Skip to main content

tv   New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman  CNN  January 21, 2020 4:00am-5:01am PST

4:00 am
moment for the republican party since the ken sure of joe mccarthy. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the world. this is new day and it is a big day. this is the effective beginning of the trial of president donald j. trump and it is expected to be wildly contentious. the first order of business will be a debate over the rules proposed by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. rules that seem designed to speed the acquittal of president trump, that could come as soon as next week. rules that keep all the evidence collected by the house of representatives completely out of the trial, at least for now. rules that are decidedly not the clinton model despite the promise from mitch mcconnell to stick to the process used with bill clinton's impeachment 21 years ago. >> minority leader chuck schumer sounds furious.
4:01 am
>> the evidence is less available, the evidence is given in the wee hours of the morning and may never be produced at all. it is a cover up. it is a national disgrace. >> so schumer will offer amendments today demanding witnesses and documents and we will speak to him live in just minutes. take a look at this new cnn national poll, it shows a majority of americans including a plurality of republicans want to hear from new witnesses in the senate trial. but that's not stopping the president's lawyers and allies in the senate from trying to stop former national security adviser john bolton from testifying in public. joining us now cnn political analyst maggie haberman, a white house correspondent for "the new york times" and cnn political commentator who worked for president clinton and had a front row seat to impeachment. maggie, i want to start with what we will see today, a fight over the process which we just
4:02 am
learned from mitch mcconnell last night, a process which accelerates fast tracks this trial and could lead to an up or down vote as soon as next week. >> that's right, mitch mcconnell's goal was to get this over with quickly, possibly before the president hopefully in his mind before the president's state of the union address scheduled for february 4th at the moment. we will see if that gets done. look, there is obviously a lot of anger by democrats. there is also an acknowledgment by the white house that they don't really know how this is going to go. they have put their faith and trust in mitch mcconnell and faith and trust between this white house and the senate majority leader has not always been prevalent over the last three years, but right now they are really in mitch mcconnell's hands. they acknowledge they don't know which way this is going to go. at the moment it does not look as if democrats have enough votes among republicans to push through witnesses, but once this all starts getting argued things could change. >> paul, as a dyed in the wool democrat as you are, are you, a,
4:03 am
seething at the rules that came out last night from mitch mcconnell and, two, two other democrats feel vested by him at this point? the fate is in his hands at the moment. >> well, the truth is, no, the democrats -- the conclusion is set, the system is rigged, they are not going to remove donald trump, he is not going to be convicted, only 47 democrats, you need 67 votes to remove him. so then what's the goal? the goal for the republicans ought to be to allow the acquittal to seem as legitimate in the eyes of the american people as possible. these rules don't do that. what they do is do everything they can to keep facts and evidence out, to keep witnesses and documents out. by the way, the whole thing about the state of the union, they are wrong about that. they're wrong to be concerned about it. i worked for a president who gave the state of the union in the middle of an impeachment trial, i helped him write it, i helped him prepare it. it's great.
4:04 am
the best thing that could happen to trump is give a state of the union in the middle of this trial. >> are they similar political performance, bill clinton and donald trump. >> trump is a fine performer. >> there is no question that he does well in terms of riffing on stage, but i think that the state of the union is not where they want to have him doing that when in the heat of the impeachment trial if they can avoid it. >> managing the president it seems as if they're trying to do there. let's just throw up so you can see what these rules are. 24 hours of arguments over two days, that means that, there you go, the house managers will have two days, they could be long, long days, then you're going to get 16 hours of questions from the senators and then four hours of debate over whether or not to have witnesses. again, if you add that all up it could be over as soon as next week, maggie, but there is a little curveball and i think you noted this, let's put uppel poll
4:05 am
numbers, the cnn poll, which shows that 69% of americans want to see witnesses and a plurality of republicans say they want to see witnesses. it's not clear that the president and republicans have been winning this argument insofar as it existed over the last month. >> no, it's not and part of that, john, as you know, is because new evidence has come out. in our reporting and in other people's reporting that have shown as much as i think when the house inquiry ended the line people were hearing is we basically learned what there is to know. there's clearly a lot more to know, also the question of hearing from john bolton the former national security adviser. democrats want to hear from mick mulvaney the acting white house chief of staff. i think you have seen a public that is a little more engaged than the white house would like it to be. republicans are taking a huge gamble here. it might be a gamble that pays off, but their gamble is if they push this through by the time we get to the election when a lot
4:06 am
of senators and the president are on the ballot that voters will not have this top of mind and we'll see. >> how about the evidence, paul? i mean, the idea that everything the house did they will have to vote on whether that evidence is even going to be allowed into the official record. how can there be an official record without evidence? >> it's preposterous. in the clinton case we had ken starr who was relatively thorough guy, he interviewed window washers at the white house, painters, he interviewed a cosmo tolling gist, he interviewed ex-boyfriends. all of that came into evidence without any right for the president to object at all. it came in by rule. in this case they don't want the established evidence to come in, they don't want new evidence to come in. i'm starting to think they really don't want evidence and facts in this thing. i think it's because the evidence and the facts are not their friends. this is where nancy pelosi has been brilliant in slow walking this because it has allowed maggie and other journalists to do their job and to bring more evidence to light despite the
4:07 am
trump cover up. i think that the thing is clear from all of this is that they don't want facts, witnesses, evidence and documents in this and that is probably because they don't help the president's case. >> i think it's safe to say maggie would do her job under any circumstances. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> there is an interesting dynamic that's shifted, though, as we get ready to hear these arguments over the next few days. there is an element for the prosecution, the house managers, this is now about convincing four republicans to say they want witnesses. is it necessarily about convincing two-thirds of the senators to convict the president and i wonder if that will shape the arguments that we will hear from the house managers, maggie. >> i think it will. i mean, that is clearly what the democrats are looking at right now is trying to convince four republicans to come over to their side, the person who the white house kept its eye on was lamar alexander. based on what he said yesterday it does not sound as if he is
4:08 am
leaning toward voting against the white house is probably the best way to put it, but i do think you will see the house managers shaping their arguments today to explain why it is that they believe that there needs to be presentation of witnesses, presentation of documents, presentation of facts admitted into the record and to try to compel and to some extent give some political cover for republicans to vote with them. >> so, paul, as you sit there today and everything you've heard in the past before these rules came out from the mitt romneys of the world, susan collins, lisa murkowski, lamar alexander, do you think in the middle of this they will vote to hear from witnesses? >> i don't know. it is the most politically perilous vote for the republicans, not the vote to acquit, again, that's a foregone conclusion. if i advised these republicans i would say your greatest moment of peril if you are up for reelection is the vote on witnesses. susan collins of maine, cory gardner of colorado, thom tillis of north carolina, martha mcsally of arizona, they will have a terrible vote on
4:09 am
witnesses because 70% you saw our poll, 69% of the american people want witnesses. more republicans want them than don't want them. you really can't have a trial without witnesses and evidence. that's the moment of political peril. how they vote i don't know, but mitch mcconnell has put his most vulnerable senators in a terribly political perilous moment. >> mitch mcconnell has done one thing to the white house here, maggie, which is to say if you want a vote to dismiss the case right away, you go ahead and do it. i'm against it, but it's up to you. he is in a way challenging the house -- the president's impeachment defenders to do this, but it's all on them. >> to some extent i think that's right. i think that there was a limit to the load that mcconnell was going to carry and i think that it did not include this vote to dismiss. he has said it repeatedly, mcconnell, to the president, to white house staff that is not possible. the president has continued to want that. we have seen the president tweet
4:10 am
about this. the president according to everyone i talk to goes back and forth between wanting this to be over fast, wanting to see witnesses. he is incredibly uncomfortable being in the middle of this and no matter how many times people say he is in a great mood, he is fine, it's all okay, it's not really okay. so i think you are going to up until the time it is over continue to hear some pressure from the white house on mcconnell to make that happen and i don't expect it will. >> the "washington post," paul, has reporting that behind the scenes at the white house or maybe in mitch mcconnell's orbit they are scrambling for what happens if john bolton does get called. it turns out they might not really want john bolton to reveal much because one of the possible contingency plans is to make it a classified setting. >> it's astonishing. they really will do anything. rachael bade posed the question that they may sue bolton to keep him from testifying. they may put him in a classified
4:11 am
setting. they are doing everything they can to keep bolton and others, mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff who used to run the budget office and a couple of others from testifying. there is a reason for that. i don't think i've ever seen a case before where every new piece of evidence seems to be damning. if the president did nothing wrong, they wouldn't fear this evidence. it's pretty simple in this case. the reason they don't want evidence is because the evidence is going to harm them. >> paul, we have a new poll which shows the president's approval rating is at 43%. i think this is the kind of thing you keep in your head. what was president clinton's approval rating during the impeachment trial? >> 71. >> but did it start at 71, paul? did it improve over the course of the impeachment trial? >> it did. as the house impeached clinton he went up. he was in the 60s, the economy is strong, the economy is strong now. he was in the 60s. when the house voted to impeach him the american people did not
4:12 am
approve of clinton having an affair and lying about it, but they thought the impeachment trial was very partisan. his approval rating went way up into the 70s. if i worked for strong you have a strong economy, partisan impeachment that drives clinton to 71, strong economy, partisan impeachment trump hasn't moved an inch, he is at 43, hasn't gone up a point. i think they are in real trouble in the white house. >> maggie, what do they think inside? >> they think that the president is going to be able to win reelection based on who he has with him and that he will be able to get a scrap of the electorate with him, enough to win. it is not going to be the type of victory that paul is describing. paul would know better than me but i have never seen a sitting president who only focuses on his base and that is what this president has done and they have left themselves with extremely little time, nine months, to try to build on that through plans the president at davos just announced a tree planting initiative. that's not going to be enough to
4:13 am
undo years of saying that climate change is a hoax, which he has said over and over again. he has done little in terms of health care despite his claims on twitter other than try to undue the parameters of the affordable care act. they are taking a gamble they will be able to take what he has and with the economy plus whoever the rival is he can win. it will not be a pretty victory if he wins, but it could be a win. >> there's always infrastructure week. >> yeah, that's coming up. >> just saying. >> that is coming up. paul, maggie, thank you both very much. coming up here in just minutes, we will speak with senate minority leader chuck schumer about the battle for these new rules just announced by mitch mcconnell. how is he feeling this morning? so the impeachment trial of the president begins today. this is just the third time this has happened in u.s. history, not the three you're seeing on the screen right there. richard nixon there was no trial, andrew johnson, bill clinton, now donald j. trump.
4:14 am
how does this compare to others? we will discuss next. can get in the way.things like unnecessary fees and hidden costs. but when you open a new fidelity account, you'll pay zero fees and no minimums. so there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. you'll pay zero fees and no minimums. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters costa rica paraíso. meet sergio. and his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica is spectacular. so we support farmers who use natural compost. to help keep the soil healthy. and the coffee delicious. for future generations. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee roasters. i feelbusiness logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. now, get free 1 hour in-store pick up... office depot officemax and same time next week. yes!
4:15 am
4:16 am
♪ robin hood and little john runnin' through the forest ♪ ♪ laughin' back and forth at what the other'ne has to say ♪ there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at
4:17 am
4:18 am
all eyes on capitol hill as the trial of president donald j. trump gets under way in the u.s. senate. joining us now is cnn presidential historian jeffrey engel the co-author of "impeachment in american history." thank you so much for being with us. we talked a lot about how the structure and rules of this trial differ from past impeachments and we will get to that in a second. you look at this and say the very nature of the question that these senators are being called to rule on, the very issues at hand are wildly different than we've seen before. how so? >> well, for one thing this is the first time we're seeing a case where the president is really being impeached for something that the founders feared. you know, andrew johnson's case in 1860s that was really a case where if johnson with as remarkably unpopular but also coming close to the end of his time in office and there was no sense that his policies were going to contine or that he was damaging the union in some way. same with bill clinton.
4:19 am
everyone knew that bill clinton was guilty, the question was simply whether or not lying before a jury over an affair was something that was dangerous to the people. which of course it was really the critical element of a high crime. it's not a crime in the regular sense, it's a crime against the american people. against the body politic. this that donald trump is being accused of is exactly the kind of nation harming crime, nation harming act that essentially the founders were explicitly concerned about. >> it's interesting you say this because one of the foundations of the defense from the president and his team is that no crime, they say, was committed. so this whole thing is invalid. >> well, obviously the general accounting office would disagree with the idea that no crime had been committed but more importantly it reaches to a fundamental philosophical point that must be understood flat question that senators are going to engage in is not whether or not something on the books happened. i mean, the president can do all kinds of things that are not
4:20 am
necessarily on the legal books because frankly a president can be creative and come up with things that have never been thought of before to be put into those books. the real question is whether or not a president going forward is going to be dangerous or harmful to the american people. we don't care in a sense if the presidentity committed a crime and needs to be pun in i wished for that crime. the constitution says that other courts will deal with punishments for crime. the question the senate is engaged in is has the president demonstrated a proclivity for doing dangerous things going forward. has a high crime been committed, something which can only be judged by how a person holds the tenure of their office. >> now, it is interesting. you note or you take issue with one of the common phrases that a lot of people on tv use to describe the role of the senate here. the senate you say not 100 jurors, it's not just you who says this, but the late chief justice of the united states william rehnquist also says it.
4:21 am
>> the chairman is of the view that the senator from iowa's objection is well taken. that the senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case. and, therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors. >> so if they should refrain from saying it in the house we should refrain from saying it here. what's the effective difference of being jurors or the court itself? >> it's a critical difference, justice rehnquist in 1999 was responding to a motion from senator tom harken asking to be called a court rather than jurors and his argument was simple and profound. it was that jurors are typically just deciding whether or not something did or did not happen, they are talking about innocence or guilt. and they have to follow the judge's instructions including listening only to the evidence presented at the trial to determine that analog question, guilty or innocent. here the senate is not a jury it is a court which is to say they are able to take in any information they want, use any evidence no matter the source
4:22 am
and their job is not to determine guilt or innocence, that's for another court to decide afterwards if a crime has been committed, their job is to determine whether or not the nation is best suited, will go forward the best by having this man continue as president. it's a question of judgment though they are not judges, judgment and experience is required to determine the future of the country with this vote. >> it's up to them to doo he side any evidence or in this case it turns out no evidence will be included in the process. and that gets to what we've been discussing today, these rules proposed by mitch mcconnell. mcconnell had promised the clinton rules for the impeachment trial. these aren't the clinton rules at all. first of all, there is the time frame, he's trying to get this done very quickly with marathon days but second of all the entire body of evidence produced by the house of representatives not submitted, no the part of this trial at least not now. what's the effect of this these differences as far as you see it? >> the effect on the trial should be purely political, that
4:23 am
is to say because senators are a court, they are allowed to use their judgment, they are allowed to use any evidence no matter where it comes from, democrats if they wish could refer in their own minds to the mueller report, the emoluments difficulties the president has had. really the question is for what's in the trial is what the american people see, what the official record says. frankly i think this is going to be a problem for senator mcconnell going forward that he may, in fact, want the american people not to hear about the trials but the only thing they are going to remember in many ways is that they didn't hear about the trials, there were people who had material evidence that didn't present. that's something we have never seen before at an impeachment case. we have only had three cases but this is the first time we have had the administration actively trying to halt information from coming out during the trial. information that could exonerate them, but probably won't. >> professor engel, thanks for the history lesson. appreciate it. >> good to talk to you. four of the senate jurors in president trump's impeachment
4:24 am
trial are also running for president. how will that impact this final stretch to iowa? t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning.
4:25 am
t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. dealing with our finances really haunted me.ttle cranky. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business.
4:26 am
(live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. quitting smoking is freaking, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette because the tempur-breeze™makes stransfers heat. away from your body. so you feel cool, night after night. and now tempur-pedic is ranked number one by jd power in customer satisfaction with retail mattresses.
4:27 am
4:28 am
13 days away from the iowa caucuses and senator bernie sanders is apologizing for the actions of one of his supporters. a surrogate. this time it's an op-ed accusing joe biden of having a, quote, big corruption problem. sanders is one of the four presidential candidates that are off the campaign trail today while listening to president trump's impeachment trial. joining us now is cnn political reporter arlette saenz, live in des moines, iowa with more. let's start there with senator bernie sanders apologizing, i think we have that. let's listen to what he says. >> joe biden is a friend of mine, i have known him for many, many years. he is a very decent guy. joe and i have strong disagreements on a number of issues and we will argue those disagreements out, but it is absolutely not my view that joe is corrupt in any way and i'm
4:29 am
sorry that that op-ed appeared. >> so that's not the first time that he has apologized for something that a surrogate has done. are his surrogates going rogue or is this somehow couldn't nanced by the campaign? what's the latest thinking on the ground? >> reporter: certainly some of the criticisms that bernie sanders is trying to lob against joe biden they have been overshadowed by some of these errors by surrogates or things promoted by his campaign team. you have this op-ed written about i one of his long time supporters, someone who has been out on the trail, suggesting that joe biden has a corruption problem. bernie sanders quickly coming out to apologize saying that he doesn't think that's the case. but let's also think back to the weekend where you saw this debate over social security play out. joe biden called out the sanders campaign for promoting this video that took some comments from him out of context relating
4:30 am
to social security. so bernie sanders' attempt to take on joe biden when it comes to that issue of social security was in part overshadowed by the fact that they were promoting an out of context video. this is something that the sanders campaign is going to have to grapple with going forward. in fact, this morning hillary clinton there is a new interview with her from the hollywood reporter where she's quite critical of bernie sanders and the fact that oftentimes his supporters are lobbing attacks against his rivals, particularly women, and she said that that's something that people need to pay attention to, suggesting that it could be a culture that is fostered. so there are a lot of democrats who are still concerned about the way bernie sanders handles the 2016 campaign, the way he referred to hillary clinton back then and that's something that he could have to grapple with this these coming weeks before the iowa caucuses kick off. >> tell us how former vp biden and mayor pete buttigieg are making hay of being able to still be on the campaign trial while four of their competitors
4:31 am
are in washington for the impeachment trial. >> reporter: well, biden and buttigieg are certainly going to try to take advantage of the fact that they are the only ones here on the ground in that top tier of candidates over these next few days. joe biden and pete buttigieg are going to be holding events throughout iowa. for joe biden the impeachment trial also gives him another chance to reinforce that he believes president trump is most concerned about having him as the democratic nominee, but you have those four senators who are now turning their attention from the campaign trail to capitol hill. they will be logging very long hours over these coming weeks. they are going to have to get creative with their own campaigning. bernie sanders had planned an evening rally for tomorrow here in iowa, but it's unclear what these new rules and timing for the senate impeachment trial if that's going to allow him to still come here. certainly we are in the final weeks before the caucuses and one thing to remember as we're 13 days out, 60% of iowa
4:32 am
democratic caucusgoers are either not fully committed to their first candidate or they are undecided. it shows how fluid this race is and how i didn't tell cal it is to be getting that face time to try to sway iowans to caucus for them on february 3rd. >> it's interesting to look at where the polls are right now so we can compare it to where they are after the -- president trump's senate impeachment trial. at the moment in iowa, this is a monmouth poll joe biden 24%, bernie sanders 18, pete buttigieg 17, elizabeth warren 15, amy klobuchar 8% and then it drops down from there. so it will just be interesting to see if, you know, those things are shuffled afterwards. then of course, arlette, there's also the factor of the tv ad spending and those numbers in some cases are astronomical and so mike bloomberg has spent -- i mean, this is not just iowa, this is everywhere -- he has
4:33 am
spent $235 million. tom steyer also a billionaire $149 million. president trump $41 million and then it goes down from there. pete buttigieg has spent a lot. $26 million, bernie sanders 24.6. are iowans feeling all of that? >> reporter: well, i think iowans can certainly feel that the 2020 election is here. they have been pounded by these tv ads for months now. really a lot of those candidates they can't compete with that figure, $253 million that michael bloomberg has put up nationally. also it raises some questions about what is this race going to look like after those first four nominating states. bloomberg is not competing in iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina really drilling in instead on super tuesday. no candidate has successfully been able to do that, but could these ads put him over the top or give him a little bit of an edge heading into those super tuesday states which will be very critical in deciding this
4:34 am
nominating contest? here in iowa they are certainly flooded with tons of tv ads from the candidates. >> arlette saenz, thank you for being on the ground in iowa and giving us the take from there. john? the stage is set for a fierce debate today over majority leader mitch mcconnell's rules for the impeachment trial. democrats are vowing to challenge his plan. how? we will speak live with the democratic leader chuck schumer about all of it next.
4:35 am
hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? sure! get a quote in 3 minutes at that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, i'm good. reminder for what? oh. ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.
4:36 am
4:37 am
that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to to get started.
4:38 am
we first learned of president trump's pressure campaign about ukraine in september when a whistleblower came forward, the president insisted then that it was a perfect phone call. since then there have been many other defenses. john avalon joins us with a reality check. >> that's right, guys. look, presidential impeachment is a serious business so you
4:39 am
might expect the defense to be serious as well. but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case judging by two documents put forward by president trump's lawyers. they essentially represent an attempt to put trump's twitter feed and rally speeches into legalese. here is a look at five fact-free arguments you are like lie l. i to hear, one, the articles of impeachment violate the constitution. these are nonsense words and a contradiction in terms. impeachment is written into the constitution. good people can disagree with the charges, prot scess or whet it rises to the level of removal from office but it takes brass to argue that impeachment is unconstitutional. two, this he failed to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever. now, republicans seem set to ignore the recent findings from the gao after the articles were adopted that the hold on ukraine military aid did break the law. trump republicans seem to be arguing without an indictable crime impeachment is illegitimate.
4:40 am
here is alan dershowitz explaining his take on that idea back in '98. >> it certainly doesn't have to be a crime. if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty. >> which brings us to number three. abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. the white house legal brief calls it a novel theory and made up standard. that's a novel definition of novel, which the dictionary defines as new and not resembling something formerly known. abuse of power was the second aurl of impeachment drown up about i president nixon and president clinton at the recommendation of ken starr now a member of the trump legal team. let's go back to the constitutional convention and look there's randolph later the first attorney general arguing that impeachment was important because, quote, the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power. number four, obstruction is not an impeachable offense.
4:41 am
they're calling it a radical theory that would do grave damage to the separation of powers but this is not a radical idea. on stluks was core to the articles of impeachment against nixon and the supreme court weighed in in in u.s. versus nixon writing generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. of bill clinton was initially accused by ken starr of abusing his power by invoking executive privilege and lying repeated will i. >> any privilege can be revoked no matter how meritorious once thinks that is that that's a abuse. i think if privileges are invoked for the purposes of delay and have the intended effect of delay and i think that is what happened. >> and that's despite landing over reams of documents, allowing direct witnesses to testify, all things that trump white house has refused to do. and clinton even testified under oath himself. finally, number five, despite all the evidence the president did nothing wrong. that's right. president's legal team is all in
4:42 am
with his insistence of complete innocence. arguing that the call with the ukrainian president was perfectly appropriate. and just about the important issue of ukrainian corruption, now, if all of this is true you would think that the white house would be fighting to have direct witnesses exonerate the president under oath. that's not what's happened. instead the fact free strategy of deflect and project, arguing it's the democrats who are engaged in a brazen unlawful attempt to interfere with the 2020 election. and that's your reality check. >> john, thank you very much for that look. there is randolph. so the senate impeachment trial against president trump will kick off with this fiery debate over senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's rules which do seem designed to acquit the president and limit evidence that the jurors will hear. so what will the democrats do about this? joining me now is the senate minority leader chuck schumer. leader schumer, thank you very much for being with us this morning. >> good morning. >> you mentioned it last night, but your first reaction to these rules proposed by senator
4:43 am
mcconnell which condensed the arguments over to two days each and could lead to an up or down vote as soon as next week. >> look, the rules that mcconnell proposed, propose a trial that is rushed with as little evidence as possible and done in the dark of night. 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m. if the republican arguments were so strong, if president trump were so confident and mcconnell were so confidence of his arguments why do they have to do them at 2:00 in the morning? why can't they do them in the light of day. the rules he proposed are a national disgrace for this reason, impeachment is the only other power that congress -- that the constitution gives when you have an overreaching president and we know that this president has overreached more than any other president. the other of course are elections. but if you don't have a real trial that you can judge impeachment on the merits, then this democracy is eroded and mitch mcconnell will go down in mystery as one of the people
4:44 am
eroding democracy because he has gone along with president trump's cover up, hook, line and sinker. the trial doesn't even allow the evidence from the house to be entered in so they don't want old evidence but they also don't want new witnesses, in you documents so they don't want new evidence, they don't want any evidence and they're trying to just -- they are so sure, i think, in their hearts that what president trump did was very wrong and that there's a very good case against him for removal, that they're afraid of a fair trial. that's the only answer that can be given because no one when they look at what mcconnell did -- all along he said, well, let's go along with '99 but he made major changes, just the kind that donald trump hardly a person of probitiy asked for in this resolution. we're going to fight it. >> let's break this down into parts if we can. >> sure. >> one of your problems seems to be with the timing. >> yes. >> you think too much will be
4:45 am
happening late at night. >> that's what they've done. there's 24 hours, they mirrored the clinton impeachment with 24 hours for each side, but they said it has to be done in two days. just divide it in half, simple math, 12 hours, we start at 1:00, 12 hours gets us to 1:00 a.m., there will be a bathroom break, a dinner break, we will do this at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, that is an absolute disgrace. and, again, you know, it's not just chuck schumer or democrats, the american people are asking what is trump hiding? just today i think your poll showed that a majority of americans think he should be removed from office. so it's clear that the american people don't buy this theory that he did nothing wrong, everything was perfect and it's also clear that mitch mcconnell and his republican colleagues are afraid of a trial, a real trial, a fair trial with evidence. >> what does it mean that the evidence will not be part of the record? all of the evidence from the house investigation and
4:46 am
impeachment process will not be part of the senate trial record at least for now. what does that mean to you? >> well, what it means is that the basis for the house impeachment will not be in the record. and i guarantee you that republicans will then get up and say, well, we don't have any evidence, we shouldn't have witnesses and documents. because today before this awful resolution is put on the floor for a vote i will be able to make amendments and there will be amendments for witnesses, documents and to undo the worst of what they've done here. but then there's a second chance later and they have made it harder to get -- you know, despite the fact that they said, well, let's listen to the evidence. let's listen, rather, to the -- both sides make their case and then we will decide on witnesses and documents, already mcconnell has prejudged that by making it harder to get votes on witnesses and documents later. >> you said you're going to propose amendments today. let's talk about what you're going to do about this today. what amendments?
4:47 am
how many? >> well, we are working that through right now and i want to talk to my caucus, but we will require every senator to vote on whether there should be certain witnesses, whether there should be certain documents and whether we should have the kind of unfair stacked deck alice in wonderland-type proceeding that mcconnell has proposed. this he may go along with him today but when we get a second bite at the apple later and we will work very hard to do it despite what mcconnell has done it may be that two things happen, a, the weight of the american people, 64 -- close to 70% in your poll. >> 69%. >> yeah. >> 69% of the american people say they want witnesses, 48% of republicans say they want witnesses. >> that's the point, even republicans. so there is the weight of the american people, but there's one other thing, founder fathers were darn smart and the weight of the constitution, the weight of america, the weight of being part of a cover up sham trial on
4:48 am
one of the most important powers that the founding fathers gave is a check on an overreaching president. i am hopeful that's the way i would put it, that it will weigh never on mitch mcconnell's shoulders, he just does what's political and what's good for trump, but on some republicans shoulder. >> 69% of the american people want witnesses now, 0% of mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, lamar alexander want witnesses at least today. >> correct. >> today. let me read you mitt romney's statement today, he says i have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments as occurred in the clinton trial. if attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, ie today, i would oppose those efforts. you don't have the votes today, senator, correct? >> we never expected to have the votes today but we expect to be able because this awful resolution is not governing to lay a predicate for future votes
4:49 am
later. and, you know, ave great deal of respect for mitt romney. i hope he reads what mcconnell has done because it makes it harder to get witnesses and documents even later in the second phase after each side makes its arguments. >> one of the things, one of the arguments you hear from republicans and why, for instance, they don't want the evidence from the house trial or house impeachment process submitted to the record is, oh, the president didn't have due process there. this is just rewards for that. how do you respond? >> the double-talk is amazing. mitch mcconnell gets on the floor and says the house rushed it. and then he's rushing it far more than the house ever did. they say that the house didn't allow witnesses. it was the president who blocked all these witnesses. the house subpoenaed all four witnesses that we have asked for here in -- that i've asked for here in the senate. so there's so much double-talk going on and all i can think about is that the republican party is now in blind -- to
4:50 am
president trump, a person that even the american people as a majority don't think is honest, don't think is fair. founding fathers didn't >> there is an element of this with who runs this chamber. you're making some of the same arguments the republicans were making in the house which is we're not getting a fair swing at this. >> well, i think -- >> this is being run by the democrats and now when it's being run by the republicans, it's -- >> no offense, that's sort of a very superficial argument. it was the president who blocked the witnesses in the house. we want the witnesses. the right thing to do was have witnesses. and so i don't think there's any analogy at all, and i'm hopeful, as i said, the weight of the constitution, the weight of the future of the republic, because if there's not fair impeachment trials and overreaching precedent like this one or maybe god forbid future ones will overreach. that's what our democracy is -- that's what our democracy tries
4:51 am
to argue against. >> this debate today, will it be out in the public or will you or any democrats move for deliberation between the senators, where the senators can argue about this? >> we want everything to be open. we're not afraid of the truth, and we're not afraid of witnesses, documents, evidence and, you know, look. the witnesses we've asked for, they're trump's appointees. they're not our people. they're not democratic hacks. we don't know what they'll say. what they may say may be excu excullatory to trump. they might condemn trump. >> "the washington post" is reporting if there are the votes to get witnesses, that the president's defense team and the senate republicans might move to have bolton's testimony be in a classified setting behind closed doors. is that something the democrats would ever agree to? >> coverup, coverup, coverup. >> senator chuck schumer, democratic minority leader, thank you for being with us. you have a long day ahead. >> we do, but an important day,
4:52 am
and a day where we, democrats, are going to be defending the constitution. >> thank you for being with us. >> thank you. alisyn? >> we're also going to hear from one of the impeachment managers, zoe lofgren. i'm sure she was listening closely and what chuck schumer thinks is going to happen next. it's going to be a very interesting, long and intense day. also this -- there's a deadly respiratory virus, and it is spreading. dr. sanjay gupta will be here about what you need to know about symptoms and what this means for you. íso. meet sergio. and his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica is spectacular. so we support farmers who use natural compost. to help keep the soil healthy. and the coffee delicious. for future generations. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee roasters.
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
because the tempur-breeze™makes stransfers heat. away from your body. so you feel cool, night after night. and now tempur-pedic is ranked number one by jd power in customer satisfaction with retail mattresses. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. >i spend a lot of time sin my truck.y? it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
4:56 am
i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives. concern is growing this morning over an outbreak of a new sars-like virus in china. at least six have died from the wuhan coronavirus. the world health organization will hold an emergency meeting to determine if this constitutes a public health emergency. dr. sanjay gupta joins us now.
4:57 am
what can you tell us about this disease? >> you know, not even a month ago, we were talking about this as what seemed like a localized outbreak in central china. and as you point out, the numbers have changed dramatically. just over the last couple of weeks. even overnight we've been monitoring this and the numbers continue to go up. nearly 300 people have been infected. you can see the number of countries now that are affected. four countries. and that's one of the big concerns. how will this thing continue to spread. you see that there's 51 people in severe condition. 12 in critical condition. what we know, and this is one of the big points. i remember this covering the sars and mers outbreak. is this something that's just spreading from animals to humans, as it seemed to be in central china. people visiting the seafood and exotic pet markets. or is this something that's spreading from human to human? and we now have evidence that it is spreading from human to human. seems like 14 health care workers that were taking wear of
4:58 am
this patient in wuhan were affected and also people who never visited wuhan are now carrying the virus. that human to human transmission is what this public health meeting tomorrow is going to be all about. >> really scary. at least it sounds scary to the layperson. and so what's keeping public health officials up at night most? >> you know, i think immediately what you think of when you hear this coronavirus and we have an image of what this looks like. you think of sars. you remember this. i covered this 2003. you think of mers. quick microbiology. corona is the crown on the outside. you'll be able to identify this type of virus. mostly in animals. seven times. and if we ever document it, they jumped from animals to humans. only two of those times did it end up being a significant infection. sars and mers. so what's keeping public health officials up at night is, is this going to go the way of sars and mers? sars was nearly two dozen countries, 8,000 people
4:59 am
infected. 800 people died. is it going to go that way or be more of a more innocuous, gets people sick but people don't really die. we don't know yet. and that's what they're going to try and determine. look at all this data and figure that out. >> sanjay gupta, thank you very much. please keep us posted on any developments with this. thanks to our international viewers for watching. for you cnn newsroom with max foster is next. for our u.s. viewers, our special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald trump continues right now. just hours before the senate trial, mitch mcconnell unveiled the resolution detailing how the trial would take shape. >> each side gets up to 24 hours over two days to lay out their case. >> this resolution is totally departing from the clinton resolution, despite what leader mcconnell promised. >> it's a hoax. it's the witch hunt that's been going on for years. it's disgraceful. >> he wants t s a fast trial, n
5:00 am
fair trial. >> he wants to get it in before the state of the union. they're crazy. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to your "new day," tuesday, january 21st, 8:00 in the east. we begin with a defining moment in american history. the third presidential impeachment trial begins today. and there will be plenty of arguing, particularly now that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has laid out the rules that do not follow a clinton impeachment model as he had promised they would. why is he changing that precedent. today we'll begin with fiery debate over those rules only the impeachment managers from the house and the president's legal team will be involved in that. then amendments will be offered by the democratic leader chuck schumer. >> despite what mitch mcconnell promised, this is not the clinton model. this is a departure, which does seem designed to get the president acquitted by as soon as next week but also the framework. for now, not a single sed


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on