wedding, to the Chelsea wedding, didn't he?

BALDWIN: That was years ago.

CALLAN: Years ago. It doesn't count.

BALDWIN: Right.

CALLAN: So he's now changed his opinion about Ken Starr, obviously.

The selection of Starr is really interesting, because Starr is an exceptionally talented lawyer. I mean, he served as an appellate judge. He was the solicitor general of the United States. He argued those cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, as chancellor of Baylor University, he was forced out in, guess what, a sex abuse scandal, not involving him personally, but involving him not properly investigating complaints of students who had been -- made allegations of sex abuse.

So all of the attorneys, as a matter of fact, who are on the team have had controversy surrounding aspects of their careers. Now, this is...

BALDWIN: Alan Dershowitz.

CALLAN: Alan Dershowitz, I mean, we have heard mention of his being involved in the Epstein case, but he also defended Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson. So he's had his share of very, very controversial clients through the years.

BALDWIN: But what about -- going to Ken Starr just on the substance on the legal pieces, I mean, back in '99, he pushed to have I -- mean, I know, ultimately, it was three witnesses.

But prior to that trial, he wanted to hear from everyone. He had a law changed so that even the Secret Service could be interviewed. And now here he is on essentially the other team. And they don't want a single witness. How do you square that?

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: No, it seems very hypocritical.

I mean, I was looking at his conduct during the Clinton proceedings, and he wanted to interview the boyfriends of Monica Lewinsky. Now, I mean, that's pretty far-reaching in terms of how far out you're going to get a relevant witness.

So, obviously, to oppose witnesses that have direct knowledge of what went on in the Ukraine, it puts him on a tough footing morally, I think.

BALDWIN: How about just in terms of witnesses? We know that the Democrats have been consistent and that they want witnesses presented at this trial.

And we know that the potential for a Joe Biden or a Hunter Biden, the Democrats say, no, no, no, they're not the people on trial. It's the president.

But I want you to listen to something. This is from the minority leader, Chuck Schumer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The witnesses we have asked for are not witnesses that are our pals. They're Trump appointees. They work for Trump, Hunter Biden has nothing to do with that.

Now, if they want to go on a fishing expedition because they're so worried about what witnesses would find and try to ask for someone else, I don't think it'll fly with the American people. And I don't even think it'll fly with the senators.

A few senators have called for it. But I think that's to try and scare people from the pursuit of real witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: But if you were, Paul, an impeachment manager here and you're thinking, all right, Joe Biden or Hunter Biden has nothing to hide, maybe I will consider having him testify if I can negotiate with the Republicans, in exchange get, say, a John Bolton.

Is there room for that?

CALLAN: Well, that's how you would negotiate in a normal situation. But, here, I don't care what Chuck Schumer is saying publicly. He doesn't want Hunter Biden on the witness stand trying to explain why the Ukrainians are paying him reportedly over a million dollars about something he knows very little about, when his father happens to be vice president of the United States.

It may be legal, but it looks terrible. And the worst thing that can happen for the Democrats is to have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden testify. And I will tell you this. If any witnesses are going to testify that the Democrats wish to call, McConnell is going to insist on both Bidens coming in as witnesses, because their testimony, he will say, is directly relevant.

BALDWIN: What about also the chief justice, John Roberts?

We know that he's presiding over this trial, but we know that a majority of the senators can overrule any of his decisions. Can you explain that to us?

CALLAN: It's amazing.

Chuck Schumer said, when Roberts walked into the chamber the other day, that everybody sort of kind of gasped and got serious. It's like, here comes the judge, you know? BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.

CALLAN: But, in a Senate trial, the Senate is actually both the jury and the judge in a lot of respects.

And I say that because Roberts can rule on the admissibility of certain questions and evidence, but he can be overruled by a majority vote in the Senate. And the Republicans have the majority.

[15:10:01]

So, if he would a rule, say, that a witness that Chuck Schumer wants to be called is relevant and has been properly subpoenaed, that could be overruled by a majority vote of the senators.

It's a very strange thing, where the jury can overrule the judge. You don't see that in any American courtroom.

BALDWIN: Last question. Just what's the biggest variable you're waiting to see?

CALLAN: Well, I'm always waiting to see what new thing comes out to surprise us, because, with the president constantly tweeting, with an investigation being ongoing, there are always new things that come to the forefront.

And who knows? There may be new things that we find about during the impeachment that would change the Republican position. I mean, what I see now is, we have heard a lot of evidence corroborating things we already knew, but we haven't seen new concepts, new concepts of corruption that would push the Republicans to vote in favor of impeachment.

BALDWIN: And you brought up the president tweeting. This will be the first time in history that a president of the United States presumably will be tweeting during his own impeachment trial.

Paul Callan, thank you.

CALLAN: Always good being with you.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

As this trial kicks into high gear next week, we will talk about what to expect with a senator who served during Clinton's impeachment.

Plus, a new book is revealing a stunning tirade President Trump unleashed on top military leaders, calling them -- and I quote -- "a bunch of dopes and babies."

And a brave revelation from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. A congresswoman adored for her twists and her braided hair shares her emotional struggle with alopecia. Hear why she says her story is both personal and political and why she wants to create space.

We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:06]

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

For more than a week, ever since Iran fired ballistic missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq, the American public thought that there were no casualties. That was the initial assessment from the Pentagon and from the president himself.

But now the Pentagon is revealing that 11 U.S. service members were hurt at that Al Asad Air Base in Western Iraq. Several Americans were treated for concussion symptoms and are still being assessed. Eight have been taken to Germany, three to Kuwait for treatment and follow- up screening.

And a defense official tells CNN that the concussion symptoms emerged days after the attack.

So let me bring in CNN military analyst and retired Major General James "Spider" Marks.

And so, General, always a privilege to have you on.

BRIG. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Brooke, good to see you.

BALDWIN: Why do you think we're learning about these injuries now?

MARKS: Well, I think the medical report is absolutely correct. No reason to doubt it.

Concussion protocol takes them take some time. It's not like any of these soldiers were wounded and had a visible result from the strike, but had symptoms that had to be evaluated.

And so I think what we see is legitimate on the part of the administration to release the information now that becomes confirmed. I don't think there's any effort to obfuscate or try to hide. And I don't think anybody was -- had an immediate response to the strike and said, everything's super fine.

The initial report was, yes, everybody's great. And then you got to go through the protocol.

BALDWIN: Absolutely. I got you. More invisible wounds took a couple days to assess.

MARKS: Sure.

BALDWIN: Let me -- let me turn the page and ask you about this new book, General, that's coming out Tuesday.

It's called "A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America." And so there's a lot coming out of this book. But I want to ask you about this July 2017 meeting that the president had with top military brass in the Pentagon Tank room. You had then Defense Secretary Mattis. You had then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the book describes Trump's stunning tirade against the generals.

So, he referred to Afghanistan -- and then I'm quoting -- as "a loser war" and said: "You're all losers. You don't know how to win anymore. I wouldn't go to war with you people."

Again, these are all quotes the commander in chief. "You're a bunch of dopes and babies."

Now, you have been in rooms like these. I'm sure it gets heated in some discussions. But...

MARKS: Sure.

BALDWIN: But, General, I mean, language like this from the president?

MARKS: Oh, sure, totally inappropriate.

But let's be frank, also. These are very hard and very tough, folks. And so you get it. This was a -- this was probably testing the waters on the part of the president, and so he just threw this -- if I can mix some metaphors here, he just threw a grenade out there and let that thing explode and see who was going to respond.

Clearly, in a situation like that, you -- we had a new president. This is probably one of the first settings where he really had the cast of all those folks, all those very senior folks, trying to describe, what's ongoing, what are the objectives, what's the state of play, where we think this is going to go.

And these are individuals that have been marinating in this for years, in other words, very close to the issues. And we have an expression in the military, which is, look, we end up fighting the alligators, and we forgot that we came here to drain the swamp.

And so maybe the president in that particular case -- I was not in the room -- was saying, look, guys, why didn't you drain the swamp? Why are we still fighting all these alligators?

So it was very provocative. Clearly, the language is inappropriate, but, look, we have all had our butts chewed before. I get it. Let's move on.

It's not going to bleed you.

BALDWIN: During such language, being called babies, and, again, not just these top generals in the room, but presumably referring to the U.S. military, if really a top general sitting in that room, and you're getting your you know what chewed out, can you say, with all due respect, Mr. President, go take a hike?

Can you respond like that? MARKS: Brooke, yes.

[15:20:00]

And, in fact, I wouldn't even put the qualifier up front. I'd say, Mr. President, no, I disagree. I don't have to say, with all due respect. Of course there's respect. You invited me in. I'm going to respect you.

BALDWIN: Yes.

MARKS: Let's just push that to the side.

Let's just say, Mr. President, no, I have been to war with these young men and women. This is the most qualified military we have ever had. They are hardened. They are focused. They do what they are -- in fact, these incredible young men and women are doing what we need them to do, which is they give us -- in every war, history tells you that the young men and women on the front lines give their leaders time to figure things out when things are cloudy and when things get confused.

In other words, hey boss, I'm out here. I'm fighting all these bad guys. I'm doing what I need to do. I have got this tactical view. You guys get your act together. You just let me know, but I'll keep doing my thing. And that's just marvelous.

This is the military that we that we pay for that come from our neighborhoods. It's just phenomenal. So, yes, you sound off. You go, Mr. President, disagree.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Yes.

Do you -- were you surprised that the military -- apparently, this -- quote -- "shocked their conscience" and the military leaders tried to keep the whole thing a secret.

You think that was the right thing to do?

MARKS: Well, yes.

Let's be -- again, let's be honest with each other. When I get my butt chewed...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: You don't want to go tell everyone.

MARKS: I got to absorb that. I got to absorb that. I'm not going to go outside and start crying like a baby.

I'm going to tell folks, yes, I'm doing my job, I'm doing the best I can. Didn't go real well, but we're doing what we can.

BALDWIN: Roger that. General Marks, you're the best.

MARKS: Roger that. Brooke, look at you.

BALDWIN: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

MARKS: Yes, ma'am.

BALDWIN: Happy Friday to you, sir.

MARKS: Yes, you as well.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

Still ahead here, the trial for President Trump resumes next week, as pressure builds for Republican senators to call witnesses. So what happens if they don't do that?

A former senator who served during Clinton's impeachment will join me next.

And do you remember this moment?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Look at my African-American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I'm talking about?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: The president may tout his relationship with black voters, but a new poll paints a grim picture.

Nearly every African-American in the country, more than eight out of 10, according to this new poll, thinks he's racist. Let's talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:13]

BALDWIN: In just four days, senators will return to the chamber for the impeachment trial of President Trump. There is a lot for them to consider.

Will the Senate call witnesses? If so, who? On the heels of new evidence from an indicted associated of Rudy Giuliani, will that be part of the evidence that's presented?

My next guest knows what it's like to be part of such a historic trial. Russ Feingold is a former Democratic senator from Wisconsin. He served during President Clinton's impeachment.

And so, Senator Feingold, a pleasure. Welcome. FMR. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): Thank you, Brooke. Good to be on the

show.

BALDWIN: Let's start with the news today.

The president's newly named legal team includes Ken Starr. And we know that Ken Starr spent years trying to throw President Clinton out of office for lying about sex in a civil deposition, and is now defending the current president who's been impeached for essentially trying to shake down a foreign country to interfere with an election.

What do you think of that?

FEINGOLD: Well, it's pretty interesting, because Ken Starr's case against President Clinton was pretty weak, from the point of view that these weren't really offenses against the United States.

The president's conduct, President Clinton's conduct, was wrong and it was inappropriate, but it was not an easy case to claim that it was an abuse of power of the kind that Ken Starr is going to have to defend here.

What we're looking at here are offenses by the president of the United States that are probably about the worst that any president has ever committed. The idea that he actually threatened to withhold aid from a major country to help his own political campaign is right in the heart of what the founders of this country believed should be the basis for removing a president from office.

And so Mr. Starr has got a tough job to do. He's obviously a capable lawyer. And so I don't think that's going to make the difference. The difference has to do with the facts and whether the senators who took an oath to do impartial justice will seriously look at the facts.

That's the most important issue here.

BALDWIN: Do you have faith they will be impartial?

FEINGOLD: I'm not sure.

I'm worried about it, because you have a majority leader who said that he would not be impartial, and then had the nerve to go and swear an oath to be impartial yesterday, so help me God.

This is cynical. And Lindsey Graham, the same thing. He said, I have no intention of being impartial.

How do you -- how do you -- in your conscience, how do you as an American, how do you as a senator who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, act cynically toward the responsibility that you took on a Bible to be impartial? It's terribly cynical.

And I hope they realize that this is a proceeding that should be treated with respect. And they have got to do something about the fact that this president has acted in a way that is completely contrary to the interests of the United States of America. BALDWIN: To your point about how much, let's say, politics are at

play here with these senators, I know, during the Clinton impeachment, you were a Democratic senator.

You broke with your party in --

[15:30:00]