Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Adopt Impeachment Rules After Tense Debate; Trump Calls Lev Parnas a Con Man; Chief Justice Scolds Legal Teams Amid Contentious Debate; Second Day of Impeachment Trial Kicks Off Today; CNN: No Motions Expected Today from Trump Legal Team or House Managers. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 22, 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]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- the president's impeachment trial. This after a fiery debate that stretched into early morning hours. The rules now set. Democrats failing in each of their repeated attempts to subpoena witnesses and documents, losing nearly a dozen votes. All almost along party lines. And right now, House managers and the president's lawyers facing a deadline to file any new motions.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, it's a big day ahead. Just moments ago, the president weighed in on all of this from the World Economic Forum where he is, in Davos, Switzerland. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Will you show up at your trial any day?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'd love to go. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be beautiful?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So why don't you go?

TRUMP: I don't know. I'd love to sit in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces. I'd love to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right, will he? We'll see when he's back. More from the president in just a moment. Let's begin, though, this hour again on Capitol Hill with our congressional reporter Lauren Fox.

Good morning to you, Lauren. Walk us through what today looks like.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, essentially we have that deadline at 9:00 this morning, Poppy, for both sides to file any new motions that they want to. Then there's another deadline at 11:00 a.m. for each side to respond and basically rebuttal whatever motions the other side presented at 9:00 a.m. Then this trial kicks off again at 1:00 today with the chief justice presiding once again over the chamber of the Senate. And what I will tell you is we can expect to see the House managers

making their official opening arguments. Basically making the case for why the president deserves to be impeached. You saw them making that case over yesterday as they were trying to convince Republican members, some of those moderates, to vote for some of those changes to McConnell's resolution. Again those all failed along party lines.

Susan Collins crossed the aisle for one of them, but it certainly wasn't enough to actually make any substantial changes to McConnell's resolution. However, during the Republican lunch yesterday, there were some fireworks as many Republicans made the case to the leadership that they needed to give each side more days to make their case. Remember, each side still has 24 hours, but now that case will be made over three days instead of two.

That means eight-hour sessions instead of 12-hour sessions. And after the marathon night last night, you can guarantee that senators are feeling a little bit relief over that -- Poppy.

HARLOW: All right, Lauren. Big day ahead. We'll see what it brings. Thank you very much.

This morning, the president 4,000 miles away as we said in Davos, Switzerland. But very much on his mind clearly is this trial.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now, CNN's John Harwood. He's live from the White House.

So, John, the president was asked if he would like to see his national -- former National Security adviser John Bolton testify. And he gave one of his kind of classic yes-no answer as yes, but tell us how he answered.

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, but is a consistent pattern for this president. Remember, we saw that with the Robert Mueller case. He said, oh, yes, I'd love to sit with Mueller, but somehow it never worked out. He said that again in the interviews this morning. I'd love to go to the trial. That's not likely to work out either. And he said the same thing with John Bolton. It would be great if he could talk, but it wouldn't be proper.

HARLOW: John, first of all, welcome to CNN. Haven't had you on the air with us. So thrilled to have you. I've admired you for years. Look, before you go, the president talked about his relationship or non- relationship, I guess, if you asked the president with Lev Parnas.

HARWOOD: That's right. And Lev Parnas, of course, is somebody who would work closely with Rudy Giuliani. The president discredited him, but, of course, that in turn raises the question of why was he working so closely with Rudy Giuliani? Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Lev Parnas has come forward and said that you knew everything that he was doing.

TRUMP: He's a con man. OK. Ready? Let me answer that one.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: OK, so you're saying that's not true?

TRUMP: I don't know him.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: OK. You don't know him.

TRUMP: Other than he's sort of like a groupie. He shows up at fundraisers, OK? So I don't know anything about him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARWOOD: Again, why is a con man, as the president described him, working with the president's personal lawyer? What we're going to see play out, of course, the rest of the week is this tug-of-war between Democrats and Republicans, wanting the process to be as brief and as partisan as possible, so it has less impact. Democrats tugging back toward more exposure and the reason for that, guys, is that about 40 percent of the country hasn't closely tuned in to this process.

They're not assiduous cable watchers. Democrats think with the Klieg lights up right now they have a chance to reach more people. Whether or not they can convict the president in the Senate, which of course is highly unlikely, they think they can change some minds about this case.

HARLOW: We'll see. John Harwood, thanks for the reporting from the White House.

HARWOOD: You bet.

SCIUTTO: With us now is Michael Gerhardt, CNN legal analyst and UNC law professor.

So, Michael, it's interesting. After all this talk and focus on whether there will be enough votes to call witnesses, I mean, that vote may come at a later date. Still a question about witnesses. But CNN's reporting is that Mitch McConnell is arguing behind the scenes that, wait, we can't call witnesses. This would undermine the Senate's role. It poses a whole host of constitutional issues. Is that accurate?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That is completely inaccurate. In the history of this country, the Senate has always understood its power to try impeachments.

[09:05:06]

In fact, the Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. And so all means all, I think. In this case, that would mean not shutting things down as Senator McConnell seems to think he should do but instead taking what the House has done and doing actually more fact-finding, and hold the trial of sorts and see what they find out. And it may cut one way and may cut another, but take evidence. HARLOW: Yes. I mean, it's an odd argument to say just because we're

this body, you know, that you're going to risk everything if you seek to get more information, which is essentially what he's saying.

The president addressed John Bolton and how he feels about Bolton being a possible witness at this press conference. Let's listen to that for a minute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I would rather go the long way. I would rather interview Bolton. I would rather interview a lot of people. The problem with John is that it's a national security problem. If you think about it, John, he knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders. What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it's not very positive and that I have to deal on behalf of the country. It's going to be very hard. It's going to make the job very hard. He knows other things. And I don't know if we left on the best of terms. I would say probably not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: He just said John Bolton knows a lot. And my question for you is, what can and can't Bolton say?

GERHARDT: Bolton can talk about the issues that relate to this trial. It's just that simple. There's no privilege that exists under our Constitution that prevents John Bolton from talking about things that relate to either criminal behavior or abuse of power. No privilege protects the disclosure of those things or the investigation of it. So when the president says, as he just said, well, there are things that Bolton would talk that might embarrass me.

That's not what John Bolton is going to talk about. What John Bolton is going to talk about is what happened in Ukraine and how closely did the president comply with the law and to what extent did he abuse his power.

SCIUTTO: The other kind of trope of this has been that Senate Republicans wanted to stick to the Clinton model, right? Now you already have some differences from the Clinton model, for instance, Trump's team can raise an objection to the admission of particular evidence, although they did under pressure allow the evidence to be entered into the record. That was not true in the Clinton case. In the Clinton trials these rules did not specify a maximum number of days. This makes it three days max.

I mean, big picture, with your knowledge, what are the substantive differences between the way the Clinton model worked and the way this one is starting to work?

GERHARDT: The Clinton model started as a bipartisan effort. There was 100-0 vote in the trial of President Clinton. 100-0 vote on the basic rules. And this trial starts quite differently with a partisan split. That's one critical difference. But I think the second thing is, in the Clinton case, actually I think all the senators were interested in really reading the evidence and thinking about the evidence and considering to what extent did it rise to the level -- did it show the president had committed an impeachable offense? To what extent did the misconduct sort of rise to the level of being an impeachable offense?

Here the concern is that the Republicans seem to be wanting to shut this down. And the Democrats, whatever one thinks about them, are talking about the evidence. And if the Republicans have difference of opinion, they can express it. The concern is that if the senators do shut this down, then we have to think about what precedent does that set? What signal does that send to future presidents? That they'll be OK soliciting favors from foreign leaders to help themselves politically? That's a very dangerous precedent.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: Thirty seconds left, the most important thing you are looking for today as these opening statements begin.

GERHARDT: An engagement with the evidence. A real serious look at the evidence. First in terms of the facts and then in terms of the law that applies. Do these facts show the president committed misconduct that rises to the level of an impeachable offense?

HARLOW: Michael, so nice to have you. Thanks very much.

New overnight, the Office of Management and Budget released hundreds of pages of e-mails and documents that we've never seen before. They're all related to the impeachment case against the president. What they say, that's ahead.

SCIUTTO: And what in the world does the world petty fogging mean? Chief Justice Roberts reintroduced it to the American language. Scolding both legal teams after hours in a fiery debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right. Some breaking news. The motions potentially tried to dismiss this entire trial were due at 9:00 a.m. It's a little bit past that time. And we've just learned from our Manu Raju on the hill, the president's defense team is not expected today to make a motion to seek dismissal of the case. This is according to sources familiar with the president's team's plans. Democrats also not expected to make any motions today.

SCIUTTO: It may indicate that McConnell is counting the votes and knows he doesn't have the votes to dismiss. HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Which had been expected going in.

HARLOW: Right.

SCIUTTO: But certainly news this morning. Meanwhile, an extraordinary moment in the impeachment trial played out late last night just after midnight when Chief Justice John Roberts scolded both the Democratic House managers and the president's defense team. That moment took place just after a contentious exchange between House Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

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

So, Joan, let's listen to that moment if we can for folks who weren't awake last night when it happened and we want to get your thoughts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the president of the United States and his family. You owe an apology to the Senate.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The president claims monarchical powers. I can do whatever I want under Article II, says he. And then acts on that.

[09:15:00]

Defies the law in a dozen different directions all the time, and lies about it, all the time. And sends Mr. Cipollone here to lie about it.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. In the 1905 Swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word "pettifogging". And the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used.

I don't think we need to aspire to that higher standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Joan, aside from re-inserting pettifogging into our -- into the lexicon, what -- did he show us yesterday that he is not following Rehnquist model or is this a one off?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I think you know -- you've got to take into account why he interrupted, what he was doing. It was to keep the decorum, it wasn't to suddenly be in a position of any kind of substantive ruling. It was to say, look, his job is to be presiding officer. It's a very specific role, you know, keeping the procedures. He was keeping the clock all day, announcing the vote tallies.

But he's also in charge of decorum and making sure that things run smoothly. And he had, obviously, studied every single impeachment trial, not just the two that involved presidents of the United States, but federal judges who had been impeached and tried by the Senate. And he was referring to the 1905 trial of Florida judge by the name of Charles Swain.

And things were just getting nasty at that hour, and I think it reflected Chief Justice John Roberts' rigorous sense of decorum, a little bit of his wit in there, referring to the "pettifogging", which essentially means like being petty. And he was telling these -- the house managers and the lawyers for President Trump, do not become petty. We have to maintain some --

JIM SCIUTTO, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Right --

BISKUPIC: Standards here.

SCIUTTO: OK, so on a more substantive issues --

HARLOW: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Do you expect the Chief Justice to be put in a position where he has to make decisions that are consequential? And if so, do you expect him to take that up or let it pass in effect?

BISKUPIC: I actually think he's drawing a line here.

SCIUTTO: Yes --

BISKUPIC: He knows that under the terms of the U.S. constitution and the Senate rules, his job here in the Senate is much different than his job across the street at the U.S. Supreme Court. He is not here to decide the case of Donald Trump. He almost certainly will not cast a vote. Any kind of procedural determination that he does make can be overturned by a majority of the Senate.

He regards this as the Senate's show. The Senate's rules are what he is enforcing. So, Jim, to answer your question, I think he would not seize more control. He will -- he will control the decorum and the etiquette here, but he is not going to suddenly say, you have to let John Bolton testify --

SCIUTTO: Right.

HARLOW: At 10:00 a.m., Joan, he will take the bench after a long night. How does any of this factor in? Meaning, do you think they listen? Do both sides listen?

BISKUPIC: I think he was probably -- he's probably exhausted. You know, as you say, now he's over in his usual job presiding over the Supreme Court -- HARLOW: Yes --

BISKUPIC: Actually having to decide this case at 10:00 a.m. So I -- you know, when he comes back at 1:00 p.m., probably still a little bit red-eyed, let's hope that he's able to maintain some decorum. And also -- you know, this is -- the Senate wants this. Back in 1999, Trent Lott wanted that from his members to try to have a trial that people could watch and feel was respectful of both sides. And was worthy of the title of, you know, the most deliberative body.

HARLOW: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Well, I think he was trying to make a joke a little bit too about "pettifogging", saying let's not --

BISKUPIC: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Hold yourself to that high standard, but I think everybody was so tired, including him, no one really caught the joke at that point.

BISKUPIC: I think you're exactly right, Jim, yes.

SCIUTTO: Well, Joan, just give it -- just give it --

BISKUPIC: I was just going to --

SCIUTTO: Go ahead --

BISKUPIC: Say yes, the Chief Justice has a really good sense of wit, and we'll probably see that throughout this trial. But at that moment, he was all seriousness, all business --

HARLOW: Yes --

BISKUPIC: In saying, please, everyone --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

BISKUPIC: Stay in line here.

HARLOW: Thanks, Joan.

SCIUTTO: Thanks, thank you.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

HARLOW: Opening arguments are ahead today. But after that very contentious first day in the Senate impeachment trial, will Democrats or Republicans adjust their playbook?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:00]

HARLOW: All right, so this just in to CNN. The president's defense team, we're told is not expected to make a motion to dismiss the impeachment case today. They could have done that before opening arguments, they are not going to. The president publicly called for a vote on a quick dismissal over the weekend, but that strategy just doesn't seem to have the votes among Republican senators.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now to discuss, Guy Smith; he's special adviser to President Clinton during his impeachment, and Jim Schultz; former Trump White House lawyer. Jim, you look at this, it does appear that McConnell does not have the votes to dismiss immediately. I wonder if you think that, that extends to the question of witnesses given the back-and-forth yesterday?

JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I don't think it does extend to witnesses in any way, shape or form. I think the 53-47 votes, except for one, kind of show where the caucus is, and the strength of the caucus on those issues.

[09:25:00]

So I don't see that changing at all as it relates to witnesses. But I do agree that, you know, as it relates to something more formal and a fast dismissal, McConnell will not have the votes for that.

HARLOW: Up -- let me ask you, Guy, about the criticism leveled from a number of Republicans in the Senate against the house Dems' process in all of this, but also from the president's legal team. They say, look, you guys rushed, now you want things that you didn't wait for the court to decide on like witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, et cetera.

That's one argument, and I get that. But at the same time we should point out, you have the Trump Justice Department working to get court cases dismissed that are deciding on subpoenas of executive branch officials. And Adam Schiff pointed out that irony, hypocrisy yesterday. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): While these lawyers for the president are here before you today, saying the house should have gone to court, they are in court saying the house may not go to court to enforce its subpoenas! I kid you not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Are they trying to have it both ways?

GUY SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO BILL CLINTON DURING HIS IMPEACHMENT: They are trying to have it both ways. And this is part of the gas-lighting that we've seen going on. We saw it yesterday as the house managers went through meticulous detail and they will again today, and what did the White House defense team do?

They just pounded on the table -- oh, you've got all these things and there's nobody -- you're paying no attention to that man behind the curtain, and we're going to see more and more of that. Not a single syllable the other day, yesterday, was about the exonerating Trump. It was all about process. And the house is in charge -- was in charge of impeachment.

All this stuff about -- that Trump didn't have due process, he did have due process. They just keep saying they didn't. "Fox News" last night, when the house managers were talking, had up all the like Hannity and Geraldo and those guys, and they kept saying things -- just kept repeating the gas-lighting.

And what's going to happen as we go through this, the next several days, is the detail is going to come out. And those guys in the auto- body shop in Oklahoma City are going to suddenly see, oh, wait a minute, I've never heard that on "Fox" and they can't block it, it's going to come right through, and this is the danger. And that's why they're terrified. They don't want Bolton and those guys to testify.

SCIUTTO: There was another moment yesterday where the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone seem whether intentionally or not, to misstate the facts of the house impeachment inquiry. Let me play it because it speaks to Republican access to that inquiry. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: When he says SCIF, that's a secure facility where they had the hearings there at the time. Jim, you know well they were, I mean, they were represented, they had equal time to ask questions. Well, why make that claim on the Senate floor in the midst of a trial?

SCHULTZ: Well, I think the point that he made, and he made well, was that the White House lawyers were not allowed in that SCIF. And --

SCIUTTO: He said Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Represented in that SCIF. I get it --

SCIUTTO: He said Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues --

SCHULTZ: He went on to say -- look, if we -- maybe he misspoke, maybe he meant to say something else, but in that instance, remember, it's a long day. If we want to get into misspeaking -- Nadler yesterday also said the president committed extortion. Last time, I checked, there's been no charge of extortion here. So that's made up as well. So if we want to go chapter and verse about each one of the managers and --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Well, it's -- I mean, to be fair, that's a claim -- that's been a consistent claim of Republicans. I mean, you had them storm the SCIF as if there were no Republicans present when there were Republicans. Guy, so it's not --

SCHULTZ: Well, hold on, the Republicans --

SCIUTTO: It wasn't just this one moment --

SCHULTZ: Only members of that committee. There weren't Republicans from outside that committee permitted in the SCIF. That is true. So, to --

SCIUTTO: Right --

SCHULTZ: A certain extent, Cipollone is right. But the storming of the SCIF was not folks from that committee, it was folks from other committees. So, look, it's -- that mind piece that you're picking out -- picking out there is so minute compared to the hypocrisy that went on --

HARLOW: Two --

SCHULTZ: In Nadler's comments yesterday.

HARLOW: Guys --

SCHULTZ: Nadler's comments yesterday, he talks about truth and justice.

HARLOW: Right --

SCHULTZ: The guy does -- the guy fails to --

HARLOW: OK --

SCHULTZ: Tell the truth at every -- at any turn he gets as it relates to this matter.

HARLOW: Just two-fact checks. Democrats from other committees were also not allowed in that SCIF, and also Republicans who could have been in there, some of them joined that sort of barging in moment or show. They could have just been sitting in there anyways. We have --

SMITH: This is an example of the gas-lighting I'm talking about. You know, they say all the -- the sitting president can't be indicted for a crime, and then they say, well, there's no crime, so there can't be an impeachment. They want to have it both ways and it's confusing --

SCHULTZ: Well, right, there aren't any crimes in the impeachment articles, Guy, and also, I'll tell you what? You talk about those guys in the -- that work in the auto garage in Oklahoma. They're really happy about the work that they have right now because the economy is so good.

SMITH: Jim, extorting a federal -- a foreign government to help in domestic election is a crime.

SCHULTZ: Did you just say extortion?

SMITH: I mean, it's a crime --