Fmr. Rep Joe Walsh (R-IL) Says, Senators Voting Against Witnesses Are Cowards.
BLITZER: With just three days left until the Iowa caucuses, presidential candidates from both parties are making their last minute pitches to voters. Republican</s>TAPPER: The former Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh joins us now. Congressman, thanks for joining us as always. First, I want to get your reaction to Republicans saying that they are going to vote against having new witnesses, specifically we have heard from Senator Lamar Alexander that he is going to vote no. He says that the Senate doesn't need to hear any witnesses because the House impeachment managers have already basically proven their case, he said. President Trump withheld that Ukraine -- that aid for Ukraine at least in part to try to get them to conduct the investigations into the Bidens, but he says it does not rise to the level of impeachment.</s>FMR. REP. JOE WALSH (R-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hey, Jake, Wolf. Just cowardly, I mean, absolutely cowardly. I'm a Republican running for president. This is a difficult thing for me to say, but these Senate Republicans are going to pay a big price in November for what they're about to do. And they deserve to pay a big price. I mean, think about it, think about -- I don't think any of us sufficiently understand how profoundly wrong it is what they're about to do. These Senate Republicans are going to render a verdict without demanding a trial, no witnesses, no evidence, no documents. They're going to decide acquittal or removal without a trial. I mean, that's profoundly wrong. And most of your polling and most of the polling around the country knows that most of the American people know that that's wrong. And Senate Republicans are going to pay a price for that this November. It's so disappointing.</s>TAPPER: Who do you think is going to pay a price? I mean, obviously, Lamar Alexander is not running for re-election. Most Republican voters do not support impeachment. And so, I mean, obviously, Susan Collins who says she's going to vote for additional witnesses and additional documents, you're not talking about her. Mitt Romney says he's going to vote the same way. But who are you talking about?</s>WALSH: Any -- Jake, I think any Republican up for re-election this November in the United States Senate is in real trouble. And they will lose, and people like Cory Gardner and even Thom Tillis and Susan Collins. Look, I was campaigning yesterday in Iowa. I was working the line outside of Trump's rally before they went into the rally. And, yes, most of those folks in line to go listen to one of Donald Trump's lie- filled rallies, they're not going to abandon the Republican Party. But Cory Gardner and Republicans need more than just that base to win. The polling shows that 75 percent of the American people wanted witnesses, wanted evidence, wanted an actual trial. And for these Republicans to just not even ask for -- I mean, sit through John Bolton, sit through Mick Mulvaney, and then if you want to acquit the president, do it. But to not even demand a trial, the American people know that's wrong, most of them do.</s>BLITZER: I want you to listen, Congressman, to the warning that former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie aimed at Republican senators who might actually go ahead and vote for witnesses.</s>FMR. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ): You could very well see the president encouraging or creating primaries against senators that are up this year if they went and voted the other way. I can definitely see him attempting -- at least attempting to do that.</s>BLITZER: Do you agree?</s>WALSH: No. Look, Chris Christie is doing Donald Trump's bidding. Chris Christie will say whatever Donald Trump wants him to say. Wolf, Jake, I -- look, I don't recognize this Republican Party. Again, this is such a weird feeling. Because I'm a Republican challenging the sitting president, these Republican senators who -- I mean, think about this. Trump's defense team the other day pretty much said that Donald Trump can do whatever he has to do to get re-elected. The defense team said in essence that Donald Trump is a king. And tonight, Senate Republicans will go along with that. They will embrace Donald Trump as a king. That's not my Republican Party. And I think for a lot of Republicans out there, that's not our party at all. I think what the Senate Republicans are about to do is going to form a permanent split in this party.</s>TAPPER: Former Congressman Joe Walsh, coming to us from Des Moines, Iowa, thank you so much, good to see you, sir. Let's get back to Dana Bash on Capitol Hill. Dana?</s>BASH: Thank you, Jake. And I'm here with Senator Kevin Cramer from North Dakota. Thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it. Let's start with what your Republican colleague, Lamar Alexander, said very late last night in a statement. I'm going to read part of it to you. He said it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigation, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. Do you agree with him that what the president did was inappropriate?</s>SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): It was unartful, for sure. But I don't think he did anything wrong. No, I think Lamar makes an interesting point. And what I like about what Lamar is saying is he illustrates the diversity of opinion within a range that leads to the same conclusion. And I think that's the honest answer from him. I think he drew a conclusion, same conclusion I'm going to draw, but I probably don't share that harsh a view or criticism.</s>BASH: You called it unartful, but he's very harsh, saying it's not impeachable. But what -- but he says flatly that the House made its case already successfully that there was a quid pro quo.</s>CRAMER: But they didn't make a case for impeachment. And I would --</s>BASH: But just on the quid pro quo, whether it's impeachable, do you agree with that?</s>CRAMER: I don't. I don't think that -- I'm not saying there wasn't a quid pro quo, but I don't think they made it a compelling case that they could prove that it was a quid pro quo. We could argue that whether or not John Bolton would have secured that conviction or not, but, again, I think you still have the same outcome, which is part of the formula we all have to consider whether we want to extend this or not, because there are other ramifications.</s>BASH: Okay, so if you're not -- it sounds like you're not totally convinced that the House Democrats couldn't have made that argument with John Bolton. So why not hear from John Bolton then? Why not vote yes when this vote comes this afternoon?</s>CRAMER: I think there are a couple of reasons. Because contrary to what Adam Schiff may say, calling one more witness doesn't mean we're only going to have one more witness. That would be so unfair to the president and to his team to not let them call any witnesses while Adam Schiff goes on a fishing expedition in the Senate. Second of all, the ramifications of going through this and still not removing the president means the Senate doesn't work, means we don't continue with legislation, it means the divide gets wider, not narrower, and there is an election in a few months. So let's get on with the work of the people and put this behind us.</s>BASH: Let's go back again to the crux of what Senator Alexander said, which is that he thought it was inappropriate and kind of game it out. It sounds like based on what he's saying and you're sort of saying, it's okay for any president to make the ask that the president made asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and withhold aid in the meantime. So what happens when the next president does that?</s>CRAMER: That argument in a vacuum is one thing. But in a broader case, it is very different. Because, remember, the political opponent that you speak of was the vice president of the United States perhaps caught up in corruption in a very corrupt country with a son working for a very corrupt company. That's not irrelevant.</s>BASH: When you were in the House, you were the Republican leader --</s>CRAMER: We may never want to go into that. I know.</s>BASH: But, no, you didn't investigate. If it was such a big deal, the Republicans, when they had the majority, they would have investigated. It wasn't until the former vice president became a real potential opponent that --</s>CRAMER: Well, other things happened as well. There was a new -- a new leader, president of Ukraine, who ran on an anti-corruption platform, who had then now just recently won a majority in parliament. And so there wasn't a moment in an opening and an opportunity. And that gets to the argument, what was the motive of the president, and then we have to get inside of his head and we're talking about impeachment and removal.</s>BASH: So one last question. What does your gut tell you about Senator Murkowski?</s>CRAMER: Yes, you know, my gut tells me that she probably will be a no vote on more witnesses. However, you talk about Lamar Alexander and his thoughtfulness, Lisa is equally thoughtful and Susan is thoughtful, Mitt is thoughtful, and I think everybody else that have a different opinion on various things are all thoughtful. And that's why I tend not to -- especially in the situation like this, where we all have all of the information, it's not like there is an expertise in a particular committee or something with legislation, we all have all of the information. I trust the integrity of everybody who comes to the same conclusion and who comes to different conclusions.</s>BASH: Senator, thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time.</s>CRAMER: It's my pleasure, thank you.</s>BASH: Thank you. We'll take a quick break. The CNN coverage of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump will continue in a moment. Stay with us.