Transcripts For CNNW Cuomo Prime Time 20200123

Expressed by cooper, sandy, and others, concerns that were discussed within the relevant agencies in late july and throughout august, approximately, ultimately, 35 million of Ukraine Military assistance. Thats 14 of the dod funds remained unspent by the end of the fiscal year in order to make sure that ukraine did not permanently lose the 35 million of Critical Military assistance that had been frozen by the white house. Congress had to pass a provision on september 27th, three days before the funds were to expire to ensure that the remaining 35 million could be sent to ukraine. Now, george kent is an anticorruption and rule of law expert. He told us that american anticorruption efforts Prioritize Building Institutional Capacity, support for the rule of law, not the pursuit of individual investigations, particularly of political rivals. Heres how he explained their approach. U. S. Efforts to counter corruption in ukraine focus on building Institutional Capacity so that the Ukrainian Government has the ability to go after corruption and effectively investigate, prosecute, and judge alleged criminal activities using appropriate institutional mechanisms. That is, to create and follow the rule of law. That means that if there are criminal nexuses for activity in the United States, u. S. Law enforcement should pursue the case. If we think there has been a criminal act overseas that violates u. S. Law, we have the institutional mechanisms to address that. It could be through the Justice Department and fbi agents assigned overseas or through treaty mechanisms, such as the mutual Legal Assistance treaty. As a general principle, i do not believe the United States should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. Now, david holmes concurred during his testimony. Holmes also compared the official approach that we believe in, that we promulgate across the world with what the president and mr. Giuliani actually were doing. So our longstanding policy is to encourage them to establish and build rule of law institutions that are capable and that are independent and that can actually pursue credible allegations. Thats our policy. We have been doing that for quite some time with some success. So, focusing on particular cases including particular cases where there is interest of the president s it just not part of what weve done. Its hard to explain why we would do that. Unfortunately, we do know the explanation. We know why President Trump wanted president zelensky to announce investigations, because it would help him in his election. Now, on september 18th, approximately a week before he was supposed to meet with President Trump at the United Nations General Assembly in new york, president zelensky spoke by telephone with Vice President pence. During her deposition, Jennifer Williams testified that she was Vice President pences assistant. She had testified that Vice President pence basically reiterated that the hold on aid had been lifted and asked a bit more about how zelenskys efforts were going. And following her deposition and while preparing for her testimony at the open hearing on november 19th, williams reviewed the documents. They had not been produced to us by the white house. And those documents refreshed her recollection of Vice President pence call with president zelensky. Now, the white house blocked williams from testifying about her refreshed recollections of the Vice President s call when she appeared at the open public hearing. They claimed that certain portions of the september 18th call including the information that williams wanted to tell us about were classified. On november 26th, she submitted a classified addition to her hearing testimony where she provided Additional Information about the Vice President s september 18th telephone call with president zelensky. The Intelligence Committee provided this classified addition to the judiciary committee. It has been sent to the senate for your review. Now, ive read that testimony. I will just say that a coverup is not a proper reason to classify a document. Vice president pence has repeatedly said publicly that he has no objection to the white house releasing the actual transcript of his calls with president zelensky. And, yet, his office has refused many requests by the committee to declassify williams addendum so the American People could also see the additional evidence about this call. We urge the senators to review it, and we ask again that the white house declassify it. As the house wrote in two separate letters, there is no basis to keep it classified. And, again, in case the white house needs a reminder, its improper to keep something classified just to avoid embarrassment or to conceal wrongdoing. Now, weve been through a lot of facts today. Weve seen the president s scheme, a shakedown of ukraine for his personal benefit. Was, i believe, an obvious abuse of his power. But this misconduct, the scheme, became exposed. Congress asked questions. The press reported. Nonpolitical officers in the government expressed concern. The whistleblower laws were activated. As this happened, there was an effort to create an afterthefact misleading record to avoid responsibility for what the president had actually been doing. These were not the only efforts to hide misconduct, and the misconduct continued. Congressman schiff will review some of those items. So we have about 20 minutes left of the presentation tonight. Id like to now go through with you the president s efforts to hide this corrupt scheme even as it continued well into the fall of last year. On august 12th, a whistleblower in the Intelligence Community submitted a complaint addressed to the congressional Intelligence Committees. This explosive document stated that President Trump had solicited foreign interference from ukraine to assist in his 2020 reelection bid. The complaint alleged a scheme by President Trump to, quote, use the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u. S. Election. The complaint stated that the president had applied pressure on ukraine to investigate one of the president s main domestic political rivals and detailed the involvement of the president s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. The complaint also stated that the whistleblower believed that the president s activities, quote, posed risk to u. S. National security and undermine the u. S. Governments efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in u. S. Elections. Under the law, the whistleblower was required to file the complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, which was then required to vet and assess the complaint and determine if it warranted reporting to the Intelligence Committees. The law gives the Inspector General 14 days to conduct an initial review. And then inform the director of National Intelligence about his findings. On august 26th, the Inspector General sent the whistleblower complaint, and the Inspector Generals preliminary determination to the acting director of National Intelligence. The Inspector General wrote that based on his review of the complaint, its allegations constituted an urgent concern and appeared credible under the statute. The Inspector General confirmed that the whistleblower acted lawfully in bringing a complaint and credibly raised a concern that should be communicated to the Intelligence Committees of congress. The director of National Intelligence quickly informed the white house about the complaint. Under the law, the acting director of National Intelligence was required to forward the complaint and the Inspector Generals determination to the congressional Intelligence Committees no later than seven days after he received it. The legal requirement is extremely clear. Upon receipt of the transmittal from the i. C. i. G. , that is the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the director shall within seven calendar days of such receipt forward such transmittal to the congressional Intelligence Committees together with any comments the director considers appropriate. Yet, despite the clear letter of the law, the white house mobilized to keep the information in the whistleblower complaint from congress, including by inviting the department of justice to render an opinion as to whether the complaint could be withheld from congress. The statutory deadline of september 2nd when the director of National Intelligence was required to turn it over to congress came and went, and the complaint remained hidden from congress. Finally, on september 9th, a full week after the complaint was required to be sent to congress, and, once again, an urgent concern the Inspector General one week after it was required to be spent to congress, the Inspector General wrote to the leaders of the Intelligence Committees to inform them that the director of National Intelligence was withholding a whistleblower complaint in direct countervention of past practice and the law. On september 24th, speaker of the house, nancy pelosi announced that the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. The next day, the house of representatives passed a resolution calling on the Trump Administration to provide the whistleblowers complaint immediately to the congressional Intelligence Committees. Later that day, the white house publicly released the summary of the july 25th call between President Trump and president zelensky and permitted the acting director of National Intelligence to provide the whistleblowers complaint and relay documents to the intelligence congressional committees. The president himself was happy to discuss the motivations for the scheme in public. That day in a joint press availability with president zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump reiterated that he wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens. No, i want him to do whatever he can. This was not his fault. He wasnt there. Hes just been here recently. But whatever he can do in terms of corruption because the corruptions massive. Now, when bidens son walks away with millions of dollars from ukraine and he knows nothing and they are paying him millions of dollars, thats corruption. Finally, the day after President Trump explained to the public that he wanted ukraine to investigate former president former Vice President biden on the morning of september 26th, the Intelligence Committee publicly released declassified redactions of two documents, the whistleblowers august 12th complaint and the Inspector Generals august 26th transmittal to the acting director of National Intelligence. Even after the impeachment inquiry into the ukraine matter began, President Trump and his proxy Rudy Giuliani have continued to publicly urge president zelensky to launch an investigation of Vice President biden and alleged 2016 election interference by ukraine. On september 30 during his remarks at the swearingin of the new labor secretary, President Trump stated now the new president of ukraine ran on the basis of no corruption. Thats how he got elected. And i believe that he really means it. But there was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election against us. And we want to get to the bottom of it. And its very important that we do. Thank you. So here he is, his meeting with the United Nations september 30, and he is still pursuing this bogus crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory with the president of ukraine. On october 2nd in a public press availability, President Trump discussed the july 25th call with president zelensky and stated the conversation was perfect, it couldnt have been nicer. He then linked his notion of corruption with the biden investigation. On october 3rd in remarks before he departed omareen one, President Trump expressed his hope that ukraine would investigate Vice President biden and his son. President trump actually escalated his rhetoric urging not only ukraine to investigate the bidens but china too. What exactly did you hope zelensky would do about the bidens after the phone call . Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens because how does a company thats newly formed and all these companies and by the way, likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens because what happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. So i would say that president zelensky, if it were me, i would recommend that they start an investigation into the bidens. The same day President Trump tweeted that he has an absolute right to investigate corruption. That really means is he feels he has an absolute right to investigate or get Foreign Countries to investigate his political opponents. The president sent a similar tweet the next day once again linking corruption with the biden investigation. As president i have an obligation to end corruption, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries. It is codone all the time. This has nothing to do with politics or a Political Campaign against the bidens. This does have to do with corruption. Give him credit for being so obvious. This has nothing to do with politics or a Political Campaign against the bidens, but you got to investigate the bidens. I guess thats just a coincidence. President trump continued to demonstrate his eagerness to solicit foreign assistance related to his personal interest. Heres whats okay. He said if we feel theres corruption like i feel there was in the 2016 campaign, there was tremendous corruption against me. If we feel this corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign country. President trump added that asking president xi of china to investigate the bidens is certainly something we can start thinking about. Even last month, even last month the president and giulianis scheme continued during the first week of december, giuliani traveled to budapest, kiev, and vienna to meet with the former Ukrainian Government officials as part of a continuing effort to dig up dirt, political dirt on Vice President biden and advance the theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Asked about his interviews of foreign ukrainian prosecutors, giuliani told the New York Times that he was acting on behalf of his client President Trump. Quote, like a good lawyer, i am gathering evidence to defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him. Indeed, evidence obtained by the house from giulianis associate confirms that he had been representing himself as early as may 2019 as President Trumps personal lawyer, doing donald j. Trumps personal bidding in his dealings with ukraine. This letter, may 10th, 2019, from giuliani to zelensky says, among other things, however, i have a more specific request. In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, i request a meeting with you on this upcoming monday, may 13th, or tuesday, may 14th. I will need no more than a half an hour of your time. And i will be accompanied by my colleague victoria toensing, a distinguished american attorney who is familiar with this matter. Please let me know what time or times are convenient for you. And victoria and i will be there. This is evidence recently obtained showing his effort to get that meeting in may with zelensky. Giuliani told the wall street journal that when he returned to new york from this most recent trip on december 7th, President Trump called him as his plane was still going down the runway. What did you get, he said President Trump asked. More than you can imagine, giuliani replied. Giuliani claimed that he was putting his findings into a 20page report that the president had asked him to brief the attorney general and the republicans in congress. Shortly thereafter on the same day President Trump told reporters before departing omareen one that he was aware of giulianis efforts in ukraine and that giuliani was going to report his purported findings to the attorney general and congress. Well, i just know he came back from someplace and hes going to make a report i think to the attorney general and to congress. He says he has a lot of good information. I have not spoken to him about that information. But rudy, as you know, has been one of the great crime fighters of the last 50 years. He did get back from europe just recently. And he has not told me what hes found. But i think he wants to go before congress and say, and also to the Inspector General and the department of justice, i hear hes found plenty, yeah. Three days after that, those remarks on december 10th, giuliani confirmed to the Washington Post that President Trump had asked him to brief the Justice Department and republican senators on his, quote, findings, unquote, to his trip to ukraine. Giuliani stated he wants me to do it. Im working on pulling it together and hope to have it done by the end of the week. That friday, december 13th, giuliani reportedly met with President Trump at the white house. And on december 17th, giuliani confirmed to cnn that President Trump has been very supportive of his efforts to dig up dirt on Vice President biden in ukraine and that they are on the same page. The following day on december 18, 2019, the house of representatives approved the two articles of impeachment you are considering in this trial. Since the house voted on these articles, the evidence has continued to come to light related to the president s corrupt scheme. Among other things, freedom of information act lawsuits, press reporting and documents provided to congress from Rudy Giuliani associate lev parnas, further corroborate what we already know about the president s scheme. As giuliani again said on december 17th, President Trump has been, quote, very supportive, unquote, of his efforts to dig up dirt on Vice President biden, and they are, quote, on the same page. Parnas further corroborated what we already know about President Trumps scheme that he was responsible for withholding military aid and sustaining that hold and that his personal attorney, mr. Giuliani, was working at the direction of President Trump himself. On december 20th, new emails were released showing that 91 minutes after President Trumps call with the ukrainian president zelensky, a top office of management and budget aide asked the department of defense to withhold to hold off on sending military aid to ukraine. So those were new documents that came on december 20th. On december 29th, revelations emerged from omb director and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaneys role about them, about that role in the delay of aid and by efforts of lawyers at omb to justify the delay and the alarm the delay caused within the administration. Those records just became available on december 29th. On january 2nd, newly unredacted pentagon emails which raised serious concerns by Trump Administration officials about the legality of the president s hold on aid became available. On january 6th, former Trump National security adviser john bolton announced that he would comply with a Senate Subpoena compelling his testimony. His lawyers stated that he has new, relevant information. On january 13th, reports emerged that the russian government hacked the Ukrainian Gas Company burisma almost certainly in an effort to find information about Vice President joe bidens son in order to weaponize that information against mr. Biden and in favor of mr. Trump, just as russia did against secretary clinton in favor of thencandidate trump in 2016. That brings us up to january 13th of this year. Last week house committees received new evidence from lev parnas that further demonstrates that the president was a central player in this scheme to pressure ukraine for his political gain. And also last week the Government Accountability office found that President Trump violated the law when he withheld that aid. Last night, we had further development when more redacted emails from the office of management and budget were produced. I think representative crow showed you these. These are among the documents that were just released. I am sure that if we could read under those redactions, it would be a very perfect email. But you have to ask what is being redacted here . What is so important to keep confidential during the course of an impeachment inquiry . As you can see, right up until last night, evidence continues to be produced. The truth is going to come out. Indeed, the truth has already come out. But more and more of it will. More emails are going to come out. More witnesses are going to come forward. Theyre going to have more relevant information to share. And the only question is do you want to hear it now . Do you want to know the full truth now . Do you want to know just who was in the loop . Sounds like everyone was in the loop. Do you want to know how broad this scheme was . We have the evidence to prove that President Trump ordered the aid withheld. He did so to coerce ukraine to help his reelection campaign. He withheld a white house meeting to coerce the same sham investigations. We can and will prove President Trump guilty of this conduct and of obstructing the investigation into his misconduct. But you and the American People should know who else was involved in this scheme. You should want the whole truth to come out. You should want to know about every player in this sorted business. It is within your power to do so. And i would urge you even if you are prepared to vote to convict and impeach and remove this president , to find out the full truth about how far this corruption goes. Because i think the public has a right to know. Now, today, well, yesterday we made the case for why you should hear this additional evidence and testimony. This morning i introduced you to the broad sweep of the president s conduct. And then during the course of today, we walked you through a factual chronology in realtime about how this plot unfolded. And during that factual chronology today, you saw that in march of this year giuliani began that Smear Campaign against ambassador yovanovitch in order to get her fired by President Trump. Something he would later admit was necessary to get her out of the way because she was going to be in the way of these two investigations. This is the supposed anticorruption effort by the president to get rid of a woman who has dedicated her career to representing the United States, often in dangerous parts of the world, to fighting corruption and to promoting the rule of law. This plot begins with getting her out of the way with the president saying that she is going to go through some things. This anticorruption reformer, this u. S. Patriot, this plot begins with getting her out of the way. And tellingly, and this says so much about the administration, it wasnt enough just to recall her or fire her. The president couldve done that any time. No, they wanted to destroy her because she had the audacity to stand in their way. So we heard in march about the effort to get rid of her, and it succeeded. And guess what message thats sent to the ukrainians about the power of the president s lawyer has. The ukrainians were watching this whole saga. They were hearing his interviews. They were seeing the smears that he was putting out. And this attorney for the president working hand in hand with these corrupt ukrainians was able to get a u. N. Ambassador yanked out of her job. Proof positive you want a window to this president , you want to make things happen with this president . You go through his lawyer. Never mind the state department, never mind the National Security council. Never mind the Defense Department. You go through his lawyer. Thats march. April, zelensky has this huge victory in the president ial election. He gets a congratulatory call from the president. The president assigns Vice President pence to go to the inaug relation. May, giuliani is rebuffed by zelensky, cancels the trip to ukraine remember where he wanted to go meddle in the investigation. Because enemies of trump surround zelensky. I guess that means he didnt get the meeting and he must be enemies of the president. May, trump disinvites pence to the inauguration. Pence is going. Giulianis rebuffed. Pence aint going. Thats may. Instead, may 23rd, we have this meeting at the white house. And there is a new party in town. The three amigos. Theyre going to be handling the ukraine portfolio. And theyre told work with rudy. Work with rudy. Ambassador sondland, ambassador volker, secretary perry, work with rudy. And as you saw on june, giulianis pushing for these investigations. And they are trying to arrange these meetings and trying to make this happen. And also in june the Defense Department announces they are going to release the military aid. And the president reads about this. And then he stops it. He stops the aid. In july, july 10th, you heard in the chronology there is a meeting at the white house. The meeting in which sondland blurts out in this meeting between ukrainians and americans, hey, theyve got a deal. They are trying to get this meeting and there is a debate about whether the meeting is going to happen and when its going to happen. And sondland says, hey, weve got a deal with mulvaney here. We are going to get this meeting and you are going to do those investigations. And bolton stiffens and abruptly ends the meeting. That was the first meeting that day. And then sondland brings the delegation to a different part of the white house and they have the followup meeting where he makes it even more explicit. This drug deal is made even more explicit. And dr. Hill is told by ambassador bolton you need to go talk to the lawyers. I dont want any part of this drug deal theyre cooking up. Thats july. July is the month where that email goes from sondland to pompeo and others, and everybody is in the loop. July is the month where the hold is implemented with no explanation. July is the month where mueller testifies about russias systemic interference in our affairs. July is the month after mueller testifies that the president believes he has escaped accountability. The next day in july is, of course, the july 25th call. In which the president asks for his favor. And july is the month, july 26th is the date of the call between President Trump and ambassador sondland. You know the one. Zelensky loves your ass. He will do anything you want. Is he going to do the investigation . Yeah, hes going to do the investigation. July is the month of that conversation between sondland and david holmes where holmes says can you tell me candidly here what the president thinks of ukraine . Does he give a blank about ukraine . No, he doesnt give a blank about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. Well, theres kind of big stuff here in ukraine like a war with the russians. No, no, no. Big stuff that affects him personally like the biden investigation that giuliani wants. Thats the month of july. August, we have that meeting between giuliani and yermak in madrid. August we have the back and forth about the statement. No, you go first, and you commit and publicly announce the investigations, and then we will give you a date. No, you go first. You give us the date and then we will announce the investigations. Well, we will give you a statement that doesnt mention the specifics. No, no, you give us a statement that mentions the investigations. Thats the month of august. August is also the month where it becomes clear that its not just the meeting anymore. Its everything. Everything is conditoned on these investigations. The relationship, the money, the meeting, sondland and holmes testify. Its as simple as two plus two equals four. Thats august. September, sondland says to yermak everything is conditioned on public announcement. So, message delivered, no ambiguity. The ukrainians are told quid pro quo. If taylor texts this is crazy to withhold aid. September is the month. September 7th in particular, trump and sondland talk on the phone and the president has a conversation where he says no quid pro quo except heres the quid pro quo. Zelenskys got to go to the mic. And whats more . He should want to do it. Septembers also the month where the investigations begin in congress. Septembers the month where after those investigations begin, after the president knows hes been caught, the aid is finally released. And september is the month where pence and zelensky are on the phone, and Jennifer Williams has classified information to share with you that i hope you will take a look at because it is relevant to these issues. Thats september. October, trump admits, yes, if it wasnt obvious enough, he wants ukraine to investigate his political opponent. October is the month where he invites another nation, china, to investigate his opponent. This is the broad outline of the chronology that we went through today. Tomorrow, we will go through the law, the constitution, and the facts as they apply to article i. That is the plan for tomorrow. Weve introduced the case. Weve gone through the chronology. And tomorrow we will apply the facts to the law as it pertains to the president s abuse of power. And let me just conclude this evening by remarking, again, on what brought us here. What brought us here is that some courageous people came forward. Courageous people that risked their entire careers. And one of the things thats been so striking to me about that as i watch these witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch and ambassador taylor and david holmes and others, dr. Hill, is how much these dedicated officials were willing to risk their career, the beginning of their career or the middle of their career or late in their career, when they had everything to lose. But people senior to them who have every advantage who sit in positions of power lack that same basic commitment, lack that same basic willingness to put their Country First and expose wrongdoing. Why is it that colonel vindman who worked for fiona hill who worked for john bolton and dr. Kupperman, why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldnt . I dont know that i can answer that question, but i just can tell you i have such admiration for the fact they did. I think and i think this is some form of cosmic justice, that this ambassador that was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her courage. There is justice in that. But what will really vindicate that leap of faith that she took is if we show the same courage. They risked everything, their careers. And, yes, i know what youre asked to decide may risk yours too. But if they could show the courage, so can we. I yield back. Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 243 of the 100th congress, a single onepage classified document identified by the house managers for filing with the secretary of the senate that will be received on january 22nd, 2020, shall not be made part of the Public Record and shall not be printed, but shall be made available pursuant to the Standing Order from the 100th congress. The majority leader is recognized. Mr. Chief justice collingsworth, almost through for the evening. We will convene again at 1 00 tomorrow. Before we adjourn id like to acknowledge that tomorrow is the official last day for this terms senate pages. [ applause ] in addition to witnessing this unusual event that were all experiencing. They are studying for their final exams as well, and we wish them well as they head off back to boring normal high school. [ laughter ] mr. Leader. Let me just add my thanks and gratitude for all of us. It is rare, particularly these days, when 100 senators from both sides of the aisle of every political persuasion get up and give someone a standing ovation. [ laughter ] but you deserve it. Thank you for your good work. And we hope you have beautiful and successful lives. [ applause ] so, mr. Chief justice, i asked that on tuesday, january the 2th, from 10 00 a. M. To 11 00 a. M. , while the senate is sitting as a court of impeachment, and that notwithstanding the senates adjournment, the senate can receive house messages and executive matters, committees be authorized to report legislation, and executive matters, and senators be allowed to submit statements for the record, bills, resolutions, and cosponsor requests, and where applicable the secretary of the senate on behalf of the presiding officer be permitted to refer such matters. Without objection, so ordered. Finally, i ask your consent that the trial adjourn until 1 00 p. M. Thursday, january 23rd. And this also constitutes the adjournment of the senate. Without objection, so ordered. The senate is adjourned. Good evening, everybody. Im chris cuomo. Youve been watching special live coverage of the trump impeachment trial. Opening day arguments for real now. Yesterday was largely procedural with the rules of the road. This was the first day of the democrats making the case. And the question is who was effective on what bases, and what is the measurement of that effect . What is the goal here . Is it public sentiment . Is it to get to the point of needing witnesses . To turn a few key senators on the republican fringe . Or is it a combination . We have been watching the house managers all day long, largely congressman schiff. He has certainly come to the fore in terms of the main maker of the case for the democrats, at least to this point. He has been methodically laying out, often repetitively, but thats part of the strategy we will take you through tonight, laying out all the different aspects of why what they know so far, that part is key, what they know so far is damning on the issue of abuse of power. Now, the reason he is qualifying it the way he is and others as well is this is also a play about witnesses. So, it was a big day. Lets break down what worked, what didnt, what it means going forward. Michael, susan, and manu raju. My mentor, it is good to have you with me tonight to walk our way through history. What do your eyes and your senses tell you about this first day effort . Um, well, i thought schiffs performance tonight was maybe his best and probably the most significant because, actually, be this is the first time weve heard the case laid out in prime time. So that counts a lot right there. But i thought he did, just as a matter of lawyering, we can leave aside, you know, the merits of the case. But as a matter of lawyering, he did a really brilliant job of laying out the facts but then bringing it back at each moment to the need for witnesses and documents. Like when he brings up ambassador taylor is going to writes a firstperson cable to the secretary of state. And schiff says would you like to see that cable . Id like to show it to you. But we cant because the white house wont let us see it. At each stage, would you like to see the notes of the conversation between taylor and sondland when sondland is making clear that the president wants zelensky in a box. Would you like to see those notes to test the credibility of that testimony . Yes, id like to show them to you, but we cant because the white house wont let us. So i thought he brought things back to what is going to be the most crucial votes in this whole matter next week on documents and witnesses. Thats the ball game right there. This time next week will be probably the biggest moment. Lets deal with now. And we will get to there. Susan, so this strategy of what i can show you is bad. What i cant show you is probably worse. Now, the gamble there is in how compelling are you to the senators that there is really more for them to know . How is that case made . What needs to be done in addition . I was in the chamber for most of the day in the press allery, and watching the senators on the democratic side. Some of them even got up and walked over to the video screen, especially when schiff and the other house managers were presenting heres the documents you dont have, heres the information you dont have, you know, Kirsten Gillibrand was standing below me eagerly scribbling notes that seemed to be very detailed. I noticed some of the republican senators as well seemed to pay extra attention to this question of heres what you dont know, heres what you arent being told, when it was more specific. The more specific, the better. Senators love a good speech about the founding fathers. But in many ways i think that the heart of todays arguments that really resonated and where they seem to actually be paying some attention had to do exactly with heres the document you dont have. Heres the memo that we know exists and that you havent heard about. Heres this tweet, you know, and heres the context behind it. So i thought the more specific they got in many ways, the better. So, you have the documents, and then you have the big ticket, which would be the witnesses. Manu, yesterday, the only republican to move on any vote was Susan Collins on one of the amendments that meant almost nothing. It was an amendment about how much time you get to respond. She didnt even move on the amendment about whether or not the chief justice could arbitrate differences. The chief justice lost in a Straight Party line vote. What is the theory of these three or four senators that people keep talking about actually being in play . Well, i could tell you, chris, that its unlikely that there would just be four senators who would break ranks if they were to be enough, a majority vote. Because no republican senator wants to be vote number 51 if there is enough support in the senate to subpoena documents, subpoena witnesses, there is more likely going to be 53 or 54 votes. So that would mean there would have to be more than four potentially. And at the moment, that is not in the realm of possibility. That could certainly change. But talking to republican senators, people who are on the fence, people who are in the republican leadership, it is highly unlikely at the moment that they will vote to subpoena witnesses and documents. Now, that could change because some members are Still Holding their cards pretty close to their vest. Susan collins has indicated she would vote to subpoena most likely witnesses and documents, also mitt romney has indicated that he wants to subpoena we talked to john bolton. Lisa murkowski suggests she is open. But who is the fourth, who is the fifth, who is the sixth senator, people look at Lamar Alexander for one, the tennessee republican. I have talked to him many times over the last several weeks and hes very cautious about it. Hes that he would be vote number 51. So if you are going by the theory you need to have 53 senators in order to move forward, getting the other two, who those people are is unclear. Even people like a cory gardner whos up for reelection in colorado in a swing state. He also needs the president s support in order to win reelection. He has been very circumspect about saying anything critical about the president so far. So a lot of questions about whether the democrats can succeed. Because their goal right now, as you know is by extending this trial. The question is can they do that . All right. Three steps to the analysis i want to help you. First, manu, quickly, what sense do you get because you have such tremendous access to people on both sides, how Many Republican senators say they dont know what happened . They dont know what happened in ukraine . Or dont know what yeah. You know, its a good question. I would say a handful. I would say most of them contend they have a sense of what happened. A handful say they dont. Thats going to be important. Well pick up the analysis. Here is the head of the president s defense team, jay sekulow. Are you prepared for moderates to kind of come out and say they want to see the memo like the taylor memo to pompeo . These are questions first of all that the senate has to address. They will determine what will go in the record and what will not. Under the rules that were adopted. So our position, right now, is the senate we are governed by a Senate Resolution. And thats exactly what were going to do. What really stands out in your mind today and the first thing you want to refute when you get to speak beginning on saturday . I thought it was interesting that theyre making the references to the career people that were in the various agencies. But when you read the transcripts, they also said things that were very positive about the president and the president s policies. But we probably wont get to talk about that for a couple of days i suspect. The managers talked about they repeatedly told the senators, you could subpoena this document. Why shouldnt the senators . I said this this morning. I said it yesterday. Im going to say it again. The constitution protects executive privilege. There is a reason for that. Despite what manager nadler said, you cannot call executive privilege and other nonsense. There is constitutional privileges at stake that dont just affect this presidency, by the way, that affect the office of the presidency for other president s that come. Have you been speaking to the president throughout . I would never discuss with you if i had a conversation with the president or why i stepped out of the chamber. What about the president tweeting to this, responding in realtime . He tweeted, no pressure, for example, during the democrats case. Ive been in a hearing all day as you all have been. Look, im not going to have conversations about the president s mood. I think this whole fact that were here is ridiculous. I mean, think about why were here. I said at the beginning when we spoke yesterday, which seems hike about two weeks ago. But the truth of the matter is why are we here . Are we having an impeachment over a phone call . Or has this been a threeyear attempt to take down a president that was dually elected by the American People . Pretty dangerous for the republic in my view. Why not make a motion to dismiss . Because i want to let them try their case and we want to try our case. Because we believe, without question, the president will be acquitted. There is not a doubt. One more. Are you ruling out a motion to dismiss at any point in the trial . Those that know me know i dont rule out anything. Nothing is ruled out. But at this point, the way the procedures are set up, at this point, heres what i believe is going to happen. Theyre going to it looks like theyre goings to spend tomorrow and friday. I suspect well start on friday. And then well go probably another day or two. But who knows . I mean, we got to make that determination with our team. Then what do you think happens . Then theres questions. Two days of that. Then theres probably a halfday argument on the will there be witnesses or not . So thats probably, you know, a day. Whats your prediction . Oh, i look, my prediction is the president of the United States will be acquitted. On the witnesses. You know what, i dont predict on witnesses. You dont think the president tweeting during this is affecting any of the senators when they read the tweets . Im not concerned about that. Last question. Theyre not saying, you know, obviously they automatically buy the democrats case. Illuminating, enlightening and im not questioning what youre saying they said. I havent had a chance. Is there anything we have learned today we have not heard the last three months . Are you concerned what . What . He said nine out of ten senators would have no idea what really went on in the hearings and the tenth one would be lying. Because the hearings dont make sense to people . Is that what theyre saying . Theyre learning learned a lot. Okay. Okay. Okay. At the end of the day, i believe without question the president of the United States will be acquitted. Thank you, everybody. See you tomorrow. Little interesting color there. Thats jay sekulow. Okay. He was picked for reasons of his comfort, his flamboyance, the trust the president has in him. Remember, sekulow was part of the team with raskin who convinced this president that if he sat down across from one of muellers investigators, it would be a huge mistake. That was probably the best legal advice hes gotten in his life. But in terms of the connection between the white house and the defense, hogan gidley, a member of the press secretary staff was standing right behind him in that press conference. They are in lockstep, as should be with the lawyers. Should it be like that with with the gop senators . With the Senate Majority leader . Now, thats a very different question. Especially, remember, not only is this the first time weve done this with a firstterm president , right . Its the first time we have senp a party try one of its own. When it was clinton, the republicans were in control. With trump, the republicans are in control. And that is obviously having a huge influence. So in terms of where we are, mike, when you look at this, his thing is its all about this. All about this. Which by the way, ive argued from the beginning, boy, are they betting on people not reading this. They keep saying read the transcript. If you just read through the summary of the transcript, theres plenty in here that makes you think it was imperfect. How does that work as a defense . How is it holding up under scrutiny . You know, ive said all along that this is watergate in reverse. And watergate, you had a year and a half investigations that led to the smokinggun tape. We ever the smoking gun from the get go. From the start with this. The transcript. Its clear. Hes bringing up biden, you know, and demanding or asking for investigations right from the start. That was the strongest piece of evidence that the democrats have had. They had it from the start. Theyve filled in a lot of blanks in it. But nothing that theyve come up with trumps how strong and how damning the transcript is. The fact is, though, its been out there and it clearly has not persuaded republican senators. Right. Up till now. So whether its going to jim, two questions for you. Jim baker is with us obviously of fbi fame. Always a friend of the show. Thank you for being with us on such a historic occasion. First, the decision not to charge bribery, to do abuse of power and then include a bribery analysis as by way of explanation, do you think that was the right move with the the conflation of law and politics, necessary for this process . Is it the right move . Thats a great question. I think the answer is no, it probably was not a great move because it opened up a a set of legal arguments for the president s team to make to the senate. That at the end of the day, im not persuaded by them but they they sound like they might work in this context. And they might give the senators something to lean on. You know, this idea that that a crime was not committed somehow even though you dont need that to to impeach and remove the president. But it did open a door that i think, upon reflection, they might have been able to close had they phrased that slightly differently. That said, i mean, there is language in the in the articles that clearly can be read to mean that there was bribery at foot here. And so, you know, but again, i think it did open a door that i think the president s team is going to really push on when its their turn to talk. Karen, real quickly, just in case susan, sorry, susan. Just in case manu raju is gone. Help me with this, susan. The idea if it turns out 50 50 on witnesses, what happens . Because the vp cant vote as the president of the senate. Can the chief justice vote . What do they do if its 50 50 . As the presiding officer, presumably, he would have that ability. Not only that, there is a lot of curiosity. There is presumably such a strong interest in the constitution in allowing the senate and the house to exercise their constitutional power to impeach and try the president. You know, you could imagine that roberts might feel there is a strong case. A lot of people would be fascinated. As you know, chief justice renquisdt did not he was playing poker. So far, it caused a great star when chief justice roberts, last night, reproved both sides to get their act together and not be so inflammatory and partisan. But thats hardly a substantive intervention in the case. That would be making, you know, basically constitutional history. Its interesting. To play a substantive role in this. I think that, to me, the house managers really were pitching at those undecided republican senators today in trying to make the appeal for witnesses. I thought thats what their case was for today. Well see. We keep talking about it and itll be interesting. If it winds up 50 50, then what happens . This is one of the things well think about more as we get into next week. Next week will be big but every days going to matter in building to that point. Susan glasser, jim baker, manu raju, appreciate it. Now, the arguments are over for the day. It will be digested in full. Well be back for two hours. A special late edition of cuomo primetime. Cnn tonight with don lemon is right now. Well talk soon. Thank you very much. This is our breaking news, everyone. Democratic house managers wrapping up their first day of open