Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is Interviewed about Impeachment Trial; Clinton talks about Sanders; Clash over Impeachment Rules; Trump at Economic Summit; Roberts Faces Impeachment Test. Aired 9:30- 10a

Aired January 21, 2020 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): That he wanted Mick Mulvaney to testify at the Senate trial. Well, we do too. But he's changed his mind. Obviously he's scared of the truth coming out. And so I think that that is why that number has changed in the CNN polling and I think that's a reflection of the fact that people are watching and they want a fair trial. Regardless of where they are on that ultimate question, the American people overwhelmingly agree that this should be a fair trial.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: That is where there's a --

VAN HOLLEN: And that's -- that's where we're focused. And Republicans who vote against these witnesses and documents, they will be held accountable by their constituents.

SCIUTTO: You're right, that is where there's been a consistently large majority as public support for at least calling witnesses in the trial.

Senator.

VAN HOLLEN: Yes.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much. We know you have a long day ahead. Appreciate your time.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

HARLOW: Ahead for us, in a pretty stunning new interview, not only does Hillary Clinton not say what -- you know, where she is on Bernie Sanders in 2020 if he's the Democratic nominee, but you should hear the harsh criticism she levels at him.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:22]

HARLOW: All right, well, here's a headline you might not have expected when you woke up this morning. This morning we are hearing for the first time explosive comments from Hillary Clinton about her 2016 Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders.

SCIUTTO: In an interview with "The Hollywood Reporter," Clinton will not commit to backing Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee in 2020. She also doubles down on comments that she made in an upcoming documentary in which she said, quote, nobody likes him on The Hill.

Jessica Dan joins us now.

Jessica, tell us what she said exactly and how she's standing by these comments.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is really remarkable stuff, guys, coming out of an interview in "The Hollywood Reporter" on this docuseries that she has participated in that's going to air on Hulu.

I want to show you now, this is exactly what they said in the interview. They are actually taking this quote from the documentary itself. Let's take a look at what that says. We'll put it up here for you. "The Hollywood Reporter," in the doc, you're brutally honest on Sanders. He was in Congress for years. This is Hillary Clinton speaking. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him. Nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.

The reporter asked, does that assessment still hold? And she says, yes, it does. And then she goes on, "The Hollywood Reporter" asks again if he gets the nomination, will you endorse and campaign for him? And she says I'm not going to go there yet.

She goes on after that, Poppy and Jim, to say that we're still in a primary process. She wants to let that play out. But she does talk about how worrisome, that's the word she uses, the culture is around Bernie Sanders. She says it's not just him. She says it's the people he employs, it's his supporters, how they go after and attack people, particularly women. And she talks about how concerning that is and really points that out very pointedly in this interview and in this docuseries.

And it's interesting to put that into context for 2020. I was just on the campaign trail over the weekend, got back to Washington yesterday, and we saw this play out between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden with Bernie Sanders issuing an apology to Joe Biden yesterday for an op-ed that one of his surrogates had written that said that Joe Biden, something about a corruption problem, and Bernie Sanders had to apologize and say that he did not see Joe Biden as corrupt. So it's interesting to see kind of how that dovetails into what we're seeing in 2020.

But back to the main issue here, which is Hillary Clinton's comments today, really remarkable comments coming from the 2016 Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton.

SCIUTTO: Yes, a lot of friendly fire in the last several days from our Democratic candidates.

HARLOW: I don't know how -- I don't know how friend -- yes.

SCIUTTO: Warren/Sanders, Clinton/Sanders, it's getting rough.

DEAN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Dean, thanks very much.

The fight over rules could give us a preview of how Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the Senate impeachment trial of the president. And we could get a sign as early as today how he might respond. We'll speak to someone who knows him very well, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:55]

SCIUTTO: We are just hours away from the start of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Senators will consider whether to remove him from office. Democrats are furious over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to now rush the process and, it seems, acquit the president as fast as possible. A fierce debate over the rules is expected right after the gavel drops.

HARLOW: So McConnell is discarding a lot of the '99 Clinton model that he has publicly supported for the past few weeks, making it harder to consider evidence, to call witnesses and pushing much of the trial into these 12-hour spans that will go into the middle of the night.

With us now is our Lauren Fox. She's live again on Capitol Hill.

Talk to us first, Lauren, about what Americans tuning in today should expect.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, this is going to be a day all about debating that rule. Basically Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will present his resolution. Then they will read it aloud. Then you can expect that there's going to be a debate with Democrats very concerned about two key provisions in that resolution. One of them, the fact that each side will each have 24 hours to make their case, but that they'll have to do it over a two-day period. That stretches things likely into the night because that means they're going to be making their case for 12-hour pieces of time. That is, of course, very significant for Democrats who argue that they don't want to be making this case in the dead of night, and Republicans are trying to conceal the information that House impeachment managers are going to be making.

Now, the other issue that Democrats have with the resolution is that while it does allow for an up or down vote on whether or not to move forward with witnesses, no specific witnesses are named, and there's no guarantee that there will actually be witnesses as part of this trial.

Remember, Democrats need to recruit four Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with them. So you can expect a slew of amendments from Chuck Schumer, the leading Democrat in the Senate. That's what's going to consume most of the day today. We likely won't get to arguments until tomorrow.

Poppy.

SCIUTTO: I'm sure there's a lot of arm twisting behind the scenes right now on those Republicans.

We're learning now, this coming just in the last few moments, but House managers sent a letter, we have it right here, calling the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, a material witness in this and demanding that he disclose what they say is firsthand knowledge here.

[09:45:09]

Explain what's happening. A shot across the bow certainly for the Democrats. Are they trying to exclude Cipollone from appearing at the president's defense lawyer in effect?

FOX: Well, essentially they're trying to cast doubt, Jim, on whether or not it's appropriate for Cipollone to be leading the president's defense, given the fact that he does have a position within the White House, given the fact that he may have information, they argue, about the withholding of that U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Because there were so many individuals who went to counsel at the National Security Council to say that they had securities with that phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky back in July, there's a feeling that Cipollone has information that he's been withholding from Congress and, therefore, he should disclose that if he's going to be representing the president in this Senate trial.

HARLOW: All right, let's see how this plays out hours before it all begins.

Lauren, great reporting. Thank you.

As this trial begins, the president is not in Washington. He's not even close. He is in the Swiss Alps. He is on the world stage. Sources say it took some convincing to get him there.

SCIUTTO: Jeremy Diamond, he is in Davos, Switzerland, traveling with the president. Major economic summit underway there.

Jeremy, where's the president's focus now as this trial begins, there or here?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, the president is physically here in Davos, but it is clear that his mind is still on that impeachment trial that is happening in Washington later today. Thousands of miles away, of course, but the president, we're told, was hesitant initially about coming to Davos amid this impeachment trial. And there was debate, my colleagues Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak were told about whether or not the president should go. What the merits of that would be. But I had also learned that there was something that White House aides

were perhaps looking forward to, and that was this notion of a split screen moment here in Davos. And that is to say that you have the president hear in Davos, Switzerland, meeting with world leaders, meeting with business leaders, trying to do official business on behalf of the United States, while Democrats in Congress are trying to remove the president from office on charges that, of course, the White House has dismissed as frivolous essentially. Of course, Democrats have a very, very different view of things.

But it was clear that impeachment was on the president's mind as he arrived at Davos where he made his opening remarks earlier this morning.

Listen to what he said as he was walking in to his speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Why is it better to be here in Davos than in Washington, D.C.?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're here meeting with world leaders, the biggest, most important people in the world. And we're bringing back tremendous business to the United States. And they're all here to see. The other's just a hoax. It's the witch hunt that's been going on for years, and it's -- frankly, it's disgraceful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And that is, of course, the president's view. But he is bringing that home here in Davos, Switzerland.

Now, this -- beyond simply it being on the president's mind, it's also going to be in briefing books and in briefings by his aides. The White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said earlier today that the president has a full day in Davos, but will be briefed by staff periodically on those developments in his impeachment.

And the president is also going to be clear of events this afternoon in Switzerland, and he will, we expect, be able then to watch parts of the impeachment trial back in his hotel room if he so chooses.

Jim. Poppy.

SCIUTTO: He's been known to watch television occasionally.

HARLOW: Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much for that reporting.

One key person in the middle of all of this, of course, is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He will be the presiding figure over the entire impeachment trial. We could learn today just what he's going to do or not do.

SCIUTTO: This is crucial, he may be asked to weigh in on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's proposed organizing resolution. This has all the rules, including about the question of witnesses, and with Democrats prepared to fight over allowing those witnesses, new evidence and that test could come as early as today.

Joining us now, CNN's Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic, she is author of a book on John Roberts titled "The Chief: The Life in Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts."

So, Joan, in the simplest terms, what powers does the chief justice have in this trial, and based on your really incredible knowledge of him, will he use those powers?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: First of all, under the Constitution and the Senate rules, his powers are actually quite limited. He is a presiding officer. He is not sitting there as a judge, as he would be across the street at the Supreme Court. His job is more ministerial. He doesn't have the power to cast votes. Any kind of determination he makes on evidence, whether it's relevant or material under the Senate rules can be reversed by a majority of the Senate.

So I think what we're going to see, Jim, is John Roberts trying to recede, if he can, into the backdrop. It will be quite a contrast, though. He'll be sitting up there on the diass (ph) looking like he's controlling things, but he will actually have little control.

[09:50:01]

The Senate majority, Mitch McConnell specifically, will have much more power here.

HARLOW: He is an institutionalist who know note in your book was mentored by Justice Rehnquist. It sounds like you're saying he's going to take much of a Rehnquist-like position in this trial as Rehnquist did in the last impeachment trial this country went through. But will he have the power to break ties, meaning, will he have a tie-breaking vote on things?

BISKUPIC: OK, two things on that, Poppy.

First of all, I'm glad you mentioned Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presided in 1999. He famously took a page from a Gilbert and Sullivan light opera and said, I did nothing in particular and did it very well. He did not want to be the standout here.

And about whether the chief can break a tie, now, it never came to that in 1999. It did in the very first impeachment trial in 1868, but Chief Justice Chase really was aggressive and quite political in that one.

Modern thinking, at least based on the current Senate tradition and the current interpretation of the Constitution, is that John Roberts would not have the power to break a tie. Now, there's some disagreement, Poppy, but I'm in the camp that he not only does not have the power to break the tie and reserve cautious John Roberts will not want to break a tie on anything that would be substantive.

SCIUTTO: Who -- quickly then, who breaks a tie if there's a tie?

BISKUPIC: Well, if there's a tie, the motion loses, just like it would in the old --

SCIUTTO: Right. I see.

HARLOW: Oh.

BISKUPIC: But let me just say one other thing, some people have said, well, when the vice president presides, he's able to break a tie.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: It's true.

BISKUPIC: And that's absolutely true. That is true. But that is actually delineated in the U.S. Constitution, that power of the vice president. And there's no such provision for the chief justice presiding at an impeachment trial.

SCIUTTO: In this.

OK, Joan Biskupic, thanks very much.

There's going to be a lot to watch out --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Material for another book for you, as the fight over witnesses takes center stage today.

HARLOW: Yes.

This "Washington Post" reporting, if you haven't seen it, it is significant. And it matters today. It says that the president's team and key allies are working to do everything they can to ensure former National Security Adviser John Bolton cannot testify or at least do so publicly.

Let's talk about this and a lot more, former FBI Acting Director Andy McCabe is here and Scott Jennings, a former campaign adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell.

So, Scott, let's begin there and let's begin with this "Washington Post" reporting, that they may go as far, the president's team, to classify, try to classify any testimony from John Bolton. In your opinion, and you've been critical of the president and his dealings with Ukraine and Zelensky, is that going too far?

SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISER TO SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, I think they have legitimate executive privilege claims over this. Classifying it --

HARLOW: But I'm saying classifying it.

JENNINGS: Yes, that's a -- that's a different -- that's a different -- that's a next level move. And I don't know what the precedent for that is, except to say, this was the national secured adviser having direct conversations with the president. And so I do think the White House has always had a legitimate argument on that.

HARLOW: Yes, it's just different because it's all sort of things like the Sondland meeting and the stuff that didn't include the president, but --

SCIUTTO: Yes, but all these other folks testified in public, Sondland, Fiona Hill --

JENNINGS: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Bill Taylor, et cetera.

JENNINGS: Yes. And, guess what, John Bolton could do the same if he felt like it. You know, we could hold a press conference this morning. I've been dubious that he actually wants to do this because if he wanted to do it, nothing is stopping him right now from talking. So I've sort of got the impression --

SCIUTTO: Well, you need -- you need a majority -- you need four Republican senators to call him to testify.

JENNINGS: You don't -- you don't need four Republican senators to write down on a piece of paper everything you know and send it over to the Congress, which he could have already done. So I've been wondering if he wants the appearance of wanting to talk but doesn't want the responsibility.

SCIUTTO: Should senators stand in the way of him? He's volunteered to talk. So it's very simple. If four Republicans come over and say, we'd like to hear from the president's national security adviser, who has direct knowledge of this, should they vote yes?

JENNINGS: I don't have a particular problem if they want to vote yes on that. But I do believe the White House is obviously going to fight it. And so I guess the question for the senators then becomes, how long do you want this to last? Does it -- do you want to shut the Senate down for weeks or months fighting over this guy's testimony?

SCIUTTO: He could testify in one day, right?

HARLOW: Andy, let's get your legal chops on this. So this letter just crossed from the House managers. They just sent it hours before the trial begins. And here's the sentence that stands up to -- out to us. Let's bring it on the -- they're arguing there's a problem with Pat Cipollone, the White House council representing the president. Here is what they see as the issue. Quote, the ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is also a necessary witness. They say evidence from the House impeachment process shows them that Cipollone should be a fact witness. What -- it -- they're trying to kick him out is how I read that.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, they are, but they're not doing it with a particularly strong hand. I think it's best described as Jim did a few minutes ago as a shot across the bow. They want the world to know that Mr. Cipollone has, in their estimate, information that is -- that are material facts that are relevant to this inquiry. The fact is, we are not in a federal court, rules of evidence don't

apply, this is not a criminal proceeding, so there is no way to formally exclude or rule him out of his involvement in this trial as the president's attorney.

[09:55:10]

So it's an interesting move and it's certainly a provocative one. I don't think it will probably go much further than that letter.

SCIUTTO: Scott, I don't have to tell you, Mitch McConnell is a power player. You worked with him. We've seen this from Merrick Garland and beyond.

But I wonder, do you -- are you concerned that he's overplaying his hand here on the witnesses question because one consistent finding of polling is that large majorities of Americans want to see a fair trial and part of that they want to hear from witnesses here, particularly independents. I mean it's by a very large margin here.

If Republicans emerge from this without any of that new evidence, witnesses, et cetera, particularly for vulnerable senators, is that a risk?

JENNINGS: Sure, I guess, although I tend to think we are so far away from the election that a lot of this is going to be forgotten, you know, come November. So I -- I would -- I would hesitate to overstate the political, you know, value or not value of what's happening right now.

Look, they have a chance to have witnesses. After they hear from these opening presentations, if the Senate feels like they need to hear from more people, they can do that. And, you know, if you're a Republican who didn't think the president should have been impeached in first place, it's not clear to me why Democrats think that they would then vote to sort of, you know, do the -- do the House's job for them. I've heard a lot of people wax eloquent and poetic about fair trials, don't rush it and they're making really good arguments about why the House really botched this.

SCIUTTO: Well, as you know, the White House blocked his testimony and --

JENNINGS: They did, who, John Bolton?

SCIUTTO: Well, they could go to court.

JENNINGS: They subpoenaed him?

SCIUTTO: And he said -- what's new is he's since volunteered. That is new, is it not? That happened after the close of the House investigation.

JENNINGS: Yes, well, guess what, the House, as far as I know, is still an existing institution in the United States. They could -- they could go in right now and subpoena, do anything they want. They could add articles of impeachment. But they -- that's what tells me this is about politics for them and not about process. Under the Constitution, it's the House's job to impeach. The Senate's job is to try the impeachment. The House could go back in right now, but they're not.

HARLOW: Andy, let's just step back. For the average American, what do you hope that they take away from this trial? What is most important for every American out there as they watch?

MCCABE: And it's a great question. And I think you have to think about it in the context of what average Americans bring to the idea of a trial. And most Americans rightly believe that a trial is fair, it is open, it's based on rules that are fair to both sides, based on rules that enable the prosecution to get their case in, but also enable the defense to present whatever defense to the charges they can.

I think that what most people will see as this begins and grinds on into the wee hours of the night is that that's not what we're looking at in this Senate trial. A transparent and open trial doesn't take place at 2:00 in the morning. People's opening statements aren't condensed into two 12-hour sessions.

So I think the risk here for the Senate is to create an environment that at the end of the day is very clearly not a legitimate trial. Trials take place across the world, tens of thousands of times a day, very few of them are as free and fair and open and just as the trials we expect in this country. I would hope that the Senate procedure lives up to that standard.

SCIUTTO: Scott, at the core of this, of these allegations here, rises that the president brought politics into national security, right, withholding aid to get a foreign government, and particularly a foreign government involved, to investigate a possible political opponent here.

As you know, the president's personal attorney has still been -- even as this began, going to Ukraine, meeting with folks who -- with ties to Russia, et cetera, not necessarily the most reliable sources there.

Are you concerned that the core behavior at the center of this is something that's continuing, even as the president is being tried?

JENNINGS: No, I'm not particularly concerned about it. And although I do think there are Republicans across the spectrum that have varying degrees of concern. Some think this is not a big deal. Some think, you know, this was a terrible judgment. But what I think the unifying thread for most Republicans is, this is not something I want to throw the president out of office over, particularly on the eve of an election.

I mean we're about to have voting in Iowa for goodness sakes. And so I think that's where a lot of Republicans have landed, somewhere in the discomfort spectrum, but not all the way.

SCIUTTO: Right

JENNINGS: We've never thrown a president out and a lot of Republicans would say there's no reason to start now when we can let the American people decide.

HARLOW: Andrew, just very quickly, since you dealt for so much of your career with classified information, what do you make of, if "The Washington Post" reporting plays out, if the president's team tries to classify any potential testimony from Bolton, have it behind closed doors, make sure it does not see the light of day?

MCCABE: It's really a departure from precedent and not necessary. People testify in open sessions every day about matters that could get into classified material. And the way that's handled is, the witness, and potentially his counsel, they bring a stop to the proceeding. They'll say, you know, it's a good question, but I can't answer it in this setting. We can take that up in a closed session. That's the way to handle a witness who you think might have testified -- classified --

SCIUTTO: You hear that even when senior intelligence officials testify on issues.

MCCABE: That's right.

SCIUTTO: Listen, thanks to both of you. We know we're going to come back to you for counsel as we watch this unfold.

[10:00:00]

Andrew and Scott, thank you.

HARLOW: Thank you guys very much. And thanks to all of you for joining us. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning.

I'm Poppy Harlow.

SCIUTTO: You're witnessing history, folks. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York.

CNN's special impeachment trial coverage continues --