GOP Senator Susan Collins Working On Deal To Call Impeachment Witnesses
WHITFIELD: In a new interview, President Trump is defending the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top Military Commander, Qasem Soleimani. The President claims Soleimani was planning to attack four U.S. Embassies, posing an imminent threat. However, the White House is struggling to offer any proof or a clear and concise explanation on what he means exactly?</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: When you say the attacks were imminent, how imminent were they? We're talking about days, we're talking about weeks?</s>MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: If you're an American in the region days and weeks this is not something that is relevant.</s>MARK ESPER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If you're looking for imminence, you need to look no further than the days that lead up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you clarify, the attack Soleimani was planning, was it days or weeks away?</s>ROBERT O'BRIEN, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think it is more fair to say days for sure. Strong evidence and strong intelligence, unfortunately we're not going to be able to gets into source and methods at this time, but I can tell you it was very strong.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We did it because they were looking to blow up our Embassy. We also did it for other reasons that were very obvious, somebody died, one of our military people died, people were badly wounded just a week before. He was looking very seriously at our Embassies and not just the Embassy in Baghdad.</s>POMPEO: There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani, we don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where but it was real. We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on U.S. Embassies, period, full stop.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and you didn't know precisely where?</s>POMPEO: No, completely true, those are completely consistent thoughts. I don't know exactly which minute we don't know exactly which day it would have been executed.</s>TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four Embassies.</s>WHITFIELD: CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us. So Kristin, what else did the President have to say about the attack on Soleimani?</s>KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, it is not just the President, it is the administration as a whole offering these contradicting statements. You heard the President there in the interview last night saying that it was four Embassies that Soleimani had been planning to attack. But he then went on to say that it could have also been military bases it could have also just been U.S. personnel overseas. And so there are still a lot of questions here. The big focus is one of two areas. One is how imminent was the threat that Soleimani posed? And two, what exactly was the threat? Every person on both sides of the aisle agreed that Soleimani was a bad guy. No one is defending Soleimani. But the question is why did they choose to act at this time? And they still don't seem to have a consistent answer. You heard one of his officials essentially saying that it was weeks or days, the same as saying that we don't have a time line. So a lot of back and forth, more and more questions being raised particularly as to - if the threat wasn't imminent then why didn't they approve Congress, or why didn't they at least brief some of the leaders in Congress Fred.</s>WHITFIELD: Still lots of questions. All right, Kristen Holmes thank you so much. So it is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares to send over the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate next week, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine says she's working on a deal to include witnesses at the impeachment trial.</s>SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R-ME): I am working with a group of Republican Senators and our leaders to see if we can come to an agreement on some language that would be in the initial resolution setting out the parameters of the trial in the Senate that would include an opportunity for the House to call witnesses and the President's Counsel to also call witnesses.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, Democrats have submitted a list of four witnesses they would like to hear. One of them, John Bolton, the President's Former National Security Adviser, who says he will testify if subpoenaed. But the President is now saying he would likely invoke executive privilege to block that from happening.</s>LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Why not call Bolton, why not allow him to testify? This thing is bogus.</s>TRUMP: I would have no problem other than one thing. You can't be in the White House as President in the future, I'm talking about future, many future Presidents, and have a Security Adviser, anybody having to do with security and legal and other things.</s>INGRAHAM: Are you going to invoke Executive Privilege?</s>TRUMP: Well, I think you have to for the sake of the office. I would love everybody to testify. I would like Mick to testify. I like Mike Pompeo to testify. I like Rick Perry to testify. I want everybody. But there are things that you can't do from the standpoint of executive privilege. You have to maintain that. So we'll see where it all goes.</s>WHITFIELD: Julie Hirschfeld Davis is Congressional Editor for "The New York Times," and CNN Political Analyst Michael Zeldin, is a Former Federal Prosecutor and a CNN Legal Analyst. Good to see both of you. So Michael you first, can the President exert Executive Privilege against John Bolton testifying when Bolton has tweeted after leaving his position and there was testimony from diplomats that's already happened involving their conversations with him directly but perhaps not necessarily about his conversations with the President. So where's the exerting of Executive Privilege in that scenario?</s>MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So the privilege resides with the President of the United States. It is the President who asserts the privilege. Bolton cannot waive the privilege that the President possesses.</s>ZELDIN: It is a qualified privilege. It allows the President to assert privilege to not have Bolton testify as to policy advice that he received, or he gave to the President. So it is a very qualified privilege. It's not absolute. In this case, the President could say ask the certain questions that you're asking Bolton, that calls for the revelation of policy advice and I assert Executive Privilege. If they ask Bolton what's his favorite color, or what did he have for breakfast, that has nothing to do with Executive Privilege and so he would be required to answer that question.</s>WHITFIELD: Or wouldn't a question be what did you mean by a drug deal? You didn't want to be part of a drug deal. Is that fair game?</s>ZELDIN: That's right. I would think that that's fair game. That's not policy advice. If he says beware of Giuliani to Sondland or Taylor or anybody else, that's not advice to the President. So I think what you can have here is a question by question analysis as to whether the notion of this qualified Executive Privilege to protect policy advice applies complicated.</s>WHITFIELD: So I think I'm hearing from you there are conditions in which the President can exert Executive Privilege. So if John Bolton, for example is subpoenaed he really could honor the subpoena but he may have restrictions on answering some of the questions. So he could still testify.</s>ZELDIN: That's exactly right. And the President's comments that you played where he gave the interview to Fox News about the need to protect future Presidents, the thing to keep in mind of course is that all Presidents faced with similar situations, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, they all waived Executive Privilege because of the importance of having the testimony be heard by the American public. There's a bit of a sort of a false claim of need here by the President in my estimation.</s>WHITFIELD: Okay, Julie, Republican Senator Susan Collins says she's working with a small group of GOP Senators and she says in other leadership on a potential deal allowing both sides potentially to call witnesses in President Trump's trial. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he doesn't want to go that way, maybe on conditions there might be witnesses, but says he can do it without. And then you know Senator Lindsey Graham says it shouldn't even be on the table. So, has the fact that Senator Collins had this conversation or conferencing with other leadership changed things? Has the dynamic that there are reports about withheld emails, has that changed things, the fact that John Bolton says he is willing to testify, has that changed things for Mitch McConnell?</s>JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, CONGRESSIONAL EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think clearly it hasn't changed McConnell's position that Bolton says he is willing to testify or that we've seen emails that have come out since the House Impeachment Vote that would indicate that there's more information out there that might be relevant to trial. That hasn't swayed Mitch McConnell from his position that he is not ready to commit to any witnesses. But what you heard Susan Collins say yesterday was essentially the reason that he is left the door open for potential witnesses in the resolution that he is drawing up that will probably be acted on next week. It doesn't say there have to be witnesses, but it also doesn't close the door to that - Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, perhaps I've been saying you know we want to hear from people but we're willing to vote to move forward without a hard commitment to do that. What's interesting to me is how she is sort of spinning this, she is highlighting the fact that she's open to hearing from witnesses at some point, but clearly she is willing to move forward without that pledge. That's the important motivating factor for Mitch McConnell right now.</s>WHITFIELD: And then Julie, the fact that Speaker Pelosi has been holding on to these articles of impeachment for about three weeks now, may be handing them over next week, in the end, was there a real payoff for her strategy because there was an opportunity for other headlines to be made like withholding of emails that I just mentioned, John Bolton to similar and a little bit more and say okay, no yes, I am willing to testify if subpoenaed?</s>DAVIS: I think certainly you know the time that elapsed between the House vote and now her decision to send these articles over did leave room for some of those developments, and perhaps not ratchet up obviously enough pressure on Mitch McConnell to move his position, but put a lot of public focus on this issue of should this trial include new evidence and gave Democrats a chance to message to the public about why they will very likely argue that this trial is skewed in President Trump's favor unfairly because it is not going to include all of the information that they think is relevant. But I think she had reached by the end of the week the point of diminishing returns, and Democrats had started voicing some impatience to sort of get this going. It was very clear that Republicans were not going to move their position. And so I think she found the strategy, had sort of reached its logical. And that's why I think we're seeing her move forward.</s>WHITFIELD: And quickly Michael, yes or no, do you see witnesses will be called?</s>ZELDIN: I hope so. I think both for the president's sake and for the sake of the American people understanding what happened here, witness testimony would be a valuable asset.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, we'll leave it there. Michael Zeldin, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, thank you so much.</s>ZELDIN: Thank you.</s>DAVIS: Thanks, Fred.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, more danger, and damage in Puerto Rico. Another earthquake struck the island a few hours ago causing even more destruction. The latest on the race to restore power there, straight ahead.