Pressure Builds on GOP Senators to Call Witnesses After Bolton Bombshell; Trump Team Goes After Bidens on Day 2 of Arguments
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, everybody. I'm Chris Cuomo. We have a whole new day of arguments and newer surprises. Today as a main player comes back to potentially haunt the Trump defense. Our special impeachment trial coverage continues right now. The elephant in the room. What would the Trump defense do when it comes to dealing with the obvious elements of what's in the news about Bolton and what would they do. Here's a look.</s>ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: If a president, any president, were to have done what the "Times" reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not institute impeachable offense. Let me repeat. Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.</s>CUOMO: Now, I was surprised that you heard even that from the defense. I didn't understand why they'd want to introduce Bolton at all when it's just not good for them. Now you'll hear arguments that well, they talked about Bolton, they opened the door. That a rule of evidence that doesn't apply here. This is about politics. You talk about what's good for you and you try to ignore what's bad for you. And this Bolton situation at least optically is bad. If you're one of these senators who is nervous about what to do and now you hear that someone who's being kept from you as a witness directly spoke to the president about exactly what he's being accused of. That's tough. So, now we have even more news dropping on this about what is in the manuscript from Bolton. What is it? Well, not only does Bolton suggest that he spoke directly to the president, and we don't know if he can prove that and the president says it's not true, but he also says that he went to the attorney general, Bill Barr, and said that he felt that the president was effectively granting personal favors to autocrats in different countries. Not -- this wasn't about Ukraine specifically. Turkey, China. That's what he was talking about. And he says that the attorney general was equally concerned and pointed to investigations that were going on with specific companies in foreign countries and saying he was worried that the president was exerting undue influence. How come nobody had said anything at the time? Let's bring in the A team to weigh in on this situation. Andy McCabe, I'll start with you on this. They brought up Bolton. I didn't think they would. I'm trying to combine the idea of what he means in a case in terms of legalities and what he might or might not mean in this particular theater that we're in.</s>ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: Well, Chris, in any normal case to find out on the eve of the defense presenting their case that there is another witness, a direct witness, who heard statements from the subject of the case, subject of the investigation, making incriminating statements especially in a situation like this where you had so much criticism that there isn't direct evidence, which of course we know is not true. But there's been so much criticism about the witnesses, it's all hearsay. Here you finally have a witness who is coming forth with direct information that is highly relevant to the one of the central allegations of this case. And the idea that that witness will not be heard from is ridiculous in the normal criminal case. Now as you said, this is not a normal criminal case. It is politics, it is a trial in Senate. Not in federal court. And so where this plane lands I don't think anybody knows.</s>CUOMO: Asha, what's being argued by the defense team and echoed by many Republican senators is even if this all happened and Bolton heard what he heard and Trump did what they say he did, they're not crimes. It's not impeachable. Dershowitz obviously accented that most heavily today. Your take.</s>ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: My take when I heard that, because it was appended on to the rest of his argument which is that any quid pro quo that's done with any kind of policy goal even if there's a personal benefit or there's some mixed motive, is not a crime. It's not impeachable. And my take away was then what is there to investigate with Joe Biden? Because he has the same defense. I mean, he can claim the same thing. He was working on behalf of the Obama administration. So Dershowitz actually kind of undercut everything that the other lawyers had been saying earlier in the morning. I think he threw that out there because he kind of had to address, as you said, the elephant in the room. But it actually destroyed the rest of the case they were making about why the Bidens needed to be investigated.</s>CUOMO: Jennifer, the defense -- we just talked about this before the show started -- obviously you don't bring in fact witnesses who can't know anything about the facts that you're looking at a trial. But again not that kind of trial. They want to bring in the Bidens, we hear, because well, if we can show that there's stink on the Bidens then what the president did is OK because he believed there was stink on the Bidens. We just showed you the stink on the Bidens. So the way he did it is irrelevant.</s>JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. It makes no sense at all, right? Because the issue here is why the president asked for that investigation, really he asked for the announcement. Why did he do that? Because he genuinely thought it was good for the United States or because he wanted as a personal benefit, right? Well, what is Hunter Biden going talk about? He's going to talk about what he actually did in Burisma and how much he got paid, et cetera. He doesn't know anything about what Trump was thinking or he doesn't know anything about what Trump was thinking other than what the rest of us was thinking from the evidence, right? But he doesn't have any special individual knowledge about that. So his testimony is entirely irrelevant here.</s>CUOMO: So, yes, but, if they wanted to and they vote for witnesses, and now there's going to be a process. Right? That process is entirely up to the senators, is it not? So, you know, Jennifer obviously making a very cogent argument, could be irrelevant. Right? Because the Republicans would say, no,</s>MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. And so a lot of what's going on even today is political theater. The lawyers are trying to engage in political talking points, trying to make political case for themselves, appeal to the base, make the president happy. As they're doing that, they're also trying to argue about the law. And as somebody who cares about the law my concern is the more they push their political case, the more of a mess they make about the law. And it may succeed politically, it may get the acquittal as are they will, but at the end of the day if that's what happens, the law appears to be torn in pieces at the end of the trial.</s>CUOMO: You think part of this analysis, it doesn't seem to be. But do you think the Democrats should be thinking about well, what happens if we do have witnesses? Do we change votes? What do we expose versus what we could do in the house and what happens if they get Joe Biden on the stand for four, six, eight hours, asking him about things, the chance of a mistake? The chance he says something is not true. Should that be part of the calculus?</s>GERHARDT: That is part of the calculus. Of course everybody is playing to different audiences. The Democrats are only -- or the House managers are really only playing to the senators to some extent. They're really making the most important case to the American people. And if and when Joe Biden appears, I'm not sure he will but if he shows up, he's going to understand that this is a political trial or theater for himself as well. It's not just what's happening in that room. It's how it's going to play with the American people. So Joe Biden is going to keep an eye on that as well.</s>CUOMO: All right, let's take a break. And when we come back let's discuss, well, where are we now? What difference has this made? Even the Bolton, even these big developments about what could be in his book, or should he just give an interview? Come on down, we've got plenty of time for you, Mr. Bolton. You could make your case right here whenever you want. Or can he? We'll answer these questions, next.