Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Senate Acquittal Election Consequences; Interview with Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA); Farm Bankruptcies Rose 20 Percent in 2019. Aired 10:30- 11a ET
Aired January 31, 2020 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:31:18]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: With the Senate appearing all but certain to acquit the president possibly as early as tonight, I want to take a closer look at one of the defense's central arguments, that it's legal to solicit or attempt -- or accept information from a foreign country.
With me, the former general counsel on the Federal Election Commission, Larry Noble. Larry, thanks for being with us. Is there any situation where it's legal to seek or accept campaign help from a foreign country?
LARRY NOBLE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Probably not -- and good morning, Anderson. No, the law is very clear that it is illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national. The only possible exception is if you had a volunteer who wanted to work for a campaign, the FEC has said that a volunteer can work for a campaign even if they're a foreign national.
But that's not this situation. It's illegal to solicit help or anything of value from a foreign national, and that's what went on here and the law is very clear about that. So I don't see any way that this can be considered legal.
It's not -- you know, the -- Trump's lawyer says that, well, it's just information that he received. No, it's not that he picked up a foreign paper --
COOPER: Right, he also -- he also claimed that the Mueller investigation said that information had no value, and therefore it was fine.
NOBLE: That's wrong. What the Mueller investigation found was that the campaign met with Russians in response to an e-mail offering them information on Hillary Clinton. And the Trump campaign people -- this was Kushner, Trump Jr. and Manafort -- said that they would love it if it turned out to be helpful. They never got the information, it was never clear what that information was going to be.
What Mueller said was that receiving something of value is illegal, but he declined to prosecute, which is very different than saying it's not a violation. He declined to prosecute for two reasons. One, it was not clear to him that the people involved knew that this was illegal. And, two, he saw a problem with valuing that type of information, partially because we didn't know what that information was going to be.
I disagreed with Mueller at the time, but this is a very different situation. This is not somebody just saying, well, I'll give you something. This is the president asking the president of another country to launch an investigation or use his office to announce an investigation. That is clearly something of value.
COOPER: So is there anything to stop President Trump from, today, picking up the phone and calling the Ukrainian president and saying, hey, let's get that investigation going? And, you know, calling up China and asking?
Or having, you know, the government of Moldova call up President Trump and say, hey, you know what? We'll look into some stuff, we have some banking stuff here of somebody you might not like. What can you give us for it? I mean, is that -- that's now -- is that now fine?
NOBLE: It's not fine, the law still says it's illegal, Mueller noted the dangers of doing something like that. But knowing this president, he may very well take this as a green light. After Mueller decided not to prosecute, he took that as a green light to extort Ukraine.
What is he going to do now when Republicans say, well, we don't think this is a violation of the law? It would be one thing if Republicans would say, this was a violation of the law, the president can't do it, let's get all the information but we're not going to convict him. That would be one thing, would send a very clear message.
But for them to say that this is -- that it's not a violation of the law or you can't value this type of thing, sends a message to Trump and every other candidate that this may be open season? That's very dangerous for our democracy.
COOPER: Larry Noble, appreciate it. Thanks so much.
NOBLE: Thank you.
[10:34:43]
COOPER: Coming up next, politically speaking, how will the president's acquittal impact his re-election chances? We'll take a look at that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. Even as Democrats' hope fades for getting witnesses introduced in the -- new witnesses introduced into the impeachment trial, the focus is now shifting towards Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The Alaska senator said she needed some time to think about what she's heard so far and whether she needs to hear from potential witnesses in the president's impeachment trial.
Democrats need at least four Republican senators to break ranks to allow witnesses, and one of those potential senators, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, says he will now vote no.
[10:40:00]
TAPPER: Joining us now from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senator Bob Casey, joining us from Capitol Hill.
Senator, always good to see you. So let me just ask you, it looks like this is over, doesn't it? I mean, with Alexander saying he's not going to vote for any new witnesses, there really is not a fourth Republican. And right now, the only question is whether President Trump will be acquitted with Democratic votes or if that too will be party-line.
SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): Well, Jake, look, we still have a day's worth of presentations, debate. We're going to have four hours of a debate, and then we'll have a vote on witnesses.
But if it ends up -- as it looks like it will -- that Republicans have blocked all new relevant witnesses, all new relevant documents, that -- that is a bad day for the Senate, it's a bad day for the country.
I don't know why Republicans are so afraid of putting anyone -- anyone under oath. There hasn't been a single person under oath who has made the case for the president's point of view here.
So if they want to go through -- finish this trial and just rush it through, not have any new witnesses, any new documents, and then rush and not even have deliberation on the final verdict, that's adding insult to injury.
TAPPER: Have you spoken with your fellow Pennsylvania senator, Republican Pat Toomey, about what he's going to do? And -- because he has also said, I think, that he's not going to vote for new witnesses.
And in addition to that, what do you make of Alexander's argument, which is, I don't need new witnesses, I have been convinced that the president withheld the aid, at least in part to get Ukraine to conduct these investigations on the Bidens; I just don't think it rises to the level of removing a president from office?
CASEY: Look, I think the Republican argument on witnesses and documents was pretty bad last week. It got a hell of a lot worse this week because of the disclosures about John Bolton's manuscript.
So when you consider just the Bolton part of this, but then you add in all the disclosures by the hour and by the day -- e-mails and Parnas and Bolton and so many other things -- it's evident that there is information out there that we could benefit from, and that this could be done in a very orderly time window.
Manager Schiff, Adam Schiff, said last night, made a very reasonable proposal. Not just let's have witnesses, but let's do it in a week. That's a reasonable proposal. The Senate could go back and do other work for a week, and then we could reconvene as a court of impeachment, consider that new evidence and then move to a final stage of this. But they don't seem to want to do this.
It's clear to me that Donald Trump is now just not only in charge of the Republican Party generally, he's pretty much running the Senate.
BLITZER: You asked a question, Senator, during the trial, about the breach of public trust. If you believe there has been a violation of public trust by the president, what do you say to the argument that we're hearing from some Republicans, that that may have happened but it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
CASEY: Well, Wolf, look, I still have work to do before we make a decision on a verdict. But I don't know how you could read the memorandum of that phone call and not be offended -- literally offended -- by what transpired there.
The moment -- the moment that he mentioned the word, "Biden," it was wrong, categorically, unequivocally wrong. A public official can never bring your campaign into official work. So what we do about that is another question, and that's what we're all going to determine at the end of this trial.
But -- but if you're not offended just by that one -- that one episode, and all the months that led up to that, all the scheming and conspiring and the -- the smearing of an ambassador, where a lot of this started, and then all the scheming that went on after the phone call? If you're not offended by that, then I guess you just live in a different place than I do --
BLITZER: Well --
CASEY: -- on these basic issues.
BLITZER: -- your colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander, he was clearly offended. He said it was all inappropriate, he accepted what the Democrats -- what the House managers were bringing --
CASEY: Right.
BLITZER: -- forward, but his conclusion was it doesn't rise to the level of removing a president from office, especially only nine months before an election.
CASEY: Yes, this isn't simply about one -- the determination of one senator, this wasn't up to one senator, it was up to their whole caucus. To deny relevant witnesses and documents, at this moment where 75 percent of the American people get this, that a fair trial means documents and witnesses.
But, look, one thing that Senator Alexander said, which is very telling? This is someone who, until recently -- a couple years ago -- was in the Republican leadership, he asserted in that statement that the House managers have proven their case --
TAPPER: Right.
CASEY: -- proven the case, so that was significant.
[10:45:00]
But, look, we're going to continue to debate in the next number of hours, and we'll see where things are at the end of the day or very late tonight.
TAPPER: Have you talked to Toomey?
CASEY: No, I have not. And, look, sometimes it's helpful to sit down with a colleague on the other side and try to persuade, but there are times when you have to just make the case and the people in various communities across the country will make the case to their senators.
But I do think, though, that today, it's possible that there'll be some interaction between and among senators, but that's usually based upon some prior relationship and that doesn't -- that's not always the case with every senator.
But, look, now is the time to continue to make the case about how important it is for the country to have the testimony of John Bolton.
How about just one document though? How about the document from Ambassador Taylor, who served for decades and served the country honorably in Vietnam? He sent a classified cable to the secretary of state, that the secretary of state brought into a meeting with the president about this issue. Shouldn't we have access to that document?
This is -- that's crazy, to use his words on another subject, but that's crazy, not to have access to those kinds of documents, in addition to the witnesses.
BLITZER: Senator Bob Casey -- Jake, did we mention he's from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania --
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: The great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BLITZER: Yes.
TAPPER: He and Toomey are my senators --
BLITZER: I know.
TAPPER: -- so I feel like I --
BLITZER: Are you --
CASEY: Thanks, Jake --
BLITZER: -- from the great commonwealth --
(CROSSTALK) TAPPER: I'm from Philadelphia.
CASEY: -- and Wolf, thank you.
TAPPER: Good to see you, Senator. Thank you so much.
BLITZER: All right, thanks very much.
TAPPER: There's new evidence today that President Trump's trade wars have caused more disruption in the farming industry. Bankruptcies have jumped despite administration bailouts and new trade deals, yet the president just issued this warning to farmers in Iowa.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we don't win, your farms are going to hell, I can tell you right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:51:18]
COOPER: As Democrats court voters in Iowa, the president is warning them -- he told his rally crowd in Iowa that if he's not re-elected, expect the worst.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They don't care about the farmer. Everything out here -- they love Trump, and you should love Trump, with what I've done.
(APPLAUSE)
So we're going to win the great state of Iowa --
(APPLAUSE)
-- and it's going to be a historic landslide. And if we don't win, your farms are going to hell, I can tell you right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, he said this despite the fact farmers have been hit especially hard by the trade war with China, and the news that farm bankruptcies in America rose 20 percent last year, which is the highest rate in eight years.
Now, keep in mind, the federal government gave farmers $28 billion in aid during the first couple years of the trade war. Chris Gibbs Is an Ohio farmer and former USDA official, he voted for the president in 2016; he's since soured on Mr. Trump and his agricultural policies. Mr. Gibbs is also considering a run for Congress as an independent against a Republican incumbent, Jim Jordan.
Mr. Gibbs, thanks for joining us. What do you make of the president's remarks?
CHRISTOPHER GIBBS, OHIO SOYBEAN FARMER: Well, it's certainly typical hyperbole from the president at one of these rallies. I'm sure I can -- I can take care of my farm, and so can other farmers. So, trust me, we're not going to hell just because the election changes.
COOPER: Farm bankruptcies jumped 20 percent last year. The president says that farmers are going to need more land, more tractors because you're about to make a ton of money. I mean, as a soybean farmer, you took a big hit due to the trade wars, I imagine. Will the newly inked deals and the federal aid package be enough to make up for your losses?
GIBBS: Well, I guess the first thing is that the president suggests that we can go get more land, I'm not sure where that land's coming from. All the land in the United States that's arable that we can farm, we're farming already. You don't go down to the used land lot and pick up a slightly used 80 acres and bring that home.
COOPER: Yes.
GIBBS: So -- so I'll tell you what. On the China deal, prices have been down ever since the deal was signed. But I do want to be fair. If -- if this truly is as good as written, it'll be great for agriculture. But I'm kind of like the show-me state, you know? I want to see the beans on the boat first. And trade flows don't lie. And right now, we're just not getting the trade flows out of China.
And one of the things that you need to realize is, in the -- in this agreement, China said, right in the agreement, that if we need it, if -- based on China demand, and based on market prices, essentially. So in other words, what the agreement was, was that we would sell them crops generally at the lowest price on the world market.
COOPER: I'm wondering, is your -- I don't want to characterize what you're thinking about the president, but your dissatisfaction with the president, is it beyond just the impact on farmers that you've seen? Is it kind of a larger unhappiness with how things are in Washington?
GIBBS: Well, certainly in Washington. We've got, you know, dysfunction, that's no surprise, I'm not breaking any news there. You know, both parties have failed the American people because both parties are more interested in fighting each other than they're interested in fighting for the American people.
And what we're interested in out here, in farm country -- and certainly everywhere in the United States -- is production. You know, as a farmer, I have to produce or I'm not going to survive. And everybody else -- I'm sure your listeners are the same way -- you have to produce.
[10:55:06]
And Washington just continuing to fight back and forth and demonize each other and cast dispersions, you know, we need -- what would I say, we need results, not insults. So that's -- that's where we need to get. We need to get production, we need to produce -- produce for the American people.
COOPER: Chris Gibbs, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
GIBBS: Take care.
COOPER: We're still waiting for Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski to announce whether or not she will vote to hear witnesses. The announcement could come any moment now, so stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:00:00]
