[Jake Tapper, Cnn:] Legal but indecent, which a characteristic we're learning a lot about this...
[Wolf Blitzer, Cnn:] Excellent point. We're waiting for the resumption of the question session of the Senate impeachment trial. Erin Burnett picks up our special coverage.
[Erin Burnett, Cnn:] And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett, OUTFRONT tonight we are moments away from the Senate returning to the chamber. They will resume asking questions of Trump's legal team and the House managers. Now, they've already been at this for six hours. Some very heated responses. All of it geared towards getting to that vote, that crucial vote later this week on whether to call witnesses. Some of these questions you're going to hear tonight and these prime hours are going to get to the heart of that issue. And I want to go straight to Manu Raju. He is there on Capitol Hill. So Manu, obviously, they're going to start filing in, in just a few moments here for this crucial evening session. Where do things stand right now?
[Manu Raju, Cnn Senior Congressional Correspondent:] Well, we're headed right to the critical moment, this is going to be on Friday. A vote to determine whether or not there should be witnesses in this trial. After the questioning period is done both tonight and we're expected to go late into the night tonight and then tomorrow, eight hours of questioning. Then, we'll get into that crucial Friday vote. Now behind closed doors, this was a topic of discussion all day long among top Republicans. And I can tell you, Republican leaders are feeling better about the prospects of defeating this motion on Friday. They're trying to stem their losses to only three they can afford in order to defeat this motion on Friday. The argument that they are making is similar to the ones that the President's attorneys have been making on the floor of the Senate that moving forward on witnesses could prolong the trial in their argument, turn that Senate into a body like the House that is investigating. They say that could create a damaging precedent for the Senate to go down that route and paralyze the Senate. And that's an argument that the Republican leadership in the Senate is making to its members and one that they believe they're making headway in making. So at the moment, they believe they're there but, of course, we do expect at least two Republicans at the moment to break ranks, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, uncertain about whether Lisa Murkowski would be a third. She met with Mitch McConnell earlier today and declined to comment on where does Lamar Alexander sit too also a big question as we head into this critical moments here, Erin.
[Burnett:] Right. And obviously, extremely crucial. Now you know Cory Gardner is not going to be that vote. All eyes then turn to Lamar Alexander and perhaps others who have just been more reticent about their feelings. Now, Manu, you've been inside the chamber, able to see the body language and who responds to whom. What did you see today?
[Raju:] Yes. Actually, one interesting moment occurred earlier today when Lamar Alexander, that key vote who could be the person to decide whether or not to move forward on witnesses. He was taking extensive notes at that moment in which the President's attorney, Patrick Philbin, had been giving his argument against moving forward on witnesses, writing extensively for some time as he was making that argument. Now, he continued taking notes as Adam Schiff made a counterpoint, but that's something that was interesting whether it's a statement that he's going to eventually give remains to be seen. Also, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, the two have attentive, taking notes throughout. There have been some moments of some tension on both sides, including Republicans groaning when Adam Schiff or when Jerry Nadler took a shot of sorts against Alan Dershowitz, the President's attorney saying that all scholars except for Dershowitz agree with the assessment about what constitutes impeachment. So both sides though are more engaged than they have been in recent days here, Erin.
[Burnett:] Which is important. I guess, when they're hearing their own names read out in questions, that would get you even more engaged, I suppose. All right. Manu, thank you very much. But indeed, there have been some really crucial questions and going to be many more tonight. I want to go now to Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana. Senator, what's your take from today? Did you find it helpful?
[Sen. Jon Tester:] Oh, absolutely. No, I think today was good for me as the very first day when they basically laid out the arguments during the amendment procedure, because that was all really important information and it was new to me, the information. And I think what we've seen today with the five minutes on each side is we've been able to them really kind of debate one another much easier because remember, and you guys saw this, the prosecution, the House managers use 20 hours. The defense used the block of time less than that, but nonetheless a long block of time too. And I will tell you that there was no interaction. We're just kind of like sitting in a college class and you were just getting information, getting information, getting information and taking notes, which I did. But now we're getting more exchange between the two sides and I think it's a lot more fun.
[Burnett:] Yes. Well, it certainly has seemed that way. I just wanted to as you know, Alan Dershowitz, one of the President's lawyers has been making the case that you need a crime, a statutory crime to impeach a president, that that's required. Now, just a few moments ago, just before the dinner break that you're in right now, Senator, he stood up and seem to acknowledge that many constitutional scholars are finding that argument about a crime hard to stomach. And he said something that I wanted to play for you. Here he is, Senator.
[Alan Dershowitz, Member Of Trump's Defense Team:] I read you the list of 40 American presidents who have been accused of abuse of power. Should every one of them be impeached? Should every one of them have been removed from office? It's too vague a term. Reject my argument about crime. Reject it if you choose to. Do not reject my argument that abuse of power would destroy the impeachment criteria of the Constitution and turn it in the words of one of the senators of the Johnson trial to make every president, every member of the Senate, every member of Congress be able to define itself from within their own bosom.
[Burnett:] Senator, so that argument is he sort of after making a passionate argument about crime saying reject it, I don't care. Throw it out if you don't want it. But if your standards is abuse of power, every single president would be impeached. Do you find that argument compelling at all?
[Tester:] No, because you got to look at the evidence behind that abuse of power from those situations and we haven't done that. We're dealing with what President Trump has allegedly done and we're looking at the information, the concealment of information and the impacts on political opponents and U.S. citizens being investigated by a foreign country. I don't need to go through the charges again. But I don't think you can flatly just say we're not going to consider it unless you know the information behind it and I think that's really what's important. Look, I didn't teach at Harvard and I am not a lawyer, but the bottom line is if you think about this from a common sense standpoint, if somebody abused power and asked a foreign government to come in and that's proven to be true, that's a very serious charge.
[Burnett:] So the big focus is on witnesses and that vote and, obviously, Cory Gardner now saying that he will not vote for witnesses, which as we all know puts a lot of spotlight on senators like Lamar Alexander. Your colleague Democratic Senator Joe Manchin today said he is open to Hunter Biden testifying, obviously, in exchange possibly for, who knows, John Bolton, who knows it might be. But that position, Hunter Biden is OK, puts him at odds with many of your Democratic colleagues. What about you, Senator Tester, would you be OK with Hunter Biden testifying if that's what it takes to get witnesses at all?
[Tester:] So that's a great question, Erin. And I will tell you that I think it all deals with relevancy. And the relevant issue is were they there when the President made the alleged decision to withhold aid and the reasons that were done. Like John Bolton has already said, like Mick Mulvaney knows and Pompeo knows, I think it would be good to get those folks with firsthand information in, swear them in, because I think it's a different world once you're sworn in than just talking to Erin Burnett and get the information out there. Plus, get the documents that are out there. I'm going to tell you and it's part of what has frustrated me with this is that there's plenty of information out there, a vote to convict and a vote to acquit. But the bottom line is why not get as much as you can and so it takes us another couple of weeks. I've seen so much time wasted in the United States Senate on this important issue and impeachment is a very solemn, important issue. We ought to take the time to find out what the facts are.
[Burnett:] All right. Senator, I appreciate your time.
[Tester:] Thank you, Erin.
[Burnett:] And an important point is willing to wait two weeks and there's been plenty of times. The Senate may not have spent its time so well. Let's go straight to our panel, Laura, did this move the needle on witnesses, such that we've seen so far today, as Senator Tester, I think, is rightly pointing out. There's a lot more back and forth, especially as the day went on. You'd see Jay Sekulow and then Adam Schiff sort of back to back responding to a question.
[Laura Coates, Cnn Legal Analyst:] It was far more engaging and it gave you an idea of figuring out what the audience and the senators actually thinking, where they moved by previous things, questions can be very telling about what they were actually thinking. Were you preaching to a choir or do you have a chance to convert someone. You saw that in terms of moving the needle for our understanding of what was important. However, there was a very compelling one, two punch that I think would be the most persuasive. It was the combination of Philbin and Dershowitz essentially saying, number one, you don't want to get inside of the head of the President of the United States about mixed messaging, mixed motivation. It's the 52-48 in favor of himself and somebody else. And why? Because each one of you at some point has had a calculus about what the electoral consequences will be for your decisions. Be cautious how you vote, this might be you. Now that might not be the best legal argument to make, but for people who already have a self fulfilling prophecy sort of want to be status, that may compel them to give a lifeline.
[Burnett:] So Ryan, Alan Dershowitz, I just played his whole, OK, forget what I said about a crime but abuse of power is too vague of a term. He had, arguably, even before that moment, the moment of the day, that sort of had people going, wait, what did he just say, what does this mean. Let me play it for you.
[Dershowitz:] Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right, your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest. That cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
[Burnett:] I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I can't believe Alan Dershowitz would take that seriously if you heard that from someone else. I mean, the translation is do whatever you need to do to win office. If you think you're the best person for that office, it's OK.
[Ryan Goodman, Co-editor-in-chief, Just Security:] That's right. And Senator Tester said that he hadn't taught at Harvard and he's not a lawyer. I actually have taught at Harvard with Alan and I am a lawyer and I've never heard that argument in my life.
[Burnett:] And so your informed opinion as oppose to mine and Senator Tester is...
[Goodman:] That's right. It's the most absurd theory I've ever heard. It, in fact, describes the paradigmatic crime and it says that's not criminal, it's actually in the interest of the individual to win reelection by engaging in a corrupt quid pro quo because that's what they're really after, it's just trying to win reelection. In fact, the remarkable thing speaking to the audience of senators is the senators have rules for themselves, which actually says ethically they cannot engage in these kinds of corrupt quid pro quos. And if they do, they could be expelled from the Senate. So they understand that the message that he's actually conveying there is beyond counterintuitive. I don't know anybody who would support that proposition.
[Burnett:] What did you make when you heard that? I mean, everybody did respond to that sort of saying, wait, what did he say.
[Joe Lockhart, Cnn Political Commentator:] Yes. I mean, having to work in about a dozen campaigns, there is always the sense that, boy, if we win, it's better for the country. But that doesn't give you a license to commit crimes or to do things that are unethical, so it was absurd. And what I thought when I was watching it was this is unAmerican. This is what you hear from Stalin. This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authority and from Hitler, from all of the authoritarian people who rationalized and in some cases, genocide, based on what was in the public interest. It was startling and I still can't believe he went on the floor of the Senate and made that argument.
[Burnett:] I mean, Scott, you have that moment, then you had questions coming in and one interesting thing about questions for people who weren't watching all day, some of them came from pairs or groups of senators, so that they sort of teamed up. Maybe to make a point, we all share this interest. So a couple of groupings, Murkowski, Collins, Romney and Murkowski and Collins. So they clearly are saying, look, we see a lot of things the same way. It's not just all you guys saying that. It's true and we're deeply considering witnesses. So our reporter in the room noted that senators visibly perked up when the question came later in the day from Murkowski and Collins. Everybody wanted to hear what it was that they had to ask to say and this particular question was whether the President had ever expressed concerns specifically about corruption, more broadly in Ukraine before Zelensky took office. That was the question. What are GOP senators reading into the questions when they hear that?
[Scott Jennings, Former Senior Adviser To Mitch Mcconnell:] Well, I think broadly the question about who is prepared to vote for witnesses is what people are looking for here.
[Burnett:] Yes.
[Jennings:] And it strikes me that Romney and Collins have pretty clearly signaled where they are. Cory Gardner from Colorado came out today and said he opposes it.
[Burnett:] Yes.
[Jennings:] And so it strikes me that the sort of the locking in right now is on Murkowski and perhaps Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. So I think the broad strategic question is which groups of senators are still thinking about doing questions on Friday. I still think based on what I've heard, it's still too early to predict how that's going to go. But to me that's right where it is. By the way, Erin, if I may.
[Burnett:] Yes.
[Jennings:] I just have to respond to something that my friend, Joe, said and I'm not there to elbow him in the ribs. I don't think it's appropriate, frankly, to compare the President of the United States to Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and people who commit genocide. I mean we can have political arguments about this, but I don't think anything that this President has done, that the Democrats have done, that either of their leaving teams have done rises to the level of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini and people who commit genocide. I think that's to me is not a proper comparison, honestly.
[Lockhart:] And that is not the comparison I made. I did not compare the President. I said that argument, that rationalization is exactly the rationalization that these authoritarian dictators made, which is we will do these things, because yes, they're in my interest, but it's in the public interest. So, again, I learned long ago not to disparage people without the receipts. So Scott is right, you shouldn't compare the President to those people. But I didn't. I compare the argument and what's shocking about it is that Alan Dershowitz made it on the floor of the Senate. And I, again, if I had inadvertently said, compared Trump to any of those people, Scott, I would say I got it wrong and I apologize. I didn't get this wrong, because it is that argument that's so dangerous that you can commit any act as long as in head you believe it's good for the country...
[Burnett:] As long as the end justify the means, then you're there.
[Lockhart:] ... our political system would literally break down, because you would have 535 lawless people all using the argument that I'm good for my constituents, so I'm going to go, or a president saying, I'm running against this or this guy is blocking my legislation, I'm going to get the IRS to audit their taxes, because this legislation is good for the country.
[Burnett:] All right.
[Lockhart:] We can't have that.
[Burnett:] All of you stay with me please. We are waiting the Senate to return from that crucial dinner break. And now at this hour, there's a major battle erupting between the White House and John Bolton literally unfolding here. A comment coming just from John Bolton a moment ago escalating a war of words today. We'll be right back.