Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE); Impeachment Trial Preparations. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 20, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:05]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: We're at the top of the hour now. I'm Dana Bash, in for Brooke Baldwin.

You are watching a special Martin Luther King Jr. holiday edition of CNN NEWSROOM.

We're going to get to the life and legacy of Dr. King in a bit, but, first, major developments ahead of a seminal event in American history, tomorrow's impeachment trial of a U.S. president.

House impeachment managers entered the Senate floor for a walk-through -- you're seeing some of that video there -- to get the lay of the land.

The president's defense team, they just put out an argument, a trial brief, which is 110 pages, echoes many of the president's tweets, calling the impeachment charges flimsy and the impeachment process a -- quote -- "charade."

President Trump's defense team calls for an immediate acquittal.

Let's go straight to Capitol Hill. Senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is there.

And, Manu, how does it feel there less than 24 hours before this trial actually gets under way?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's very quiet right now, Dana. That's change tomorrow.

Today being a federal holiday, both chambers are out of session. The House is on recess. All the senators are gone. But in Nancy Pelosi's office right now, the House impeachment managers are in fact meeting.

They're discussing their strategy for tomorrow and the days ahead as they lay out their plans, their strategy, their arguments. And they did take a tour of the newly reconfigured chambers in the Senate. We expect some television sets to be on the Senate floor, giving them the opportunity to show and visualize some of their arguments, any video recordings they want to show, interviews and the like that could be part of the Senate trial.

And the president's defense team also came to Capitol Hill just moments ago, walked through the chambers, and figure out where their offices will be.

So they're all preparing for what will be a very contentious session in the day ahead, but the big question still looming here is, what exactly will the trial procedures look like? Because Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, who is drafting that resolution detailing the parameters of the trial, has not yet released the text of that resolution.

And while he said it will be modeled over the way that the Clinton trial took place, there could be some significant differences, including limiting the number of days in which opening arguments could occur. Instead of two days -- instead of four days for six hours apiece, it could be two days for 12 hours apiece.

And that could change how things or people make their arguments. It can be very late nights. Those are big questions that people still have and still uncertain when we will learn that. But once that is introduced tomorrow, that's what the debate will happen on the floor of the Senate.

And expect that to be contentious as Democrats push to amend that resolution and allow for witness testimony to be agreed to up front, documents to be agreed to up front, and that's something that, of course, Republicans are poised to reject tomorrow -- Dana.

BASH: So that's the very contentious process that is going to be debated tomorrow.

We have been talking about the substance of the White House legal briefs that they put forward, 110 pages. But you also have information from the House Democrats who are going to be prosecuting this case. They have a rebuttal that they released today.

What are you seeing there?

RAJU: Yes, it's a rebuttal to the response from the White House after the president was summoned by the Senate.

Now, in the House rebuttal, they say they reject every single point that the president made, his team made it in its argument in which they said the president virtually did absolutely nothing wrong. The House says, absolutely, he did.

In fact, they say in this House filing, "President Trump maintains that the Senate cannot remove him, even if the House proves every claim in the articles of impeachment. That is a chilling assertion."

They go on to say that that is dead wrong. So it's a rehash of sorts of the arguments they have been making, but they're going back and forth with these briefs. And expect a more lengthy brief to be filed tomorrow, when the House responds to the latest White House brief.

So that's all happening as part of the run-up to this trial, when they actually make their arguments orally starting tomorrow, Dana.

That's right. It's a preview of what we're actually going to hear once the substance starts.

BASH: Manu Raju, thanks, as always.

RAJU: Thank you.

BASH: Thanks.

And let's go now over to the White House. That's where CNN's Kaitlan Collins is standing by.

Kaitlan, what are you hearing from your sources in the building behind you about what went into this defense and how the president is feeling right now?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, essentially, the White House spent all weekend formulating this defense, getting ready to send in a much more detailed version of the preview that we got from the White House attorneys on Saturday night.

And that's what you're seeing in this 110-page brief today. That happened while President Trump was down in Mar-a-Lago. And according to what our sources were telling us, he was talking about impeachment a lot while he was down there, bringing it up with people, saying he didn't feel like he got a fair shake in the House, something you have heard the president repeat multiple times

But also an argument that his attorneys are making in this brief today is, they saying, have the Senate look at these articles of impeachment, but they want a speedy acquittal and they want it to happen pretty quickly, as Manu was essentially laying out, talking about what the timeline of this trial is going to look like.

[15:05:13]

Now, they say that these articles of impeachment are essentially invalid because they do not actually include a violation of the law. That's something that has become a big point of contention over the last few days, as even people like Alan Dershowitz, who is now on the president's legal team, is reversing a stance that he maintained in 1998, saying that you didn't have to violate the law to be impeached.

He is now saying that you cannot be impeached unless you have violated the law. So, expect them to make those kinds of arguments. But, also, we're getting an indication, judging from this briefing, that they are also going to defend the president's conduct when it comes to Ukraine.

That goes right against what House Democrats allege in their brief about holding this military aid in exchange for those investigations he wanted into the Bidens.

And in this brief, they're arguing that the president was within his purview to do that, saying that is the president's policy and that is why there was the withhold of the military aid, though, of course, we have seen plenty of people testify that they did not believe that was the case. So we're just getting a taste of this today. The White House legal

team was just up on Capitol Hill in the vice president's Senate office, which is where they're going to be working out of for the next several days, for however long this trial is going to last, as they are getting ready and putting the final touches, Dana, ahead of tomorrow.

BASH: Kaitlan Collins, thanks, as always. Appreciate it.

And joining me now is Senator Chris Coons. He is a Democrat from Delaware, a member of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees.

Senator, thank you so much for joining me.

I want to start with you with what Kaitlan was just talking about, the president's legal response, and specifically the notion that what the Democrats in the House impeached him for, it did not break any law, therefore, it's not legitimate.

Here's what they say in their brief.

"Every prior presidential impeachment in our history has been based on alleged violations of existing law, indeed, criminal law. House Democrats' newly invented abuse of power theory collapses at the -- at the threshold because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever."

What is your response to that, Senator?

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Well, Dana, I think that argument is wrong on the law and on the facts.

Let's first talk about our Constitution. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention debated impeachment and putting in a provision that would allow Congress, as part of the checks and balances that are foundational to our constitutional order, the ability to rein in an executive who was abusing the public trust.

And it was, I think, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, who expounded upon that, that the goal of the impeachment process was to give the people, through their representatives in Congress, the chance to rein in someone who was behaving in a way that was harmful to the country and that violated public trust.

For second, I will simply remind you that, last week, the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, came out with a report reaching the conclusion that President Trump did, in fact, break the law, broke the Impoundment Control Act, when he withheld appropriated funds from Ukraine for military aid.

BASH: Right.

COONS: Third, my understanding, on a quick reading of the president's answer, is that the House did allege specific violations of crime in the underlying materials supporting the abuse of power charge in the impeachment. I am looking forward to what I suspect will be hours of debate back

and forth on this point in front of the Senate, as we sit as a jury this coming week. I am going to continue to read what is a more-than- 100-page filing from President Trump's attorneys that I just received an hour or two ago.

This is going to be a complex trial with A lot of issues. Thank you for covering it thoroughly.

BASH: Well, let me ask about another part of this brief, just kind of the other big umbrella issue, which is obstruction of Congress, the second article of impeachment.

The president's attorneys say this. They say that: "House Democrats' obstruction of Congress claim is frivolous and dangerous. House Democrats proposed removing the president from office because he asserted legal rights and privileges of the executive branch against effective subpoenas based on advice from the Department of Justice."

Your response to that?

COONS: Well, several points.

Privilege does not mean you don't have to testify. A privilege, like executive privilege, can prevent a requirement to testify to specific conversations and content.

But the way that President Trump has asserted executive privilege to prevent witnesses from even appearance in front of the House goes beyond any precedent in terms of the scope of executive privilege.

[15:10:06]

For second, if President Trump is so intent on being exonerated before the Senate, what is he afraid of? If he believes he's done nothing wrong, why continue to block witnesses and evidence from being presented before the Senate for a fair trial?

The Republicans that control the Senate, I remind you, are likely to give him everything he wants procedurally in front of the Senate. So, frankly, as a matter of politics, I would also suggest to the president he should not be so concerned about asserting privilege to prevent anything from appearing in front of the Senate.

BASH: OK.

Let me also get to another important claim in the White House counsel brief that you will have specific interest in, because it's about the former Vice President Joe Biden, who is your mentor. I know you have endorsed him for president. You are a senator from Delaware, where he once served.

Here is what --

COONS: Campaigned for him just this past week, yes.

BASH: There you go.

Here's what they say about the vice president and what the president asked of the Ukraine leader.

"Public reports suggested that Vice President Biden played a role in derailing a legitimate inquiry while under a monumental conflict of interest."

And it goes on to say: "If Biden were not running for president,, House Democrats would not argue that merely raising the incident would have been improper. But former Vice President Biden did not immunize his past conduct or his son's from all scrutiny simply by declaring his candidacy for the presidency."

Your response to that?

COONS: Well, that's a novel argument.

Every respectable journalistic outlet that has examined this story -- and that's many of them -- has found not a shred of truth to the allegation repeated here in that argument that somehow the former vice president did something improper.

In fact, he was carrying out the wishes, not just of President Obama, but many in Congress, as well as our allies in Europe, in pressing for a demonstrably corrupt prosecutor to be removed. And that did not benefit the company on whose board Hunter Biden served.

(CROSSTALK)

COONS: The larger point here -- and I know this will be argued at great length this coming week -- is that there is no direct relevance to the charges that are in front of the Senate.

What we should be getting more evidence and witnesses for this week in front of the Senate is whether or not President Trump ordered the withholding of aid for a particular purpose, namely, the gathering of political information that would be helpful to his reelection and harmful to his strongest opponent, Joe Biden.

BASH: And just real quick, what -- just in general, let's just say, just hypothetically, that there was something to ask the Ukrainian leader about vis-a-vis Joe Biden.

Would it be appropriate for this president, any president, to do that, to ask a foreign leader for help in an investigation? That's what they're arguing, that it was OK, that there's nothing wrong with it.

COONS: Right.

Well, President Trump, as you know, has argued since the day a whistle-blower brought this conversation to light that it was a perfect conversation.

It does happen, Dana, that American administrations help -- ask other countries for their help in legitimate investigations, and we provide help to other countries.

So, for example, if there's a fugitive or if there's a criminal conspiracy, there are -- there is cooperation and partnerships between countries.

The whole issue here is the likely corrupt purpose -- that's what's being alleged -- behind President Trump's asking Zelensky to do him a favor.

One of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that raises doubts about his motives is that, in that conversation in the transcript, it's clear that he asked the president of Ukraine to meet with Rudy Giuliani, who was not representing the United States, who was not representing the interests of the United States, but was acting as President Trump's personal attorney, traveling to Ukraine to try and gin up dirt on his political opponents.

BASH: Senator --

COONS: The fact that he does that, in this -- in this transcript of the call, suggests a purpose that was not squarely in line with America's national interests.

BASH: Forgive me. There's a delay here.

Before I let you go, I just want to talk about what today is, switching gears.

COONS: There is.

BASH: And that is Martin Luther King holiday, in honor of his birthday.

You and I were together at a civil rights trip down that John Lewis takes every year. And it was during -- it was the year of --

COONS: Government --

BASH: Right. It was the year of the 50th anniversary of when Martin Luther King was assassinated.

We were down at the place where he was assassinated with John Lewis, the congressman, who was there for the very first time.

[15:15:07]

And I just want to play for you and our viewers what John Lewis said about Martin Luther King at that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA): He taught me how to live. He taught me to never give up, to never give in, to be hopeful, to be optimistic.

And he used to call me, Senator, the boy from Troy. And I grew up outside of Troy, Alabama. He would always, how is the boy from Troy doing?

So, I spent time in Nashville, six years attending school, during the sit-ins, left that to go on the Freedom Ride.

But along the way, Dr. King was there with us every step of the way. And when he died, I think something died in all of us. Something died in America.

And each day, I think we must find a way to dream the dreams that he dreamed and build on what he for all of us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And he also talked about writing a letter when he was 15 years old to Martin Luther King Jr., and then getting a response. And that was how John Lewis started his role in the civil rights movement.

Your thoughts on this day before we -- before we let you go?

COONS: Dana, thank you for sharing that with your viewers.

It was a very somber day for all of us who were at the Lorraine Motel at the 50th anniversary of King's assassination.

But that story is also a reminder of the power of young Americans to pick up the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's dream and carry it forward.

King was in Memphis because he was joining a sanitation workers strike. He did dream great dreams, but he also had a vision. And he took action. He joined with organized labor. He joined with civil rights marchers. He joined with protesters.

And he ultimately encouraged and supported now Congressman John Lewis in his march in Selma across the Edmund Pettus Bridge that led to Bloody Sunday and led to the Voting Rights Act.

There is so much left for us to do, Dana, to make real the dream of Martin Luther King, to end voter suppression in this country, to strengthen labor rights, to continue to be committed to the cause of justice.

And as I have attended events up and down the state of Delaware today, many of the speakers are folks who are calling us, young people, seasoned saints and those who have served at all stages in their lives, to be engaged in the work of justice in the memory of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

BASH: Senator Chris Coons, thank you so much for sharing that, and thank you for joining me today. Appreciate it.

And our breaking news coverage is going to continue on the impeachment trial. A brief filed by the Trump team. Is calling the entire process a charade a legal argument?

Plus, a Puerto Rico emergency director fired after supplies meant to help Hurricane Maria survivors are found in a warehouse.

And Martin Luther King Jr. III -- excuse me -- Martin Luther King III, the son of Martin Luther King Jr., and his daughter, we're going to -- are going to come together and talk about their father's dream.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:03]

BASH: Welcome back.

Getting back to our top story, the day before the impeachment trial gets fully under way, the White House released its extensive brief, laying out its defense arguments, saying the president did nothing wrong and the Senate should acquit him immediately.

I want to turn now to Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security. She led the early stages of the Trump-Russia probe before a special counsel was appointed.

So, Mary, I know you have been going through this 110-page document, the brief. You say it offers a lot of red herrings. Explain what you mean.

MARY MCCORD, FORMER ACTING U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think what this brief is -- and I have really barely cracked the surface of it, because it just came out a little while ago earlier today.

But I think there's a lot of threshold arguments being made that are really, I think, intended to distract the senators from the facts.

So, threshold argument number one is that -- Alan Dershowitz has been talking about all weekend that there's no actual crime alleged.

But, of course that ignores the fact that the overwhelming opinion of constitutional scholars and historians would say a crime, an actual crime under the criminal code, need not be alleged to be an impeachable offense, but, more importantly, I think ignores the fact that the conduct at issue here in the first article of impeachment is the exact kind of conduct that the framers would have considered to be impeachable bribery.

That is the solicitation of a personal favor, and, in particular, from a foreign power, in return for official acts. That meets the definition at the time of the framing. That meets the definition in our modern criminal code.

BASH: So let's dig deep on this.

As you said, there's a lot here, but just looking at the beginning, there was a summary, and in it, here's what the president's attorney say.

"House Democrats have falsely charged that the president supposedly conditioned military aid or a presidential meeting on Ukraine's announcing a specific investigation. House Democrats do not have a single witness who claims based on direct knowledge that the president ever actually imposed such a condition."

[15:25:09]

OK, so maybe direct knowledge is legit, but there have been many trials that have been successful with people testifying with indirect knowledge that form -- in their totality, they form a story that is believable and factual.

MCCORD: That's right.

And let's not forget, we have the transcript, rough as it may be, of the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. And that is exhibit A in terms of showing this solicitation of personal favors.

That is the announcement of investigations not only into Hunter Biden and Burisma, but also into whether Ukraine had the -- Hillary Clinton's server that -- or -- that would prove up some of the -- disprove, I guess, Russian interference in the election.

So this is -- this comes from the rough transcript itself corroborated by multiple witnesses who testified before the House committee and the House -- and the full House about statements that the president made either directly to them or that were overheard in other conversations and statements made through Rudy Giuliani that corroborate exactly what the president intended when he had that conversation with President Zelensky.

So this is classically the way prosecutors build their cases. And I don't want to make the analogy too close, because, of course, this is a political process, impeachment.

BASH: Right.

MCCORD: It is not part of a judicial process that we're used to in this country when it comes to actual criminal law.

BASH: So, on that note -- you led me right into my question to you.

The sort of main takeaway argument that the president's lawyers are making is that it needs to be a violation of the criminal code. It needs to be a crime for a president to be impeached. That is different from what one of the president's attorneys now in this trial, Alan Dershowitz, said back in 1998, during the Clinton impeachment situation.

Listen to him now and then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM MEMBER: I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860s, where he argued that the framers intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal-like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law.

So, it certainly 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)

BASH: Your reaction?

MCCORD: Well, I think it's hard to put any spin on what we have just heard.

I mean, we hear directly conflicting statements of opinion from Professor Dershowitz.

And I think that his 1998 statement is much more in line with, as I indicated earlier, what most constitutional scholars believe to be -- to be actually intended when the framers added the impeachment clause.

But just to -- even if you accept his premise, which I don't, and which most people don't, that there needs to be a crime under our modern code, I think that, again, this detracts from the facts here, which would well establish -- and I believe a lot of former prosecutors -- I, myself, am one, but many others have also said the facts, as we know them on the public record right now, would readily establish the crime of bribery or gratuities even under the actual enacted U.S. Criminal Code, which did not exist at the time of the framing.

BASH: They sure did not.

Mary McCord, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight.

MCCORD: It's my pleasure.

BASH: And on the eve of President Trump's trial in the Senate, I'm going to talk to Martin Luther King III, the son of an American hero, the one we're remembering today, his challenge for our leaders.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)