Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senators Brace for Contentious Tuesday as Impeachment Trial Begins; Trump's Defense: Abuse of Power Not Impeachable; Senators Brace for a Contentious Tuesday as Trial Begins; Sources: Administration May Expand Travel Ban and Add Immigration Restrictions; Schiff Claims the NSA is Withholding Ukraine Documents from Congress. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 20, 2020 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: To honor Dr. Martin Luther King on this day. There are also a lot of preparation happening in Washington for the impeachment trial.

"NEWSROOM" with Jim Sciutto starts right now.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Good Monday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. And welcome to a special holiday edition of NEWSROOM.

We're bracing today for the start of a contentious impeachment trial tomorrow. Just hours from now we may have a clearer picture of how the showdown between the White House and House Democrats will play out. Both sides face a noon deadline to expand on their arguments.

What's still not clear the scope, shape, and length of the trial. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell still not revealing the proposed rules. 24 hours to go but still no word. Democrats lashing out. Minority leader Chuck Schumer says that he's prepared to force votes for witnesses and documents if McConnell does not call for it. Not clear he has the votes to pass those.

Let's begin on Capitol Hill with CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox.

Lauren, what are these deadlines today exactly calling for?

LAUREN FOX, CNN POLITICS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, expect more back and forth between the White House's legal team and House Democrats today, Jim. The White House will have to file their own legal brief, then the House Democrats will respond to the White House's brief from Saturday. So that is more legal back and forth as we head into the official start of the trial tomorrow. And here's a little bit about what you can expect.

Tomorrow we expect the session to start at 1:00. And once again, you're going to see senators in their seats. This trial will begin and it will go six days a week, Monday through Saturday, with a break on Sunday. You can also expect that senators aren't going to be able to have their electronics. They are not going to be able to talk to one another. This is a little bit, though, going into a Wild West situation where we just don't know how long is this trial going to go and how long will all these members be expected to sit in the Senate.

That's still a very unclear question. Another question, whether or not there are going to be witnesses. You've heard from Chuck Schumer that what they want to do is they want to ensure that they are going to force votes on these witnesses. But whether they have the Republican votes to actually get these witnesses in either depositions or in the well of the Senate, another question entirely -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Lauren Fox, on the hill, thanks very much. We'll have updates throughout the morning.

Let's get to CNN senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns outside the White House.

How is the president's defense team getting ready? A number of lawyers have noted to me that Alan Dershowitz who's on the team normally you expect the lawyers to be behind closed doors. He was on television a lot this weekend. Does that give us a sense of what the defense will be like going forward?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, he was on television. And just this morning Robert Ray, another one of the stars that the president just added to the defense team also on television as well. And we have been getting just a few hints, if you will, about what this brief is going to look like scheduled for around noon Eastern Time. By the way, this will be the first substantive defense that we've seen of the president on paper.

They did give us a preview over the weekend when they put out that answer to the Democrats' trial brief. Essentially what they say is this case against the president was flawed from the beginning, based on partisan politics. And they have said again and again and again that there is no crime alleged, and that is unusual in their view in an impeachment of a president of the United States.

The fact of the matter is, a number of the impeachments of some of the lesser figures across history have involved things like abuse of power and have not alleged crimes. That, of course, is part of what the Democrats are saying in their rebuttal.

Democrats also making the point that, look, there's this report that came out just last week from the General Accounting Office indicating that the president and the administration violated the law when they withheld that $400 million in aid from Ukraine. So that's pushing in the direction of a counter argument, if you will.

The attorneys are also very concerned, of course, about what the procedures are going to be, just like everybody else. Robert Ray even indicating he doesn't know what the procedures are going to be despite the fact that the Republicans up on Capitol Hill and the president are presumably on the same team.

Nonetheless, we do know there's a presumption here, at least, that the Democrats will get a couple days to make their case. And the Republicans or the president's legal team will also get equal time on that.

Jim, back to you.

SCIUTTO: Will that change minds in the Senate, and the American public? Remains to be seen.

Joe Johns, thanks very much.

Joining me now to discuss this, CNN national security and legal analyst Susan Hennessey, and author of "Unmaking of the Presidency." Plus Philip Bobbitt, he's Columbia Law School law school professor, co-author of "Impeachment: The Handbook."

Thanks to both of you.

Phillip, I want to begin with you because the central part of the Republican defense is, if no crime -- it sounds like they are saying statutory crime is committed, therefore impeachment is not warranted.

[09:05:05]

But it's interesting because members of the president's own legal team have contradicted themselves on that very question. Let's listen to Alan Dershowitz in 1998 and today, then I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM: Without a crime, there can be no impeachment.

So certainly it doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Phil Bobbitt, what did the founders intend here?

PHILIP BOBBITT, DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: I think it's pretty clear, you know, reading for example of Federalist 65, Federalist 66 by Alexander Hamilton, review of the discussion, impeachment at the convention. Even just a consideration of the kinds of things they were worried about would negative the idea it had to be a crime.

To take just one example, bribery is explicitly a basis for impeachment in the Constitution. And yet there was no federal anti- bribery criminal statute at the time the Constitution was adopted. So I think this is a very eccentric argument.

SCIUTTO: Philip Bobbitt mentions Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote it. He's been in the public discussion for a number of years now due to Hamilton. But let's quote from it. Those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Susan Hennessey, I mean, that's the core argument here from Democrats, right, is that, you know, this may not be a law on the books like, I don't know, speeding or theft but that it gets to the function of the office.

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: Right. This is a grave abuse of power. And it's abuse of power that really goes to the manner in which the president is selected. And so the idea that the founders did not intend for impeachment to be a remedy to precisely this kind of wrongdoing I think just sort of defies common sense and logic and it's a one reason why we're seeing so many clips of Professor Dershowitz and others making that argument just a, you know, few years ago during the Clinton impeachment because it's poignantly supported by logic. If the president could not be impeached for this, what could he be impeached for?

SCIUTTO: Right. Phil Bobbitt, you know, on this -- the sort of broader question here, as you look at it, Laurence Tribe, he's written in the "Washington Post" about this. He says the following, "If the president abuses his authority for personal advantage, financial or political he in injuries the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election."

I mean, that's the other part of the Democrats' argument here. But I wonder, do they undermine it by delaying transmitting those articles after voting in the House, transmitting those articles to the Senate, this urgency argument about its effect on the upcoming election.

BOBBITT: I don't think so. In fact, I thought it was a rather courageous step by Speaker Pelosi. What she did was to give the country time. She gave the Senate time to ask ourselves, what is grave enough to remove a president from office? And if it's the charges that she's sent forward, what sorts of evidence would we need?

The president had stonewalled the House inquiry. I think it was a very wise thing to have done to take a step back and say well, I don't -- what witnesses can really nail this one way or the other, which ones have the most intimate personal knowledge of the president's state of mind.

SCIUTTO: Does -- Susan Hennessey, when you look, for instance, at the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, of course he resigned before they went to a Senate trial because he knew that they had the votes to remove him. I mean, they cited specifically abuse of hour and contempt of Congress. In that case along the lines -- similar along the lines of the arguments the Democrats are making now. That the Nixon White House refused to provide a lot of information to Congress and, of course, that's what we've seen here.

I mean, abuse of power was specifically mentioned in those articles.

HENNESSEY: Right. They're also in both the Clinton and the Nixon draft and actual articles of impeachment. Lying to the public was a significant article. So clearly there is -- you know, there is a precedent for this. It also goes deeper. This isn't just about sort of a technical dispute between, you know, the various powers of the branches. This the president of the United States saying they're not going to comply with any subpoenas.

This is the president of the United States saying he doesn't even recognize Congress's ability to legitimately conduct an impeachment inquiry. And so I think whenever we talk about the abuse, the obstruction of Congress sort of pronged specifically we have to understand that in the light of an administration whose strategy has been an all-out assault on the notion that Congress is a co-equal branch of government entitled to information about what it is doing.

[09:10:10]

SCIUTTO: That's the other big question here. I mean, you do, Phil Bobbitt, before we go, have Republicans making two arguments at the same time, do you not? One, that the central allegation is not proven. But two, even if it were proven, it's not enough to remove. Does that muddy the waters or is that kind of a typical to be expected defense strategy to kind of cover your bases as it were?

BOBBITT: Probably both. I think abuse of office can easily be muddied. After all presidents use executive power to enhance their political position all the time. The issue isn't has the president used the power of the presidency to improve his political position. That's not the question. The question is, has he corruptly used that power? Has he done something unlawful like withholding military assistance that was validly authorized by Congress? And there you can prove that he's done that with the aim of disparaging Vice President Biden. That seems right down the centerline of impeachment.

SCIUTTO: Well, we're going to see these arguments play out in the coming hours and days. Susan Hennessy, Phil Bobbitt, thanks to both of you.

Virginia on the edge at this hour. Gun rights advocates heading to Virginia state capital protesting legislation that would restrict access to firearms in the state. But some fear extremists could bring violent. And note today that they had scheduled this, of course, Martin Luther King Day. And before the trial, the campaign trail. Four presidential candidates make their pitches on the last day before the Senate impeachment trial begins. We're on top of all those 2020 headlines.

And decades after his death, the nation of course today celebrating the life, the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., a man who fought tirelessly for racial and economic equality for African-Americans.

Here is a live look at his memorial in Washington, D.C., at this hour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: President Trump has been touting a unified Republican Party as the impeachment trial kicks off. But George Conway, a frequent critic of the president, of course, husband of presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway, has a theory about that. In a new op-ed, he co-authored, Conway writes, quote, "these men and women came to Washington, one hopes, to perform public service in support of that constitution. And they should know in their hearts and their heads what has to happen.

But their fear, fear that doing their constitutional duties will harm their personal political futures have led them, and all of us, to this place." I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Francis Rooney of Florida. He also serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, we appreciate you taking the time this morning.

REP. FRANCIS ROONEY (R-FL): Thanks for having me back on.

SCIUTTO: Now, you, to your credit, throughout this process, and you said on this broadcast early on, that you kept an open mind on this. Ultimately, you did vote against impeachment of the president. You made your statement. You said it really hadn't been proven. I do want to ask you about George Conway's argument there that this is what's really driving Republicans, whether in the house or particularly in the Senate now is political survival rather than principle. What do you think?

ROONEY: No, that could be the case for some people, certainly not for me. I don't fear much of anything other than God and my family, taking care of my family. But the fact of the matter is, I did an exhaustive research, talked to X-White House counsels, tried to understand what is impeachment, what should it be, and what's it been in the past.

It came to the conclusion that as someone said on your show a few minutes ago, this is not just like a parking violation. If we have evidence, we should go get it. And I pled with the Democratic leadership to go break these privilege claims and fight this out like Watergate, and get all that firsthand evidence out there.

And I have to say that just what's come out of the news in the last week shows I might have been right. That there's been things that have come out that would have been better to be explored.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you a question, as you look at that new evidence that's come out, I mean, I gave an example, it's not confined this, but e-mails from the OMB to Pentagon right after that Trump-Zelensky phone call saying, stop this aid, and that, that order came from the White House. You know, you look at evidence like that, would that have changed your vote or would that have, you know, at least kept your mind open to changing your vote?

ROONEY: It would have certainly been one more issue to consider and moving closer to raising the level of impropriety in the whole process. I mean, it never was really explored. The OMB thing, the one fellow testified, but it really never was explored fully nor this business about possibly Devin Nunes or the Attorney General meeting with Giuliani about this stuff.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, it's out -- that's the other -- some of the other new evidence I was going to mention. I just want to -- who is to blame for that because as you know, the White House, you know, had a kind of across the board response to these requests for both witnesses and documents and e-mails, et cetera.

I mean, even for instance, one reason we're seeing the Lev Parnas texts now, only now is because the Justice Department held on to his devices, you know, during the house process, so he only got access to them afterwards. Whose fault is that? Is that the White House or is that the fault of the house Democrats?

ROONEY: Well, I think first of all, I think administrations seem to always claim that they're protecting the office and claim executive privilege, going back to Nixon and the Pentagon papers, and they usually end up losing. And every time, they do, there's more case law since U.Ss. versus Nixon that will tend to say, if you fight it out, you're going to get what the public interest needs.

[09:20:00]

And I don't totally understand why the house was in such a hurry to do this.

SCIUTTO: Looking now to the Senate trial, it's going to start tomorrow, the other bit of news between the House and the Senate, portions of the process is one big witness, John Bolton, the president's former National Security adviser, who says he has direct knowledge of this, he's now volunteered to testify before the Senate.

Would you advise your Republican colleagues, and it's not clear that they have the votes there to compel his testimony, to subpoena his testimony. Would you advise them to say, listen, hear him out?

ROONEY: I definitely would. In fact, that's what I urge that the house side do. He basically wrote Chairman Schiff and said, in an oblique way, let me come testify, and they didn't do it. So, I think they should hear the witnesses that can bear on the -- on all ramifications of the case.

SCIUTTO: So, of course, Republicans in the Senate are saying -- some of them saying, well, you know, the house should have done that. And we in the Senate should not be required to or pressured to do the house's job. Is that a fair argument or should Republicans in the Senate say, listen, you know, the emphasis should be on the evidence here. Let's listen and then decide.

ROONEY: I think they should hear the testimony that they can get. I think the house should have done it as well. You go back to look at Watergate, both Peter Rodino and Senator Ervin conducted their own parallel investigations, used a lot of the same witnesses and some different witnesses.

SCIUTTO: Understood, and of course, even go back to the Clinton impeachment and there were new witness at least depositions given not in the Senate chamber, including by the president. I wondered -- I know, you've seen this before, he's not the first one to kind of change his public position between the Clinton admission -- the Clinton impeachment today.

But Alan Dershowitz for instance on the president's team at the time, he said, you know, doesn't have to be a statutory crime, it could be an insult to the office. Now, he's saying it has to be a crime. You've heard Lindsey Graham's position switch, but also folks on the Democratic side. I wonder when you look at that, it does seem that principled arguments are in short supply as opposed to what appear to be politically motivated arguments.

Does that -- you're someone who -- and we've had a lot of conversations about this, who took your position very seriously. And you tried to take principled positions. Are you disappointed by how this has played out?

ROONEY: Yes, and that's a problem with the whole system, that so much of what everyone does relates to politics and re-election and things like that, instead of the kind of principles that we've taken an oath to uphold. It's been amazing to see the differences of some of these positions --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

ROONEY: Over time.

SCIUTTO: Yes, black and white, some of them. Congressman Francis Rooney, we always appreciate you taking the time to join the show, so thanks so much for doing it on a holiday.

ROONEY: Thanks for having me on.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, right now, the Trump administration is looking to renew and expand its travel ban. Sources familiar with the process says the plans include new immigration restrictions on seven additional countries. Those new rules could limit certain immigrant visas, in effect, an immigration ban, essentially serving as a partial ban for those countries.

You could see the list there, version 1, 2 and the current one, the countries on that list, after the previous iterations were challenged in court. The Supreme Court upheld the third version of President Trump's travel ban in 2018, includes varying restrictions for Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela and North Korea. Chad was removed from the list last April after the White House said the country improved security measures.

We're going to stay on top of that story. The Democrats' lead impeachment manager is accusing a U.S. intelligence agency of holding back evidence relevant to the president's impeachment trial. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:25:00] SCIUTTO: We're just one day away from the start of President Trump's Senate trial. Senators will sit to decide whether to remove him from office. The lead impeachment manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff claims that U.S. Intelligence agencies are stonewalling potentially important evidence for the trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents for Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration, the NSA in particular 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now to discuss is Shawn Turner; he's former director of communications for U.S. national intelligence, and Jeff Mason; White House correspondent for "Reuters", thanks to both of you. Shawn, let me ask you based on your experience. What kind of evidence is the NSA and other intelligence agencies required to share with the relevant committees, in this case, the house Intelligence Committees.

And I'm just curious. Can you think of a time during your tenure that the Intel agencies refused a congressional request?

SHAWN TURNER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, I certainly can't remember a time when the Intelligence agency would have refused a request as long as their request was consistent with the Intelligence Committee's -- Oversight Committees. And to be candid, Jim, I'm not sure, that that's what's happening here.

Look, as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff understands that it is certainly -- potentially, it's certainly possible that in the course of typical foreign intelligence collection activities by the NSA, that there may have been information, documents or conversations that could have potentially been collected between foreign individuals outside of the United States that could potentially be related to the impeachment proceedings. And, so he's asking the right questions.

END