[Natalie Allen, Cnn International Anchor:] Welcome to our viewers joining us1 here in the United States and all around the world, I'm Natalie Allen.
[Michael Holmes, Cnn International Anchor:] And I'm Michael Holmes. And coming up here on CNN NEWSROOM, U.S. lawmakers preparing for a battle as Trump's impeachment trial is near. A top Democrat says he will force votes on witnesses and documents.
[Allen:] Also this hour, Prince Harry saying he is sad but that there was no other option. His reaction to the announcement that he and Meghan will no longer represent the Queen.
[Holmes:] And China is reporting more cases of a new strain of coronavirus as the outbreak spreads beyond the city where it was first identified.
[Allen:] There you have it. We are at 36 hours and counting until the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is set to begin.
[Holmes:] Yes, both sides already making the case. The Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, promising a battle. Chuck Schumer telling reporters Sunday night, he will push for more evidence on the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges against the president. He needs 51 votes to succeed.
[Sen. Chuck Schumer:] We will force votes on witnesses and documents. And it will be up to four Republicans to side with the constitution, to side with our democracy, to side with rule of law, and not side and blind obedience to President Trump and his desire to suppress the truth because, in my judgment, he probably thinks he's guilty.
[Allen:] Well, speaking earlier at a Farm Bureau conference where he boasted about recent trade agreements, President Trump got a standing ovation when he attacked the impeachment process.
[Donald Trump, President Of The United States:] We're achieving what no administration has ever achieved before. And what do I get out of it? Tell me. I get impeached. That's what I get at it. By these radical left lunatics, I get impeached. But that's OK. The farmers are sticking with Trump. They're sticking with Trump.
[Allen:] Alan Dershowitz is a recent addition to President Trump's defense team. He's making it clear he's onboard to handle one specific issue.
[Alan Dershowitz, Lawyer:] I'm not involved in the day to day issues. I was asked by the President's defense team to become of counsel on this specific issue of the criteria, the constitutional criteria for impeachment. That's a very important issue. I will be making that argument as an advocate, not as an expert witness. I will be advocating against impeachment of this president based on the constitutional criteria in the Constitution.
[Holmes:] While we're getting a preview of the legal arguments on both sides, how they will lay it out, Kaitlan Collins with details of the pre-trial briefs filed over the weekend.
[Kaitlan Collins, Cnn White House Correspondent:] The White House is making this argument that we were expecting them to make saying that they believe this is this dangerous and "unlawful effort to remove the president from office to nullify his election victory." And then this argument that they're making about what Democrats are doing, they say they're not denying the core of the Democrat's case against them, about this military aid, the withhold of it, withholding that White House meeting for the Ukrainians, and even, of course, that demand for the investigations into the Biden. But what they're denying in this seven-page memo written by the President's top two attorneys that you're going to see on the Senate floor this week, they are saying that what he did is not worthy of impeachment. And they go on to lay out this argument talking about the Democrats here. And it's really notable because it's a very different argument than what you're seeing in the Democrats filing yesterday, that was about 40 pages long, with an additional 60-page list of what they say or their facts against the president, where they're laying out in detail exactly what you saw in those House hearings. The White House is just generally in this six-page or in six-seven-page argument, rejecting what the Democrats are saying. Now, this is notable also given what Alan Dershowitz is saying, this is one of the President's four attorneys that he personally wanted on his team. And you're seeing Alan Dershowitz starting on Friday when we first reported that they were going to be joining the team, of course, along with Ken Starr and Robert Wray. Alan Dershowitz trying to distance himself from this saying that that memo that came out yesterday, that legal briefing, saying he did not sign off on it and didn't even see it before it was filed, which is really notable given the fact that he is expected to be one of the attorneys presenting on the President's behalf on the Senate floor this week. Now yesterday was essentially just a taste of what's to come. You're going to see that fight play out this week. But we're expecting to get a lengthier, more detailed legal briefing from the White House tomorrow. That's the deadline for them to file it, laying out exactly how they were going to argue against the President's impeachment this week.
[Holmes:] Now, Thomas Gift is a political science lecturer at University College London joining us so from Stanford, California. Good to see you again. I mean, let's I just want to set something up. We're getting a sense of the Republican strategy when this gets underway, and I want to talk about part of it. On the State of the Union, Alan Dershowitz said the Framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to me criminal-like conduct. He was quoting a defense used in 1868 by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis. Let's have a listen to that.
[Dershowitz:] The Senate refused to remove Andrew Johnson because Justice Curtis successfully argued that you need a crime. Without a crime, there can be no impeachment.
[Holmes:] Without a crime, there could be no impeachment. In 1998, Dershowitz said this.
[Dershowitz:] Certainly, it doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.
[Holmes:] It needs to be a crime in 2020, not 1998. I mean, the thought of Government Accountability Office, of course, we talked about this yesterday, they say the law was broken when it comes to Ukraine. I'm curious, what do you make of the Dershowitz argument, how it might hold up. What do you make of the strategy given his previous positions?
[Thomas Gift, Political Science Lecturer, University College London:] Well, it does seem to suggest that there's some degree of hypocrisy among the Republican argument here in favor of Donald Trump. And so you're right, as we discussed before, Michael, a crime isn't a prerequisite for impeachment. And executive that subverts the integrity of elections can't truly be held to account by that. So Democrats are trying to make the case that simply leaving a question up to the American people isn't a satisfactory solution.
[Holmes:] Yes, absolutely. I mean, Dershowitz also argued that, you know, presidential abuse of power isn't impeachable, obstruction of Congress. But I guess that leaves a question, what then is impeachable? I mean, if a foreign leader was asked to investigate a political rival, and that's not impeachable, what is?
[Gift:] Well, I think that is the big question. I mean, all crimes are not impeachable offense, not all impeachable offenses are crimes. But at the same time, it really does beg the question that if this scenario does not constitute an impeachable offense, what really does? Michael, I almost feel like the question isn't then, you know, will Republicans turn on Trump at the state of the trial as it is. But instead, is there anything that could possibly change their mind? They've been so solidly behind Trump since the very outset. It's almost like they seem relatively indifferent to the facts. They're just supporting him, because they're supporting.
[Holmes:] Yes. If you take that broader view, though, and then let's, you know, look down the line a bit. I mean, what precedent is set if those actions aren't impeachable? I mean, if what we've seen unfold is deemed OK in the Senate trial, if obstruction of Congress isn't considered impeachable, abuse of power, or any of the other things, then what future precedents, what sort of leeway will they have in how they behave?
[Gift:] Well, I think that is exactly the point. These are such serious issue, issues of election, issues with foreign interference. And if Trump's actions don't constitute an impeachable offense, I think it does provide significant leeway or future president to also act in ways that are inconsistent with the constitution. Michael, it's not just the future presidents, it can also be Donald Trump himself if he does get another four years. And so if he's not held to account in this instance, then by all accounts of his record, he may feel that he's free to do the same thing going forward.
[Holmes:] It's nearly about to get underway, Tuesday, of course. A lot of talk still about witnesses or not. I'm wondering your thoughts on whether there are risks for Democrats on witnesses. I mean, if Republicans allow, say, former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, to testify, even if he claims privilege, Democrats would then be forced to allow perhaps Hunter Biden, even Joe Biden, any number of other witnesses who could hurt Democrats. Is that a quid pro quo worth taking? How do you think that discussions going on?
[Gift:] Well, I think all in all Democrats would prefer to have witnesses rather than not to have witnesses. You know, Republicans have essentially claimed that if Democrats already have such an airtight case, there's no additional need for witnesses. But I think that that seriously disregard the point that Congress has a fundamental oversight role that's been challenged from the very outset by a president who's refused to cooperate on every single level. And so I think Democrats do want to hear from John Bolton who's calling from the reported actions in Ukraine a drug deal. They want to hear from Mick Mulvaney, the chief of staff, and others close to the President. Because ultimately, Michael, this really is a fact-finding mission. It shouldn't be just a partisan exercise. It should be about figuring out what happened, how much the president knew, how he was involved, and so on. And so I think, all in all, Democrats would prefer to see witnesses are called.
[Holmes:] This is, of course, going to be the first impeachment in history where the impeached will have Twitter. This is a president who thinks he's a victim. He's been hounded. Do you see or how do you see him handling the actual trial in this age of Twitter?
[Gift:] Well, I think it's going to be more of the same. He's going to double down on the strategy that he's done at the very beginning. He's going to be pin this process as a witch hunt, he's going to call it presidential harassment. And to some extent, this has been successful for Trump at least in galvanizing and rallying his base. He's used this as a fundraising tool. For example, we saw that he's talked about this extensively in various campaign events that he's been doing across the country. And so, you know, Donald Trump is going to do what Donald Trump is going to take Twitter, he's going to find other ways do to demean which processes as a partisan
[Holmes:] Always good to chat. Thomas Gift with the University College London, thanks so much joining us in.
[Gift:] Thanks, Michael.
[Allen:] Well, Prince Harry is speaking out for the first time on why he and his wife Meghan are stepping back from their Royal duties.
[Holmes:] Yes. This comes of course after Buckingham Palace made that stunning announcement that the couple would no longer represent the Queen or the working members of the Royal Family. With great sadness, the Duke of Sussex spoke at a charity event on Sunday about why he believes he had no option, but to walk away.
[Prince Harry, Duke Of Sussex:] The U.K. is my home, and a place that I love. That will never change. I've grown up feeling supported from so many of you. And I watched as you welcomed Meghan with open arms as you as you saw me find the love and happiness that I'd heard for all my life. Finally, the second son of Diana, go hitched. Hurray. We hope to do everything we can to fly the flag and carry out all roles for this country with pride. Once Meghan and I were married, we were excited, we were hurtful and we were here to serve. For those reasons and brings me great sadness that it has come to this. The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not what I made lightly. There was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know I haven't always done it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. I've accepted this knowing that it doesn't change who I am, or how committed I am. But I hope that helps you understand what it come to. That I would set my family back from all I've ever known to take to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.
[Allen:] But the couple has talked about splitting their time between the U.S. and North America, but many questions remain regarding what their future will look like.
[Holmes:] Yes, CNN's Royal Correspondent Max Foster takes a look for us now at what is changing and how the Queen is responding.
[Max Foster, Cnn Royal Correspondent:] This was meant to be the slimmed- down monarchy of the future. But this week, it became even slimmer, with Prince Harry effectively abdicating his Royal role. This is what tourists outside Buckingham Palace had to say about it.
[Unidentified Female:] I think it was brave of them to do. I'm glad they could do that and feel comfortable with themselves, and that they have their blessing from grandma.
[Foster:] The Queen's remarkable statements on Saturday was written as a grandmother, Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much-loved members of my family, she wrote. But arguably, it's also a peace treaty, reaching out to Meghan who clearly hasn't enjoyed Royal Life. Her Majesty said she's particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. But the warm tone of this statement belies the steeliness beneath it. The Sussex's had early declared that they would be starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. The Queen rejected that and made them choose whether they want to stay or go. The couple agree to give up their Royal roles altogether, they'll stop using their full titles, and they'll repay the millions they were given to renovate the home in Windsor. There are still discussions ongoing about whether they should be allowed to continue using their brand Sussex Royal. In return, they get what they crave for most freedom to live their lives how and where they want to. And they'll be able to sign commercial deals without getting palace approval.
[Dickie Arbiter, Former Spokesman, Buckingham Palace:] Harry doesn't know what it's like on the outside and one of the things that will probably disappoint him, he spent 10 years in the Army, he's losing his military connection. And I think the biggest disappointment of lot will be for the Prince Philip having been Captain-General of the Royal Marines for 50 years handing it over to the very man he thought would be perfect and ideal as Captain-General the Royal Marines, Prince Harry, who's now walked away from as he walked away and had to walk away from the rest of his military commitments.
[Foster:] The Queen has been tested many times during her long reign. But once again, she's shown her determination to put her duty to protect the crown above all other considerations, even if it means saying no to her beloved grandson. Max Foster, CNN, Buckingham Palace, London.
[Allen:] All right, next here, fresh calls for peace in the United States. The state of Virginia is on edge hours ahead of a controversial gun rally.
[Holmes:] We will have more on who is stepping in to help keep things in check. We'll also have tear gas, water cannon, rubber bullets. Violence ramping up as the week of rage continues in Lebanon. We'll be right back.