Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Source: Trump "Extremely Pleased" with Legal Team Today; Parnas Attorney: Trump Caught on Tape Demanding Firing of Ukraine Ambassador; NPR: Pompeo Blew Up At Reporter After Being Asked If Yovanovitch Owed Apology. Aired on 4-5p ET

Aired January 25, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Brianna Keilar, in Washington. And you're watching CNN's special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump. Thank you so much for joining me.

For the last few days, House impeachment managers have made the case that only should President Trump be found guilty of abusing the power of his office and of obstructing Congress, but that he also should be removed from office.

Today, the president's defense team struck back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: We don't believe that they have come anywhere close to meeting their burden for what they're asking you to do. They're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months. They are asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country.

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Disagreeing with the president's decision on foreign policy matters or whose advice he's going to take is in no way an impeachment offense.

CIPOLLONE: Do you know who didn't up in the Judiciary Committee? Chairman Schiff. If they don't want to be fair to the president, at least out of respect to all of you, they should be fair to you. Impeachment shouldn't be a shill game. They should give you the facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Jeremy Diamond is at the White House for us. CNN's Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill right now.

And, Jeremy, I want to start with you because we won't be seeing the president today but you've learned that he is extremely pleased with today's proceedings. Tell us more about this.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Brianna. I spoke with a Republican source who have spoke with the president today and that source said the president was extremely pleased. That he felt like his legal team's argument were quite compelling. Now, this is interesting because we know that the president has been

kind of pushing for more theatrical defense. That is kind of where he was leaning before this trial got under way. But it seems that so far, he's giving his legal team some leeway. We saw even on Twitter today making quite clear that he was pleased with his legal's presentation. That he believes that the American public will be able to see that this is, in his words, a hoax, that is the impeachment that he is facing.

Now, perhaps the legal team didn't make it with the same pizzazz and flashiness that the president would have initially hoped for. But maybe simply because we're hearing the legal team makes some of the very same points that the president himself has made, including this argument that this impeachment is an attempt to overturn the results of the last election and remove him from the ballot for the next one.

Listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CIPOLLONE: They are asking you to do something very, very consequential and I would submit to you to use a word that Mr. Schiff used a lot, very, very dangerous. And that's the second point that I'd ask you to keep in mind today. They're asking you not only to over turn the results of the last election, but as I've said before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months. They are asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative. Take that decision away from the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: Now, we know that the president's legal team today also argued there's not enough direct evidence, direct witness account from people talking about why the president withheld this security aid to Ukraine and trying to link that to this pressure campaign and get that investigation into Joe Biden announced.

Now, we had a briefing call with the president's legal team earlier today and I asked him about this Democratic account, essentially saying that the president's legal team was making the case for more witnesses and one member of the president's legal team told me that's a desperate interpretation. That is how they are responding to Democrats as of now -- Brianna.

KEILAR: And, Lauren, I want to ask you about Mitt Romney. He's really seen as the Republican most likely to say yes to seeing witnesses. He's talking about this issue. What did he say?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Mitt Romney said just a little while ago, Brianna, that he was very likely to want more witnesses, to want more information. Now, he said ultimately he's not going to make up his mind until after those 16 hours of questions from senators, which we expect to begin next week after the president's defense team has laid to rest their case. But he is one of only four members that we're watching very closely.

The other one, of course, Susan Collins who weeks ago when I asked about her witnesses said she tends to like more information rather than less. But just remember, she is one of those members who is up for re-election in 2020.

[16:05:04]

All eyes are going to be on her.

But there are others like Murkowski signaled that she was a little frustrated with Adam Schiff's closing argument. She's another one that Democrats are trying to convince to vote with them on witnesses.

So, the question is, are those four Republicans going to be there in the end, and right now, Republicans and leadership are feeling confident about the fact that Democrats might get one or two, maybe Romney and Collins, but won't get people like Lamar Alexander or Lisa Murkowski.

Now, only time can tell, Brianna, because ultimately it's their vote and we don't know how things will shake out until every one is asked to step forward and vote -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, and they need that magic number. So, we will be watching along with you.

Lauren Fox on Capitol, Jeremy Diamond at the White House -- thank you.

I want to bring in our panel now to talk about this. David Swerdlick is an assistant editor for "The Washington Post" and a CNN political commentator, Jeff Mason is a White House correspondent for "Reuters", Lis Wiehl is a former federal prosecutor, and Michael Gerhardt is a law professor at the University of North Carolina. He is a CNN legal analyst.

Thank you so much to all you have for being here.

And, first, I want to ask you, Jeff about who -- the president is happy with how today went. He has reason to be. I think a lot of us are in agreement on that.

But I wonder even as Jeremy said he's happy because he heard some of the arguments he's made. We know how the arguments are made are also very important to the president. Who do you think he's most happy with because there were a few of his lawyers up there today?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: They certainly were. I was in the chamber this morning and it struck me this different style between a few of them. Certainly, Cipollone was a little bit more mild-mannered. Jay Sekulow was much more bombastic.

So, I -- based on what President Trump usually likes, you know, he'll call people low energy, my suspicion is he really liked Jay's style. But overall, in terms of content, I'm sure Jeremy is spot on. He likes the fact that their argument was made well. Stylistically, he might have preferred the way Jay did it than Pat.

KEILAR: What did you think about how today went and what that means for the president, David?

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. First, happy Lunar New Year.

Look, I think, like Jeff, the president had to be pleased overall with the way his team performed. I wouldn't point to any one of the lawyers. I saw them laying down a base of fire. I think they're going to save their big arguments, the ones that resonate with the base for Monday and Tuesday. Today is Saturday. People are taking kids soccer practice.

So, you have the lawyers come out make these technical points about rule 10. Did the House even take a full vote to initiate impeachment proceedings? You heard them introduce words like paused and flowed instead of held up and then released after being caught. They got that out into the bloodstream. They had a good day, they kept it short I think they paved the way going forward.

KEILAR: What do you think -- would you say this was a good day, at least, for the president?

LIS WIEHL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I thought it was relatively weak. I thought it was meager and I thought what it did open by them saying, look, what the Democrats didn't show you were all of these facts, right? They didn't show do you this fact. They didn't show you that fact and they didn't put it in context the fact they did show you.

What does that tell you then if you're looking at this as a trier of fact, these senators, it tells you, oh, well, I need to see other facts. If I need to decide then, context, more context. Well, then I need to see other facts.

How do I get other facts? Well, how do I get them? I get them through other witness, I get them through other documents. Huh, the only way to do that is to vote for other witnesses and documents. So, I think they just made a huge hole in favor of witnesses and documents for the Democrats.

KEILAR: And that's a very good point because when you look at polling, even though the country is split on whether the president should be removed, on witnesses and documents they are clear. The majority of Americans hold the lead that witnesses -- there should be more witnesses. They want to hear more information.

I wonder if you thought this was a day that served the president or not, Michael?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm split, much like the electric. I think on the one hand, I think I would agree stylistically, the lawyers I think toned it down a little bit, at least for those lawyers. You know, they weren't pounding the table as I expect they will eventually. That probably served them well. Perhaps they demonstrated the president, shouting and yelling doesn't

always make the best argument. Actually, we can sound reasonable. Which then leads me to my second, the substantive, and I thought it was awful.

(LAUGHTER)

GERHARDT: And I'll tell you.

KEILAR: OK.

GERHARDT: Because it had no basis in fact.

WIEHL: Right.

GERHARDT: None. So, when Cipollone, for example, says the Democrats are now guilty of the most -- worst attack on democracy in American history, that's pretty strong language, and incidentally, that could be described of President Trump.

And I think it introduces for me a concept of what I call constitutional projection. There you're going to call the other side all the names which might well fit themselves better.

[16:10:05]

And I think that you heard that throughout the entire arguments today.

(CROSSTALK)

KIELAR: I'm curious, no basis if fact, you argue. But sometimes I wonder does that matter. Is this going to be something that the president's supporters will say, whatever?

SWERDLICK: That's what I was going to say. Yes, I agree with Michael at least that there was no basis in fact for the arguments. Some of their arguments were downright illogical --

GERHARDT: Right.

SWERDLICK: -- and as you said, Lis, I think it makes the case for witnesses.

WIEHL: Exactly.

SWERDLICK: But if you're the president's legal team and you know, one, that the president is not going to be removed and you know there may not be anybody to -- any Republicans to vote for witnesses, maybe Senator Romney --

WIEHL: But --

SWERDLICK: -- then you can work from that stance and then just sort of argue this little --

(CROSSTALK) WIEHL: But you're also trying to make a record here and you're also trying -- I mean, this evidence will come out at some point as we're seeing today more and more evidence will come out to the public, whether or not the senators will be able to vote on it or not.

SWERDLICK: But I don't think they care. I think they just want to get it over with.

GERHARDT: We can't forget that it really is in a very important sense, and we said this stylistically, political theater. So, in that sense, I think the White House lawyers probably performed well.

I would also just emphasize that what they were really also talking about was a lot of talking points. Some of the same talking points that were made not just in the House but on the campaign trail and elsewhere. And talking points are not really legal arguments but they are politically effective, and I think they were politically effective.

KEILAR: It seems like they have gone on the political fight knowing unless something sort of nuclear happens, that this is -- the president is going to remain in office.

So, we saw just two hours of these opening arguments. Some of the key themes, of course, here are emerging. Impeachment is this attempt to of overturn the election, to influence the next one. Ukrainian officials felt no pressure or quid pro quo. And some jabs certainly at the House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, because they're trying to make this -- this is politics, right? This just partisan.

Let's listen to White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CIPOLLONE: You know who else didn't show up to answer questions about his report in the way Ken Starr did in the Clinton impeachment. Ken Starr was subjected to cross examination by the president's counsel. Do you know who didn't show up in the Judiciary Committee?

Chairman Schiff. He did not show up. He did not give Chairman Nadler the respect of appearing before his committee and answering questions from his committee. He did send his staff, but why didn't he show up?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WIEHL: OK, I'm sorry. I was on the Judiciary Committee for the Democrats during the impeachment of President Clinton. I know how that process worked and I was there when Kenneth Starr actually appeared in front of the committee. So, we had -- Kenneth Starr was independent counsel. It was set up differently.

Schiff is now going to be a manager in this trial, so there's no way he could appear before the committee, Judiciary Committee when he was going to be a manager in the Senate trial. It wouldn't have worked that way.

Starr was not going be a manager at the upcoming trial. This is apples and oranges.

KEILAR: Can I -- on that point, let me ask if this is a reasonable illustration. Would that be -- in a trial, a normal trial, you might see the investigating officer on the stand. You're generally not going to see the prosecutor take the stand.

GERHARDT: It's an excellent point. And this is -- this demonstrates one of the favorite techniques of the president. And that is to attack the other people, the other side and do it personally. If we're not going to attack what Schiff did, let's attack Schiff.

So, there's this kind of character assassination or insinuation given just by Mr. Cipollone suggesting Chairman Schiff did something wrong. And yet, whatever Chairman Schiff did, it's in the record. It's all there for everybody to see, and many Republicans were there when they were holding hearings.

MASON: I think, strategically, we're also getting a sense of where they're going to go next week, focusing on people like Schiff, certainly focusing on Biden, both Vice President Biden, former Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden.

But keep in mind that another piece of their strategy is do no harm. I mean, they do right now have the votes, right, to be sure that the president is acquitted. So, following a little bit of the president's playbook by focusing on people he's already tweeted about, he's already criticized will be part of keeping some focus on that while not messing anything up with the senators who they need to be sure they don't.

KEILAR: Jeff Mason, David Swerdlick, Lis Wiehl, Michael Gerhardt, thank you so much for this conversation here on this block.

We have much more ahead. And we will be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:19:02]

KEILAR: As senators mull over day one of the president's defense strategy, the House has received more evidence about the president's action at the center of the impeachment charges. The Intelligence Committee is in possession of an audio tape that appears to be vote of President Trump at a dinner with indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas in 2018.

And in it, we hear the president demanding the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. This is all according to Parnas' attorney.

ABC News obtained the audio. Let's listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What, the ambassador to the Ukraine?

PARNAS: Yes. She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached, just wait. It's incredible.

TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care out. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, OK?

[16:20:01] Do it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

KEILAR: So, we should point out that Yovanovitch wasn't actually fired until about a year after that conversation right there, David.

The president has insisted, he doesn't know Parnas, and yet he's having this conversation with him there. Let's listen to what the president has said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know Parnas. I guess I had pictures taken which I do with thousands of people including people today that I did meet. But just met him at all. Don't know what he's about. Don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him. He's trying to make a deal for himself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right. His conversation with Parnas really refutes what he said.

SWERDLICK: Yes, I mean, first of all, there's a sort of don't believe me, believe your lying eyes aspect of this, or however that goes. I mean, the president --

KEILAR: Lying ears in this case.

SWERDLICK: Yes, in that case.

Look, he portrayed it in that clip as if it's someone I shook hands with on a rope line. When maybe they're not best friends but clearly they know each other. They have been at more than one event together including the one that's on tape.

First of all, the president is being, at a minimum, not forthcoming. Perhaps just out right lying about this. The other thing again, I think it's worth remembering is that, look, the ambassador to any country is the president's personal representative to that country.

If he doesn't like that person, he simply can go through channels and have them dismissed or reassigned. There doesn't need to be this nefarious, underhanded, you know, off the books sort of negotiation of how to get rid of her. KEILAR: And what was really amounted to a smear campaign.

SWERDLICK: Absolutely.

KEILAR: That's what people in that space are saying.

It's worth pointing out this isn't the first time we have heard the president say I don't know them, never met them. What, shook his hand. I don't know that person well. Never had a conversation.

What do you make of this throw away line that is formulated for the president?

MASON: I think it is formulated. I think it's a good word. And I think that lots of people, certainly his supporters at this point just don't mind. You know, that's -- he'll say something like that. He'll dismiss it. Whether it's something about a person that he knows or he's interacted with or whether it's about a policy. It's just part of how he acts and part of how he says things.

KEILAR: You know, I think sometimes because it seems pretty clear which way the Senate is going on this, it's -- you wonder if this is going to matter. We know it's probably not going to matter in all of this, Lis, but if it should matter --

WIEHL: It should matter.

KEILAR: Why should it matter?

WIEHL: It should matter because, again, it goes to context and putting forth a scheme to get rid of this ambassador. Clearly, this scheme had sprouted up a here before she was gotten rid of.

Now, of course, he can go through the regular channels and just fire her but that's not what was happening here. It goes to the context of, why did he really want to put a stall to the money? It all fits into, if you're a prosecutor, putting together a case, you want the jurors to see all of the evidence. It goes into that context. That's why it matters.

And it's coming forward because if he is trying to make a deal with the Southern District, that's why you're hearing this information now. You are hearing about this information and that's why the senators should hear about it as well.

KEILAR: Let's shift now to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He was being interviewed by NPR's Mary Louise Kelly and she pressed him on whether he owed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch an apology, which is apparently something he did not want to talk about. He actually abruptly ended the interview.

And here's what Kelly said happened next.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MARY LOUISE KELLY, CO-HOST, NPR'S "ALL THINGS CONSIDERED": I was taken to the secretary's private living room where he was waiting and where he shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the interview itself had lasted. He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, do you think Americans care about Ukraine? He used the F word in that sentence and many others.

He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map. I said yes. He called out for the aides to bring him with no writing, no country's marks. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away.

He said people will hear about this and then he turned and said he had things to do and thanked him again for his time and left.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's bring in CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter to talk about this. He's also our anchor of CNN "RELIABLE SOURCES".

Tell us what reporting you have on this, Brian, and also what is Pompeo side of the story.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Well, this shows the Trump administration's disregard, disrespect for the press and how it's trickled down from the president to his top aides and throughout his government. I think there are senior State Department staffers who were appalled by Pompeo's behavior.

But Pompeo's kind of sort of denying a little bit of it. Here is part of the statement he came out today. It's a stunning statement.

He says NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly lied to me twice. First, last month in setting up our interviewing and then again yesterday in agreeing to have our post-interview conversation off the record.

[16:25:02]

It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism and decency.

So, Pompeo is not denying that he shouted at this reporter. He is claiming it was off the record, meaning Kelly wasn't supposed to go out there and describe the conversation.

But a couple of things about that, Brianna. Number one, Kelly says there was no off the record agreement. Off the record is a two-way agreement. Your reporter has to agree to those terms.

And number two, off the record is not way to have chance to scream at reporters. But Pompeo has a history of hostility toward members of the media. He's engaged in this kind of screaming matches with other reporters in the past, and he's also criticized and condescended toward reporters in interviews as well.

So, there's a kind of a spat going on here but it's Kelly at NPR that has the credibility. It's Pompeo that lacks credibility in a situation like this. It leads into pattern both of hostility toward the media, but also an unwillingness to answer questions. Ultimately, that's what this is about. Pompeo does not want to talk

about the Ukraine scheme.

KEILAR: No, he certainly doesn't. This is prompted, Brian, a letter from senators to Pompeo. Tell us about this, just in your reporting

KEILAR: Yes, just received this from four Democratic senators, Menendez, Kaine, it's also, to other names here, Merkley and Booker. The four of them have written a letter to Pompeo saying his insulting comments to the NPR reporter are beneath the dignity of the secretary of state. They say at a time when journalists around the world are being jailed for their reporting, and as in the case of Jamal Khashoggi, killed, your insulting and contemptuous comments are beneath the office.

That's a new statement from four Democratic senators. But I got to suspect if president Trump is watching he's pleased to see his secretary of state insulting a reporter, using profanity in her presence. I suspect he enjoys seeing that although many others are disgusted by it.

KEILAR: Yes. Count me. I won't speak for you guys but count me among those folks, because Mary Louise Kelly, it's even clear by listening to the interview that she does, it's a good interview. I mean, her follow up questions are on point.

He says something that isn't true. He says he's defended all State Department employees. She says what about Marie Yovanovitch because he did not defend her and --

WIEHL: She just asked a follow up question. Well, just show me the paper. Show me the statement where you have. It's a very good --

KEILAR: That's right, show me evidence.

WIEHL: Show me the evidence.

KEILAR: Cite, whatever she says. Cite where your statements are.

WIEHL: Right, exactly. You said you have done it so cite me that. I mean, just a very simple thing. And that's when he apparently just loses it and the demeaning aspect of having an aide, sort of call her back to his -- wherever, private room --

KEILAR: Private living room.

WIEHL: Right, and pulling this map out and you got to think that's not the first time that's happened.

KEILAR: So, let's true about that, because he pulls out an unmarked map which seems weird. Who has that lying around?

WIEHL: Exactly.

KEILAR: I'll tell you who does. Maybe like fourth grade teachers if you're quizzing your kid on it or something. But go on. (CROSSTALK)

WIEHL: That seems very odds to me that's just lying around and his aide has to pull this out and demeans her like that. Really sort of strips her down in front of this aide saying you've got to do this. Think about yourself in that situation that you've got to do this and you don't really know where to go and you've got to do it.

Of course, she's so smart, she knows it.

KEILAR: I can't believe he would quiz -- he would quiz this on her and for her to tell it, so I pointed to Ukraine and he put the map away. He says in the statement, what?

MASON: Bangladesh.

KEILAR: He says she said Bangladesh. What do you think about that?

MASON: Here's what I think. I think reporters get yelled at. We've all gotten yelled at.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Off the record is not to for yelling. OK, note to self.

MASON: We can handle it. You know, it's our job. It doesn't -- and when somebody says or behaves that way, it doesn't say anything about the reporter. It says something about the person behaving in that way. The most important thing is the reporter's work and her work speaks for itself.

SWERDLICK: It does. I'm not surprised that he asks her that because members of this administration hold us in contempt in a particular way that past administrations I don't think have. It is ridiculous and, by the way, Ukraine is easy to find on map. It's to the right of Germany and to the left of Russia. It's not a big mystery.

So, I don't know why that was supposed to be hard test question.

But I think this speaks to your point, Lis --

WIEHL: Demeaning.

SWERDLICK: The secretary didn't want to answer the factual question and so, he made it a personality conflict. And the other thing is, haven't we all been taught by our parents to be the bigger person. Secretary Pompeo, you hold the job that was first held by Thomas Jefferson.

[16:30:00]

Have some decorum.

LIS WIEHL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: And he went on to say --

SWERDLICK: It's ridiculous. WIEHL: -- what was horrible. He said and I won't use the "F" word

obviously -- don't -- people in the U.S. don't give an expletive about Ukraine. How awful is that? Isn't that his job to make sure that Americans do care about Ukraine?

SWERDLICK: Absolutely. To act like just because this wasn't his understanding of what was many the interview.

WIEHL: Of course.

SWERDLICK: This is topic A in America. He should expect it.

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "REUTERS": It's an ironic thing to be saying now.

BRIANNE KEILAR, CNN HOST: Exactly.

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate it.

We have breaking news from China. A warning from the president there. His country is facing a grave situation -- pardon me -- as the coronavirus outbreak is spreading fast.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:01]

KEILAR: The U.S. is organizing the evacuation of Americans out of the Chinese city of Wuhan, which is ground zero for a deadly coronavirus. A charter flight is being arranged to get U.S. citizens out. The CDC is helping to coordinate and plan the effort.

There's about three dozen diplomats and their families in the city. And right now, there's about 1300 cases. And at least 41 deaths have been reported in China alone. Two cases have now shown up in the U.S.

Let's go to Beijing and CNN's Steven Jiang.

Steven, China's President Xi said earlier today the country is facing a grave situation. How significant is it for him to say that?

STEVEN JIANG, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER: Brianna, he is the country's most powerful leader in decades. Many people think his warning and remarks will inject some sense of control over an increasingly chaotic and depressing situation on the ground, especially the entire province of 16 million people placed on lockdown. Imagine how helpless and trapped many of them may feel.

The number-one grievance we have been hearing people in the past few days is that the local hospital system has been completely overwhelmed.

For their part, the central government and President Xi Jinping are now saying they are sending reinforcements and medical supplies and personnel. And also to build two brand new facilities dedicated to treating people with the virus on the outskirts of the city, adding 2300 hospital beds. And these hospitals to be built within two weeks -- Brianna?

KEILAR: Steven, thank you so much. Steven Jiang, with an update there from Beijing.

President Trump's defense attorneys are now preparing to continue their arguments Monday. Up next, a look at just how many false claims that team made today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:58]

KEILAR: For almost two hours this morning, Trump's defense team began their counter argument to the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress the Democrats spent the last three days detailing.

White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, began this defense's arguments with this promise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: We believe when you hear the facts -- and that's what we intend to cover today, the facts -- you will find that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: In their quest to defend the president, did Trump's legal team do as Cipollone said, did they present the facts?

Let's check in with CNN's Daniel Dale. He is here.

Daniel, you fact-check everything for us. It's fantastic.

Ukraine has been at the center of this impeachment investigation from the beginning. I want to play this claim from a couple of members from the president's defense team this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: President Trump then turned to corruption in the form of foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election. There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking a foreign leader to help get to the bottom of all forms of foreign interference in an American presidential election.

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Mr. Schiff and his colleagues repeatedly told you that the Intelligence Community assessment that Russia was acting alone, responsible for the election interference, implying that somehow it debunked the idea there might be, you know, interference from other countries, including Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: What did you think of that? Fact-check us for that. DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: It's the Intelligence Community that's

debunked the idea this Ukraine interfered in the election opinion. Just a month ago, Trump's own appointed FBI director, Christopher Wray, was on record in an interview and said we have no information that indicates Ukraine interfered with the election.

We know that in and around November, the Intelligence Community gave a briefing to Senators saying this was a Russian operation to convince people that Ukraine, their rival, enemy, whatever you call it, was responsible for what Russia did.

In the first clip, when they said Trump, during the call with Zelensky, he brought up corruption and foreign interference. What Trump brought up was a nonsensible debunked conspiracy theory about a Democratic computer server and a Ukraine - and a company that is not Ukrainian but Trump thinks is Ukrainian. So, no, Trump didn't bring up election interference, he bought up nonsense.

KEILAR: They quoted Fiona Hill while ignoring, right out of the gate, at her hearing, she said this is a Russian conspiracy theory.

DALE: Yes.

KEILAR: Another claim they made, this is about the impeachment process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CIPOLLONE: If you are really confident in your position on the facts, why would you lock everybody out of it from the president's side?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Were they locked out?

DALE: There's a kernel of truth here but not everyone was locked out. The kernel of truth is Trump's lawyers were prohibited from participating in the House Intelligence Committee hearings.

But not everyone on the president's side was prohibited. Republican committee lawyers, who were very much in favor of the president, were allowed to question witnesses. And Republican lawmakers were not locked out.

In addition, Trump's lawyers were allowed to participate many the House Judiciary Committee proceedings. They declined a formal offer from the committee to be involved.

Yes, they were locked out, Trump's legal team, from part of the process, but not everyone was kept out.

KEILAR: They said no to it where they could be involved.

The timing is very important. This is something we heard them making points on a lot. They wanted Senators to pay attention to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CIPOLLONE: They are asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I've said before, they are asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months. They are asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Assess that for us.

[16:45:09]

DALE: This sounds like hyperbole but I think it's largely true.

I think, if Trump is convicted by the Senate, he's not disqualified from running again. He can be on the ballot.

However, the Senate, after a conviction, is allowed to hold a second vote, an additional vote to disqualify the impeached and convicted person from holding public office again.

Do Democrats want to do that? It's not clear. But in the articles of impeachment, they do say Trump's behavior does merit disqualification. I think there's truth to the point that Democrats don't want him on the ballot.

KEILAR: It's important that's true because it seemed like that's an argument some Republicans will seize on. How important is it that the talking points for some of these Republican Senators are more on the true side if they want to grab onto them?

DALE: I think they've managed to make a lot of hay with talking points not on the truth side. The president has retained the support of 40 percent of the people. Being, what I think is clear, a serial liar. He's been seriously dishonest about Ukraine. And a lot of people still believe him.

I don't know how important it is that Republicans are truthful.

KEILAR: Is it weird to still fact-check these things over and over because they keep bubbling up to the surface?

DALE: With Trump, he's impervious. He's not corrected by people like me. He doesn't care. A lot of politician, you fact-check them and tell the public they are wrong, they will correct their statements. They'll amend their language.

Trump doesn't care because he knows that much of his base is not reading me, not watching CNN, and he can get his dishonest message to them through other means.

KEILAR: I care about what you say, Daniel.

DALE: Thank you.

KEILAR: Daniel Dale, thank you so much.

As the president's lawyers make their arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, the Democrats make their closing arguments to Iowa voters. "STATE OF THE UNION" has the latest in the trial and on the trail tomorrow morning at 9:00 eastern on CNN.

Still ahead, veterans are demanding an apology from President Trump. Their message about the real danger of traumatic brain injuries.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:57]

KEILAR: America's largest combat veterans organization is demanding an apology from President Trump after he downplayed the injuries some U.S. servicemembers sustained from the Iran missile strike in Iraq earlier this month.

The Pentagon initially said no one was injured but it's now confirming 34 servicemembers have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries from the missile attack.

Earlier this week, the president told reporters that he doesn't consider brain injuries to be, quote, "very serious" compared to physical combat wounds, like losing a limb, for instance. Going onto minimize the severity of the injuries is just headaches.

Of the servicemember who were injured, there are 17 who are still being treated, and others have returned to duty in Iraq.

Inside the Senate chamber this week, some odd rules are making for some curious moments.

Here is CNN's Brian Todd.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Do you swear --

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After hours and hours of testimony, the Trump impeachment trial has become a supreme test of Senators ability to sit down and be quiet.

MICHAEL STENGER, SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment.

TODD: Among a restriction of Senator inside the chamber during the trial, keeping your mouth shut, even refraining from whispering to the person next to you.

There's no use of cell phone or other electronic devices in the chamber. No reading materials are allowed unless they're related to trial. And no standing. Senators have to sit in their seats when the trial is in session, except to vote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You cannot even move during the course of the trial. Now, what that will do for middle-aged and older men who may need to bring in catheters is another story.

TODD: And it turns out, Senators aren't great at following the rules. Senators have been seen leaning into their neighbors, hands cupped over their mouths, whispering to each other. Some have left the chamber. Others have been seen standing, leaving empty chairs.

UNIDENTIFIED LAWMAKER: You're not missing a thing if you're standing instead of sitting.

TODD: Senators have been observed dipping into personal stashes of candy, and other stacks, playing with Fidget toys, drinking milk, one of the few beverages allowed.

Former Senate sergeant-at-arms, James Ziglar, doesn't believe it's too much to sit still, be quiet and refrain from reading or texting on their phone in a proceeding with the gravitas of a president's impeachment.

ZIGLAR: Jurors in a normal criminal proceeding in our court system are required to sit still and listen to what's going on. And I think it's part of that general culture that they are trying to make it clear to the Senate, you're expected to be there, you're expected to listen. You're not expected to be doing other work.

TODD: To be fair, most Senators have been attentive throughout the proceedings. But analyst say, among a group of people not known for wide attention spans or discipline, it's not surprising that some rules have been broken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senators are not used to being reigned in. This is not just reigning them in. It's putting them into chairs with straps around their arms and legs. That's not something that's going to sit well with an awful lot of Senators.

[16:55:01]

TODD (on camera): A key question is, what happens to a Senator who gets caught violating these restrictions, who is seen talking out of turn or looking at a cell phone.

Analyst say it's not quite clear what the Senator's punishment may be. They could get kicked out of the chamber or, in the worst case, even get arrested. Although most analysts believe it would never really come to that.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: We're just about one week away now from the Iowa caucuses and a new poll has Bernie Sanders now holding a clear lead. A special edition of "THE SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)