[Camerota:] In just about two hours, the historic public impeachment hearings begin. Republicans are signaling that after weeks of attacking the process they will shift to a defense of President Trump based on the transcript of the July 25th phone call. Joining us now, we have Rick Santorum, former Republican senator and CNN senior political commentator. And, Charlie Dent, former Republican congressman and CNN political commentator. Great to have both of you. You both know well how this works and you can help us understand what to expect. So, Rick, from your perspective, what do Republicans need to come out of the gate with that will make them successful today.
[Rick Santorum, Cnn Senior Political Commentator,  Former Pennsylvania Senator:] Well, I think they obviously have to poke holes in the story. I mean, that's part of what the opposition does, which is let's have this story hold up under questioning and scrutiny. And what I've been told by folks at the White House for several weeks now is that a lot of this testimony just doesn't stand up under questioning, so let's see how it stands up.
[Camerota:] But I'm just curious like I'm interested in that. Meaning what? Where does it fall apart?
[Santorum:] Well, I mean, obviously, a big part of it a big part of what Republicans have been saying is that there's really no firsthand knowledge here. That this is someone who has a right to their opinion about what's going on there but it was certainly not directed to do those things. And they may surmise from all the evidence that they're looking at that this is a perspective. But again, if you if you ask the right questions you can also say well, isn't it fair that it could be this way, too? And I think once you get someone saying well, yes, I can understand this is how I looked at it. Could someone else look at it differently, yes? But once that's said, all of the sudden well, wait a minute. This is this is a little different than hey, we got the smoking gun. And I just I think that's one area that they're going to go into. And look, I think the other area I don't know whether they'll go down this trail or not, but I think the Democrats picked the wrong issue here. I mean, if there's one area where the president has almost unfettered authority, it's in the area of foreign policy. The president can pretty much do whatever he wants to do. There's no really constitutional limitation on him. And so, the idea that the president can't negotiate with a foreign country about a variety of different things
[Camerota:] Yes.
[Santorum:] and horse trade, the presidents do that every single day.
[Camerota:] I mean
[Santorum:] And I think that to normalize that
[Camerota:] it depends on if you see this as policy or politics, you know? I mean, there's a whole argument that you don't ask a foreign government
[Santorum:] Well, but everything has the idea well
[Camerota:] to go after your political rival.
[Santorum:] The idea, Alisyn, that foreign policy has nothing to do with politics is absurd. I mean, it's everything has political consequences back home. So, the question is can you normalize what this the go you know, they use that's why they love to use the term quid pro quo because it sounds somehow because you use the Latin somehow there's something wrong. Well, what quid pro quo means this for that, which means negotiation. So the president was negotiating. That's
[Camerota:] OK.
[Santorum:] certainly within his power to do.
[Camerota:] OK. Charlie, what do you think of those arguments that Sen. Santorum has laid out?
[Charlie Dent, Cnn Political Commentator,  Former Pennsylvania Congressman:] Well, OK, a few things. First, on the firsthand versus secondhand information. Well, it would be really nice to hear from the people who have firsthand information. That would be people like hey, John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. And, Mick Mulvaney when he had that when he put the he pulled the pin out of the grenade, put it in his mouth, and walked out to the press briefing room and said oh yes, there was a quid pro quo. And, Bolton called this whole thing a drug deal. So I think that the we should hear from the people with firsthand knowledge. And presumably, the people we're going to hear from today, Taylor and the other witness, are going to
[Berman:] George Kent.
[Camerota:] Yes.
[Dent:] and Kent they were talking to people who had direct conversations with the president. The other issue, too yes, of course, foreign assistance is often condition-based. But as a president or any federal-elected official, you cannot use your office for a campaign purpose. And I can make a strong case if you're asking a foreign head of government you're soliciting a foreign head of government to investigate your opponent, that's a political benefit to you. You said we can't get anything of value.
[Camerota:] But, Charlie, Rick you just heard what Rick said. Rick says it happens all the time.
[Dent:] That's an
[Camerota:] Don't be naive.
[Dent:] Well, Rick is right but
[Santorum:] Well, I think that's not completely naive.
[Dent:] What Rick is right about is what Rick is right about is that foreign assistance is condition-based, but it's usually there's usually never a condition of investigating one's political opponent. That's what this is different.
[Santorum:] It's investigating it's investigating corruption. And look, this is not this is not
[Camerota:] Well, but only corruption based on the Bidens and Clinton. So that it was a very select view of corruption, Senator Santorum. Wouldn't you agree?
[Santorum:] Of course, it is. I mean, look yes, of course, it's a select view but and the president has but the president has every right to ask for an investigation of corruption that may have that may have an impact on this country. And so, look
[Camerota:] But not on your political rivals. I mean, you don't seem to making
[Santorum:] Why not?
[Camerota:] a distinction because we don't ask for foreign help
[Santorum:] I mean, listen I mean, this is absurd.
[Camerota:] in the U.S. elections.
[Santorum:] If a if a member of Congress what the president by the way, what the president asked for as the favor had nothing to do with Joe Biden. It had to do with investigating the
[Dent:] Rick
[Santorum:] the 2016 election.
[Camerota:] And, Hunter Biden.
[Dent:] Rick, if a member of the if a member of the House and the Senate
[Santorum:] No, that was a different conversation.
[Dent:] If a member of the House
[Santorum:] It was later in the conversation.
[Camerota:] I have the transcript somewhere right here.
[Santorum:] I read I've read it. I've read it a million times. There were two when the president asked for a favor, the only favor he asked for during the time that he spoke before Zelensky responded was on the 2016. It was after Zelensky responded and brought up Giuliani and the issue that the president talked about it.
[Camerota:] OK, but on the same phone call.
[Santorum:] He did not specifically ask for the favor.
[Camerota:] Go ahead, Charlie.
[Dent:] If a if a member
[Santorum:] The same phone call but it's not the same request.
[Dent:] Look, if a member of Congress had asked a foreign or a foreign government leader to investigate his or her political opponent and it were publicly revealed, that member would be investigated not only by the House Ethics Committee, but I'm sure the Department of Justice would be crawling up their backside investigating this thing, without doubt. I mean, you know, I was chair of the Ethics Committee. I used to see this I used to be aware of situations like this. This it's just simply wrong to use your office in this way. And I did appropriations. I was on Foreign Service the foreign assistance stuff and I know how we would withhold aid. We would withhold aid to countries that were not meeting certain benchmarks. There was a process and it was all very transparent and there was no political benefit to me or the other members of the committee. That's what's different here. There was an immediate political benefit to the president. And the FEC rules are very clear that you cannot use your office. You cannot take anything of value from a foreign entity. I mean, that's a full-stop
[Santorum:] Let's just be honest that the Supreme Court's held that information and things like that are not considered a benefit. So, look, there's no criminal case here. The president has the right to ask for this. Should he have done it is a different question and that's a political question. But
[Camerota:] And what's the answer to that? And what's the answer to that?
[Santorum:] Look, I would I would not have done it. No, I would not have used a conversation no matter how it was brought up, I wouldn't have used a conversation to do so. But to ask for it is not is not illegal and it's certainly something with that the president could do. I understand he's getting heat for it.
[Camerota:] I mean
[Santorum:] He has the right to get heat but he shouldn't be impeached.
[Camerota:] That's your interpretation, obviously. That's what all of these hearings are about.
[Santorum:] What it comes down to.
[Camerota:] What we're going to find out. Charlie, if the Republicans do go after the reputation or character of Bill Taylor or George Kent, will that be effective? Do you think they'll do that today?
[Dent:] Well, that would be the worst thing to do. I mean, go after Bill Taylor? I mean, decade's worth of service and Vietnam, West Point, ambassador to Ukraine. I mean, this guy has a distinguished resume and apparently, a very good notetaker. I think it would be I think this is almost unimpeachable as a witness. Now they can argue that well, he never spoke to the president, therefore why should we take everything he says as serious as we are. OK, they can make that case. But good luck trying to impeach the integrity of these career people who you know, who have distinguished service records. It would be a terrible mistake. I mean, Republicans should simply acknowledge I think as Rick was getting to, they should acknowledge that this conduct was at the very least inappropriate at the very least and that and that but maybe this does not rise to the level of impeachment. I think they're just better off acknowledging the wrongdoing and then and then arguing against impeachment.
[Camerota:] Do you think that they'll do that, Rick? Do you think that they will
[Santorum:] Well, I don't think I don't
[Camerota:] somehow go after the character of the witnesses?
[Santorum:] No, I well, I hope they don't because I think it would be a bad strategy given the I don't know all of the background of everybody that's testifying but certainly, Taylor and ones who have who have who've been questioned outside of the Halls of Congress and actually, sometimes in the Halls of Congress that's a bad strategy. You go after the way you you say look, this is your interpretation but
[Camerota:] Yes.
[Santorum:] there's a there's another equally valid interpretation here of what was going on based on the on the facts that they knew, and I think that's where you go after it.
[Camerota:] Charlie, they we have the four points in this 18-page Republican memo that was circulated about how they do plan to pivot away from process now that the process is being transparent, which is what they've called for, and to go after the call. One of the things is that President Zelensky and Trump both said there was no pressure on the call. Do you want to comment on that? I find that one to be amusing. I'm not sure that Zelensky, who needs millions of dollars from the U.S., would ever say something different than that.
[Dent:] Well, clearly, President Trump pressed Zelensky. When Zelensky raised the issue of needing the javelins the anti-tank weapons and then the president immediately turns back and says that but I need a favor, though. Look, they there was pressure here. The Ukrainians are not stupid people. They knew what they needed. They needed those anti-tank weapons desperately and they were under incredible pressure to investigate the Bidens and Burisma. I mean, that was that's a fact. And so, I think it's a mistake it's a mistake to suggest that there was no pressure applied. There was a lot of pressure applied here and everybody knows it.
[Camerota:] All right.
[Santorum:] The fact is they got more aid than ever before and the Trump administration has been very, very supportive of Ukraine in this defense against Russia.
[Camerota:] After the whistleblower came forward.
[Santorum:] Even before before.
[Camerota:] After the whistleblower came forward.
[Santorum:] Even before.
[Camerota:] The aid was on hold, Rick.
[Santorum:] That aid, but there was other aid before. They have been very, very supportive of Ukraine and their and their battle with Russia.
[Camerota:] All right. Rick Santorum, Charlie Dent, thank you both for giving us a preview of how interesting the hearings will be this morning. END