Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senators Brace For Contentious Start To Impeachment Trial; Prince Harry: Great Sadness That It Has Come To This; Reports: Push For Impeachment Witnesses Escalates Ahead Of Trial; Interview With Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA); Focus Now On Corporate Earnings With Phase One Of Trade Deal Signed; Schiff: Intel Community Withholding Ukraine Documents From Congress; Candidates Racing To The First Finish Line In Iowa. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello on this Sunday evening. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I am Ana Cabrera in New York.

And right now on Capitol Hill, the men and women who will stand before the Senate next week and demand the removal of President Trump from office are meeting behind closed doors. They are working late into the night. And we're talking about the House managers here. They are the prosecutors in this history-making impeachment trial.

One of the managers, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, telling CNN a short time ago that trial preparations are, quote, going fine. And when asked if he was finish for the day, he said, no, but I wish I was.

Also today, the question of introducing new evidence during the Senate trial, I'm talking about all those things that have come to light since the House impeached President Trump accusing him of abusing his office and obstructing Congress. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo today says there will be an investigation into at least one of the new allegations but Senate Republicans are overwhelmingly against bringing any new information into the process.

CNN White House Reporter, Sarah Westwood joins us on Capitol Hill. And, Sarah, you spoke with Congressman Schiff earlier. Is this going to be an all-nighter for them?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Ana, it's now going on six hours since this meeting started in the speaker's office earlier today. And since then, we've seen some of the seven House managers come and go, many of them carting large binders of paper. It just shows you how much material they are dealing with.

Now, Schiff told me, it depends on how like the other House managers want to work, how late today's session could go, but they are preparing to do a lot in such a short period of time. The trial now set to start less than 48 hours from now. They have to decide which of the seven managers will be presenting

what pieces of evidence, what key arguments. Because keep in mind, the Democrats have developed two distinct arguments in favor of both articles of impeachment, both the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress articles.

And that's something we got a glimpse of last night when House Democrats file their trial brief. That 111-page document was essentially the paper version of the case that we are going to see Democrats lay out in front of the Senate when the trial starts on Tuesday.

And among the pieces of evidence that we learned House Democrats want to draw from are new documents provided by Lev Parnas, an associate of the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Now, Republicans have wanted to limit the case that House Democrats can present to exactly what was drawn upon for those articles of impeachment, that vote taking place weeks ago now.

But Democrats want to have the option of introducing new evidence and to call witnesses. Obviously, the preparation is taken place against the backdrop of a bitter divide between Republicans and Democrats over whether to call witnesses. The trial procedures are something that lawmakers are going to examine perhaps a heated fashion on Tuesday when they come back and they are going to get a look at that resolution governing the rules of the trial, Ana.

CABRERA: Okay. Sarah Westwood reporting for us on Capitol, we know you're going to keep us posted. We'll come back to you if there is any more news that's breaking there as the impeachment managers continue their work.

We also have breaking news right now across the pond, this news out of Britain. Prince Harry breaking his silence in a video he just released on his Sussex Royal Instagram page. And in it, he delivers a very personal statement telling the live audience in London. This is a video of the speech he is giving about how he feels about leaving his royal life behind.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: Good evening, everyone, and thank you very much for being here for Sentebale Charity that myself and Prince Seeiso created all way back in 2006 to honor our mother's legacy in supporting those affected by HIV and AIDS.

Before I begin, I must say I can only imagine what you may have heard or perhaps read over the past few weeks. So I want you to hear the truth from me as much as I can share, not as a prince towards you but as Harry, the same person that many of you have watched grow up over the last 35 years but now with a clearer perspective.

The U.K. is my home and a place that I love. That will never change. I have grown up feeling supported from so many of you and I watched as you welcomed Meghan with open arms as you saw me with the love and happiness that I had hoped for all my life. Finally, the second son of Diana got hitched, hooray.

I also know that you've come to know me well enough over all these years to trust that the woman that I chose as my wife upholds the same values as I do, and she does.

[18:05:08]

And she's the same woman I fell in love with. We both do everything we can to fly the flag and to carry out our roles for this country with pride. Once Meghan and I were married, we were excited. We were hopeful. And we were here to serve.

For those reasons, it brings me great sadness that it has come to this. The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not what I made lightly. It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know that I haven't always done it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option.

What I want to make clear is we are not walking away and we certainly aren't walking away from you. Our hope was to continue to serving the queen, the commonwealth and my military associations but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. I've accepted this knowing that it doesn't change who I am or how committed I am. But I hope that helps you understand what it had come to that I would step my family back from all I have ever known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life. I was born into this life and it is a great honor to serve my country and the queen.

When I lost my mom 23 years ago, you took me under your wing. You looked out for me for so long but the media is a powerful force. And my hope is one day our collective support for each other could be more powerful because this is so much bigger than just us.

It has been our privilege to serve you and we will continue to live a life of service. So in that respect, nothing changes.

It has also been a privilege to meet so many of you and to feel your excitement for our son, Archie, who saw snow the first time the other day, he thought it was bloody Britain (ph). I will always have the utmost respect for my grandmother, my commander-in-chief, and I am incredibly grateful to her and the rest of my family for the support they have shown to Meghan and I over the last few months. I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear and dedicates his life to supporting the causes, charities and military communities that are so important to me.

Together, you have given me an education about living. And this role has told me more about what is right and just that I could ever have imagined. We are taking a leap of faith, so thank you for giving me the courage to take this next step.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: CNN Correspondent, Anna Stewart is joining us from London. And, Anna, there is a sadness in his voice, How is this being received there? ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it feels like a very personal, very honest, and as you say, very sad sort of farewell speech, if you will. He speaks directly to the people, saying, he's speaking not as a prince, not as a duke, but as Harry, the same person that many of you have watched grow up over the last 35 years.

To pick up on a couple of other points he makes, he says, it's quite clear here that the agreement that has been reached. They will step down as working members of the royal family, not the agreement they wanted. He says, our hope is to continue serving the queen, the commonwealth and my military associations but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible.

Another point I would like to pick up on, it was his decision. The tabloid press really sided on the whole idea that this was a #Mexit. This is all down to the Duchess of Sussex. He says, the decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back. And, of course, he then goes on to talk about the media being a powerful force. So much to get into there.

I think this is what we're going to see from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex going forward. It's very personal touch direct to the people, speaking without sort of any strict formalities, I suppose, from the royal family. It's a whole fresh new beginning. But you're right. It feels like there's a lot of sadness in that statement that perhaps we haven't expected. Ana?

CABRERA: Okay. Anna Stewart, thank you for that reporting.

And don't forget, CNN will debut a new series about the world's most famous royal family next month, The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty, premiers Sunday, February 16th at 10:00 P.M. on CNN. So mark your calendar, set your DVR or just make sure you tune in.

Breaking news out of Hawaii, a scene that is, we're told, an active shooter situation. The FBI is on the scene, reports that two police officers have been killed, our live report, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:10:00]

CABRERA: We have eyes on some alarming developments right now from Hawaii. An active shooting situation that is still unfolding at least checked near Honolulu. We've just confirmed two police officers are dead. Let's right to CNN's Alexandra Field with the latest information.

Alex, what more are you learning?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, that said, this now coming from the governor who says the entire state is mourning the loss of two officers killed in the line of duty. The question that remains, why were they called to the scene in the first place, how did the chain of events unfold? What we know is that these two officers were killed. Shots had rang out in the Diamond Head neighborhood, not far from popular Waikiki Beach. Police have said in Honolulu that they have shut down part of that neighborhood for the investigation. We have heard from both the FBI and ATF that they were responding to what they called an active shooter situation.

On top of that, you can see on your screen flames pouring out of one home and then into several other homes on the street. We've got a CNN affiliate that reports that that fire was started by the shooting suspect. There has been no confirmation from law enforcement officials as whether or not they have been able to contain that suspect, a terrifying sequence of events for people in that neighborhood this morning.

[18:15:04]

Certainly, they were moved away, moved out so that police could get in there and do their work as those shots rang out. But, really, the devastating news now that two officers were lost this morning.

CABRERA: Two people dead, and it sounds like several homes now with fire damage and there's more to be discovered there. Alexandra Field, thank you, we know you will keep on that.

And we probably -- you probably have questions about the impeachment trial. I know you do. Elie Honig is going to join us next with answers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Will witnesses be allowed to testify at Trump's impeachment trial?

[18;20:00]

It may be the biggest question going into this Senate trial, which is now just two days away. And CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig is back for a special of Cross-Exam, He is working extra hard all night long answering your questions in impeachment ahead of what will be a historic week.

Elie, House Democrats serving as the impeachment managers say the only way to ensure a fair trial is to have witnesses, and one bureau wants to know what does precedent and the law tells us about whether there should be witnesses at the Senate trial.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Ana, the thing when we're looking at precedent for past Senate presidential impeachment trials, there is not much of it. We've only had two priors, Johnson and Clinton, and it's not binding. The Senate doesn't have to do things exactly as it was done in the past but it's still very relevant and very important.

And if we look back at that precedent in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial, 1868, there were 41 witnesses. Can you imagine that nowadays? And in the Bill Clinton trial, more recently, there were three witnesses. In fact, we've had 15 Senate impeachment trials of various officials over our history, and all 15, there were witnesses. So if there're no witnesses here, this will be the first impeachment trial in our history with no witnesses.

One thing is for sure, all these new revelations that have come out have really increased the pressure on Senate Republican, if this comes to a vote. We have seen this small handful of Republicans who seem increasingly open to at least the idea of witnesses. But that will be really one of the biggest questions in front of the Senate.

CABRERA: So it will be so unprecedented not to have any witnesses. But another viewer asks, even if the Senate does subpoena witnesses, can President Trump silence them by claiming executive privilege?

HONIG: He certainly will try. He said this week that if John Bolton gets subpoenaed, he will try to invoke executive privilege to block John Bolton's testimony.

Now, the leading case on executive privilege from the Supreme Court is the Richard Nixon case, 1974, the White House tapes case, where Nixon invoked executive privilege and Supreme Court unanimously rejected it. What they said is the privilege exists, yes. It protects some but not all presidential communications with his top advisers.

And what the court says, it's not a general shield. It's primarily meant to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. So that could be a really close call here as applied to John Bolton.

One other footnote, there is a thought out there that executive privilege might not apply at all to impeachment. There is some history showing that George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt and others basically believe that if they were impeached, they would have no executive privilege but it's sort of the ultimate congressional check by Congress on the executive branch.

CABRERA: A quick personal follow to that question though, if he claimed executive privilege, would that delay the Senate trial and that would have to be ruled upon before they could move forward?

HONIG: Absolutely. Look, it has to go through the courts, it would delay things, really, to an impractical degree, or it could go to Chief Justice Roberts. He could rule on it right there. If we really want to streamline things, that's --

CABRERA: It goes straight to the Supreme Court then?

HONIG: I mean, the chief justice is right there. Let's use them.

CABRERA: Exactly. Okay, the next viewer question here is about President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and how he and others have stated publicly that this Supreme Court can stop or dismiss Trump's impeachment. Is that true?

HONIG: N-O, no, that is not true. The Constitution gives the House and the Senate the sole power to impeach and to try impeachments. There is no role for the courts. And we know this, again, from another Supreme Court case, the Nixon Case, no, not Richard Nixon, a federal judge named Walter Nixon. He was impeached, he was tried, he was convicted by the Senate.

And then he went to the Supreme Court and he tried to overturn essentially his impeachment in the Supreme Court who said, no way, unanimously. They said, this is what they called a political question, meaning, this is something that we, as the courts, have no part in. This is for the politicians. This is for the House and the Senate.

You can tell Rudy himself doesn't even believe it, because if he did, he would go to court and try to get them to stop it but he hasn't. It's a talking point, it's propaganda, it's not true.

CABRERA: Elie Honig, good stuff, thank you. You're back with us the next hour. Keep your questions coming in. He'll answer more of those question in the next hour. Just head to his Cross-Exam column. That's at cnn.com/opinion.

And now, I want to bring in Congresswoman Maxine Waters. I want to give you a chance, Congresswoman, to respond to the legal brief filed by President Trump's attorneys just this weekend. So let's go through this kind of point by point.

The president's lawyers write, the article of impeachment submitted by the House Democrats are dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election. Your response?

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Well, that shows you that they're not prepared to or feel comfortable with dealing with the questions. The House of Representatives have impeached the president of the United States and we have two articles of impeachment. Why don't they relate to that? They are trying to talk about a witch hunt. They are attempting to have people believe that somehow this is improper. But their response is not legitimate and it does not speak to the issues.

[18:25:00]

And so we suspect that they will try everything. They will talk about process. They will talk about illegitimacy. They will talk about whatever they can come up with to try and abort (ph) having to deal with the articles in the impeachment resolution.

CABRERA: Well, isn't one of the articles of impeachment when we talk about abuse of power, isn't that also what the Democrats are arguing? Doesn't have to do with interference in the 2020 election? And what I'm reading here is they're flipping it and saying, by impeaching the president, Democrats are, in effect, interfering in the 2020 election.

WATERS: I don't think we are talking about the same thing. They are saying that because, again, they are trying to come up with some kind of way to deal with the fact that they cannot answer the real questions. We are talking about evidence. We have evidence that this president interfered with the Russian connection that they have. We have all of that that information.

But we have basically concluded that what he did in the telephone call to the Ukrainian president is what is before us. He tried to bribe into create a false investigation on the Bidens. We have all of the evidence. We have all of the information that's needed for the American people to understand that we are dealing with facts. They are no facts.

CABRERA: Well, the president's attorneys would argue that he is conducting foreign policy and that his conversation with Zelensky was in the nation's best interests and they write that the Democrats are trying to seize the president's power to determine foreign policies saying in the first article, the House attempt to seize the president's power under Article II of the Constitution to determine foreign policy. To that, you say what?

WATERS: I say that that is not a legitimate argument. I would say to you that when you take a look at the facts, you will understand how this president has disregarded the Constitution, disregarded the facts that the Congress of the United States had legitimately appropriated almost $400 million to the Ukrainian country, and that this president tried to hold it up. He did hold it up, as a matter of fact, and tried to use that as leverage to get the president of Ukraine to create this false investigation.

And so I think there is a difference in what they're talking about, the facts will show that he has undermined the actions of the Congress of the United States and then the Congress decides. Don't forget, the Congress of the United States decides what is impeachable.

CABRERA: Let me move to the second article, obstruction of Congress. The president's team points out that Democrats did not try to enforce the subpoenas in court and they write to the contrary when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling. And that's true, right? Democrats withdrew the court subpoena for Kupperman, for example, and never even subpoenaed Bolton, who Democrats say is such a crucial witness now. Was that a mistake?

WATERS: No, it was not a mistake. The Congress of the United States and the House of Representatives have not only subpoenaed, they have requested, they have asked for voluntary efforts on behalf of those that they would like to have come before the Judiciary Committee and give their statements and to tell what they know about what is going on. And so whether it's a subpoena or it's a request or whether or not the Judiciary Committee has reached out to all of those people that we think have some role in this, we have done our work. We have done what is necessary. And just because what we --

CABRERA: But Democrats have not had it going through the court process.

WATERS: The court process is extremely slow. For example, I have subpoenaed information from Deutsche Bank about the finances of the president of the United States. And we have gone through the lower courts. We have gone through the Court of Appeals. We are not getting heard until March. The Supreme Court will hear my subpoenas in March. The court takes its time in responding.

And so I think we have moved in a very credible way to get the information that we have needed. The president has blocked that. The president has used his so-called executive power to intimidate and he has not allowed the witnesses to come forward. And so he has obstructed the Congress of the United States.

[18:30:02]

He has obstructed justice.

CABRERA: So, now, we have the Senate that will rule on these articles, and we keep hearing Democrats saying you want a fair trial that includes witnesses. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We'll be fighting for a fair trial. As I mentioned before, that is really the foundation on which this all rests. If the Senate decides, if Senator McConnell prevails, and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: The most important thing is that the American people deserve a fair trial. The Constitution deserves a fair trial. Our democracy deserves a fair trial. And we believe that a fair trial involves witnesses, it involves evidence, it involves documents.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: A fair trial, everyone understands, involves evidence. Evidence would be documents and witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Democratic Senator you just heard there, Sherrod Brown, saying he'd be OK with Hunter Biden testifying at the impeachment trial. Would you?

WATERS: Yes.

CABRERA: Explain.

WATERS: Let them call whomever they want the call. They're free to call witnesses. We want to call our witness. And I believe that, in fact, if he puts that to a vote of the Senate, that the Senate -- we will have enough votes on the Senate side to agree that there should be witnesses, so he should -- he should go ahead and put it to a vote.

But what he cannot do and should not do is say to the public that he is not going to be fair, that he is talking to the defendant, the President of the United States, and he is working with him to see what the President wants to do. That's not fair. We need the witnesses. I think that we will continue to try and force

them to come up with the witnesses that we need to have a fair trial. And, again, if he puts it to a vote on the Senate, I think we'll have enough senators that will agree with that also.

CABRERA: I want to switch gears to the 2020 race and, specifically, the role that race is playing in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

A new poll finds eight in 10 African-Americans think President Trump is a racist. And so, it's not a surprise to see Democrats trying to reach out to African-American voters, especially ahead of Martin Luther King Day.

Andrew Yang's press secretary tweeted out a video of him performing with a Black choir this weekend. We reported earlier Michael Bloomberg's speech today on economic justice for African-Americans.

At the same time, African-American candidates in this case have not fared well. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, both dropped out. Deval Patrick has expressed frustration. Are you comfortable that those at the top of the field are representative of your party?

WATERS: Well, I'm comfortable that the Democratic National Committee tried to put together the criteria that was necessary in order to reduce the number of people in the debate. I think that they really did try.

And, yes, I'm disappointed that we don't have African-American or people of color that are absolutely involved in the debate and in this campaign. And I'm hopeful that we can continue to try and figure out how to make sure that we have a debate in the future that will include more people of color and more diversity.

But I do think the Democratic National Committee did the best job that it could possibly do. And, yes, our presidential candidates are trying to appeal to African-Americans. African-Americans will determine who gets the nomination in this Democratic Party, and that's very important.

We're going to turn out to vote, and we're going to turn out to vote big. We're going to turn out to vote because we know where our best interests lie. It certainly does not lie with the Republican Party.

And we are concerned about all of the issues that you've heard so much about, whether it's healthcare --

CABRERA: Right.

WATERS: -- or whether it's dealing with the economy. We are concerned about that issue, all of those issues, but we want this president out of office. We do not want this president to be re- elected. He has not been fair, he is dangerous, and he is causing this country to be in an unsafe situation. And so, that, too, is going to be big motivation for the African-American community.

CABRERA: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, thank you very much for joining us this evening.

WATERS: You're so welcome, and thank you.

CABRERA: With the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump beginning in two days, how do other countries view the drama unfolding in Washington? We'll take a look, next. But, first, Christine Romans is here with this week's "Before the Bell" report. Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. With the Phase One trade deal signed, the focus turns to corporate earnings. Wall Street is hoping companies beat fourth quarter expectations and raise their profit guidance for this year. IBM, Netflix, Johnson & Johnson, Intel, and American Express are among the companies reporting results. Solid earnings from several banks as well optimism over the trade deal helped push stocks higher last week.

[18:35:08]

Investors will also keep an eye on Davos, Switzerland. That's where political and business leaders gather this week for the World Economic Forum. President Trump is expected to attend. A central theme of this year's conference is how capitalism has changed to address climate change.

Keep in mind, it's a short week on Wall Street. U.S. markets are closed tomorrow for Martin Luther King Day.

In New York, I'm Christine Romans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Sunday is not a day of rest for lawmakers in Washington. It is prep day for the impeachment trial of President Trump, which starts in earnest on Tuesday. And a number of House Managers made the rounds on the Sunday morning news shows today, including House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff. He criticized the lack of access to documents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:40:08]

SCHIFF: The intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA, in particular, was -- is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial.

We are counting on the intelligence community not only to speak truth to power but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress because the administration fears that they incriminate them.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: And that brings us to your "Weekend Presidential Brief," a

segment we bring to you every Sunday night with the most pressing national security issues President Trump will face this week. And here with us is CNN's national security analyst Samantha Vinograd, who helped prepare the presidential daily brief for President Obama.

Sam, if what Chairman Schiff is saying is true, how dangerous would that be?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Ana, as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff's job is oversight of the intelligence community or I.C. Schiff is alleging that the I.C. is withholding information both from Congress and from the American people.

Before commenting on Ukraine, he indicated that the I.C. will not deliver their annual threat briefing because they don't want to upset the President. Remember, last year, the President, frankly, flipped out because he disagreed, based on what we don't know, with the I.C.'s analysis on North Korea and Iran.

It looks like the intelligence community is only telling us what the President wants us to hear. That, frankly, amounts to influence operations against the American people because we're only learning about things that fit the President's personal convictions or personal narrative. It's a distorted view of reality.

And on Ukraine, Schiff is really alleging that the intelligence community is becoming complicit in the President's legal defense. It is impossible that, as a part of their routine collection on Ukrainian sources, that the intelligence community did not hear Ukrainian officials like President Zelensky talking about the President's actions, his request for an investigation into the Bidens, and the freeze on military assistance.

By failing to give that information to Congress, the intelligence community is impeding the congressional investigation. And if there are any indications of criminal activity and they're not turning those over to, for example, the FBI, that could also impact criminal proceedings.

CABRERA: There is also an impact on an international level, right? Because as --

VINOGRAD: Only if this happened in a bubble, yes.

CABRERA: -- as foreign counterparts are hearing this and they're watching the impeachment trial, what do you see as the impact on their views of the U.S.?

VINOGRAD: Well, if the President's legal defense is that soliciting foreign election interference is not an impeachable offense, that implies that he's open to doing it again. That's really a call to action for bad actors like Vladimir Putin to keep attacking our democracy because the President looks on board with soliciting attacks on our elections. Now, keep in mind that the impeachment proceedings, more generally,

are a free gift to Vladimir Putin. The content, the discourse around impeachment, is prime fodder for Putin's information warfare campaign to spread divisions and undermine the credibility of our institutions.

Now, impeachment is a boon for our enemies, but it's probably pushing allies further away. Every day that goes by, we learn that the President has really engaged in behavior that we used to condemn other countries for engaging in. That probably means that democratically- elected leaders are taking further steps back from working with President Trump.

And based on his moves on military assistance, donor countries are aware that everything comes at a political price when it comes to accepting U.S. money. That could lead them to turn to others for support and potentially other countries like Russia and China.

CABRERA: Sam Vinograd, we've got to leave it there tonight.

VINOGRAD: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Thank you so much for the brief. As always, we appreciate it.

VINOGRAD: Thank you.

CABRERA: Virginia's capitol is under a state of emergency this hour as officials there prepare for a gun rally that will be held tomorrow, and they're looking to prevent a repeat of the violence in Charlottesville.

[18:44:15]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Just 15 days now -- 15 days! -- until Iowa caucus goers cast the first votes in the 2020 election, and the anticipation is thick. Who will take the lead in this first vote?

Joining us to discuss where we are and where the Democrats are headed, Terry McAuliffe. He is the former governor of Virginia and the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Governor, it seems Bernie Sanders is still trying to do damage control after the back and forth that got so much attention with Elizabeth Warren last week that seem to reach a new level --

TERRY MCAULIFFE (D), FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: You bet.

CABRERA: -- when she accused him of calling her a liar during the debate this past week. And now, there is this recording from POLITICO that, yesterday, at an event in New Hampshire, the head of a women's foundation refused to even appear on stage with Sanders. A former state senator there turned her back when he spoke. Can he repair this potential damage, or is he going to pay a price with women voters? MCAULIFFE: Well, clearly, if you watched the debate the other night,

there was tension between Senator Sanders and Senator Warren. She was very upset. You saw that at the end of the debate when she went up to him and said, you just called me a liar on national television.

So this is a big issue that he is going to have to deal with. I've said all along, I think Senator Warren, during the debate, should have gone back and raised the issue to get some clarity to this issue. But it will be a lingering problem as we go forward.

[18:49:57]

The bigger issue for these candidates -- these Senate candidates, who are now going to be stuck in Washington, you still have half of the voters in the caucus undecided. And they're not going to be able -- what you like to see in Iowa is people talking to each other. They like to touch you. They want to hear you.

They won't be able to do that. They'll send surrogates. So, obviously, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg and others will be able to be there for the next 12, 14 days, making their arguments and final closing arguments. So he's going to have to deal with this issue. He can't do it in person because he's going to be there in the Senate impeachment.

But, still, there's half of the caucus goers. There's four people bunched up at the top. This is the time you need to close -- make your closing argument, do your get-out-to-vote rallies, and it's going to be hard for those senators who are now stuck in Washington.

CABRERA: At the same time, there's only two weeks before the caucuses. They've been working the ground, working the --

MCAULIFFE: Yes.

CABRERA: -- the rope lines, shaking hands for months now.

MCAULIFFE: Yes.

CABRERA: I mean, if the strength of their candidacy hasn't already been tested up to this point, I mean, really, is there much to be gained in the next couple of weeks?

MCAULIFFE: Well, Ana, the only thing I would say, if you look at the polling data, there's still half the voters of the caucus, potential caucus goers, who are still undecided.

So, yes, they've all -- they've had the debates, they have the television ads. Now, it's going to come down to your organization. Who has the best organization on the crowd to get their folks to show up? Whether that be a blizzard or whatever may happen, Ana, the night of February 3rd in Iowa, they've got to make sure that they're getting those people to those caucus sites.

Now, they know that they're in Washington. They're having to deal with impeachment, which is what they ought to be doing. But it does make it more difficult for them as we do this. And as you've seen in Iowa, for many times, in those last two weeks, there's a lot of movement with those caucus goers.

CABRERA: Senator Cory Booker is out of the race. Today, he was asked if he planned to endorse someone. He said, come on, I'm just days out of this contest. But how important will his eventual endorsement be and Kamala Harris' endorsement? What's the impact?

MCAULIFFE: Huge impact, I think. If you look -- and you'll really see it when we come to the South Carolina primary when a majority of the voters are African-American.

They are the backbone of the Democratic Party. I always say, if you cannot get strong African-American support, you cannot be the nominee of the Democratic Party. There's no way you can make it through March 3rd with all those southern states on the ballot and be able to be the nominee and then be competitive in the general election. So, obviously --

CABRERA: But they didn't have a huge -- a huge base of support among African-American voters even when they were still in the contest.

MCAULIFFE: Yes, but you don't have a large amount of African-American voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, in the first two contest states. The first real test for me is going to be South Carolina. And whoever can show strength in the African-American community on the South Carolina primary, I think, is going to be able to launch into those March 3rd when we have all those 16 contests on one day.

CABRERA: OK.

MCAULIFFE: So it's of critical importance. If you're a candidate, you would love to have Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. You'd love to have their support.

But I agree, I mean, Senator Booker ran a great race. He's just out of the race. He's going to need some time, but I'm sure all the candidates are courting him very aggressively. As they should.

CABRERA: As the former governor of Virginia, I want to ask you about that gun rights rally tomorrow in Richmond, a state of emergency, ban on guns, sticks, bats, drones, even.

MCAULIFFE: Yes.

CABRERA: The House Republican leader is telling hate groups, you're not welcome. It's been almost three years since the Charlottesville rally erupted in violence. What did Virginia officials learn from that, and do you think they're ready for tomorrow?

MCAULIFFE: Well, when we saw Charlottesville, it was the first time all of these hate groups really coalesced together and came to Charlottesville. They came from 35 states.

As I've said -- I wrote a book about this, "Beyond Charlottesville" -- it's unfortunate. I think the President of the United States, these people, through his language and the things that he has said, they feel comfortable today that they now can come and spew their hatred.

We're going to see it tomorrow in Richmond. I remind you, these are fringe groups. We have White supremacists and others who will be coming to Richmond tomorrow, but, you know, we have 340 million Americans. We can't let a thousand people define who we are.

I think they've done a very good job of telling folks on the other side, don't come out tomorrow, let these folks come. But, you know, I'll tell you, Ana, this is why elections matter. We took control of the House and the Senate. Now, we're the governor for the first time in 26 years.

We're going to pass common sense gun restrictions. Ninety percent of Virginians support this legislation, so the folks that are coming are representing a very small part, the five percent of people on the other side. So these are fringe groups, but, you know, this is why elections matter.

CABRERA: Yes.

MCAULIFFE: And, you know, it's not only guns. But you look at, you know, Marcia Price -- Delegate Price has a great redistricting bill. Delegate Mark Sickles has a great affordable housing bill.

CABRERA: OK.

MCAULIFFE: Senator Mamie Locke and Dick Saslaw all have minimum wage bills.

We are going to change Virginia. It happened because we took control of both of those chambers. When Democrats are in control, we're going to move our state forward, and these are the consequences. Elections do matter.

CABRERA: Yes.

MCAULIFFE: And I hope the energy that came out of '19, we will see in 2020 in the presidential election. We had a huge turnout. We went from 29 percent to over 40 percent. Huge turnout.

[18:55:05]

CABRERA: OK, there you go.

MCAULIFFE: All right, thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Thank you so much, former Governor Terry McAuliffe.

MCAULIFFE: You bet, thank you.

CABRERA: I appreciate it. We'll be right back.

MCAULIFFE: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:04]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Stephanie Elam, and we are live on the silver carpet for the SAG Awards.