Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senators Begin Second Day of Questions for Legal Teams; Trump Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Argues Nearly Unchallenged Presidential Power; White House Legal Team Argues a President Can Demand Political Favors if He Believes Re-election is in the "Public Interest"; World Health Organization Holds Meeting on Coronavirus. U.S. Futures Down as Global Markets Show Concern Over Coronavirus. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 30, 2020 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:18]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. This is quite a day. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. It is a stunning argument that could just give the president essentially unrestrained power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER: The president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Think about that for a minute. That is the president's legal team arguing that even if he is guilty of pressuring Ukraine for a personal political favor, it's not impeachable.

SCIUTTO: His lawyers also argued that accepting political help from a foreign government is acceptable as well. If that's not an abuse of power, what is? And if Congress cannot check such behavior by a president, what presidential abuses can it stop?

HARLOW: It's a key question. So when Republicans in the room, I think everyone in the room, heard that argument, many were surprised, but what does it make them think? What are they saying this morning? As the Senate moves closer to a witness vote, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell increasingly confident in their witness vote count and plans to move quickly to end the proceedings.

SCIUTTO: We're now hours away from another round of Senate questions, could that be the second to last day of the trial? Let's begin on Capitol Hill with CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox.

You've been tracking these votes for some time now. Would you say leaning against calling witnesses at this point?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that that's the direction that we are moving, Jim. And I will tell you in conversations that I'm having with Republican members, both this morning and yesterday afternoon, it feels like that concern that really existed on Monday morning about whether or not the Bolton news was going to change fundamentally the direction of this trial has started to subside.

In every conversation I have had with members who aren't on our list of really those to watch. People like Murkowski, Romney, Collins or Lamar Alexander. Other folks seem to be leaning in the direction of no witnesses. And there are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is the fact that behind the scenes, Majority Leader McConnell has been making the case that, look, the outcome inevitably is not going to change. This president is not going to be removed from office.

We don't have the votes to do that. So why we are going to drag this process on and a process that will be more painful to many of our members who are running in 2020? And those members themselves have been standing up in lunches and making that case as well. It is time for the conference to move on.

HARLOW: Before you go, Lauren, talk to us a little bit about the reaction, what you and our colleagues saw in the room when Dershowitz made that remarkable argument. Were they seeming convinced? Surprised? Stunned? What was it?

FOX: Well, essentially I think it is an argument that was surprising for some Republicans, and I will also tell you that it is an argument that behind closed doors has been made a little bit by leadership. Not in quite the same way, but in the sense that even if President Trump did what was alleged in that manuscript that the "The New York Times" was reporting on, it would not necessarily rise to the level of impeachment.

And I think that argument from Dershowitz last night seemed to go past that. Right? But I would argue that for Republicans, many of them have made up their minds, Poppy, and I'm not sure it would make a strong difference in terms of what the president's team was arguing at this point.

HARLOW: OK, Lauren, thanks very much.

SCIUTTO: They've already made up their minds, right? And have no interest in hearing other evidence, in effect.

HARLOW: We'll both see that big vote tomorrow. Let's talk about the legal arguments at play here. CNN national security and legal analyst Susan Hennessey is with us.

So I guess what's your reaction to the argument from Dershowitz which if it proves to work would essentially, will it not, give any future president largely unchecked, unrestrained power should he or she say they're working in the national interest? SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: I think

that's exactly what it does. And look, we should be clear that sort of -- the idea that this is the constitutionally grounded argument is absurd. This is just something that Alan Dershowitz is essentially making up. And so we shouldn't sort of give it the weight of suggesting that it's a legitimate argument. It is not. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, nearly all of them, disagree with this argument.

And, really, what it would mean is that any time the president did anything or anything short of a statutory crime which, of course, the executive branch could define for itself, so long as he was doing it in order to be re-elected and really thought that was best for the country, that would not be impeachable. That would essentially defy logic. It would suggest that really this idea of impeachment as being a central check against executive overreach, against abuse of power really is meaningless.

[09:05:03]

And so I think it's something that -- it's really surprising to actually see it just spelled out in black and white. Clearly Republicans have been moving towards this argument of he did it, so what? But really for Dershowitz to be fully embracing this idea that the president can do whatever he wants and that's not impeachable as long as it's in his own political interest, it really is stunning to see that argument presented on the floor of the Senate.

SCIUTTO: It's a remarkable moment. I know folks at home might say, well, every day it seems like there's something coming out of Washington. But I think we have to put a marker on this one as being significant. I mean, the other point his lawyers made was that accepting help from a foreign government is just fine as well. And I wonder what the legal implications of that argument is.

They're basically saying if you can't put a dollar value on it, if it's not a check, but if it's information on your political opponent, I mean, have they in effect given cart blanche to presidents to do what happened in 2016, right? Because essentially that was dirt on a political opponent that was stolen by Russia and then released Hillary Clinton's e-mails, John Podesta's e-mails.

HENNESSEY: Yes. And let's keep in mind that what Trump was asking Ukraine to do, allegedly in this case, was not even to undertake an actual investigation into his opponent but merely announce an investigation. Right? So the ask here is not just to deliver real dirt on a political opponent but to fabricate dirt on a political opponent. And so imagine the implications of that, of saying that this is OK.

It means that an American president could invite -- openly invite foreign interference in a U.S. election. Whether or not it's accurate or legitimate information or not, whether or not it's been obtained in violation of criminal law, and that would be A-OK. And at the same time, the people who are suggesting that that would be a legitimate use of power are saying, well, the way to -- the check against that is just to beat him in the next election. That elections are the proper way to decide this.

And I do think it goes to the heart of this case that the House managers have been making about the urgency of this moment and about the idea that the problem here is that the president of the United States is essentially attempting to cheat in the upcoming election. And that's why the argument that the proper way for this to be decided is in the election itself just fails.

SCIUTTO: Well, and it's not theoretical. Right? I mean, Rudy Giuliani was in Ukraine until a couple of weeks ago, gathering up dirt from questionable sources there. Some point we're going to see that. What's the reaction? Are there any legal consequences?

Susan Hennessey, thanks very much.

Joining us now to discuss the politics of this, Susan Page, she's Washington bureau chief for "USA Today."

And Susan, I have to wonder how you think Trump is hearing this? Is he hearing this as well, now I got carte blanche to do whatever I want to do in 2020?

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, USA TODAY: Of course that's one of the concerns that the House managers have been raising. If he is acquitted of these charges which now seems all but certain, is he chastened because he was called to account or does he feel liberated to do whatever he wants because he's not going to get impeached again? Not this year. If he wants to encourage Ukraine or some other country to investigate Biden or whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, is that something he will feel free to do? So that is one of the arguments that we see being made on the hill the last few days.

HARLOW: You have an interesting take on Dershowitz's argument in that you think it is a double-edged sword for Republicans. Explain that.

PAGE: Well, for one thing, Dershowitz's argument gives Republicans something to say. It gives them a reason to vote against impeaching the president.

HARLOW: Sure.

PAGE: But you know what? We've seen in this trial how much precedent matters. How often have Republicans cited the example of the Clinton impeachment as the way to proceed. And so how often in the future will future presidents, including presumably Democratic ones, feel free to have this extremely expansive use of presidential powers and a very limited role for Congress in acting as a check and balance. And I think that is on the minds of some of these Republican senators who have been traditionally conservatives with a small C.

SCIUTTO: You've been following the politics of this very closely. It's our hill team's reporting that right now McConnell has the votes to block witnesses and will move very quickly perhaps to wrap up the trial by Friday. Reading the political tea leaves, talking to your sources, do you think that's a likely outcome? PAGE: I think that's what Senator McConnell hopes to do. You know,

things can always happen. You don't want to be too sure about what's going to happen on the hill, but I think that is what Senator McConnell hopes to happen. it doesn't look like there's going to be enough votes to force calling witnesses that would delay a trial -- delay the vote that the Republicans think is all but certain to clear the president.

I would just say one thing. You know, I think a lot of the Republicans now see the safe political vote as being the vote with the president on this. You know, I was thinking about the 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war, the safe political vote then was thought to be voting with the president. That turned out not to be the case.

SCIUTTO: That's right. A lot of people paid political prices for that. Just ask Hillary Clinton in 2008 versus Barack Obama.

[09:10:02]

HARLOW: It's a very good point.

Susan. Good to have you. Thanks so much. We have a lot ahead. It is a jampacked hour.

Still ahead, a Republican and Democratic senator react to the White House's legal team's argument there. What do they think?

Also, the administration setting up a task force to monitor the deadly coronavirus. This as the death toll in China rises to at least 170 people now.

SCIUTTO: Also for the first time now we're hearing from Vanessa Bryant, the wife of Kobe Bryant, hearing now since the tragic accident took the life not just of her husband, her very young daughter as well. Her emotional tribute coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Well, yesterday the president's legal team made the case that the president can ask for political favors tied to re-election if he deems it to be in the public interest.

SCIUTTO: Reaction now from Republican Senator John Barrasso who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, thanks for taking the time this morning.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Thanks for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So you were there on the Senate floor.

[09:15:00]

You heard the president's personal lawyer argue on the Senate floor that if the president deems his reelection in the national interest, he can, then, therefore do pretty much anything to get re-elected? Do you accept that argument?

BARRASSO: Well, it was interesting because he actually brought the case of Abraham Lincoln as president during the time of the civil war as part of the discussion. That's not what we're being asked to judge this president on. There are two articles of impeachment --

SCIUTTO: I know, but I'm asking for you --

BARRASSO: That have been brought forward --

SCIUTTO: And we have the president's lawyer --

BARRASSO: And we have to say --

SCIUTTO: What's your reaction to that extremely expansive definition of presidential power? Do you -- can I ask just in the simplest terms, do you reject that argument?

BARRASSO: Well, what I'm saying is, presidents have specific powers under the constitution. I listened to the -- to Dershowitz make that case yesterday. And what he is saying is, even if the case is proven by the house, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. And that's what we're being asked to vote on in terms --

HARLOW: Well --

BARRASSO: Of removing of this president from office.

HARLOW: So senator, it sounded a lot, I think to us and maybe a lot of Americans very similar to the argument that then former President Nixon famously made. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Oh, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal --

DAVID FROST, FORMER LATE JOURNALIST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Isn't that essentially what Dershowitz is arguing?

BARRASSO: Well, I think it's a bit different than what President Nixon said to David Frost so many years ago. Tomorrow, we're going to move to have to vote on the question of, have we heard enough? Do we need more information? Do we need more witnesses? Or is it time to move to final judgment about this case? I have heard enough. I am ready to make that vote and I know that the momentum in the Republican conference is to do that as well.

We heard 93 questions asked and answered yesterday. We're likely to have another 90 or so today. And I think --

SCIUTTO: OK --

BARRASSO: By the end of the day, we will have heard enough that every senator ought to be able to make a decision.

SCIUTTO: So, just to be clear because we've given you two opportunities now. You don't want to say yes or no on whether the president if he deems re-election in the national interest can do anything he deems necessary to get elected?

BARRASSO: Every president believes his or her election is in the national interest. We saw they played the tape of President Obama talking to Medvedev about saying, I need some space, after the election, I'll have more flexibility. And they said we will tell, obviously --

SCIUTTO: All right --

BARRASSO: The leader of Russia at the time, Putin. So every --

SCIUTTO: He didn't see -- well --

BARRASSO: Thinks -- every president thinks his or her re-election is the most important thing in the national interest.

SCIUTTO: Yes, not the question I asked, but fair.

HARLOW: Senator, you said something, you were on with our colleague, Erin Burnett earlier this week. And you said something that struck me, and I would just like to hear a little bit more about it from you. So, here was you just a few nights ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARRASSO: This removes President Trump from the ballot in 2020. So it interferes with that election as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Are you saying you were talking about impeachment? Are you saying that no president in their first term should be impeached and removed from office?

BARRASSO: No, what I'm saying is that what I didn't realize early on is that, the articles that were brought and the way that this is written is not just to remove President Trump from office right now, but also to remove him from the ballot in 2020. Denying people the vote at the time that voting starts Monday in Iowa. The American public has said, we have heard enough, this needs to be over for a couple of reasons.

One is, the president is not going to be removed. Two is, we're in an election year. And number three is, for every day we spend on this and witnesses drag this out extensively, we're not doing the work of the American people in terms of --

SCIUTTO: Wait -- BARRASSO: Fighting to lower drug costs for insulin --

SCIUTTO: OK --

BARRASSO: Working on the highway bill which is the committee that I chair in the Senate.

SCIUTTO: But part of your job as the Senate is to try impeachments here. When you were on this broadcast a couple of weeks ago, you said your mind was open to witnesses. Since then, we've learned what one of those witnesses would testify to, that John Bolton would give firsthand testimony that yes, the president pressured Ukraine. Why just -- why were you open to witness testimony then, but after learning more in effect about what a key witness, a firsthand witness would say, you're no longer interested. I'm just curious, what changed?

BARRASSO: Well, I've heard 24 hours of the case presented by the house managers. I've heard three days of defense by the president's counsel. I've heard 93 questions asked and answered yesterday. I expect another 93 today. And I would say even if everything in Bolton's book is true, to me that still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and removal of a president of the United States.

[09:20:00]

SCIUTTO: You don't want a chance to cross-examine him? Ask him questions about it, test his -- test his account?

BARRASSO: That's not going to change my decision on what I've heard, what I understand for the articles of impeachment, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. To me, those are not impeachable offenses, and we've heard lots about that. So the question is, did the house managers make their case, which is a pretty weak and flimsy case that was rushed, that was partisan, that was political.

And even if they do and make their case, does it rise to the level of removing a president from office? And I just don't think so.

HARLOW: We're out of time. We have a million more questions, so come back. Senator John Barrasso --

BARRASSO: I will --

HARLOW: Thank you --

BARRASSO: Thanks for having me. Thank you --

HARLOW: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Thank you. Well, could the coronavirus outbreak soon be declared a global health emergency? Health officials meeting today as the U.S. establishes a task force to combat the spread here? We're going to have a live update.

HARLOW: We're also moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street. U.S. futures pointing lower this morning, global markets showing signs of continued stress and uncertainty over where the coronavirus really goes and how devastating it becomes. And new this morning, the U.S. economy expanded at a rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2019. It was actually 2.3 percent. We'll see how Wall Street reacts to the news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:25:00]

HARLOW: Well, soon the World Health Organization could decide whether or not they will declare the coronavirus a global health emergency. This as the White House announces the creation of a task force here in the U.S. to deal with the threat of the virus in this country. The U.S. also planning additional evacuation flights next week for the Americans in the Chinese city, Wuhan province at the center of the outbreak.

SCIUTTO: Yes, remarkable international reaction here. The number of cases in mainland China is at 7,700 now and at least 170 people have now died from the virus. And this morning, a cruise ship with more than 6,000 people is quarantined off the coast of Italy. This over fears that two passengers on that ship may have been infected with the deadly virus. CNN's Will Ripley joins us now from Hong Kong. So, Will, what more do we know about evacuations of Americans? When they're going to get back to the U.S., and any concerns about cases among that group?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are so many concerns among so many people right now, Jim. And they're working as quickly as they can to get those -- the remaining Americans evacuated from Wuhan. But obviously, it's a very complex operation, not just working with Chinese authorities, but also figuring out where these people will go, and how long they will stay in effectively quarantine to make sure that they don't have any symptoms, given the fact that health officials are saying that you could have this virus for two weeks before you show any symptoms and potentially spread it to others.

Now, this is a huge concern, particularly here in Hong Kong because people here who lived here 17 years ago in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, which was another kind of, at that time, novel coronavirus, it was just devastating for this city, and nearly 300 people died. Many of them in one particular neighborhood that was considered ground zero. Nobody knew how the virus was being spread.

It was being spread through people's bathrooms, through the air. I talked to people who likened that experience back then to Hong Kong's 9/11, except that it lasted for months and the enemy was everywhere. This invisible unknown. And so that perhaps explains why we are seen here in the city just today, lines of up to three hours for people to buy these surgical face masks.

Not even sure if that's the most effective thing, a lot of doctors say, you just need to wash your hands with hot, you know, soapy water regularly, and especially after you know, after you sneeze and what not. But you cannot turn a corner in this city right now without seeing people wearing these face masks. They are that scared of what could happen and what could happen very quickly because we know that in the cases of outbreaks like this, one day, the number is 7,000, tomorrow, who knows what the number will be.

HARLOW: Well, wow, thank you so much for that reporting from Hong Kong. We'll stay on top of this, of course. We're also hearing for the first time this morning from Vanessa Bryant since the passing of her husband, Kobe Bryant and, of course, their 13-year-old daughter, Gianna in that devastating helicopter crash. She posted this on Instagram, and we want to read you a good part of it. Here's what she says.

"We're completely devastated by the sudden loss of my adoring husband, Kobe, the amazing father of our children and my beautiful, sweet Gianna, a loving, thoughtful and wonderful daughter, an amazing sister to Natalia, Bianka and Capri. We're also devastated for the families who lost their loved ones on Sunday. We share in their grief intimately."

SCIUTTO: It goes on, "there aren't enough words to describe our pain right now. I take comfort in knowing that Kobe and Gigi both knew that they were so deeply loved. They were so incredibly blessed to have them in our lives. I wish they were here with us forever.

They were our beautiful blessings taken from us too soon. I'm not sure what our lives hold beyond today. And it's impossible to imagine life without them. But we wake up each day trying to keep pushing because Kobe and our baby girl, Gigi are shining on us to light the way. Our love for them is endless, and as I say, immeasurable, I just wish I could hug them, kiss them and bless them, have them here with us forever."

Now that statement comes as the tributes to Kobe Bryant keep pouring in. Brooklyn Nets star, Kyrie Irving getting very emotional at a special tribute for Kobe and his daughter, Gigi.

HARLOW: Andy Scholes has more in the "BLEACHER REPORT" this morning. You know, I'll never forget watching Jerry West and Shaquille O'Neal's reaction this week to it. What did Kyrie Irving have to say?