Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Senate Votes Trump's Impeachment Trial Is Constitutional; Six GOP Senators Join Dems, Vote Trial Is Constitutional; Trump Unhappy With Lawyers' Performance On First Day Of Trial. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired February 09, 2021 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Mr. President, it's been a long day. And we thank you. And we thank all the senators for their careful attention to the legal arguments and your courtesy to the managers and to the lawyers here.
This has been the most bipartisan impeachment in American history, and we hope it will continue to be so in the days ahead, and nothing could be more bipartisan and desire to recess.
So, the only issue before the Senate today, of course, is whether Donald Trump is subject to the court of impeachment that the Senate has convened. We see no need to make any further argument that this body has the power to convict and to disqualify President Trump for his breathtaking constitutional crime of inciting a violent insurrection against our government.
Tomorrow, we will address the amazing array of issues suggested by the thoughtful presentations by our colleagues, including the First Amendment, due process, partisanship under our Constitution, the bill of attainder clause, and many, many more. But in the meantime, we waive all further arguments, we waive our 33 minutes of rebuttal, and we give those 33 minutes gratefully back to the Senate of the United States.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): All time, you're back all time has been yielded back.
Then the question is whether Donald john Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment for acts committed while President of the United States notwithstanding the expiration of his term in that office.
Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second, and the crux we'll call the row.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Baldwin.
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Baldwin, aye.
Mr. Barrasso? SEN. JOHN BARRASO (R-WY): No.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right. So they're not doing the roll call to see if there is a duff. They need 51 votes majority, a simple majority to go ahead with this trial.
They presumably have those votes. They'll probably have more than that. We'll watch it very, very closely, this roll call. And then the trial will resume tomorrow.
We've been watching the first round over the past four hours of arguments in this, the second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump.
I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM with our live special coverage.
We're now standing by for once again this Senate vote on whether this historic trial is constitutional. They're doing the roll call right now.
We heard House Democrats make the case that the Senate not only has the power, it has the duty to hold the 45th President of the United States accountable for what they described as the heinous charge against them, that he incited the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol a month ago.
The House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin asserting that if that charge isn't impeachable then nothing is. The Democrats presented dramatic video evidence driving home the horror of that day and Trump's role in it to senators who are not only serving as a kind of jury, but who also were witnesses. And so many of them, if not all of them, were victims of this brutal attack on January 6.
The Trump legal team arguing a central premise of their defense claiming the whole trial is partisan. They say the Senate does not have the authority under the Constitution to try a former president, something that has never happened in this country until now.
Let's go to Jake.
Jake, this is a historic moment. We're all watching.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: It is indeed Wolf. And I'm here with Dana Bash and Abby Phillip, as we take it all in and the senators' vote obviously when we have a final roll call vote there. We'll bring that to you.
It is expected to pass given the fact that earlier we basically had the same vote on whether or not this is constitutional. And 55 senators already voted for this. So, but we're going to listen in right now to this vote.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now, Mr. Grassley.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Grassley, no. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Hagerty?
SEN. BILL HAGERTY (R-TN): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Hagerty, no.
Ms. Hassan.
SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D-NH): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Hassan, aye.
Mr. Hawley?
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Hawley, no.
Mr. Heinrich?
SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Heinrich, aye.
Mr. Hickenlooper?
SEN. JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D-CO): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Hickenlooper, aye.
Ms. Hirono?
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Hirono, aye.
Mr. Hoeven?
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Hoeven, no.
[17:05:02]
Mrs. Hyde-Smith.
SEN. CINDY HYDE-SMITH (R-MS): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mrs. Hyde-Smith, No.
Mr. Inhofe?
SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Inhofe, no.
Mr. Johnson.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Johnson, no.
Mr. Kaine?
SEN. TIMOTHY KAINE (D-VA): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Kaine, aye.
Mr. Kelly?
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Kelly, aye.
Mr. Kennedy?
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Kennedy, no.
Mr. King?
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. King, aye.
Ms. Klobuchar?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Klobuchar, aye.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Lankford, no.
Mr. Leahy?
LEAHY: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Leahy, aye.
Mr. Lee?
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Lee, no.
Mr. Lujan?
SEN. BEN RAY LUJAN (D-NM): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Lujan, aye. Ms. Lummis?
SEN. CYNTHIS LUMMIS, (R) WYOMING: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Lummis, no.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Manchin, aye.
Mr. Markey?
SEN. ED MARKEY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Markey, aye.
Mr. Marshall?
SEN. ROGER MARSHALL, (R) KANSAS: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Marshall, no.
Mr. McConnell?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. McConnell, no.
Mr. Menendez?
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ, (D) NEW JERSEY: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Menendez, aye.
Mr. Merkley?
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, (D) OREGON: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Merkley, aye.
Mr. Moran?
Ms. Murkowski?
SEN. MURKOWSKI, (D) ALASKA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Murkowski, aye.
Mr. Murphy?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Murphy, aye.
Mrs. Murray.
SEN. PATTY MURRAY, (D) WASHINGTON: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mrs. Murray, aye.
Mr. Ossoff?
SEN. JON OSSOFF, (D) GEORGIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ossoff, aye.
Mr. Padilla?
SEN. ALEX PADILLA, (D) CALIFORNIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Padilla, aye.
Mr. Paul?
SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Paul, no.
Mr. Peters?
SEN. GARY PETERS, (D) MICHIGAN: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Peters, aye.
Mr. Portman?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN, (R) OHIO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Portman, no.
Mr. Reid?
SEN. HARRY REID, (D) NEVADA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Reid, aye.
Mr. Risch?
SEN. JIM RISCH, (R) IDAHO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Risch, no.
Mr. Romney?
SEN. MITT ROMNEY, (R) UTAH: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Romney, aye.
Ms. Rosen.
SEN. JACKY ROSEN, (D) NEVADA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Rosen, aye. Mr. Rounds?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Rounds, no.
Mr. Rubio?
SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Rubio, no.
Mr. Sanders.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Sanders, aye.
Mr. Sasse?
SEN. BEN SASSE, (R) NEBRASKA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Sasse, aye.
Mr. Schatz?
SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ, (D) HAWAII: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Schatz, aye.
Mr. Schumer?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D) MAJORITY LEADER: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Schumer, aye.
Mr. Scott of Florida?
SEN. RICK SCOTT, (R) FLORIDA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Scott of Florida, no.
Mr. Scott of South Carolina?
SEN. TIM SCOTT, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Scott of South Carolina, no.
Mrs. Shaheen?
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN, (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mrs. Shaheen, aye.
Mr. Shelby?
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, (R) ALABAMA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Shelby, no.
Ms. Sinema.
SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA, (D) ARIZONA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Sinema, aye.
Ms. Smith?
SEN. TINA SMITH, (D) MINNESOTA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Smith, aye.
Ms. Stabenow?
SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW, (D) MICHIGAN: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Stabenow, aye.
Mr. Sullivan?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN, (R) ALASKA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Sullivan, no.
Mr. Tester?
SEN. JON TESTERM (D) MONTANA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Tester, aye.
Mr. Thune?
SEN. JOHN THUNE, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Thune, no.
Mr. Tillis?
SEN. THOM TILLIS, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Tillis, no.
Mr. Toomey?
SEN. PAT TOOMEY, (R) PENNSYLVANIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Toomey, aye.
Mr. Tuberville?
SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE, (R) ALABAMA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Tuberville, no. Mr. Van Hollen?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, (D) MARYLAND: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Van Hollen, aye.
Mr. Warner?
SEN. MARK WARNER, (D) VIRGINIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Warner, aye.
Mr. Warnock?
SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK, (D) GEORGIA: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Warnock, aye.
Ms. Warren?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Warren, aye.
Mr. Whitehouse?
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, (D) RHODE ISLAND: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Whitehouse, aye.
Mr. Wicker?
SEN. ROGER WICKER, (R) MISSISSIPPI: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Wicker, no.
Mr. Wyden?
SEN. RON WYDEN, (D) OREGON: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Wyden, aye.
Mr. Young?
SEN. TODD YOUNG, (R) INDIANA: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Young, no.
Mr. Moran?
SEN. JERRY MORAN, (R) KANSAS: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Moran, no.
Mrs. Blackburn?
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN, (R) TENNESSEE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mrs. Blackburn, no.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The yeas are 56 and nays are 44 (INAUDIBLE).
LEAHY: On this vote the yeas are 56, the nays are 44 in pursuant to S. Res. 47. The Senate having voted in the affirmative on the foregoing question. The Senate shall proceed with the trial as provided under the provisions of that resolution.
[17:10:10]
SCHUMER: Mr. President?
LEAHY: Majority Leader.
SCHUMER: I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 12 noon, tomorrow, Wednesday, February 10. And that this order also constitutes the adjournment of the Senate.
LEAHY: Without objection that we shall stand and adjourn until noon tomorrow.
TAPPER: So there you have it, the vote in the U.S. Senate on whether or not proceeding is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, 56 yes, 44 no. It's basically the same as the last time, although the yes is picked up one more Republican, six total.
The new Republican is Senator Cassidy of Louisiana joining Sasse of Nebraska, Romney of Utah. Who else am I forgetting?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Susan Collins.
TAPPER: Susan Collins of Maine and Murkowski of Alaska and --
BASH: Toomey.
TAPPER: -- and Toomey, of course. Pat Toomey of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And one of the biggest arguments, Abby, let me start with you that the one of the Trump attorneys made, Mr. David Schoen, was that all this is is Democrats trying to prevent Donald Trump from vote running again. And they are therefore trying to disenfranchise the 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump in the last election, which I found intriguing, given the fact that this is a theoretical discussion of disenfranchisement.
When Donald Trump and his allies, including some in that chamber, such as Hawley of Missouri and Cruz of Texas, literally tried to disenfranchise Biden voters, literally tried to have it so that states that went for Biden wouldn't count at all.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, that's why we're here in the first place is because the president, the former president, spent months trying to disenfranchise 81 million voters who voted for the other guy.
It was interesting to see the former President Trump's lawyers taking as a given that he lost the election --
TAPPER: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- that he was voted out of office. And that because he was voted out of office, he shouldn't even be facing the impeachment proceedings, because he's no longer in office, when their client still to this day does not acknowledge that those things are true.
So, they're really being forced to put arguments on the table that do not comport with what their client is saying right now, let alone what he was saying on January 6, that preceded this riot on Capitol Hill.
TAPPER: When speaking of which, Dana, Senator Schumer, the Majority Leader, his office, put out a helpful reminder in terms of the fact that this is all happening after January 20th, after Joe Biden took office, what would Schumer have to say?
BASH: Reminded all of us that on January 12, when Donald Trump was still president, Chuck Schumer, who was then in the minority leader tried to get Mitch McConnell, then Majority Leader to agree to begin the trial then, when Donald Trump was still president, and Mitch McConnell refuse to do so. So fast forward to today, McConnell sided with the Trump defense saying it is unconstitutional to have this trial after Trump is president. But he's the one who refuse to have the trial when he was still president.
I mean, if, you know --
TAPPER: Trying to have it both ways, obviously.
BASH: It's almost, I mean, speechless, because it's almost -- it's absurd. Nevermind the fact that if you look at the argument, if people were actually listening, those jurors slash senators were actually listening to the arguments. The argument that the managers made, was very compelling about the constitutionality given where the origins of impeachment came from. I didn't hear much of a rebuttal on that substantive point from the Trump lawyers at all.
TAPPER: And speaking of which, so David Schoen, the Trump attorney criticizing the House for what he called a snap impeachment. Because the January 6 insurrection took place, obviously, on January 6, and within a week, President Trump had been impeached. So he's criticizing them for a snap impeachment.
And then is saying also that the impeachment trial should wait. They really, you know, they need to have more information coming in. But beyond that, you can't do it because he's no longer president. So again, having your cake and eating it too.
BASH: That's true. And you know, I hear from Republican sources, I'm sure you both do as well. One of the arguments that they make is that and we heard a little bit of this from the Trump defense is that this is normalizing impeachment. It's just going to happen every time. You know, there's a president who the other side doesn't, you know, does something the other side doesn't like. They're just going to go to impeachment and it's happening too frequently now.
[17:15:15]
Take that argument aside, and go to the snap argument that we heard just now. This is something that they don't need to deliberate over. This is -- hopefully we won't have something like this in the future where they were witness to this.
We have evidence as Americans, never mind the people who are the jurors, they know what happened. And that was the first thing that was presented in that remarkable video by the House managers. And so, you can't compare this particular instance and this incident and the riot to anything else. I mean, it's not like a phone call to the Ukrainian president. It's just completely different when it comes to evidence being right there in front of them.
TAPPER: And Abby, Dana brought up the video that the Democratic House impeachment managers ran about 13 minutes of just evidence of Trump inciting the crowd and the crowd storming the Capitol violently. The Trump defense attorneys had video of their own, it was a bunch of clips of different Democrats calling for Trump to be impeached. How did you think it stacked up compared to the original -- the first video?
PHILLIP: I think, underlying that, plus what you heard, you know, the Lawyer Schoen make the case that not only does he believe that Democrats have wanted to impeach Donald Trump from the very beginning, but also he litigated the last impeachment claiming that Trump was then denied due process rights.
The argument seems to hinge on this idea that Trump is a victim of impeachment being used as a political process in general, not actually that this particular impeachment is warranted based on what he is accused of doing. So there's a kind of a hole in the argument there.
Sure, you can argue that the last impeachment might have been a denial of due process. I don't think that that's true, but that's what they're arguing. But what's the argument this time around? Do they want witnesses? Do they want Trump to testify? I don't think they want either of those things to happen.
So, I think they tried to avoid some of the key arguments. And principally, they avoided this question of what do you do about a president who commits impeachable acts in the final days of his presidency? What is the remedy for that?
They suggest that the remedy for that is criminal prosecution. But if you are the President of the United States, and the act is committed while you're president, the other side, the Democratic side is saying the House has the power to impeach you. And that's exactly what they did with Donald Trump.
TAPPER: Yes. And Wolf, one thing that we did see this afternoon that I think is worth noting, I think we -- a lot of us have the impression that based on what Senator Lankford said, Republican of Oklahoma, that everybody's pretty much made up their mind in how they're going to vote.
Well, we saw somebody change their mind, Senator Cassidy, a Republican of Louisiana, who voted last time against tabling this debate over the constitutionality. Today, he voted with the Democrats and the five other Republicans to say no, this does seem constitutional. Let's proceed.
So, I don't know that they're going to be able to get to 17 Republicans, but that there is evidence that some people are paying attention and willing to change their mind.
BLITZER: Yes, we'll see how many, in fact, go ahead and change their minds.
Jake, standby. I want to get John King into this conversation.
So six Republicans now, as opposed to five in the House of Represent -- on the earlier motion, whether it's constitutional or not. They want it to table up at six now are saying yes, it is constitutional, 16 hours of debate of this trial could begin tomorrow at noon, Eastern.
There's no guarantee that the six Republicans who voted that it's constitutional will then vote to convict. It's possible that they will. But they're going to need more than that.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. If you want to get to the two thirds threshold to convict and you assume all 50 Democrats vote to convict you need 17. So as Jake rightly points out, that's plus one from the Rand Paul test vote before the trial. Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, the senior senator from Louisiana coming over.
But you're absolutely right, that does not guarantee they will vote to convict. It just tells us they believe the Senate does have jurisdiction, that it's a legal constitutional proceeding. And now we will go forward with the trial. But, now we have to -- it's essentially a reset button.
And to be reminded what we saw today, number one, the president's lawyers did not impress anybody today. That does not mean they cannot regroup as we go through the trial.
Mr. Castor was rambling, I think is the best way to put it.
BLITZER: I don't know what he was trying to do.
[17:20:00]]
KING: He did eventually get to the protected free speech argument that the former president said things at a rally. You can't blame him for what came after the rally. OK. It's a legal argument. You know, you can make it. I thought the video presentation by the House Democrats was very compelling as a rebuttal to that, if you will.
Mr. Schoen in the end actually play to what the client wants. Just the Democrats, it's politics. They've hated him from the beginning. That's all what this is about. And then a little bit of a constitutional argument. But again, it was sort of scattershot as how it was done.
So, now you're the House manager is going into the prosecution. We're going to see more video, we're going to see a lot of it. And my, I don't know about your inbox, my inbox, a lot of Republicans, a lot of Republicans in this town and around the country, taking a breath, and seeing that video and saying it was a powerful presentation.
Again, is that enough to change enough votes in the Senate? That is the immediate jury. I don't know. That's why we'll have to travel and go for it.
I do think one of the things that we sometimes maybe underestimate here in Washington, we are focused on the Senate. That's where the jury is, that's where the trial will play out. Seventeen is the number to get to magic. So we need to focus on that and see if there's any evidence over the next several days that it's moving.
But the country in the world are watching this, too. And the power of today as the curtain raiser, if you will, I think we -- I would -- my -- I'm getting a lot of messages from around the world and around the country about how powerful people thought the Democrats presentation was. And I think we should, yes, focus on the immediate question, will he be convicted in the United States Senate, but also lift our heads a little bit to the broader conversation about what this does to the conversation around the country and the world,
Again, you know, President Trump back in the conversation, former President Trump.
BLITZER: Yes. The three House managers, they did a very, very powerful job in making their case. The two defense lawyers for the former president, not so effective. We'll see what happens tomorrow and the next day.
Anderson, over to you.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes, thanks. I want to bring in our legal team, Norman Eisen, Laura Coates, Ross Garber are with us.
Ross, let's just talk about the former president's attorneys. Obviously, he has had a difficult time following -- finding really qualified attorneys at a time like this for a whole variety of reasons. I'm wondering what you made of the presentation you saw from these two?
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. it was not good. I mean, you know, in fairness, these guys, you know, came on, you know, very recently, they don't have backgrounds in this kind of law. They don't have a background with Trump. So I mean, you can make lots of excuses for why that was just a terrible, terrible performance by the lawyers. But it was, you know, that Castor's performance was rambling. Schoen made some points, but he actually saved the stronger points to kind of the end of the middle where he talked about the kind of textual interpretation of the Constitution. But it was not a great performance.
And I'm going to be very interesting --
COOPER: Why was he crying at the end?
GARBER: I don't know. When he was reciting that poem, I mean to kind of go look up that poem and, you know, see if it does anything to me, maybe it was just as recitation I wasn't feeling it.
But I'll be very interested to hear what changed Senator Cassidy's mind. Because, you know, we do come into this thinking that, you know, everybody's locked in, nobody can be persuaded. You know, somebody did change his mind today. And I'll be interested to hear why.
COOPER: Although, Norman Eisen, if enormous and if you are clearly just listening to this with an open mind and able to be changed based on the presentations, hard to imagine anyone really being changed by the President's attorneys presentation.
NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Anderson, that's right.
COOPER: Unless a change to the argument being made by the Democrats.
EISEN: Well, and you asked about Senator Cassidy, it is possible that the incompetence I won't be as diplomatic as Ross, although I am an ex diplomat.
The Castor presentation was one of the worst maybe the worst that I can remember in a high stakes matter. And Schoen was also severely lacking. And maybe Cassidy had just had enough. There is a break point.
It wasn't just the style, Castor was almost completely lacking in substance he veered between toadying up and bootlicking and insult. Schoen had some substance, but it took him too long to get to the heart of the matter. His argument is weak.
And you know, I view the constitutional argument as a distraction from the thing that they don't want to talk about, which is the incitement of insurrection.
Today's presentation was a distraction from the distraction. For heaven's sakes, we spent a great deal of time on a totally meritless due process argument. So, and to contrast that with the performance mixing emotion law facts, the surprising forecast of what lies ahead on that video evidence.
[17:25:14]
The contrast with the managers was so striking. Maybe it just drove Cassidy away. COOPER: Laura Coates for -- Laura Coates is not with us right now.
So Ross, the first attorney, that Castor, I mean, is it possible he was, you know, he did say toward the end that the presentation he had sort of planned to make that they alter it, because he thought that House managers had done such a good job. Is that really possible? Or, I mean, is it possible he was just trying to kind of fill time in order to kind of take the air or the emotion out of what we had heard from the House managers?
GARBER: I think it was totally possible that that's what went on. It's hard to explain it otherwise. It also seems like there was a -- there was supposed to be a presentation maybe by another lawyer on the team that they just never got to.
It was such a rambling presentation that seemed to have no point, it seemed to go nowhere, that it did kind of have the feel of improvisation. I'm not sure why they thought it was a good idea to do it that way. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that it was kind of a line of scrimmage decision.
COOPER: Let's go back to Jake.
Jake.
TAPPER: Thanks, Anderson.
It's difficult to not imagine that former President Trump was happy. It's difficult to imagine that he was happy with the presentation that his lawyers made, especially Bruce Castor.
Let's go to Jim Acosta who's covering Trump in Florida.
Jim --
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
TAPPER: -- you've been talking with advisors of the former president. I mean, that was not a particularly impressive showing by his legal team.
ACOSTA: No, it was brutal, Jake. And I will tell you I talked to an advisor to the former president's team just a short while ago about Bruce Castro's presentation, part of the presentation, and how it was just incoherent at times. And this advisor was very candid about it.
And essentially said that part of the problem for the former president is that he was just having difficulty assembling a high powered legal team. Remember, his first legal team essentially bailed on him about a week ago. And this one had to swoop in at the last second to represent the former president as a second impeachment trial. And in the words of this advisor to the former president, you know, you know, Trump could be in real Jeopardy, if he ever ends up in a criminal court proceeding, according to this advisor.
And this advisor said, "Trump is f'd (ph) if anyone ever charges him, no one wants to work with him," end quote. That is how this advisor described the situation that we saw unfold at the Capitol earlier today with the president -- former president's impeachment team offering their presentations.
Now, you know, there was another advisor that I spoke with, Jake, who offered sort of a more diplomatic way of describing what Bruce Castor was up to, during his part of the presentation. This senior advisor, separate senior advisor said, this is about lowering the temperature following the Democrats emotionally charged opening before dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this, "impeachment." Witch Hunt is how this senior advisor put it.
But Jake, that, I mean, that is really putting lipstick on the pig. I mean, this was a hot mess that we saw unfold during the impeachment teams presentation earlier today.
I agree with you, Jake, I can't imagine Donald Trump being pleased at all with what he saw earlier today. And talking to advisors earlier this afternoon, they basically share that same assessment that this was just a mess, essentially, from start to finish.
Now, we did hear David Schoen go back to and sort of hit this time. And again, this process argument that you can't convict, try and convict a former president because he's out of office. And it was almost as if David Schoen was repeating that because he felt like that was only the real point that he had throughout all of this.
But no question about it, there are advisors who are responding pretty forcefully to how Bruce caster played out in that presentation earlier today, with one advisor saying that the former president would be f'd (ph). I won't use the actual word F though, if he ever ends up in criminal court, Jake.
TAPPER: All right, Jim Acosta, thanks so much.
Let's go to Jamie Gangel and Pamela Brown, both of whom have been talking with their Republican sources about today's activities.
Jamie, let's start with you. What are you hearing from Republicans about the Trump team and about their arguments?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: They were saying exactly what Jim Acosta just reported, that this was a disaster for the president. One Republican member of Congress said to me that this was lunacy. Another one said that it wasn't just that the president's lawyers were lopsided. It was a disaster.
[17:30:01]
GANGEL: I got a text from someone else saying if Trump could fire, and this was in the middle of Bruce Castor's argument, he would fire him. I think that just to underscore what John King was saying earlier about Senator Cassidy changing his vote and joining the other five, it is a long way to go to 17. But I don't think that -- I don't think it's likely, but we may see more senators. If this is the level of the President's defense, there are a lot of people out there, a lot of Republicans who just thought it was a disaster today. Jake?
TAPPER: Yes, I mean, it was -- Schoen, I think everybody would agree was better than Castor. Castor came out and started talking about well, why are we -- you know, why are the House impeachment managers even talking about common law in England? Well, because obviously, that informed how the Constitution was written as David Schoen basically suggested when he got to speak, Pamela, what are you hearing?
PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And it's interesting, too, that apparently, they shifted who was going to go first and second, and it makes you wonder what was behind that thinking. But in talking to people close to President Trump, there's a feeling of this was bad. Where was he going with this, the first attorney, but there's also a feeling of, well, there is an acknowledgment that the impeachment managers were much stronger, no doubt, than Trump's lawyers. And that the video was powerful.
And I've heard from a number of Trump supporters who said the video that the impeach commander showed was very, very powerful. There is still a belief that in the end, it's still going to be the same result, that Trump is going to be acquitted. And so, that is what they're focusing on, and whether Trump was watching today. One adviser said, look, he lives to analyze this stuff.
But what was so interesting, Jake, is that -- and what his lawyer said almost put more attention to the big election lie that led to the insurrection of the Capitol building. The first lawyer Castor said -- made the acknowledgment that that Trump was removed by the voters, essentially acknowledging that the election was not stolen from him.
And then you talk about this theory of disenfranchising the 74 million voters for Trump that show and brought up. But Trump himself actually actively tried to disenfranchise Biden's voter. So, it was really interesting that it brought more attention to -- Trump's lawyers brought more attention to his election lie.
TAPPER: Yes, exactly. Pamela, Jamie, thank you so much.
And Abby, we should note, it wasn't just Trump that tried to disenfranchise Biden's voters, the members and the majority of the House Republicans voted to disenfranchise 20 million voters in Arizona, and Pennsylvania, including Bruce Castor --
BASH: Right.
TAPPER: -- who votes in Pennsylvania.
PHILLIP: And I think that's probably why you're seeing such resistance among Republicans to even taking the arguments that they saw today at face value, because this is, in part, an impeachment proceeding that puts them on trial too if they were a part of that big lie. And even if they weren't a part of voting in favor of disenfranchising voters on January 6th, many of these Republicans gave Trump a lot of room and oxygen to spread this lie to his supporters for months. But, you know, interestingly, you know, the President's attorneys, they fell back on such a limited scope of argument because they really didn't have much to work with. And we didn't get a chance to talk about one of the more ridiculous things that happened earlier in the process, when the impeachment managers pointed out that they completely misrepresented a constitutional lawyer in the briefs or from the President's lawyers, completely misrepresented his argument about whether impeachment is only allowed if you can remove a President from office.
They literally took these constitutional lawyers writings and turned it on its head. He said the exact opposite of what they claimed that he said, it's just one more piece of evidence that this whole approach from Trump's lawyers seems to have been so rushed, limited in sort of scholarly backing.
And will there be consequences? I'm not so sure, because I think Republicans in the Senate are willing to hold on to any of anything read to let him off the hook for this, not even potentially listening to the arguments at all.
BASH: Yes.
TAPPER: Yes, and that's the question, Dana. I mean, we can talk about the representation being wanting as it were.
[17:35:05]
And, you know, but at the end of the day, I can't help but think that Schoen and Castor could have gotten up there and just recited Jabberwocky, and at the end of the day Republicans are just not going to vote to convict.
BASH: I cannot tell you how many times I've heard from Trump supporters, Trump allies, very senior ones, leading up to today saying this is a case that he cannot lose. Not that they don't think that it's possible to have a bad argument like we heard today, but it's just -- they don't think these Republicans did not think that there was any way no matter who was up there that 17 Republicans would be able to be persuaded. Having said that, if this kind of dichotomy of the managers' argument versus the Trump defense wasn't something that they had their minds and eyes and ears open to, and I don't know what is.
One of the things that I wanted to point out, which I don't know if we've gotten this on the area, but I'm just going to say that Kaitlan Collins or Holly (ph) get the White House, she was told by Castor the reason they've changed quickly. And it was because they didn't realize how good the House managers' presentation was going to be.
We did it because we thought that the House managers' presentation was well done. I mean, admitting how good the other side was, and how ill- prepared they were, a, because Schoen was supposed to go first and then Castor and then, b, Castor when he decided -- when they decided he was going to go first, he just completely winged it. He didn't even seem to do what he had prepared at all today. PHILLIP: I guess, you know, I don't know what they did with the extra time, but I can see the argument in favor of having Castor go first, and then finishing on a slightly stronger note. Because I think many Republicans would acknowledge that if had they ended on whatever Castor did earlier in that process, it would have been even more disastrous for them. They ended instead on a little bit of a stronger note, at least there was some semblance of an argument presented by Schoen at the end there.
BASH: I think --
TAPPER: There was substance -- absolutely. There's a lot more stuff.
BASH: And I do think that probably if you're Donald Trump, the most fireable of offenses that his lawyers uttered today were the words, voters didn't elect him. You know, I mean, admitting that the big lie is such --
PHILLIP: Yes.
BASH: -- during this trial.
TAPPER: Although, Anderson, I have to say like I do -- like, theoretically, what would happen if these lawyers went before the Senate and said, you know what, he did it. He incited it, and people died. And it's probably constitutional. What are you going to do about it? I wonder how many vote -- how many Republican senators would vote to acquit?
COOPER: It's hard to imagine that a worst case could not have been presented by the President's -- former President's attorneys today, and yet, still only one Republican seem to have at least changed his previous vote about whether or not this should move forward.
Bruce Castor, if you are the former President, you have watched this, what do you do in a case like this about, you know, this isn't over, this now -- these attorneys will be continuing to, you know, represent you in this trial?
GARBER: I think you mean me and not Bruce Castor, but --
COOPER: I'm sorry. Yes.
GARBER: Yes. No, that's OK. That's all right. So --
COOPER: You're not going to like Mr. Castor, Ross Garber.
GARBER: Thanks. Yes. So, you know, I think, you know, the President, I'm sure was not pleased with how things went today. On the other hand, I think he came into this, thinking that there's very little downside. He's got the votes, you know, all he has to do is sort of grind it out through this week.
And, you know, the fact that they lost a Republican senator today, Senator Kennedy from Louisiana -- not Senator Kennedy, Senator Cassidy from Louisiana -- I'm sure was also kind of not welcome news to the President, it'll be interesting to find out why. But this is the team that, you know, Trump has, and I think he's going to, you know, gut it out with this team. And, you know, just count on the fact that the real defense lawyers for the President are actually sitting members in the United States Senate.
COOPER: Those really are the defense lawyers, because you're saying they've already made up their minds.
GARBER: They've made up their minds, and they've been vocal advocates for the President. I mean, you know, we've seen several of them, you know, on television, you know, talking about these jurisdictional issues, talking about the factual issues, talking about the emotional issues, talking about the, you know, let's heal and this is all a waste of time, all of that. You know, those are really the President's strongest advocates, not these lawyers.
COOPER: Norm Eisen, what are you expecting tomorrow? How does it begin tomorrow?
[17:40:02]
EISEN: Oh, well, we're going to now have two days. We got a little taste of it. We got the appetizer from the House managers, Anderson, with that video weaving together the three strands. And we're going to see much more of that over the next two days. And I think it is going to rivet the Senate and is going to rivet the country.
And if, as they tell the story of the President's incitement his long, we just got a taste today, just January 6th, the long history of incitement, the incendiary words, then combine that with the rioters, the insurrectionists, at the President's direction attacking the Capitol, and those senators and the members of the House reliving what it was like and the staff inside that building. That is going to be an eye opener for the senators and for the country.
And having seen the President's lawyers' failure to do the easy part, this was the set piece, this was the best of their arguments. Those advocates in the Senate that Ross is talking about fought to have a debate about the constitutional issues up front. Now they're going to have to deal with really the body blows that the House managers are going to bring. And we could well see additional Republican senators grow wobbly in their pledge of allegiance to Donald Trump, under that onslaught of facts and law.
COOPER: Yes. Let's go back to Wolf. Wolf?
BLITZER: All right, Anderson. Kaitlan Collins, our Chief White House Correspondent is getting some reaction from sources close to the former President. And Kaitlan, I'm sure Trump was very, very unhappy, especially that first lawyer, Bruce Castor, who did an awful job tried to defend the former President.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. It's almost predictable as you were watching Bruce Castor go forward with trying to make that argument that was meandering. In the first few minutes of it as, of course, you know, this is a limited time defense. And he wasn't really getting to the heart of the argument.
And I'm now being told by two people familiar with President Trump's reaction, former President Trump, I should say that he was deeply unhappy with that performance. He was borderline screaming, according to these two people who are aware of how the President responded to Bruce Castor as he was going forward. making that argument, though.
Wolf, we should point out, this is a legal team that was assembled just a little over a week ago after those other attorneys who were initially supposed to be the ones on the Senate floor making this argument left the team and what was described as a mutual decision at the time. And so, they've only had a little over a week to prepare for this.
And actually, they were supposed to go in reverse order with David Schoen, actually, who was supposed to make the first argument but then they swapped, I'm told, at the last minute, which confused a lot of the President's allies. They did not think that was a strong opening argument.
And then to have the first attorney admit that he believed the House impeachment managers did a good job. Also, it was confusing to a lot of people on the President's team. But, yes, Trump was not happy with that performance. He was borderline screaming over what was going on as he was talking to people about this.
So, of course, the question is what's going to happen after this? What is the outcome? The President still does believe he's going to be acquitted. But this is not a good showing for his legal team. He knows that. And so, whether or not that changes over the next few days remains to be seen how they approach this now, going forward. But we do know that the President was not happy with what he saw there from his defense team.
BLITZER: Yes. And, you know, a lot of people on social media were pointing out that if Trump still had access to Twitter, he probably would have fired Castor on Twitter right away as he was watching that rambling presentation that made absolutely no sense at all.
You know, let's talk to John King a little bit. John, I think the House impeachment managers, the three of them who made the case for impeachment, Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse, David Cicilline, I think they got -- each got a respect of, a, for their respective presentations. I'm sure that as far as Castor is concerned, he definitely got enough, he flunked. I think he, everybody agrees, he flunked. Maybe Schoen got a c or a d, but it was really awkward that the President, the former President of United States had such ill-prepared legal advisers.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he had -- remember, just a week before the trial, had to fire the defense team. He did have which -- again, were lawyers from outside of Washington, nothing wrong with lawyers outside of Washington, but you're arguing constitutional issues, you're arguing impeachment, you're arguing before the United States Senate.
So normally, you would think you would at least have some Washington, old Washington hands on your team who know that know the argument, know the territory have played on the field before, if you will. But he fired his first team because they would not repeat the big lie.
They would not go to the floor of the United States Senate and continue to lie to the American people and to Trump supporters that the election was stolen. These lawyers today did not either even acknowledging that Donald Trump lost the election. But I, you know, I'm not a lawyer. I used to cover courts before I came to Washington years ago. Often you would get young prosecutors or public defenders just out of school. They were better than that, I'll leave it at that, and go back through it.
[17:45:01]
But the question now is where do we go here? You're correct. The House prosecutors, the House managers prove today they've done their homework. They proved today they can connect history. We belong here. The Constitution says this is fitting with facts. Here's what happened on January 6th, and how the President laid the predicate for it bringing his supporters to Washington, the big lie for two months after the election. And then emotion.
Again, we're going to see more of that video. For people watching in the country and around the world, it hurts, it hurts, it's painful. People died in that attack. Your government was attacked. It was reckless, reprehensible behavior, but you're going to see a lot more of it now. The question is, does it sway any votes on the jury?
I'll tell you who's mad today. Kaitlan was just talking about the former President is mad at his legal team. Republican senators are mad, because many of them have come into this wanting to put their blinders on. They wanted to vote or the Constitution doesn't allow it. There's no standing here.
We shouldn't be here. Donald Trump can be held accountable somewhere else. They do not think the President's lawyers made a good argument to help them today. And so, if you get now a strong prosecution, the spotlight is going to be on those Republican senators. How do you justify your no vote?
As we talked earlier in the day, I think another challenge is if you do not believe he should be convicted, do you believe he gets a walk? Do you believe he gets a pass? Do you believe there should be no accountability on Donald Trump? So if you won't convict, what is it?
Republican senators are angry tonight. Their bet coming into this, Wolf, was most of us don't want to vote to convict because we're close to gaining power. We can get the House back, we can get the Senate back in 2022. We can't have him mad at us. We can't have our guys all getting primary and Republican primaries by pro-Trump forces. So let's just hope this goes away. That's their argument.
And many of them also, this is very cynical, and I have full of e- mails today. Republicans hoping that somebody else takes Donald Trump off the battlefield because of financial problems, because of other legal problems that he's gone by the next election or certainly by 2024. It's a pretty cynical argument, because they don't have the courage to stand up against him right now.
BLITZER: Jeff Zeleny is getting some more information, more reaction, watching what's going on. So, six Republicans joined all 50 Democrats saying the trial which will resume tomorrow at noon is constitutional?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, and it was the sixth Republican, if you will, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, who was the only Republican to change his vote from that test vote, just at the end of January. And he explained that he was very disappointed with the President's legal team. He had this to say about how he viewed the arguments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R), LOUISIANA: Again, if you listen to it, it speaks for itself. It was disorganized, random, had nothing. They talked about many things, but they didn't talk about the issue at hand. And so, if you -- if I'm an impartial juror, and I'm trying to make a decision based upon the facts as presented on this issue, then the House managers did a much better job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator, how about the video of the mob attack on the Capitol?
CASSIDY: That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is, is this a constitutional to impeach a president who's left office? And the House managers made a compelling, cogent case and the President's team did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How does it feel (INAUDIBLE)?
CASSIDY: Not that affected your decision. It speaks for itself. I think it's drama enough, but that's not related to why I made my decision.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would they address the past precedent of, you know, the (INAUDIBLE)?
CASSIDY: They did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Trump's team?
CASSIDY: Trump's team?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
CASSIDY: You know, I took notes, I always take notes. But at one point, I leaned over to Cruz and I said, Cruz, are they talking to the point at hand? He goes, not now. So, you know, because I'm thinking maybe I'm missing something.
And, again, if I'm there as an impartial juror, respecting my oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and one side makes the argument and the other side does everything but make the argument, then deliver with myself, I make that verdict (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) you are open to predict --
CASSIDY: I've always said, I'm approaching this as an impartial juror. And that's what I mean. She's going to yank in (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I got to (INAUDIBLE). Thank you, guys. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: And that was our Ted Barrett there asking a key question if he's open to convicting after the second phase of this trial, and Senator Cassidy told Ted Barrett, look, I approach this as an impartial juror. So, Wolf, we do have to look at this in two phases. Today was the constitutionality question. And there were six Republicans who were joining all Democrats, you know, obviously Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and the list goes on.
But interesting there, Senator Cassidy said he simply was not, you know, swayed by the arguments. So legal arguments do matter. This is not preordained necessarily. We're also talking to Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who also criticized the Trump lawyers saying they simply did not make the case that it's not constitutional to impeach a former President.
[17:50:03]
She was open to that, she said. She said they did not make the case. And there's just a major sense of befuddlement up here on Capitol Hill talking to Republican staffers who were watching this. They do view it as a missed opportunity. But at the end of the day, most of the votes were preordained, but not Senator Cassidy. So that is something to keep our eye on here as the remainder of the proceedings begin tomorrow, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, they will resume tomorrow. Jeff Zeleny reporting from the Hill, thank you very, very much.
Sixteen hours now, tomorrow, and Thursday, the House managers are going to be able to go ahead and make their case. They'll make their case, you know, orally with their own arguments. But as you pointed out, there's going to be a lot of video.
KING: I would take today's -- I mean this with no disrespect -- but take today's presentation in the constitutional argument. The video is essentially a trailer, a short preview of what you're going to see in those 16 hours, because what we're told our great Capitol Hill team and others, and in my conversations back and forth with some of the House managers and staff involved, is they want to go through a methodical connect the dots. They want to do the President's, former President's behavior.
Before January 6th, remember, he invited who -- this rally did not happen out of the blue. He invited his support is here on that day. He knew what was happening in the Congress that day, the acceptance of the Electoral College votes. People from his campaign, people from his organization were involved with the organizations that came to Washington. There were meetings the night before, and in the days before.
So the Democrats, the prosecutors, now the managers want to put this all together, they will include the President's big lie about the elections, including his call to the Georgia Secretary of State saying that the President was building a case for protest and for violence. Can they pull it off in a way that changes votes? That's what the trial is about. But after today, you certainly see, again, how they connected the facts and the history and the emotions and the sadness, the violence. They did a very good job today.
The challenge now is to do that, in a way. And, again, if you're a Republican senator, or if you're the President's defense team, you now know the skill set and the approach of these House managers. The question is, can they adjust?
BLITZER: Yes. And when it's still, Jake, one of the outstanding questions right now, will there be witnesses over the next few days on the Senate floor?
TAPPER: Yes, that's one of the outstanding questions. Let's go to our Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju, who's on Capitol Hill. He's been talking to senators as they left the chamber. Manu, you spoke with Senator Ted Cruz who, in a way, is almost on trial himself, given the fact that he also was pushing the big lie, although he's not actually literally on trial, but his actions certainly are being judged. What did he have to say?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he actually just told reporters that he was essentially critical of the Trump attorneys' performance. He said that he was asked directly what he thought about the Trump attorneys' job and he said, I don't think the lawyers did the most effective job. He also was asked about Jamie Raskin, the lead House Democratic impeachment attorney. He said -- he called him impressive, and he said he was a serious lawyer.
And this tracks with what I'm hearing from the -- in the hallways of the Capitol. I just talked to Steve Daines, the Montana Republican senator who just won reelection in that state. He said that he praised the House Democrats for doing an effective job, said that they made a very detailed presentation. Of course, he voted with the Trump team and voted against the efforts to affirm the constitutionality of this trial, as most of his Senate Republican colleagues did. But, overwhelmingly, the criticism is being directed towards Trump's first attorney, Bruce Castor.
John Cornyn, who is a member of the Republican leaderships I thought the President's lawyer, the first lawyer just rambled on and on and on and didn't really address the constitutional argument that was not one of the finest I've seen. You heard Bill Cassidy's criticism there that was echoed also by Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of the six Republican senators who broke ranks, who did not think the Trump team, did an effective job.
But overall, what Republicans said going into these proceedings, a number of them that I spoke with said that there was nothing they could hear that would essentially change their arguments, even senator changes our view that this is not constitutional. Ron Johnson, for one, Republican senator from Wisconsin said, no, nothing he could hear today could change how they could view -- they were going to vote going in.
So ultimately, the senators will have to hear a lot more to come up their position, you say that they're doing it to side with Donald Trump, to side with his base, and to avoid the backlash that they're seeing from some of the colleagues on the House side have voted to impeach Donald Trump.
And also, Jake, I talked to briefly to David Schoen, who is the other Trump attorney who, as he was leaving the Senate just moments ago, I asked him -- we asked him if he thinks that remaining adjustments to the legal team, he says, I don't think they're going to be adjustments. He did defend his attorney, his colleague, Bruce Castor's roles. He did a pretty good job. He did a very good job in his view, and he said also he has not yet heard from Donald Trump. Jake?
TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju, on Capitol Hill. Thanks so much.
You know, Dana, one of the things that's interesting, of course, is that Ted Cruz remember being offering some critical words for the President's legal team in the Senate impeachment trial, not a surprise, given the fact that especially Bruce Castor was not particularly impressive.
[17:55:14]
Ted Cruz volunteered to argue that crazy Texas Attorney General lawsuit before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, you know, got that and threw it out the window because it was a nonsense piece of litigation, but that suit actually sought to disenfranchise voters in four states, the midwestern states and Georgia. So, you know, there are people in that chamber who are jurors who are also complicit when it comes to spreading the big lie.
BASH: Yes. And that's just one example, a really good example. I have to just say that listening to Senator Cassidy is remarkable for how unremarkable it is. In that, he listened to the arguments and made his decision based on the arguments, meaning, the House managers, the Democrats made arguments that he felt and frankly, anybody who is paying attention and has an openness to logic was very good that it is constitutional to try a former President, and that the President's lawyers were just terrible.
We have heard from so many other Republican senators who said that the President, the former President's defense team was horrible. So the question is, why didn't change their votes too? Why didn't they -- why weren't they swayed? Why wasn't enough to sway them?
I mean, I was just talking quickly to a Republican senator who said it was awful, who said no wonder, the first team, the first legal team quit, which happened a couple of weeks ago. But this senator, just like most of the Republicans said, you know, what, maybe what we heard was good, but we're still going to vote the way we came in, wanting to vote.
PHILLIP: And here's why this is disastrous for Republicans who now have to vote on the substance of this next is that the whole argument on the Trump side has hinged on this question of constitutionality. And if the case against, you know, constitutionality of an impeachment trial, the former President was so open and shut, they could have found two lawyers to make that case clearly and cogently.
And they, obviously, did not. And what it leaves them with is a much thinner argument on the substance, on the actual facts of the matter, which is, you know, did Trump incite a riot? Did he encourage the rioters? Did he say and do things that day and the days before that led to this moment? They don't want to have that conversation.
That's the harder conversation to have. So, the flubbing of the constitutional argument isn't insignificant, it just makes the case much harder. Again, what they end up doing may have absolutely nothing to do with what they hear in the days ahead. But they are in a much tougher position. That's why you're hearing people like John Cornyn and Ted Cruz complaining about how this constitutional argument went because they were hoping that it would be far stronger. So they could say, this whole thing shouldn't even happen. Now, they can't even say that.
TAPPER: Yes.
PHILLIP: It should be pretty easy to find lawyers to make that case if that case were so open and shut.
TAPPER: According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars who have looked into this issue about whether or not a former official, much less a former President, can be found guilty and convicted in an impeachment trial. Most of them say yes.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TAPPER: Most of them say yes. But even though David Schoen was more coherent than Bruce Castor, he was making arguments that show he's not a constitutional attorney.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TAPPER: No wonder Cornyn and Cruz were frustrated because they know the Constitution better.
PHILLIP: Right.
TAPPER: For instance, his whole argument was, you're disenfranchising voters, if you say if you vote to convict, and then you also bar President Trump from ever running again, you're not letting these voters have this. And that's -- so that's -- so it's not constitutional. It's in the Constitution.
It is literary in the Constitution that you can bar somebody from ever running again. So, I mean, that's the problem when you have, you know, litigators, you know, like Castor and Schoen doing this, they're not experts on the material.
BASH: And let's just say out loud why. This is what President Trump could find. These are the people who he could hire. You know, there are constitutional lawyers who could argue that the case for him, they could argue the case that the Congressional Research Service or all the lawyers in there or, you know, what we heard from the managers about what happened at the Constitutional Convention and why it is inherently constitutional to convict the former President is wrong. But he couldn't get them because they didn't want to represent him.
TAPPER: All right, our coverage continues right now with Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.
