Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Impeachment Trial Continues; Senate Requests 15 Minute Recess. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired January 31, 2020 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00] LOFGREN: In fact, I know we can because if you, the senators, order it, that's the law. You have the sole power to try impeachments.

If questions or objections come up, including objections based on executive privilege, the Senate itself and the chief justice in the first instance can resolve them. We aren't suggesting that the president wave executive privilege. We simply suggest that the chief justice can resolve issues related to any assertion of executive privilege.

As the Supreme Court recognized in the case of Judge Walter Nixon, judges will stay out of disputes over how the Senate exercises its sole power to try impeachments. That ensures there will be no unnecessary delay and it's why we proposed we suspend the trial for one week and that during that time you go back to business as usual.

While the trial is suspended we'll take witness depositions, review the documents that are provided at your direction. The four witnesses you should hear from are readily available. Ambassador Bolton has already said he will appear. We can and would move quickly to depose these witnesses within a week of the issuance of subpoenas.

The documents, too, are ready to be produced. We're ready to review them quickly and to present additional evidence.

Meanwhile, the Senate can continue going about its important legislative work, as it did during the depositions in the Clinton impeachment trial. The president's opposition to this suggestion says a lot. The president is the architect of the very delay he warns against. He could easily avoid it. He could move things along. He could stop trying to silence witnesses and hide evidence. I think he's afraid the truth will come out. He hopes his threats and continued delay, however unjustified, will cause you to throw up your hands and give up on a fair trail. Please don't give up. This is too important for our democracy.

A decision to forgo witnesses and documents at this trial would be a big departure from Senate precedent. When the Senate investigated Watergate, it heard from the highest White House officials. That happened because a bipartisan majority of the Senate insisted. We got to the truth then because the Senate came together and put a fair proceeding above party loyalty. We should all want the truth.

And so, we ask you do it again that you put aside any politics, party loyalty, belief in your president, which we understand and sympathize with, but subpoena the documents and the witnesses necessary to make this a fair trail, to hear and see the evidence you need to impartially administer justice.

Now, there's been a lot of discussion of executive privilege during this trial. Even if the president asserts executive privilege, something he has not yet done, it wouldn't harm the president's legal rights or cause undue delay and here's why. Let's focus on John Bolton since this week's revelations confirmed the importance of his testimony.

First, as a private citizen, John Bolton is fully protected by the first amendment if he wants to testify. There is no basis for imposing prior restraint for censoring him just because some of the his testimony could include conversations with the president. That's common place. As long as his testimony isn't classified, it is shielded by the free speech clause, by the first amendment.

Ambassador Bolton has written a book. It's inconceivable that he is forbidden from telling the United States Senate sitting as a high court of impeachment information that shortly will be in print. If the president did attempt to invoke executive privilege, he would fail.

That's true for two separate reasons. First, claims of executive privilege always involve a balancing of interests. The Supreme Court confirmed in U.S. v. Nixon, the Nixon, the Nixon tapes case, that executive privilege can be overcome by a need for evidence in a criminal trial. That is even more true here in an impeachment trial with the President of the United States, which is probably the most important interest under the Constitution. It would certainly outweigh any claim of privilege.

[14:35:00]

Precedent confirms the point. To name just a few national security advisors -- for President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski; President Clinton, Samuel Berger; President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice; and President Obama, Susan Rice -- testified in congressional investigations. These advisors discussed their communications with top government officials, including the president's they served. There's no reason why all of these officials could not -- could testify in the normal course of events and hearings but Ambassador Bolton, a former official, couldn't testify in the most important trial there could possibly be.

The second reason is the president waved any claim of executive privilege about Ambassador Bolton's testimony. All 17 witnesses testified in the House about these matters without any assertion of privilege by the president. President Trump as well as his lawyers and senior officials have publicly discussed and tweeted about these issues at some length. The president has also directly denied reports about what Ambassador Bolton will say in his forthcoming book.

Under these circumstances, the president can be -- can not be allowed to tell his version of his story to the public while using executive privilege to silence a key witness who would contradict him. You shouldn't let the president escape responsibility only to later see clearly what happened in Ambassador Bolton's book.

There are no national security risks here. The president has declassified the two phone calls with President Zelensky. All 17 witnesses testified about the president's conduct regarding Ukraine. We aren't interested in asking about anything other than Ukraine. That's simply a bogus argument.

The Constitution uses the world sole power only twice. First when it gives the House sole power to impeach, and second, Article 1, Section 3 where it gives the Senate sole power to try impeachments, and here's what it says.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. Now, I think that provision in the Constitution means something. It's up to the Senate to decide how to try this impeachment with fairness, with witnesses, and documents. Privileges asserted can be decided using the process that you devise. That's not unconstitutional. It's what the Constitution provides.

You have the power. You decide. Please decide for a fair trial that will yield the truth and serve our Constitution and the American people. I yield now to Manager Schiff.

SCHIFF: Senators, before we yield to counsel of the president, I'd like to take a moment by talking about what I think is at stake here. A no vote on the question before you will have long-lasting and harmful consequences long after this impeachment trial is over.

We agree with the president's counsel on this much: This sill set a new precedent. This will be cited in impeachment trials from this point to the end of history. You can bet in every impeachment that follows, whether it is a presidential impeachment or the impeachment of a judge, if that judge or president believes that it is to his or her advantage that there shall be a trial with no witnesses they will cite the case of Donald J. Trump. They will make the argument that you can adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the party who is accused without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document, and I would submit that ill be a very dangerous and long- lasting precedent that we will all have to live with.

President Trump's wholesale obstruction of Congress strikes at the heart of our Constitution and democratic system of separation of powers. Make no mistake, the President's actions in this impeachment inquiry constitute an attack on congressional oversight, on the co- equal nature of this branch of government, not just on the House but on the Senate's ability, as well, to conduct its oversight to serve as a check and balance on this President and every president that follows.

If the Senate allows President Trump's obstruction to stand, it effectively nullifies the impeachment power. It will allow future presidents to decide whether they want their misconduct to be investigated or not, whether they would like to participate in an impeachment investigation or not. That is a power of the Congress, that is not a power of the President. [14:40:00]

By permitting a categorical obstruction, it turns the impeachment power against itself. How do we respond to this unprecedented obstruction will shape future debates between our branches of government and the Executive forever.

And it's not just impeachment. The ability of Congress to conduct meaningful and probing oversight, oversight that by its nature is intent to be a check and balance on the awesome (ph) powers of the Executive Branch hinges on our willingness to call witnesses and compel documents that President Trump is hiding with no valid justification, no presidential support.

If we tell the President effectively "you can act corruptly, you can abuse the powers of your office to coerce a foreign government to helping you cheat in an election by withholding military aid and when you're caught, you can further abuse your powers by concealing the evidence of your wrongdoing," the President becomes unaccountable to anyone. Our government is no longer a government with three co-equal branches. The President effectively, for all intents and purposes, becomes above the law.

This is, of course, the opposite of what the framers intended. They purposefully entrusted the power of impeachment to the Legislative Branch so that it may protect the American people from a President who believes that he can do whatever he wants.

So we must consider how our actions will reverberate for decades to come and the impact they will have on the functioning of our democracy. And as we consider this critical decision, it's important to remember that no matter what you decide to do here, whether you decide to hear witnesses and relevant testimony, the facts will come out in the end.

Even over the course of this trial, we have seen so many additional facts come to light. The facts will come out. In all of their horror, they will come out. And there are more court documents and deadlines under the Freedom of Information Act, witnesses will tell their stories in future congressional hearings, in books and in the media.

This week has made that abundantly clear that documents the President is hiding will come out, the witnesses the President is concealing will tell their stories and we will be asked why we didn't want to hear that information when we had the chance, when we could consider its relevance and importance when making this most serious decision.

What answer shall we give if we do not pursue the truth now, if we allow it to remain hidden until it is too late to consider on the profound issue of the President's innocent or guilt. What we are asking you to do on behalf of the American people is simple -- use your sole power to try impeachment by holding a fair trial. Get the documents they refused to provide the House, hear the witnesses they refused to make available to the House, just as this body has done in every single impeachment trial until now. Let the American people know that you understand they deserve the truth. Let them know you still care about the truth, that the truth still matters. Though much divides us, on this we should agree, a trial stripped of all its trappings should be a search for the truth, and that requires witnesses and testimony.

Now you may have seen just this afternoon the former -- President's former Chief of Staff General Kelly said that "a Senate trial without witnesses is a job only half done." "Trial without witnesses is only half a trial." Well, I have to say I can't agree. A trial without witnesses, no trial at all.

[14:45:00]

You either have a trial or you don't. And if you're going to have a real trial, you need to hear from the people who have firsthand information. Now we presented some of them to you but you know as well as we there are others that you should hear from.

But let me close this portion with words I think more powerful than General Kelly's and they come from John Adams, who in 1776 wrote "together with the right to vote, those who wrote our Constitution considered the right to trial by jury the heart and lungs, the mainspring and the center wheel of our liberties, without which the body must die, the watch must run down, the government must become arbitrary."

Now what does that mean, "without a fair trial, the government must become arbitrary"? Now of course he's talking about the right of an average citizen to a trial by jury. Well in courtrooms all across America, when someone is tried but they're a person of influence and power, they can declare at the beginning of the trial "if the government's case is so good, let them prove it without witnesses."

If people of power and influence can insist to the judge that the House, that the prosecutors, that the government, that the people must prove their case without witnesses or documents, a right reserved only for the powerful, because you know only Donald Trump -- only Donald Trump, of any defendant in America can insist on a trial with no witnesses.

If that should be true in courts throughout the land, then as Adams wrote, the government becomes arbitrary, because whether you have a fair trial or no trial at all depends on whether you are a person of power and influence like Donald J. Trump. The body will die, the clock will run down and our government becomes arbitrary. The importance of a fair trial here is not less than in every courtroom in America it is greater than in any courtroom in America, because we set the example for America. I said at the onset and I'll repeat again, your decision on guilt or innocence is important but it's not the most important decision.

If we have a fair trial, however that trial turns out, whatever your verdict may be, at least we can agree we had a fair trial. At least we can agree that the House had a fair opportunity to present it's case. At least we can agree that the President had a fair opportunity to present their case, if we have a fair trial. And we can disagree about the verdict but we can all agree the system worked as it was intended, we had a fair trial and we reached a decision. Rob this country of a fair trial and there can be no representation that the verdict has any meaning, how could it if the result is baked (ph) in by the process.

Assure (ph) the American people whatever the result may be that at least they got a fair shake. There's a reason why the American people want to hear from witnesses and it's not just about curiosity. It's because they recognize that in every courtroom in America that's just what happens. And if it doesn't happen here the Government has been arbitrary. There is one person who is entitled to a different standard and that's the President of the United Stated. And that is the last thing the Founders intended.

We reserve the balance of our time.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.

MALE: Mr. Chief Justice.

ROBERTS: The Majority Leader is recognized.

MALE: I request the Senate that a 15 minute recess.

ROBERTS: Without (inaudible) ordered.

BLITZER: All right, you've been watching the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. I'm Wolf Blitzer.

TAPPER: And I'm Jake Tapper. Senators are now taking a brief recess after nearly two hours of debate over whether to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. Right now it appears that Republicans have the 51 votes necessary to block any testimony from new witnesses including for example, Former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

[14:50:00]

Just as the Chief Justice gaveled in today, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski released a statement saying that she will vote no. Despite explosive new information we are learning from John Bolton.

BLITZER: According to "The New York Times," in a report that was just released, Bolton's book manuscript says the president directed him to help with the pressure campaign against Ukraine in order to extract dirt on Democrats including the Bidens last May -- that was two months before the July call with the leader of Ukraine.

Bolton claims, according to the book, that the president's request came during an Oval Office meeting that included Rudy Giuliani, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone who has been representing the president in this impeachment trial. The president denies the conversation ever happened.

TAPPER: Former Chief of Staff John Kelly just weighed in about the likelihood this trial will see no additional witnesses. Kelly telling a New Jersey newspaper, "if I was advising the United States Senate, I would say if you don't respond to 75 percent of the American voters and have witnesses -- it's a job only half done. You open yourself up forever as a Senate that shirks its responsibilities."

And Wolf, I mean, that -- it is astounding when you just take a step back and think, two of the people calling loudest for more witnesses are two Conservatives who worked for Donald Trump. Former White House Chief of Staff, Retired Marine General John Kelly -- and former National Security Advisor, Conservative icon John Bolton -- they are both saying new witnesses, we need to hear more, but we're pretty confident 51 Senators are going to say no thanks.

BLITZER: And Kelly said that Bolton would be an excellent witness because was a, "copious note taker."

TAPPER: He also said earlier in the week, and when he was giving remarks, I think in Texas, that when it comes to a disagreement about an event between President Trump and John Bolton, he believes John Bolton. Even though he and Bolton have famously clashed when they were working together at the White House.

BLITZER: You know, John King, the House managers now they had about an hour and a half -- they still have a half-hour time remaining. But now the White House counsel they're going to have two hours to make their case.

KING: And the question is do they take all of their time, because the math is on their side? They were poked quite a bit by the House managers. The House managers essentially telling the Senators, these guys came in here and lied to you in your House. Mr. Cipollone said this, we don't believe it's true. Mr. Purpura said this, we don't think it's true. Ms. Raskin said Rudy Giuliani is a big player, the facts prove that's not true.

So in trying in their last gasp (ph), they know the math -- they know the math. And so, they know these senators have now committed. They're trying to convince Republican senators who have committed to vote one way, to change their mind -- it's not going to happen.

It's not going to happen, but they're trying. And so they're being quite pointed, and quite personal, and quite political in doing so. The question is does the president's team decide they want to fire back?

You can see the tension and sense the tension of (ph) the floor. Or, do they take a deep breath, swallow their competitive pride if you will, and say we're winning we're just going to make the case. They said they had a rock solid case, why do you need more, let's go. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out because it's tense in there.

BLITZER: Clearly the Democrats are going to lose, Gloria --

BORGER: Sure.

BLITZER: When it comes to witnesses there are 51 Republicans now who will oppose additional witnesses, so that's a done deal. And of course it's always been a done deal for all practical purposes, that when it comes to conviction and removal from office there's no way they're going to get to 67.

BORGER: Right, but this is about making the political case to the American people that this wasn't a fair trial, 75 percent of you want witnesses as was pointed out from the floor of the Senate -- that is not what you're going to get.

These people are voting to acquit someone, effectively before they've heard the whole story, without the witnesses. And so, I think -- and by the way, making a case that the president's chief counsel is a material witness to this story, according to John Bolton -- John Bolton's book which is reported today by "The New York Times."

So I don't think the Democrats are in any rush to end this, even though they know they're going to lose in the end -- but they want to keep repeating this and making this case to the American public that yes, he's going to get acquitted but as Schiff said, you know, this is going to be --- this trial is going to be cited through the end of history because it was not done properly.

TAPPER: Well it is true that we're talking about -- we have been talking about President Andrew Johnson's --

BORGER: That's right, exactly.

TAPPER: Impeachment, so it's not as though this information goes away.

BLITZER: That was in 1868.

TAPPER: Thank you, I wasn't born yet. So -- but Senator Santorum, something that I'm just really curious about. John Kelly, retired Marine General, man of honor, former White House Chief of Staff -- National Security Advisor John Bolton, former Conservative icon.

[14:55:00]

They are out there quite obviously saying that John Bolton needs to be heard from, there's really -- you could argue about (ph) John Bolton's book sales. But intellectually, politically there's no upside to be saying that, especially for John Kelly. Why does it seem to matter so little to the Republican senators?

Because I can understand if John Kelly and John Bolton were out there saying this is all a farce, it's a Democratic partisan witch hunt, blah, blah, blah. That I could see people, Republican senators saying look at what John Bolton's saying, look at what John Kelly's saying.

These are people that have some -- they have some cred with Republican senators, why doesn't anybody seem to care?

SANTORUM: Well first off, they're not United States senators, I think that's probably the biggest thing. They have a very different responsibility than U.S. senators do, and both of them are former Trump employees who have left the Trump administration on less than good terms.

And so I think that -- you always think someone who leaves employment from somewhere else and leaves under rocky circumstances and you somewhat discount motives that they may have other than what is in the interest of the country, or your best interest.

I think that the -- I want to turn to Lisa Murkowski again, because it's just sort of (inaudible) --

TAPPER: But you know what, I want to interrupt quickly just for one second -- we'll come back to talk about Lisa Murkowski. But Senator Schumer, the Democratic Leader is speaking right now, we're going to go to that right now and then we'll come back and talk about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): When you have so many -- one of the most troubling things about this is what the president did was so wrong, and there were so many people in the loop -- all of whom shrugged their shoulders and went along with something that was decidedly against the law.

Maybe they said to themselves, well that's who Donald Trump is, that's who we're working for. But when there are so many people in the loop, there are so many revelations from that loop as time goes on.

And so -- no folks. And so that it is devastating. As for, there is no agreement between Leader McConnell and myself. We have stood for one thing, we do not want this rushed through, we do not want it in the dark of night. Members have an obligation to tell the American people and to tell the people of their states why they are voting.

So we are not -- we are going to use whatever power we have to present it -- prevent it from being rushed through. But right now there is no agreement. I'm not going to take any questions.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

TAPPER: All right, let's go back to our conversation and Jen Psaki let me just ask you about John Kelly and John Bolton because obviously these are big stories out there and in a different time and place that that would be the headline.

PSAKI: And they've become semi-folk heroes (ph) for some Democrats. I would just -- just to be a little bit more straightforward about it, they don't have any -- they don't matter to senate Republicans because they're not Donald Trump.

And all senate Republicans care about is the political power of Donald Trump, that scares them, they want to be reelected. They're worried about their own political future and I think that's what's playing out here. It doesn't matter, they're seen as sort of the enemies of President Trump --

SANTORUM: Trump supporters, I mean, I -- yeah, Trump -- it's not Trump personally as much as it is the fact that Donald Trump has 90 plus percent support within the Republican party.

TAPPER: Is that a real poll number, or is that the one that you're using? It's big -- it's big whatever it is, I'm not (inaudible) --

SANTORUM: It's as big --

TAPPER: It's very strong.

SANTORUM: It's as big as I've seen any Republican president.

PSAKI: By any account he has far more political power than John Kelly and John Bolton.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I mean, again, these are not strong political figures.

TAPPER: So let's talk about Lisa Murkowski.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I think --

BLITZER: Let me read a little bit of her statement, and John, I want you to (inaudible). There are now two Republicans who will vote in favor of witnesses, Mitt Romney and Susan Collins of Maine. Lisa Murkowski will vote no, which is significant.

Here's one of the things she says, "given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.

I don't believe the continuation of this process will change in anything. It is sad for me to admit that as an institution the Congress has failed. It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process and drag the Supreme Court in to it."

She was -- she's very tough on this issue of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, specifically. It sounds like that may have been her reason, she didn't want a 50-50 tie which would have dragged the Chief Justice John Roberts in to this whole thing, as a result it's going to be 51-49.

KING: It's kind of a kitchen sink statement in the sense that look, you know, if she voted for witnesses she would have put the Chief Justice in a position, a step back, we don't think he would have voted, but she would have had the tie.

But she criticizes the House, check. She criticizes the attacks on the Supreme Court, is that Rand Paul for trying to expose the whistleblower and putting the Chief Justice in a bad position or is it Elizabeth Warren for posing a question -- or is it both?

She's clearly not a fan of the president's behavior either. The interesting part to me is she made this decision which will make -

[15:00:00]