Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Impeachment Managers Meet In Preparation Of Senate Trial; Andrew Yang's Wife Shares Her Story Of Sexual Assault; A New Chapter For The Duke And Duchess Of Sussex; Facebook Removes Pages Reportedly Defending Robert Hyde; Opposing Sides Prepare Legal Arguments As Senate Trial Looms; Democratic Candidates Campaign In Iowa With Caucuses 15 Days Away. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:12]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. All right, right now, House Impeachment Managers are meeting on Capitol Hill.

The meeting comes as we're less than 48 hours away now before the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. That trial is expected to get underway Tuesday afternoon, but arguments are already being played out in the court of public opinion.

Last night, House Managers who essentially act as prosecutors in the trial delivered their brief arguing why President Trump should be removed from office, calling President Trump's conduct -- I'm quoting now, "the framers worst nightmare."

And now the ball is in the President's court. His legal team has until noon tomorrow to file their own brief, but today some are already making their case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM: There is a confusion between the reasons for having impeachment and those include we don't want to see Presidents who are dishonest. We don't want to see Presidents who abuse their power. That's all true.

But then when it comes to coming up with the criteria for impeachment, we don't use terms like dishonesty or abuse or maladministration or malpractice. We have to focus in on specific criteria to avoid weaponization of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right here with more now, CNN's Boris Sanchez with the President in Florida; CNN's Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill --

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, can you hear me?

WHITFIELD: I can hear you and politics and White House editor for Axios, Margaret Talev.

All right, so Sarah, you first, hopefully you can hear me. House impeachment managers -- oh, sorry. Okay, we're going to mix things up a little bit. How about to you Boris, let's go to you first. Okay, so how -- what is the President's, you know, disposition right now as his legal team is preparing its briefs to meet that noon deadline tomorrow?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: YeS, from what we're hearing from sources at Mar-a-Lago, that President Trump is in good spirits, but that he has been a bit distracted by all of this impeachment process.

The President telling people close to him at his estate here in West Palm Beach, that he doesn't really fully understand why he is being impeached. He's asked several people, why are they doing this to me? The President, though, is pleased with some of the latest additions to his legal team and Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr.

What we're going to see from his legal team is a three-pronged attack, and we've already previewed some of it. We've heard some of it already. Essentially, the first prong of that is arguing that the accusations against the President, that these allegations don't rise to the level of high crimes.

Here's more from Alan Dershowitz and some of the President's supporters in the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: They came up with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And there is debate on that I should say.

DERSHOWITZ: Yes, and the reason they came up with those is they could not honestly get a majority to charge bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors, so they went back to obstruction and to abuse and those do not fit the constitutional criteria.

SEN JOHN CORNYN, (R-TX): Unfortunately, this seems to be more of a political or policy differences than actually a high crime and misdemeanor as the Constitution requires.

This is the first time in history where a President has been impeached for a non-crime, for events that never occurred.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Abuse of power so poorly defined here. I don't know how Presidents in the future can conform their conduct. It's the first impeachment in history, where there is no allegation of a crime by the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Cornyn and Lindsey Graham there. As for the other two prongs of this attack, Fred, you're going to hear the President's legal team and his defenders make the argument on substance that he actually did nothing wrong in his call with President Zelensky of Ukraine.

You'll hear them say, as the President has many times that it was a perfect call and that there was no quid pro quo.

The last aspect of this they're going to argue process. They're going to try to make the case that Democrats in the House of Representatives did not afford the President due process, as we've already heard from him many times on Twitter -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Okay, Sarah, now, we've worked out the audio problem. So House Impeachment Managers are meeting behind closed doors, right? And they have only a few days now to put together their opening arguments. Is it to be expected their opening arguments are going to duplicate, but you know, be truncated, duplicate that 111 page, you know, brief that was already filed?

WESTWOOD: Yes. Well, Fred, that brief that House Democrats filed yesterday to the Senate that is basically the paper version of what their arguments on the floor are going to be.

Right now, most of the seven Democratic House Managers are meeting in the Speaker's office. In fact, just a few moments ago, Congressman Adam Schiff emerged and didn't seem to have much of a comment on what's going on right now.

We also saw Jason Crow and Sylvia Garcia, two of the other House Democratic Managers entering the Speaker's office just down the hall from here where they are practicing for the Senate trial, which is set to begin just under two days from now.

We also saw a Democratic counsel, Norm Eisen, Daniel Goldman and Bill Burke enter. With my colleague, Greg Clary, we saw big binders being brought in, donuts, coffee, so it seems like they could be settling in for what could be at least several hours of practicing.

They have a very short amount of time to get the arguments right, not just the substance of them, which as you mentioned, we saw a glimpse of that in the trial brief that House Democrats filed yesterday, but also who will be presenting what.

Congressman Adam Schiff is expected to take the lead on presenting, but there are seven of these managers. There will be a role for each of them to present some of those arguments on the floor.

That trial brief yesterday laid out some of the evidence that House Democrats are going to draw from, that mirrored in a lot of ways the reports that House Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee put out before the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment.

But interestingly, it also demonstrated that House Democrats may want to draw on new evidence, documents provided by Lev Parnas, an associate of the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. That's new evidence that Republicans could resist bringing to the Senate floor, but that's clear that that's something House Democrats are interested in. And of course, Fred, this meeting is taking place against the backdrop

of this bitter feud in the Senate over whether to call witnesses in the Senate trial. That's something that you're going to hear lawmakers debate for the first time really on Tuesday afternoon when the Senate trial gets underway.

WHITFIELD: And Margaret, another ongoing debate is the whole issue of allowing witnesses. Democrats will be, you know, continuing to make the case, as many of them did on the talk shows today, this Sunday, and then there are some Republicans who certainly seem to be intimating that they are open to the idea of witnesses.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, Fred, that's right and what Sarah just touched on really is the question now as we head into this week, which is, are there going to be witnesses called and which witnesses.

And what you heard Alan Dershowitz say there really is a prelude to an argument against witnesses, because, of course, if there's no grounds for impeachment, why would you legitimize the impeachment trial by calling witnesses? And you'll hear Democrats make the exact opposite point.

The decision point on whether this happens really does hinge on a handful of Senate Republicans -- Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, a couple others, maybe Mitt Romney and Lamar Alexander -- some Republican lawmakers who are facing tough reelection fights or who have staked out a claim on this.

But whether or not this happens involves a lot of procedural moves, which is why another big question is whether or not the resolution that rolls out those organizing rules that we'll see from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday, whether that has a provision for a motion to dismiss.

This is another tool that the White House could use, if it thought that it had enough support from senators to just wrap the whole thing up and make this trial go away before the arguments had even been laid out.

And those Republican senators, that group we're talking about -- Collins, Murkowski -- have said they want the right to call witnesses. McConnell has said there's not the will to dismiss this.

But if the White House manages to bake in that provision, that option for a motion to dismiss that will be a really important element to watch as well, on Tuesday.

WHITFIELD: And then Margaret, what is this about? One of the members of the legal team for the President, Alan Dershowitz, who has already revealed today that he didn't even read the seven-page, you know, response, you know, coming from the White House that was filed last night.

But apparently, he also said, you know, to CNN that President Trump had to phone Alan Dershowitz's, Carolyn Cohen to persuade her to support the idea of Dershowitz being on the case, but focusing on the Constitution in this Senate trial. What more have you learned and understand about that?

TALEV: Well, Dershowitz's role is interesting, because as we -- the White House waited quite a while to roll out who their legal team would be. But in that rollout, the initial thought was, wow, Alan Dershowitz is part of the legal team.

He has taken care -- and now the White House has to, to stake out the notion that he has a limited role and it is a role, not the same as what you'll see from Pat Cipollone or Jay Sekulow, or the rest of the President's legal team, it is kind of the role of star constitutional witness and we're expecting him to talk about what happened in Andrew Johnson's case more than a hundred years ago and what the framers' ideas were around what impeachment should or shouldn't be, what it should or shouldn't cover.

[14:10:01]

TALEV: So at this point, we're expecting, number one, a fairly limited role as an expert on the Constitution. But number two, obviously a television role, which, for the President may be the most important of all.

WHITFIELD: Yes, Dershowitz make it very clear when he made the rounds, saying, you know, he's not arguing the right or wrong, you know, whether, indeed, you know, the President did something wrong but really going on the constitutional merits of and whether those Articles support any law broken, so it's definitely an interesting approach as a member of that team.

All right, Margaret Talev, Boris Sanchez, and Sarah Westwood. Thanks to all of you.

Let's talk a little bit more about all of this, a lot more actually, with former Federal prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst, Shan Wu.

Shan, good to see you. So, Alan Dershowitz in, you know, his efforts to make the rounds and make it very clear from which point of view he is coming.

You know, he said something very interesting about his role, you know, defining his role on this defense team. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: I'm not involved in the day-to-day issues such as --

KEILAR: But you haven't argued on the floor of the Senate dozens of times or a dozen times?

DERSHOWITZ: No, I actually was on the Florida Senate once on behalf of Senator Alan Cranston.

KEILAR: Once.

DERSHOWITZ: Many years ago.

KEILAR: Okay. But in this case, I --

DERSHOWITZ: But very people have argued. Go ahead, yes.

KEILAR: I just -- I want to make this clear, because I'm not seeing this clearly, Alan, who hired you?

DERSHOWITZ: I was asked by the President's defense team to become of counsel on the specific issue of the criteria, the constitutional criteria for impeachment. That's a very important issue.

I will be making that argument as an advocate, not as an expert witness, I will be advocating against impeachment of this President based on the constitutional criteria.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Shan why the need for this distinction?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: He thinks -- the Professor does protest a little too much, Fred. He seems to be concerned that he wants to keep his own reputation intact.

I think he's afraid of being perceived as being too partisan arguing the facts. He did have to walk back I think some of his initial statements because he was talking himself right out of a role. If he turns into a witness instead of an advocate, obviously they have to allow other witnesses to come in.

But there's no question as an advocate. He's owned that now. And there's also no question that there's not really any difference between his position and the President's White House team, Cipollone and his private attorney, Sekulow's position. They're the same.

WHITFIELD: Yes, who are saying that, you know, the allegations of any wrongdoing don't seem to match the Articles. That's been his argument.

So all right, so look at the calendar. We're now only two days away, you know, from the start of this trial. So how much you know, do these House briefs versus the White House, you know, briefs. How much of that will set the tone or give an indicator of just how these opening arguments may go on Wednesday?

WU: I think they're an excellent preview of exactly how the arguments will go. The President's team wants to stay away from the facts, and they want to just stay at the level of constitutional arguments.

That's one purpose of having Dershowitz and Starr there to provide some constitutional law cover for the Republican senators to ignore the facts.

The weakness of that arguments, which the House really points out very well in their brief, is really Dershowitz and the President's team want to read out of the Constitution, the impeachment provision. They're basically saying anytime you have an impeachment, it's going to affect the election of the people, the will of the people and they would like to just have it removed entirely. That's the thrust of their argument.

And that's really just -- it does not fly. It's not a very strong argument.

WHITFIELD: I was just going to say, what are your thoughts there? Because the White House is saying, you know, you shouldn't be able to deprive the public of the power of voting for this President. That's essentially what that saying as opposed to really arguing against, you know, the allegations and the accusations of a President, you know, his alleged abuse of power by asking a foreign government to interfere with U.S. elections.

WU: Exactly. That's what they're saying, and it doesn't make any sense. I mean, unless you want to take the view that there's a saying in Constitutional Law, there's no surplusage in the Constitution, meaning the framers didn't just throw in the impeachment provision because they felt like it.

It has a purpose, and the purpose, of course, is after an election has occurred. So by definition, if a President is impeached, and then removed, of course interferes with the election, for good reason.

The framers were worried about a President who was going to abuse power, invite foreign influence, and cared so much about being reelected. They didn't care about his duty to the Constitution.

WHITFIELD: All right, I want to shift gears because you are also, you're a prosecutor of many things, but also that of sex crimes as part of your credentials.

So I want to get your thoughts on presidential candidate Andrew Yang's wife, making a very courageous, powerful public reveal about being allegedly sexually assaulted by her OB GYN while she was seven months pregnant.

So Dr. Robert Hadden, he faced charges, and through a plea deal escaped prison time or even registered sex offender status.

[14:15:07]

WHITFIELD: After Evelyn Yang's interview this past week with Dana Bash, at least 15 more women have come forward, and this case now against Columbia University, where Hadden practiced possibly they could be folded into that lawsuit. Can Hadden also now potentially face new assault charges since there are others who have now come forward?

WU: Unfortunately, the answer is probably not. It depends on the wording of his plea agreement. But a plea bargain is like a contract between the prosecutors and defense counsel and if it was worded properly and he had some very skilled high-priced lawyers, I'm pretty sure they worded it properly to be very broad, which would be any incident arising out of his practice at Columbia University Hospital was going to be covered and the government would have said, we won't prosecute for anything else if you plead guilty to this.

So they basically sold those victims down the river and deprived them of the chance both future victims that they didn't know about as well as those who had already survived the assault that he admitted to.

WHITFIELD: Well, but then again, there's that ongoing case now against Columbia University, which is, you know that the medical offices where he practiced.

WU: Exactly.

WHITFIELD: All right, Shan Wu, thank you so much.

WU: Good to see you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: You, as well. All right, still ahead. It's a new chapter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. How will they transition to their new lives away from the Royal Family duties?

And later, who is Robert Hyde? From long shot congressional candidate to a key character in the impeachment saga? How this man found himself at the center of it all.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:45]

WHITFIELD: All right, the Queen has made it official, Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan are no longer working members of the Royal Family. Buckingham Palace says the couple will no longer use the titles, His in Her Royal Highness.

They also are stepping back from Royal duties and will no longer officially represent the Queen. They're also expected to pay back British taxpayer money to the tune of like $3 million recently spent to renovate their official residence.

And they'll now spend the majority of their time in North America, but they still get to keep the titles, Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Lots of changes.

CNN's Anna Stewart is following the developments from Buckingham Palace. So is this the Queen's way of quickly trying to turn the page, but not necessarily close the book.

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It does feel like a clean break really, it's taken the nation by surprise, really not a shock but a surprise in terms of they're no longer just stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family, they're stepping back as working members all together.

So that feels like a much cleaner harder break than we were really expecting. We thought they would want a more half in-half out situation. Perhaps the Queen herself decided that if they want to commercialize their futures, if they want to make money independently, then they have to take the step, relinquish the HRH titles, not being stripped from them, they will no longer use His and Her Royal Highness. It will allow them much more independence.

Very interesting to consider, though what happens next in terms of transition. They will still be working members of the Royal Family through the spring. We don't have a precise date yet.

Of course, Meghan has really taken the first step already by returning to Canada shortly after her Christmas break, just days after that shocking announcement a couple of weeks ago, but we can expect to see that transition through the spring, them spending much more time in North America, probably Canada, mostly as you suggest there.

And then perhaps we'll look to them creating a new travel enterprise and then maybe some announcements of how they're going to be financially independent. Will it be book deals? Will it be public speaking engagements? Will it be a deal with Netflix or Apple? Plenty more questions there -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right, lots of questions. Anna Stewart, thank you so much from London.

All right, CNN's Royal commentator, Victoria Arbiter is with me still. Lots of questions, Victoria. The Sussexes you know, had pitch for a hybrid kind of role where they would be allowed to pursue personal income, but also continue representing the Queen. So we know now there was a compromise, but this agreement will be reviewed in a year. This sounds pretty generous on the Queen's behalf.

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think there's very much a desire to keep Harry and Meghan close to make sure that this is an agreement that really is going to work for everyone.

There are big changes here, and changes for which there is no precedent. Nothing like this has ever really been brokered before. Now, I think it was, as Anna mentioned, a harder deal than people were anticipating. But it was actually a very good compromise.

It was something that the Queen could present to the British public and they would find it acceptable, but it was also reasonably in line with what Harry and Meghan had hoped for. They did, as Anna mentioned, wanted to keep a foot half in the door that was simply going to be untenable.

But ultimately, what they've achieved here is their freedom and that's what they were really fighting for.

WHITFIELD: Okay, so they're going to be pursuing their independence, making their own money. Do we have an answer now, can they use that Sussex Royal brand that they had already put out there?

ARBITER: Well, that really remains to be one of the final sticking points. And the reason this gets quite complicated is because as the statement from the Queen mentions, they are stepping back all together as working members of the Royal Family. They'll no longer represent the Queen in any official capacity.

So the word Royal is really the issue here. Because for the monarchy, they won't want Harry and Meghan to be seen as cashing in on their Royal association. It can very quickly cheapen the brand and be potentially quite embarrassing to the brand.

Now, a big deal has been made out of Harry and Meghan trademarking Sussex Royal. Royals have trademark foundation names for a long time simply because that's the best way to control it and make sure no one else is cashing in on it.

But I think this will be a bit of a blow to Harry and Meghan, if it turns out they're not allowed to use Sussex Royal. Of course, they will find a way forward, but hopefully we'll have an answer to that question in the coming days.

WHITFIELD: And then what about this rift between you know brothers, Harry and William which sounds so heartbreaking just to you know, see the word rift associated with them when you see them, you know -- look at those pictures and then you know, who can forget the image of them walking behind their mom's casket?

[14:25:07]

ARBITER: This is ultimately one of the saddest elements. It says a lot about this that's sad when we look at the big picture. Of course, everyone wants Harry and Meghan to be happy, but it comes at a sad cost for the British monarchy.

Now, in terms of this rift, one can only hope that time and distance will be a great healer. Harry has talked in the past about William being the only person who can possibly understand him, the only person that he truly trusts. They are the only two people on this planet who understand what it's like to walk in their shoes. They've been through the exact same trauma after their mother's death.

So I'm hoping that they'll find their way forwards. That's part of the reason the Queen brought the family together at Sandringham last week, it was to get everyone face-to-face so that they could hash this out.

WHITFIELD: Wow. Okay, and then Harry real quick. Okay, so no Royal duties, but he does remain the Prince and he remained sixth in line of succession. Why is that important?

ARBITER: Well, that's very important because again, they're not being cast out. They're not being exiled. And I think that's why the Queen's statement was so personal as well. She wants to make sure that people knew they were not being punished and banished.

There's no reason to change the line of succession here. Harry is a blood-borne Prince. We have a lot of people that come before Harry. He is number six in line, so it would take catastrophe of spectacular proportions for Harry to suddenly find himself on the throne. So there's certainly no reason for him to lose his place as of right now.

WHITFIELD: Victoria Arbiter. Thank you so much. Good to see you again.

ARBITER: Thank you. WHITFIELD: All right, coming up. He is seen in countless pictures

with President Trump and his family, but congressional candidate Robert Hyde is now the latest character to emerge in the Ukraine scandal. Why the Feds and Ukrainian police now want to talk to him?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]

WHITFIELD: With President Trump's impeachment trial just now 48 hours away, we're learning more about a mysterious new character implicated in the Ukraine scandal. And now Facebook is getting involved after the company removed a number of questionable pages that were reportedly defending a man by the name of Robert Hyde.

Hyde is a Congressional candidate running for office in Connecticut. He is also the man who allegedly spied on former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. So who is this small-town landscaper turned aspiring politician and what does he have to do with the president's upcoming Senate trial?

Here now is Brian Todd.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He is an obscure candidate with a congressional seat from Connecticut, a long shot at best. He calls himself an ardent Trump supporter, has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the president's campaign and inauguration committee, has enthusiastically post for photos with Trump and his top allies. But it's not clear that he knows any of it.

Yet now, Robert Hyde finds himself in the middle of the Ukraine scandal. On Thursday, FBI agents visited his home and office in Connecticut. U.S. federal prosecutors and Ukrainian police are investigating him. This comes after Hyde's texts came to light about tracking the moves of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

According to House documents, Hyde sent those texts in March of last year to Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani's. Texts from Hyde, which House officials say refer to Yovanovitch, say, wow, I can't believe Trump hasn't fired this expletive. I'll get right in that. She's under heavy protection outside Kiev. Hyde sent Parnas a text saying, they are moving her tomorrow. One text says, they are willing to move if we/you would like a price. I guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.

Now, Democrats and former diplomats are demanding an investigation. Was the ambassador being threatened?

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): So I'm looking for a vigorous investigation of what went on here, because Ambassador Yovanovitch at the House Intelligence Committee testified that she was -- felt intimidated. TODD: But Hyde tweeted he was just playing with Parnas. And in an interview with CNN-affiliate, Sinclair's Show America This Week, he denied he ever had eyes on Yovanovitch.

ROBERT HYDE (R-CT), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Absolutely not, are you kidding me? I'm a little landscaper (BLEEP) from Connecticut.

TODD: And Lev Parnas told MSNBC he never thought the ambassador was in danger.

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED RUDY GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: I don't believe that he was either drunk or he was trying to make himself bigger than he was, so I didn't take it seriously.

TODD: Robert Hyde is a builder and landscaper with a complicated past.

EMILIE MUNSON, HEARST CONNECTICUT MEDIA: There are so many bodies of law enforcement and lawmakers who are examining his behavior closely, because it does include some erratic and unusual patterns.

TODD: Last May, before launching his campaign for the House, Hyde was at President Trump's Doral Resort in Florida when records show police were called because he'd indicated, quote, he was in fear for his life, was set up and that a hit man was out to get him.

MUNSON: As a result of this, police took him in and brought him to a medical facility for involuntary confinement.

TODD: Less than a month later, records say, police in Connecticut confiscated several shotguns rifles from Hyde, quote, due to a current protective order. Last July, court documents show a judge in Washington issued a protective order against Hyde for allegations that included stalking. CNN has contacted Hyde to comment on these incidents, but he's offered no response.

As for a possible threat to Yovanovitch, former CIA officers and diplomats tell CNN ambassadors are constantly being tailed by foreign spies and terrorists, not by the likes of Robert Hyde.

[14:35:10]

JAMES MELVILLE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ESTONIA: You're vulnerable to being surveilled. To think it would be American citizens who were threatening a facility or personnel for political reasons is just outrageous.

TODD: But, again, Robert Hyde has denied that he ever had eyes on Marie Yovanovitch and has denied any intent to harm the ambassador. Nevertheless, the chairman of Connecticut's Republican Party is calling for Hyde to drop out of that congressional race, something that Hyde has indicated to reporters he will not do.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE) WHITFIELD: And still to come, the president on trial. We're starting to learn how the Trump team plans to defend him. A Clinton impeachment trial manager, Republican Bill McCollum, will join me live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:40:00]

WHITFIELD: All right. Just two days until arguments begin in President Trump's historic impeachment trial. The president has lined up a high-profile team of T.V.-savvy attorneys to defend him and make the case against impeachment. On the Democratic side, the House managers who will serve as prosecutors are pushing for witness testimony and new evidence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The threshold issue here, George, is will there be a fair trial? Will the senators allow the House to call witnesses, to introduce documents? That is the foundational issue on which everything else rests and one thing that the public is overwhelmingly in support of, and that is a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Bill McCollum is a former Republican Congressman from Florida, and he was a House manager in President Clinton's impeachment trial. Bill, good to see you.

FMR. REP. BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL): Good to see you again.

WHITFIELD: All right. So during the Clinton, you wanted witnesses to testify. Do you think witnesses should be called for Trump's impeachment Senate trial?

MCCOLLUM: I do if, and the if is that the motion to dismiss is going to come at the end of the managers' arguments and the president's rebuttal and so on, and the questions by senators in that first presentation if that motion to dismiss is defeated.

Now, I don't know whether it will pass. If it does pass, and that will be a close question, then there won't be any need for witnesses.

And the reason why that might pass, and why -- if I were there, I would be inclined to vote for that motion to dismiss, is because the issue wouldn't be on the facts. You presume, if you're voting for that motion, that all the facts that have been presented, all the arguments that the managers have made are true. But nonetheless --

WHITFIELD: Would it be presiding justice who would rule on that motion?

MCCOLLUM: The motion would be vote. It would be a vote of the senators. And that will come. I'm quite sure there will be one. I know that these things have -- people say, what are the rules? They have been around a long time. They predated the Clinton impeachment. And the process is going to be that a motion to dismiss will be made and then the question is going to be, will there be a majority of senators to vote for it.

WHITFIELD: And you feel like it would be considered a fair trial if there were no new witness testimony allowed, if there was no new evidence to be presented, especially after a number of reports that have transpired in the last three weeks?

MCCOLLUM: Well, it would be a matter of law that you would be deciding it on. It would be the matter of the question of what is an impeachable offense.

WHITFIELD: But isn't there also the instinct of these senators of what is fair?

MCCOLLUM: Well, fair, of course, I think if you had -- if the motion to dismiss is voted down, then I'm all for witnesses and I'm for witnesses for both sides. And I've always been for witnesses, and I'm for witnesses that are live.

But the real fundamental question that has to be answered first by a majority of the senators, one way or the other, is even if this is all proven, if everything is there, you don't present the witnesses if you presume there is something still in doubt in terms of facts. It's all about the facts. Whereas the motion to dismiss is not about the facts, they're assuming all those facts are true. But even if the president did everything that's being alleged is something you remove the president for, is it a high crime or misdemeanor, and the opinion is very subjective, the abuse of power charges, very subjective. So that's where the issue comes down to the very first stage of this.

But I think odds are you're going to have witnesses. The odds are that motion is going down, but it's going to be a close vote.

WHITFIELD: Yes. 100 senators took an oath to carry out a fair and impartial trial.

And on the issue of witnesses, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that it wouldn't be likely. But here is Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in an interview that she is keeping an open mind.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I have a responsibility to render impartial justice, and this is how I am going about doing it. Some will say, okay, that seems to be the right way to do it. Others -- other Alaskans who are very strong supporters of the president perhaps wish that I were not so open-minded about this, that I would just shut the door and say, no, there is nothing to look at here and we shouldn't be doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And it may be that there are others who are open-minded about this as well. I understand that Senator Lindsey Graham said today as well that it doesn't appear as though they have enough votes to dismiss, you know, this trial.

So in your view, you being that you were a House manager too, do you think that Murkowski is an anomaly or do you believe that there are many Republican senators who are equally open to witnesses?

MCCOLLUM: I think quite a number of Republican senators are open. They're open-minded certainly going through the process of listening to all the arguments in the beginning. I think at the end, they've got to make the questioned of decision on the motion to dismiss, as I said on the basis of how they view the law.

[14:45:01]

I imagine that Professor Alan Dershowitz's argument will be central to this on the defense side.

But once you've passed that point, and I think that Senator Graham is probably right, it only takes four Republicans to go along with Democrats to defeat that motion, the if it's defeated, then I believe you will have witnesses. I think they've got a very big basic decision to make, because in no previous impeachment trial have you brought witnesses in who had not previously been deposed or had some presence in the House. So that's one of the questions.

And then what do you -- Do you allow the president to present witnesses? In our Clinton impeachment trial, only the House managers presented the witnesses and they were not live.

So I would argue they should be live, that both sides should be allowed to present a certain number of witnesses, and that whoever is relevant from the standpoint of the managers' view or the president's view should be permitted at that point to testify and be cross- examined live. That's what I think.

WHITFIELD: All right. Bill McCollum, thank you so much. I always enjoy having you.

MCCOLLUM: You're welcome.

WHITFIELD: All right. With the impeachment trial looming, this may be the last chance for the four Democratic senators running for president to make their case to Iowa voters. Live from Des Moines, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:50:00]

WHITFIELD: 2020 Democrats are fanned out across Iowa with just two more weeks to go until caucus day. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are making what could be their final pitches to voters. They and other senators running for president will be off the campaign trail this week and hunker down in Washington for the impeachment trial.

CNN's M.J. Lee joins me now from Des Moines. So, M.J. what are we hearing from voters there? M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, we are just two weeks out from the Iowa caucuses and things are incredibly fluid. Just to give you an example, we are here in Des Moines, Iowa where Elizabeth Warren just wrapped up a campaign event, and the first five voters that I spoke to at the school gymnasium, two folks said that they are definitely going to be caucusing for Elizabeth Warren but the other three said that they are interested in her and a number of the other candidates who are in the Democratic field.

And it's also very typical Iowa that the folks that I spoke to, some of them said that they are attending multiple campaign events for different candidates on one given day, and they have also seen certain candidates more than once during this cycle. So, again, it just goes to show how undecided so many of these voters are.

I just want you to listen to an interesting conversation I had with two of these voters that showed up to this event earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: At this point, who would you say are your top three candidates that you're interested in?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Top three, not in any specific order, would be Liz, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm still undecided.

LEE: Who are you interested in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yang and Pete.

LEE: how are you going to make up your mind?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know.

LEE: Is one candidate at the top you're leaning toward?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Right now, Yang is at the top, but more importantly, two and three are Warren and Pete, and they're both totally different, so I just need to get myself in order before I figure out everything else, I guess.

LEE: When do you think you'll make up your mind?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before the caucuses, I hope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: Fred, what I thought was so interesting about some of those conversations I had with these voters is that there is an interesting overlap, right, between folks who are interested in somebody like Elizabeth Warren but they're also taking a look at Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg. So just another reminder that the way that these voters are making these decisions are not always so ideological, it depends on a lot of other factors too. And as you were noting before, for some of these candidates who are in the U.S. Senate, this is going to be one of their last weekend to really be able to spend a ton of time here in Iowa to make this pitch in person to these voters in Iowa. Fred?

WHITFIELD: Yes, lots of volatility still for a lot of these candidates. All right, M.J. Lee, thank you.

LEE: Yes.

WHITFIELD: Much more straight ahead in the Newsroom. But, first, today's Wander Musts in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday. Johnita Due, a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for WarnerMedia, a parent company of CNN, explores the civil rights background of Tallahassee, Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNITA DUE, CHIEF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER, WARNERMEDIA: To me, Tallahassee represents the rich history of a civil rights movement. I'm Johnita Due. I'm Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for WarneMedia News and Sports.

My parents are civil rights activists, Attorney John D. Due Jr. and the late Patricia Stevens Due. My mother led the first rally (ph) of the nation right here in Tallahassee.

In the middle of downtown, you're able to literally follow the footsteps of all of these foot soldiers at the Civil Rights Heritage Walk.

JOHN DUE, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: this is important because it recognized this is beyond civil rights.

JOHNITA DUE: That's right.

JOHN DUE: It was about human rights.

Freedom.

JOHNITA DUE: Tallahassee is also home to FAMU's Meek-Eaton Black Archives, which is the largest collection in the southeast of African- American history and culture.

DR. NASHID MADYUN, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA A&M BLACK ARCHIVES: (INAUDIBLE) the contributions of African-Americans to the strength of society. That could be literature patents from the intellectual property.

This is a remarkable collection of research papers and archives on display.

[14:55:04]

JOHNITA DUE: Tallahassee is such a vibrant town. There are a lot of cultural institutions that do mark the past but just keep you excited about the future. (END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:00]