Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senators Brace For Contentious Tuesday As Trial Begins. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired January 20, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- a bitter showdown between the White House and House Democrats.

[10:00:03]

Soon, we could get a clearer picture on how the fight will play out, if both sides face a new filing deadline to expand on their arguments, now, a little over 24 hours before it is all set to begin. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell still has not revealed the rules for the trial. Democrats delivering a warning, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says he is prepared to force votes or attempt to for witnesses and documents if McConnell does not call for them.

Let's begin on Capitol Hill with CNN Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly. So, first, new deadline, a couple of hours from now, what more are we going to learn?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So I think the most interesting thing today in that noon deadline is you're going to see the full White House defense trial brief, right? We saw it over the weekend from the House managers, about 111 pages and then laying out their entire case for the removal of the president of the United States, the basis for their impeachment. I think at noon, you're going to see the White House. We saw a smaller filing. It was a response to the articles of impeachment, to the summons this weekend. You'll see a broader expansion on what we're going to see them lay out when they get to the Senate floor.

So I think that's going to be interesting to watch. If you want to know, Jim, kind of what's going behind the scenes from the preparation perspective, the top lawyers from the House Judiciary Committee just walked behind me, they're going into Speaker Pelosi's office now. We're expecting at 11:00 A.M. today the House managers will get a tour of the Senate floor, kind of taking a look at the lay of the land, where they're going to spend the next couple of weeks.

So a lot of behind the scenes going on right now, obviously a very important filing, but still not totally clear, as you noted what the actual rules will be when the trial starts tomorrow.

SCIUTTO: So you already told me McConnell is going to hold those rules until we start tomorrow. He's going to play his cards close to his chest. Schumer now telegraphing he's going to push for a vote to immediately call for witnesses in this process. What's going to happen if he pushes for that vote?

MATTINGLY: Yes, that's exactly right. This is going to get interesting early. And I think there is some kind of misconception about when votes might actually be held. Once the Senate majority leader introduces the resolution, laying out the rules for the road, that resolution can technically be amended. And Senate Minority Leader, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has made clear he is going to introduce an amendment, at least one, to add witnesses to that initial resolution, something McConnell has said will wait until after the initial stages of the trial.

Here is the reality, it's obviously a numbers game, Jim, as you know well. 51 votes will essentially dictate however this trial goes, what they get, what they want, so on and so forth. And right now, the Democrats do not have 51 votes and they will not have 51 votes tomorrow when Senator Schumer introduces any amendments. But it will put some Republicans in a tough spot early on and I think it will kind of set the tone for a trial that is expected to be partisan, it is expected to be tense and it's going to, at least at some point, have another vote on witnesses and documents later on. So this will just be kind of the initial phase, the initial taste as things get under way, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes. It seems like Democrats want to get some of those Republican nos on the record early. Phil Mattingly on the Hill, thanks very much.

So at noon, the White House is going to reveal more details on the president's defense strategy. Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. Noon deadline here, do we know beyond what we have seen so far what the defense arguments are going to be for the president?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, so far, we're not expecting any surprises in this. It's basically going to look like that document we got on Saturday from the White House, seven pages, essentially making their argument that they believe this is, of course, a flawed process. They do not think that these articles of impeachment are constitutional. They say that they actually violate the Constitution and they essentially break them down by each one, talking about the abuse of power, talking about the obstruction of Congress, saying they believe the idea that the president obstructed Congress here is absurd in their opinion.

So, of course, expect them to lay that out in more detail in this briefing that we're going to we get around noon from the White House today. Essentially, what we're being told is it's going to include more of the defense that you saw from Republicans, from the White House, over the last several weeks, as all of this has been playing out.

And you can expect some quotes from people like President Zelensky whenever he said there was no pressure, other people like Gordon Sondland recounting their conversations they had with the president. Though, of course, it's going to leave out all of that other evidence that you saw on Capitol Hill as these witnesses were coming forward talking about the fact that they did believe there was this pressure campaign.

So, essentially, we're expecting a longer argument there. That's something that the legal team, Jim, has been working on all weekend as they are preparing this and getting ready for this noon deadline, but also getting ready for really tomorrow.

And an indication that the White House is still kind of waiting to see exactly what the Senate trial is going to look like, Robert Ray, who is one of the president's newly hired attorneys that we reported on, on Friday, was on Fox News earlier this morning talking about this and talking about the arguments that they're making here, that they still would like to see a really quick Senate trial, something Lindsey Graham said the president wants it to be over by the State of the Union, which is in that first week of February.

But then as you heard Phil just talking about witnesses there, Robert Ray was saying if there are going to be witnesses, AKA John Bolton, they want witnesses on their side too, which would mean people like Hunter Biden.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And even some Democrats have said they would be open to that. We'll see how it plays out. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks you very much.

Joining me to discuss, Bob Barr, he's a former Republican congressman from Georgia, he served as a manager in the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, and Julian Epstein, who is chief counsel for House Judiciary Democrats during the Clinton impeachment.

[10:05:11]

Great to have two folks, Bob and Julian, with direct experience of this.

An essential presidential argument here or at least his defense team is that you cannot have impeachment without a crime. It is interesting that Alan Dershowitz, who's on the president's team, had two contradictory positions on this between Clinton and today. Have a listen to them and then I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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)

SCIUTTO: Bob Barr, what's your view? BOB BARR, FORMER GOP HOUSE MANAGER FOR CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: My view is that the phrase that the president's lawyers included in their six- page answer over the weekend is absolutely iron clad, perfectly correct. The language in the Constitution says very clearly that the only basis on which a president can be impeached and removed from office is treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. You have to have a crime. And no matter how worst (INAUDIBLE), no matter how much rhetoric you put around that to try and get around it, that is a fact, a legal fact, you have to have a crime.

SCIUTTO: Julian Epstein, did the Constitution give Congress the power to decide what constitutes a high crime and/or misdemeanor?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS IN CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: Well, first off, impeachment is not judicially reviewable. So impeachment is, as Jerry Ford said, whatever Congress says it is. Secondly, without turning this program into a constitutional law seminar, I think the overwhelming weight of constitutional opinion here is that you don't need a specific crime. In fact, when the impeachment clause was adopted, there weren't federal crimes that existed at that time, or there were very, very few.

And I think the point that the House managers are making is that, sure, if the president comes in, say, drunk every day, or if he comes in, if he's abused office in some kind of other way that may not be an impeachable offense. But when the president uses the office, misuses the office for personal gain, as he appeared to here, then that clearly is an impeachable offense.

And I think Bob's view, with all due respect to him, would be an extreme minority view, certainly amongst constitutional experts. If it were me, I would have liked to have included -- I think this conduct did rise to bribery, a bribery standard. I would have included bribery in the actual articles, the House managers chose not to. But you don't have to have that in order for it to be impeachable and certainly not judicially reviewable. So it's whatever the Senate decides impeachment is and removement should be.

SCIUTTO: It's interesting bribery was not included, because when you lou listen to the questioning during the House portion of this, it did appear, and I spoke to a lot of lawyers about this, they were trying to establish the basis for bribery.

But let me ask you, Bob Barr, if abuse of power, as alleged by the House, or obstruction of Congress is not impeachable, I mean, you look for instance at the Nixon articles of impeachment, they had abuse of power, contempt of Congress in that case, but for a similar approach there, was it not, in terms of denying Congress what it needs to do oversight of the executive branch.

BARR: But in both the Nixon impeachment, although it didn't work its way over to the Senate, as well as in the Clinton impeachment, there were, as the basis for the abuse of office, specific violations of federal law. Those in the Nixon case went, for example, to violating the laws against access to tax information and national security information for political purposes. In Clinton's case, the president then was found to have violated by substantial evidence, bribe -- I'm sorry, not bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice.

If, in fact, the House managers and the House Democrats at large believed that the president did obstruct justice, and/or committed bribery, then they should have included those offenses in the articles. They didn't, and they are therefore defective on their face.

SCIUTTO: It's only at times like this -- before Julian, because I think it's relevant to this, only at times like this we're on this program, we quote from the federalist papers, but this is a great civics lesson here. And I'm going to give credit to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, he cited this as well. But Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper Number 65 says, he defines high crimes and misdemeanors in that, saying, those offenses, which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

[10:10:04]

Does that imply that defining what abuse or violation of public trust is is a congressional call?

BARR: No, only to the extent that one can argue whether or not a specific crime that is alleged rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. Simply because the president violates a law does not mean he should be impeached. The argument though is not whether or not a crime has to be alleged, that is to me clear on its face, the only question is whether or not a particular crime rises to an impeachable level.

SCIUTTO: Julian, your response to that.

EPSTEIN: I just think it's extraordinary. I mean, I know Bob, I like him, I think he's a very honorable guy, but for the Republican managers in the 1999 impeachment, to argue that a perjurious (ph) statement in a civil case on a non-material fact was impeachable in the case of Clinton. And in the case of Trump, where you have the president using his official office, using security aid to a foreign country, withholding that in order to induce them to interfere into our election, that is not an impeachable offense. That just seems to me that the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they heard that kind of upside down, you know, black is white kind of argument. That is absurd on its face.

The very notion that our founding fathers had with respect to what an impeachable offense is, is the president using his office corruptly? And when the president uses his official functions, the decision to withhold aid, in a way that was illegal, according to the General Accounting Office last week, the president withholds aid to a foreign country in order to induce them to interfere in our foreign election. That kind of thing is not impeachable. I mean, that's exactly what the founding fathers were thinking about. Using your office in a corrupt way, in particular to induce foreign interference in our domestic political affairs, that's exactly the kind of thing that our founding fathers thought had in mind when they included the impeachment clause in the Constitution.

SCIUTTO: well, listen, the debate you, Bob Barr and Julian Epstein, have here is a debate we're going to hear playing out on the Senate floor in the coming days and weeks. And, ultimately, it will be up to those senators to decide what side they come down on. Thanks to both of you, particularly on this holiday. Wish you both the best.

We are just one day away from the start of the Senate impeachment trial of the president. What are the political pitfalls for both parties here? There are dangers for both of them. We're going to discuss.

Plus, happening now, pro-gun advocates are rallying in Virginia's Capital. So far, it has been peaceful. Officials are bracing for the participation of hate groups, white supremacist groups, to disrupt the demonstrations which, of course, are taking place on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: The Senate impeachment trial of the president is once again highlighting the deep partisan divide here in Washington. But it is correct to say both parties face some risks in this battle.

I'm joined now by Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. Congresswoman, thanks for taking the time today.

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Good morning. It's good to be with you.

SCIUTTO: So you now heard this argument that has become familiar, when you hear it again on the Senate floor the president's legal team is making, that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes and therefore not impeachable offenses. What's your response to that?

DINGELL: Well, first of all, I would say the GAO found last week that the president did break the law in withholding funds that had been appropriated by the Congress. So I also think that it's open to interpretation. We have got -- I believe that the law was broken when you try to take money or you try to influence a foreign government for your own personal gain and to interfere in our elections.

I am someone that was very reluctant to go forward with an impeachment, but if we did not -- once the Republican-appointed, President Trump-appointed inspector general found a threat credible, urgent and of danger to our national security, we had to draw a line in the sand about what is allowable. Nobody is above the law. We've got to protect our national security.

SCIUTTO: What -- tell us where -- Michigan, of course, is going to be a deciding state in this election. You speak to a lot of your constituents. I know. And you and I have spoken about this before, their reaction to the Senate trial, and many of them, if not uncomfortable with it, they oppose it or they have other priorities they want you to focus on.

As it is set to begin tomorrow, what are constituents telling you, and are you concerned that that might move the dial in this state, perhaps towards Trump?

DINGELL: You know, I've been home since Congress got out last Thursday. I've had a lot of people comment to me, and a lot of complicated feelings. This morning, I'm in Ann Arbor. I was at an MLK breakfast. I have to say the group of people I were with were like it's time to get him out of office. And yet I'm with a lot of people are worried about our country who are worried about what this trial is going to mean, how divided we are.

I have -- I walked into my Coney Island yesterday in a snowstorm. There's one person there and me and he had on his red hat, Make America Great Again, and he let me know exactly what he thought.

[10:20:02]

But there are a lot of people I think that are just worried and they want to see us -- they're worried about what it means, they're worried about what is happening to the country, are our elections going to be safe, how divided we are. And they want to see us get on with doing things that they're really worried about. I think you know it, I know it. This country is divided. And that division is getting worse, not better.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I agree with you on that.

A key question as you head to this trial, and there is division here, even within the Republican Party on this very basic question, should senators --

DINGELL: And within the Democratic Party.

SCIUTTO: And within the Democratic Party. But on the question of hearing from witnesses, on that, you have Democrat united here. Would it be a fair trial of this president if new witnesses and new evidence that's come to light since the House completed their process is not considered by senators?

DINGELL: I think what we all want is a fair trial. I think we need a transparent process and a fair trial. And, no, I don't -- a lot of new information has come forward. You know, some days our heads are spinning with the amount of information they're coming out. And people say, well, why didn't the House have it? Well, much of this wasn't available. Not -- some of it was being squelched by the executive branch, but some of it simply come out from freedom of information requests. Media has obtained some of this, the GAO report.

I do believe that those facts should be allowed to be considered. That's what happened when new evidence comes forward, the judge has to rule, but people are allowed, in most instances, to introduce that evidence.

SCIUTTO: There is some horse trading being proposed now very publicly by Republicans. I've spoken to some of them on this broadcast. But even now some openness from Democrats, Sherrod Brown said this possibility of, okay, let's say we call John Bolton, perhaps Mick Mulvaney, how about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden who happens to be running for president. Would you be comfortable with that trade-off?

DINGELL: What I would say to you is I'm not really sure what the relevance of Hunter Biden is to what the issue is at hand. But I think that's something that the presiding judge should rule on, and the case would have to be made why it was pertinent to the trial that was under way.

SCIUTTO: Interesting. Leave it up to the chief justice who has a role.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, I really do appreciate you coming on this morning.

DINGELL: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: One day before this trial, and lawmakers still don't know the rules for how it's going to play out. And why is that? Do we have an idea what the rules are going to look like? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Florida Republican Congressman Francis Rooney breaking for most in his party on this broadcast, telling me this morning he would want to hear from former National Security Adviser John Bolton at an impeachment trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Would you advise them to say, listen, hear them out?

REP. FRANCIS ROONEY (R-FL): I definitely would. In fact, that's what I urged 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now to discuss, as we are just a day away from the start of the trial, CNN Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly and Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today.

Where do the votes stand on calling witnesses, including Bolton and others? Not enough votes tomorrow, do you have enough Republican votes later in the trial?

MATTINGLY: Is that to me?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Sorry, Jim. So --

SCIUTTO: I ask all Congressional questions to you, Phil Mattingly.

MATTINGLY: Okay. Susan is the expert of all the things.

So, look, on the vote count here, here is kind of where things stand. You have four Republicans that have definitively said they're open to witnesses. You have one Republican in Mitt Romney who says he absolutely wants to hear from John Bolton, the other three Republicans have kept it more kind of top line than that.

I think the baseline going forward is going to be everybody keeping an eye on those four. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, it's Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and it's Romney.

Now, the first three were working behind closed doors to try and add some more specific language to the initial resolution that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is working on related to witnesses. So they're very clear that they want witnesses.

But the endgame here in terms of will there be four Republicans or more, I don't think we're going to have any idea what that is until those initial presentations and until those 16 hours of senator questions, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

Susan Page, you made a really interesting point that it would be a different Senate trial if John McCain was still there. Tell us how.

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, USA TODAY: It would, because you would have somebody who -- we believe would be standing -- criticizing the president, criticizing Mitch McConnell and bringing some others with -- would Lindsey Graham be with Trump or McCain?

SCIUTTO: That's a tough call.

PAGE: Would Mitt Romney feel more empowered to speak out in a more forceful way? John McCain provided cover for other Republicans who wanted to speak up but maybe were reluctant to do so.

SCIUTTO: But why aren't -- because there are others who don't pay an immediate price or no political price, right? I mean, some who are retiring, some who aren't running for another four years, Mitt Romney, for instance.

PAGE: I'm not sure that you pay no price. I think what we've seen if you're a Republican official and you speak out against the president, you do pay a price. And even if you're leaving Congress, Lamar Alexander, for one, retiring from Congress, maybe he's got nothing to lose, but maybe he wants to maintain good relations with the Republican Party, which is now controlled by Donald Trump.

[10:30:08]

SCIUTTO: Phil Mattingly, in --