Sen Chris Coons (D-DE) Was Interviewed About What He Ask to President Trump's Defense Team During the Impeachment Hearing; Vote on Witnesses Hangs on a Thin Thread; Witness Vote Likely to Fail After Sen. Lamar Alexander Shares His Decision on Witness Vote.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): What is striking to me, first, is the answers that we got to a question that was asked early this evening, which was, and this was a question I asked, if the president were to call witnesses which of his witnesses would testify directly to what the president said, what the president did around withholding aid from Ukraine that might exonerate him. The answer of course, was to change the subject and to talk about folks who couldn't directly testify to what the president did. Because, frankly, I think there are no witnesses who the administration can put on who will give foreign testimony to clear the president or they would have done that. It's striking. And so, instead, what the White House counsel repeated again tonight was a defense that said, even if everything argued by the House is true you can't impeach the president. That's a stunning position to take, a suggestion that it really is OK for the President of the United States to seek foreign interference in an election for his partisan political benefit. And I frankly think when Russia and China hear things like that what they're hearing is an invitation to interfere in our upcoming election.</s>ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It does -- I mean, set a precedent, it seems, that whether it's future presidents or even this president could then continue -- could continue to do. Actually, I'm sorry. Manu -- I've got to run, got to Manu Raju for a second. Manu, what are you hearing?</s>MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We got this statement from Lamar Alexander and he is a no. That means that he is going to vote against moving forward on witnesses and documents, and that could mean the swift end to the president's impeachment trial. He says this, I'll read you the statement that just came out. "I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and more witnesses but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense. The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides, that the people should make the decision in a presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with the consent of the governed not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide." So, he makes very clear I am a -- I work with -- he says, I -- there's no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and does not meet the high bar for the Constitutions for impeachable offense under the Constitution. So, what does that mean here, Anderson? That means that the votes are simply not there at the moment to move forward on impeachment documents, and probably will not be there tomorrow, assuming there's nothing that happens to break a potential tie-breaking vote if it does come to that. Because looking at the math here, there are 53 Republicans, 47 Democrats. Two Republicans are expected to vote for moving ahead. They need -- Lamar Alexander is a no. So, the only person who -- there is still a question about is Lisa Murkowski. And if it's 50/50, she votes to decide to vote with the Democrats, does the chief justice vote to break a tie. Expectation here is that's not going to happen which means that if he doesn't break a tie and she's a no, even if she votes for it that means that the president's impeachment trial could be over as soon as tomorrow night, Anderson.</s>COOPER: Yes. Manu, thank you. We'll come back to you. I want to go back Senator Coons. Senator, what do you -- what's your reaction?</s>COONS: Well, Anderson, I'm very disappointed to hear that. I have served with Senator Alexander for a decade and on many occasions have known him to be a thoughtful and seasoned senator. I disagree strongly with his conclusion tonight. But let me simply say this, and I'll say it to him when I get a chance tomorrow. If the conclusion he's reached is that what the president did was inappropriate, but that the people should decide in the upcoming election, the very least we should do is to make sure that the next election is a free and fair election, without foreign interference. And I frankly think if the American people are to make up their minds in this next election about whether or not to reelect President Donald Trump, they should know the facts. Getting John Bolton to testify was frankly an exercise in making sure the American people got to hear directly from someone who was in the White House and knew what the president had directed be done. If I hear what you just conveyed about Senator Alexander's statement, he essentially said that the House case has been proven, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. And I hope everyone will reflect on what that means. Because what the House charged President Trump with was inappropriately using the powers of his office for his own partisan political advantage to try and coerce another country, Ukraine, into ginning up a fake investigation into his chief political rival. That's really a pretty stunning admission, and a striking thing to say it doesn't reach the level of impeachment. If all of us can agree that we want our elections to be free and fair then there are bills that Majority Leader McConnell has refused to bring up for a vote that would strengthen our election system and that would make it clear that it is illegal for foreign powers to interfere in our election and for candidates to seek and accept it. We could do more to make sure our next election is free and fair. And Anderson, I just can't tell you how disappointed I am this evening to hear that announcement from my colleague Lamar Alexander.</s>COOPER: And is it your understanding, as well, that now that Alexander is a no, if Senator Murkowski is a yes, and then it would be a tie, 50/50, the chief justice could break that tie, but --</s>COONS: He could.</s>COOPER: But chances are he would not if he's sort of going on the Rehnquist model. Is it your understanding then that it would just then --</s>COONS: There is --</s>COOPER: -- then the move, then it would be over, it would die there, because --</s>COONS: Correct. Anderson, there is a precedent from the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson where the chief justice broke a tie twice. This was Chief Justice Chase. He broke a tie twice. And then there was a vote by the full Senate to invalidate the asserted power of the chief justice to break a tie. That vote failed. And so, the precedent is there, where a chief justice can rule, break a tie in a way that then has a significant impact on the trial. So, there is precedent if the chief justice should choose to rely on it. I can't predict how he might act in this case. We know the chief justice is quite concerned about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, how it's viewed in history. And my hope would be that he, given that view, would side on openness, and witnesses, and making sure the American people know what happened in this case. But obviously we'll get a chance to see the outcome of tomorrow.</s>COOPER: Assuming this goes in the direction that certainly it's looking like it's going now based on Lamar Alexander's vote, is there anything to indicate to you that President Trump would not do this again, if this is OK with Republican senators --</s>COONS: Yes.</s>COOPER: -- to have foreign interference in an election, or to have the request made by the president of the United States for foreign interference against his political opponents, is there anything to stop him from doing it again?</s>COONS: No, and that's the whole concern here is that impeachment is the ultimate constitutionally directed remedy for the Senate. There was some back and forth tonight on the floor with the House managers and White House counsel about what else could we do to constrain this president and they were suggesting some of the other powers of the Senate to hold up nominees, or to vote against his appropriations priorities. And Adam Schiff, the House manager, sort of -- I won't say he mocked that suggestion but he'll say that's a pretty thin read on which to stand in the face of a president newly emboldened and without any guardrails. I'll remind you, Anderson, one of the striking things about the alleged facts here is that it was literally the day after Bob Mueller, special counsel Mueller came and testified that this call with President Zelensky of Ukraine happened in which President Trump said do me a favor, though. So, my concern, the concern of many of my colleagues, is that President Trump will stand before us next Tuesday night in his state of the union, declare himself fully exonerated and promptly begin engaging in more inappropriate actions inviting foreign interference in our upcoming election.</s>COOPER: You think he will?</s>COONS: I certainly hope not, but there's nothing to suggest that he will feel constrained, in fact, as I'm sure you well remember it was in the middle of the 2016 campaign that he publicly invited Russia to interfere by searching for his opponent's e-mails. The later Mueller investigation, and intelligence community work concluded that it was literally exactly that day that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, began hacking into former Secretary Clinton's server. And in the middle of this impeachment inquiry President Trump went out on the front driveway of the White House and invited China to join in trying to dig up dirt on his leading rival for the presidential campaign here in 2020. So, I don't think President Trump will be restrained in any way going forward if the outcome in the next few days is as you were suggesting.</s>COOPER: If he went onto the front lawn of the White House tomorrow and said, again, you know, Ukraine, if you're listening, I'd still like you to, you know, announce an investigation, and China you too, and Bosnia and, you know, Serbia, and anybody else he wants, would -- I mean, do you think he'd here a peep from any Republican senators other than Mitt Romney or Susan Collins?</s>COONS: Anderson, that is -- that is exactly the burden on my Republican colleagues, if they are saying that they cannot move forward to even listen to witnesses, to even request documents, that they can't say or do anything to restrain this president then the burden is on them to take action, to be responsible, to act like senators to show that they have the best interest of our country at heart and to push back on an unrestrained and unconventional president. Look, it was Donald Trump who as candidate said I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone dead and get away with it. Sadly, predictions of his unrestrained behavior from his campaign are coming true. And while I understand some of my Republican colleagues may like the results of his policies, or may agree with some of his initiatives you certainly can't think it's good for the American people or standing in the world or rule of law to have a president who in such brazen ways just thumbs his nose at our Constitution and at the way that we all should conduct ourselves in public life.</s>COOPER: And it seems he has legal cover, at least from Professor Dershowitz as long as he personally believes --</s>COONS: Yes.</s>COOPER: -- it's in public interest that he gets reelected and that there's a -- you know, that he believes it's good for the country and even if it's good for him in the mix, as long as it's a mix of rationales of motives, then that's not impeachable.</s>COONS: That was the jaw dropping argument made by Professor Dershowitz last night and then ultimately repeated by White House counsel tonight in response to questions, was that you cannot impeach a president for doing something where there are mixed motives and some of his motives are to advance the public good even if that's just true his own reelection. That is a wide-open invitation to interference in our election, to playing dirty politics and to further rigging the system of the upcoming election. I'm gravely concerned about what this means and that there was a serious assertion of that as a standard of conduct for our president.</s>COOPER: Senator Coons, I appreciate your time, thank you.</s>COONS: Thank you.</s>COOPER: Back with our legal and political team. I want to read this key line again from Senator Lamar Alexander's statement tonight saying he'll vote no on witnesses. Quote, "I work with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses but there's no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States' Constitution -- the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense. The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate," unquote. Let's get reaction from the panel. It does seem, and Senator Coons seemed to believe that says that Alexander believes that the argument that the Democrats are making was proven. It's just not impeachable.</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's what it says. It's a little baffling. I have to say there are a lot of negatives in there and -- I mean, it's not a crystal-clear sentence. The only thing that's clear is that he's not voting for witnesses and that he thinks the president's behavior is inappropriate so he doesn't agree with the president that this was the perfect phone call and that his behavior was perfect. But, I mean, let's be clear, this means that this trial was a sham.</s>JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That's right.</s>TOOBIN: This trial was not a trial in any meaningful sense of the word. There is -- we know relevant evidence out there in the world. There are documents. There are e-mails. There are texts. And there are witnesses. Which could shine very clear light on what went here -- what went on here and the Senate says we're not interested. That's a disgrace.</s>COOPER: John Dean?</s>DEAN: This was not a profile in courage by Lamar. And I'm a little surprised. Not totally. But I keep thinking this will be the most significant vote he makes in his career and is one of the last votes he'll make. And I -- obviously he's not standing for reelection. He's standing down. I think this is kind of a sad end note for his career.</s>MIKE SHIELDS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: OK. So, you disagree with him but why is it that a profile in courage --</s>DEAN: Because I'm --</s>SHIELDS: Do you disagree with him?</s>DEAN: No, no, no. I think if he --</s>SHIELDS: He's not -- hang on, he's not standing for reelection.</s>DEAN: That's right.</s>SHIELDS: He's not a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter, he's been a long-time public servant, he was the governor of Tennessee, he was the education secretary under Bush 41, he worked with you in the White House prior to that. And he just gave you a very principled statement saying I disagree with the president's behavior. He has no political reason to do anything other than his conscience. And you don't think that's a vote of courage. And he's going to be criticized by people on this station and all over the media. I think it's a huge vote of -- stand of courage on his part. He's going to get eviscerated by people like you.</s>TOOBIN: But is it right? I mean, you may be right on the issue of courage. I'm just talking about on the merits. Is it the right decision?</s>SHIELDS: I think it reflects what a lot of Americans believe. And it certainly reflects what a lot of Senate Republicans believe. Which is this may have been inappropriate had this -- had the Democrats not overreached and perhaps brought censure is a vote to the Senate, maybe we would have voted for this. They went too far and tried to remove him in an election year. It doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. That's a principled thing for him to say. You may disagree with it but it's a principled thing for him to say and it's the view that a lot of Americans also hold.</s>KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: They would not --</s>COOPER: Kirsten, do you believe they would have voted for censure?</s>POWERS: They would not have voted for censures. So, let's not sit here and pretend like --</s>SHIELDS: They would have gotten more bipartisan.</s>POWERS: They would never have voted for censure. There's absolutely no way. Now I don't know whether you can call it a profile in courage or not a profile in courage, but let's also not pretend because somebody leaves office that they don't have a life in Republican politics afterwards. OK. So, everybody has calculations that they make. The issue is how can you sit and not watch what we have all sat and watched and merely think that something inappropriate happened? I mean, that's just not what happened. We heard from the lawyers over and over, the president's lawyers saying there's nobody who can say that they heard this from the president suggesting that if we could hear from somebody who heard it from the president that perhaps it would be relevant. We have somebody, and they have chosen to not have that and that's what this statement is about. That -- this statement is about not wanting to hear from the person that we kept hearing we needed to hear from. So, it's not a real trial and it's not a real exoneration.</s>CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And it's a cover-up. That's what the Senate has now done. They have covered up what the president of the United States has done in his grievous action when they had the ability to find out more. And reach a bipartisan, as it were, decision if we could hear from the witnesses, if Mr. Bolton could come in and tell us, is there anything else there? No. Maybe it would be exonerating. This is a cover-up. Plain and simple. And there has been no attempt throughout this proceeding by the Republicans in this Senate of the United States, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, which we now known we now can see how deliberative it is, that we have seen now a really shameful episode in our history that's going to read down for many, many years, particularly because of the Dershowitz catechism for the cult of Trump. That is an astonishing assertion that Dershowitz made about what the president can do.</s>COOPER: Mike, I'm wondering what you think of Senator Coons saying, you know, that the president could do this again, I mean, that there's nothing to stop him, that there's no --</s>SHIELDS: One of the things that he said was it's up to my Republican colleagues to call him out. Senator Alexander called him out in that statement, he was -- it was inappropriate.</s>DEAN: Wow.</s>SHIELDS: I also think --</s>DEAN: Wow. That was vicious. Vicious.</s>SHIELDS: I also think that it is dangerous and this is just where we are in our politics. Now what the Democrats are going to say all through the election is, Donald Trump is winning, well he's obviously getting foreign influence, he's stealing the election. that's what this is being tied up. So, if he wins --</s>COOPER: Well, no. I'm just wondering --</s>SHIELDS: That is a very dangerous result of all of this if that's where the Democrats go.</s>COOPER: But my question was, would that be OK with you if he did it again tomorrow?</s>SHIELDS: No, of course. You should not have foreign interference in our elections, of course, I don't believe we should have foreign interference in our elections.</s>COOPER: But if it's not -- it's not an abuse of power --</s>POWERS: What's the punishment for it?</s>COOPER: It's not an -- I mean, what's to stop it?</s>ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Impeachment. Under normal circumstances it would be impeaching a president who engage in that kind of -- you know --</s>SHIELDS: First of all, we had a Mueller report that said that he did not collude with Russia. So, first of all, that didn't happen.</s>COOPER: Well, I didn't say that -- just on this.</s>SHIELDS: Secondly, it is debatable as to whether or not that's what happened here. I mean, and you and I have argued, we're in a different place on this. I believe that the president of the United States talking about the former sitting vice president to another country and saying we need to investigate what they may have done that is corrupt is -- who happens to be his political opponent is not something that --</s>WILLIAMS: In exchange but conditioning aid in exchange -- I mean --</s>SHIELDS: Well, look, yes.</s>WILLIAMS: But again, it's the conditioning of the act on the official election, you know. But just on a different point, I agree with Jeffrey that the statement that we just heard was a little bit of gobbledygook and it was sort of all over the place. I think the most tragic part of it is how he hinges it on the fact that it's an election year. Because if that's the case, if we now have made the choice that we can never impeach another president in an election year he can't do it ever again and he should never have done that the three times --</s>COOPER: So, what I guess -- I just don't understand. So, tomorrow Rudy Giuliani could set up an office, like two blocks from the White House, and hire Igor Fruman --</s>WILLIAMS: Yes.</s>COOPER: -- and Lev -- if he's not sent to jail, or Lev Parnas, although I think he's done with Lev Parnas, and he could start doing this -- he could start operating for the president again overseas doing stuff, and that would be fine.</s>WILLIAMS: And something we've talked about, we talked about this thing just yesterday on the show, it would be foolish for him not to because the rules now say that it is very much, number one, it's perfectly permissible behavior for a president and his stooges to engage in, and number two, even if he does it and they know he does it he cannot be impeached for it and won't be removed for it. So why not?</s>COOPER: In fact, --</s>WILLIAMS: Go ahead and invite the --</s>BERNSTEIN: This is a license.</s>WILLIAMS: Right.</s>BERNSTEIN: This is a license.</s>TOOBIN: And remember who we're talking about. I mean, we're talking about Donald Trump who never feels chastened by anything.</s>DEAN: That's right.</s>TOOBIN: And so, he will see this and I think he's probably correct, as a victory. That this -- the Democrats failed here, and, you know, I mean, you -- you're in Republican politics, do you think there is any chance on the state of the union on Tuesday he will say, as Bill Clinton did, you know, I sure screwed up but I didn't deserve to be impeached, do you think there is any chance you will see any humility?</s>COOPER: No, it's a perfect call.</s>TOOBIN: I mean --</s>SHIELDS: No, I don't.</s>TOOBIN: Yes, so?</s>SHIELDS: And I think if he did, he wouldn't be rewarded for it and that's just not -- mean, he has not gotten to where he is by doing anything other than being who he is. So, he's not going to that.</s>DEAN: I agree.</s>POWERS: But hey -- the thing is they have -- Republicans have redefined what a president is and what a president can do. Right? I mean, even the -- they've even rejected the idea that you could impeach a president for an abuse of power. So, if you can't impeach a president for abuse of power what does that mean? What does it mean? A president commits abuse of power and what? There's no remedy. I mean, that is the Republican argument.</s>SHIELDS: If a prosecutor brings -- if a prosecutor brings a case, that they're -- no they're not going to get 67 votes in the Senate. So, they teed this up. They went too far. They overreached. They contributed to this --</s>POWERS: What happens if --</s>SHIELDS: This is the interesting thing. Carl, and I respect what you were saying before about how partisan this is. It takes two to be partisan, both parties have to be partisan. Everyone has to (Inaudible). In fact, when he's acquitted it will probably be a bipartisan vote, you'll probably get a couple of Democrats. So, the most bipartisan vote in this will be his acquittal.</s>COOPER: I guess I understand your criticism of the process, and just a totally valid argument you make. I guess I'm just wondering about tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the rest of this term and, you know, and onward, clearly, you're not comfortable with the idea of the president repeating that action.</s>SHIELDS: I'm won't be comfortable with any president soliciting foreign aid if that's what they did. That is not been proven to be the case here. We have federal laws against people doing things like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. There are things that you can't do that you can be prosecuted for in the Department of Justice has people to investigate you.</s>WILLIAMS: Michael --</s>SHIELDS: Suddenly tomorrow there's a -- you know, the Trump campaign is now free to just go and break the law left right and center because of what happened tonight.</s>POWERS: But Mike --</s>WILLIAMS: Presidents have -- individuals have been impeached, federals have been impeached for showing up to work drunk. Literally the idea that now abuse of power is not the kind of thing that you can be impeached for is foolish. Dozens of --</s>COOPER: All right.</s>WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. go ahead.</s>COOPER: Let's take a quick break. There's a lot going on this late hour, including as we just mentioned, the real center figure in all of this, John Bolton. He is speaking out, that's next.