Front Burner - The fight over witness testimony at Trump’s impeachment trial

Episode Date: January 30, 2020

As early as Friday the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on whether or not witness testimony will be allowed at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. It could be a real game changer, especially in light of former national security adviser John Bolton’s new bombshell accusations against the president. Today on Front Burner, longtime CBC Washington correspondent Keith Boag explains the likelihood of testimony being heard and how it could possibly affect the outcome of the trial.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. So if you've been paying attention to the impeachment trial, you know that things have been chugging along with more or less the same expected outcome, the acquittal of Donald Trump. And so far, it's been a trial without witnesses. But that could change. Because the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post are all reporting that Mitch McConnell has told Republican senators that he does not have enough votes to block witnesses.

Sources tell NBC News that Republicans are still confident they will ultimately succeed. As early as tomorrow, the Senate will vote to decide whether testimony will be allowed at the trial, which is a pretty big deal because then we could see potentially all sorts of people hauled up to testify under oath, including Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, whose new bombshell accusations have really shaken things up. Bolton's book reportedly says that Trump told him directly he was withholding aid. Until the Ukrainian government announced investigations into Democrats and political rival Joe Biden. Keith Bogue was a longtime CBC Washington correspondent. Today, he's very kindly agreed to help us make sense of all of this.

This is Frontburner. Hi, Keith. Welcome back. Thank you for having me. So if we could start with this vote that maybe is going to take place on Friday, but it might not now, to decide whether or not witnesses will be allowed to testify at the impeachment trial. Democrats need the support of at least four Republicans to win, which at one point I know seemed quite unlikely. But earlier this week, it leaked that Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't yet have enough votes to nip this in the bud. And so what's turning the tide here? What's changed this week, essentially?

Okay, so there are two things. First is the emergence of what appears to be new and damning information in memoir by the former National Security Advisor John Bolton, as you mentioned. But the second thing is also in response to that, perhaps, or at least just in response to the overall context, public opinion is moving sharply, very sharply, in favor of having witnesses in this trial. It's in one poll at 75%, which means that even Republicans in the country believe there should be witnesses in that trial. In a new Quinnipiac poll released today, a full 49% of Republicans want to hear from witnesses in the trial. And so there are a lot of senators, particularly those in swing districts, who are going to pay closer attention to the polls than they are to what Mitch McConnell says, because it's their political futures they're putting on

the line. I want to zoom in on John Bolton in a moment. But first, why do you think public opinion is shifting? You know, I think the concept of having a trial without having witnesses or documents strikes ordinary people as odd and contrary to their understanding of the fundamental principles of justice. And that has got a lot of attention here. Democrats, of course, have underlined that heavily in all of their appearances before the media and before the Senate, in the Senate trial itself. They made no argument about why it makes sense to have a trial without witnesses. And why? Because it's indefensible. No trial in America has ever been conducted like that. Why should this president be treated differently, held to a lower

standard? And I think it's a simple concept that just rings true to a lower standard. And I think it's a simple concept that just rings true to a lot of people, that there should be witnesses and evidence in a trial. Essentially, the idea that if you've got nothing to hide, why not just hear from everybody? Or even more so, if you think that you are innocent and testimony would exonerate you, why are you blocking the testimony, say, in the documents? Okay. The question is directed to counsel for the president. The idea that the House can do an incomplete job in trying to find out what witnesses there

are, having them come testify, trying to find out the facts, just rush something through and bring it here as an impeachment, and then start trying to call all the witnesses, means that this body will end up taking over that investigatory task. Let's talk about John Bolton, because he's making lots of headlines this week, including one just a few moments ago. But you mentioned his memoir, and the New York Times reported on part of his memoir on Sunday. And essentially, Bolton is confirming directly that President Trump wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine in exchange for this investigation into the Bidens. Tell me why

this has caused such a stir. Mainly because what Bolton is alleging goes right to the heart of the issue that's led to the impeachment of Donald Trump. Trump has said that there was no quid pro quo. I say to the ambassador in response, I want nothing. I want nothing. That seems to be contradicted with smoking gun evidence by the National Security Advisor John Bolton, who says there was a quid pro quo and here's what it was. And it's exactly what people have alleged that it was. The freezing of military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favor from the president of Ukraine. Right. And this is exactly what, you know, Adam Schiff and other Democrats have been hammering.

That there was this quid pro quo, that the quid pro quo existed. It was the conditioning of official acts for something of great value to the president, these political investigations. It goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery, as well as other potential high crimes or misdemeanors. And then just a few moments ago, new information came out about John Bolton in something he told a Democrat, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Tell me about this. Yeah, Elliot Engel, a Democrat and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

says that John Bolton called him on September 23rd and raised the issue of the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Maria Yovanovitch, and said to Eliot Engel, you need to look into this. Now, that's John Bolton essentially acting as a whistleblower and tipping off his political rivals to something that he thinks is seriously wrong in the way that the White House is handling his relationship with the embassy and the ambassador in Ukraine. It's explosive. But more than that, it is, again, further evidence, just as Bolton's book was further evidence. There are things about this story that we do not know.

And that goes right to the heart of the question about whether there should be witnesses and documents in the Senate trial itself. be witnesses and documents in the Senate trial itself. It also, I think, in my mind, underlines to Republicans that they do not know the whole story of what they have committed themselves to defend yet. It's still coming out. That's interesting. That's like an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought about that. Can we talk about John Bolton for a second? I felt surprised on Sunday when I saw the New York Times piece. I always assumed John Bolton was this really fierce, loyal Republican. And so does this surprise you? Well, I think that you're right in describing a part of

his character as being fiercely loyal, but the question becomes, what is it that he's fiercely loyal to? Is it to the president, or is it to an idea and an ideology and a set of principles? And it appears to be the latter. So let's reconsider what is exactly going on between the White House in Ukraine and Russia. It's the Bolton view that Russia is the enemy and Ukraine is the ally. From the U.S. perspective, the handling of the Donbass and Crimea issues and the larger question of Russia's role in Europe and whether the use of military force on the continent of Europe post-1945 should be accepted. That's something the United States has a direct interest in. And it's Ukraine's interests that need to be protected against

Russia, not the other way around. He was serving a president who really brought that into question, who seemed to have a much more sympathetic and friendly relationship with Moscow and with President Vladimir Putin than he did with Kiev and any of the political leaders there. He seemed to be much more suspicious of them and their motives than he ever was of Russia. We're supporting a country. We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money? And that would naturally be offensive to Bolton. And I think that you might begin to see that after a certain point,

Bolton just had enough and left the White House and now is telling the story behind all of those things that happened. Bolton says he resigned. The president says he asked for Bolton's resignation. A bitter argument over the president's decision to host those Taliban leaders at Camp David. Bolton slammed the president's approach to Iran. Giving what he calls his own unvarnished view of North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Under current circumstances, he will never give up the nuclear weapons voluntarily. Okay. Donald Trump, he tweeted about this on

Tuesday night. It's very possible that he's tweeted since you and I have spoken, too. But he essentially said that Bolton is lying, right? That he's just this disgruntled former employee. As you mentioned, he left the White House not on the best terms. Can I ask you, John Bolton, you know, I know him as sort of a hawk. I don't know a ton about him. Former Chief of Staff John Kelly said earlier this week, essentially, that he believes Bolton. If Bolton says it, he says he believes him.

He says he's someone who anytime he was in the room with John Bolton and President Trump, Bolton was always someone who essentially gave the president the unvarnished truth. He says he's an honest guy. But preceding this, does Bolton have a good reputation for being like a straight shooter? He does among Republicans, not so much among Democrats. But even among Republicans, there were those who feared his ideological bent. They thought that he was too right-wing, too hawkish, that he would more likely get the United States into wars than he would into diplomatic negotiations

that would avoid war. But underlying the heart of it was that they actually believed what he said. You know, when he talked about regime change in Iran or regime change in North Korea, that frightened some of them. They may have disagreed with it, but they didn't doubt that he meant what he said. And I think the important thing about what's happening now is that they still don't doubt what he is saying. That if John Bolton says that Donald Trump told him directly that he was going to keep aid to Ukraine suspended until he got political help from the Ukraine government in terms of investigating Democrats, then that's true, because John Bolton doesn't make stuff up. John Bolton tells the truth, even if you don't like to hear it. Okay. The title of his memoir is called The Room Where It Happened,

which seems like a direct nod to a song from Hamilton, the musical. No one else was in the room where it happened, the room where it happened, the room where it happened. What do you make of that? No, it's absolutely a direct nod to the musical Hamilton, and a song in it, which some regard as the key song of the whole musical, is called In the Room Where It Happens. And that song is about a private dinner meeting

between James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, where they make a deal to allow Hamilton to have his financial system be the financial system of the new nation if he accepts that the new capital of the new nation will be on the Potomac in Virginia, which is Washington, D.C. And the point is, and it says this in the song, Maybe we can solve one problem with another And win the victory for the Southerners

In other words, a quid pro quo It's a quid pro quo. And the architecture of the deal for that quid pro quo is the same as the architecture of the deal for what Trump is allegedly doing with Ukraine. And it's impossible to escape that that's not the wink and the nod that John Bolton is giving with the title of his book. Not just that there was a quid pro quo,

but he was in the room where it happened and can testify to it. All in a nice, tidy, little, clever title. I saw Trump's lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, argue this week. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

That like, even if this was true, you know, even if this did happen. that like, even if this was true, you know, even if this did happen. Nothing in the Bolton revelations would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. And how do you think that argument is playing out among Republicans right now? I think that there are a lot of Republicans who want to defend Donald Trump, who believe that strategically, that was the smart play all along. In other words, Republicans and the White House have been faced with a choice. They could say that, yes, the president did something that was wrong, something that he shouldn't have done.

But it doesn't justify trying to remove him from office. That's not the gambit that the White House has chosen, though. They've chosen to say that the president did nothing wrong because that's what Donald Trump says. The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The Paul security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call. He is in no position now or likely in the future to admit that he did anything wrong. What's strange about the Dershowitz argument is that it takes a different strategy and allows for the fact or allows for the belief in the minds of some that,

yes, the president did do something wrong and then says, but even if he did, that's not a reason to remove him from office. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. And as like a another note here, I couldn't help but notice Ken Starr was also defending the president this week. And he he made this argument for the end of the age of impeachment. He said we need to go back to a time when impeachments were much rarer. The Senate is being called to sit as the high

court of impeachment all too frequently. Which is one of the most ironic things I've ever heard anyone say, considering his role in the Clinton impeachment trial, hey? his role in the Clinton impeachment trial, hey? Refusing to cooperate with a duly authorized federal criminal investigation is inconsistent with the general statutory duty of all executive branch employees. I covered the Starr investigation in the 1990s when I was here in Washington. And I thought I was told I would never have to hear Ken Starr again explain or justify what he was doing in terms of impeaching a president and using arguments that seem to conveniently play to the argument of one political side

of the debate. But here we are again. Yeah, yeah, it's very interesting, all of these developments. Can we talk about these senators for a moment? So, you know, when the Senate trial started, it did seem almost inconceivable that we would be here now. You know, Mitch McConnell was talking about this being a really speedy trial. He seemed very much in lockstep with the White House. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all. And now we're hearing Mitt Romney, Susan Collins talk about how they think they want to hear from Bolton.

I think at this stage it's pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice. Basically, like, are there cracks in the ranks here? Clearly there are, and we're in an election year, and the argument for having witnesses seems sounder than the argument for not having witnesses. I think part of what McConnell is doing as well is trying to get it out there that he doesn't have the votes in a hope that that will mobilize some grassroots reaction of Trump supporters who will get on the phones and start calling up their senators and saying, what are you thinking of? Don't tell me you want to see witnesses because you're going to have to come back here and try to get my vote in the future. So I think this is a tactical move on the part of McConnell to try and shore up the number of senators he has on his side.

to try and shore up the number of senators he has on his side. But we'll see whether it works, because it does seem that not just day by day, but hour by hour, the case for hearing witnesses gets stronger and stronger. Let's say they do vote to allow Bolton. Is it a foregone conclusion that Bolton testifies? And then is it a foregone conclusion that other witnesses will start being hauled up there? This is becoming an even more complicated question than I thought it would be 24 hours ago, and I'll tell you why. There are indications that while there may be enough Republican votes to force the testimony of Bolton or even Pompeo, that there might not be enough Republican votes to force the testimony of the

Bidens or other Democrats. If, for instance, the decision which will first of all be made by the Chief Justice, he will decide whether there should be witnesses and who are relevant witnesses, and then the Senate will effectively vote to either overturn his decision or allow it to stand. Should the Chief Justice, John Roberts, decide that the Bidens are not relevant witnesses, you could see that Republicans listening to that and understanding that someone like John Roberts is going to be held in high esteem in the country would agree. And in effect, then you would have what the Democrats, I think, would most love and the Republicans would most hate, which is that the

Democrats get all their witnesses and the Republicans don't get any of theirs. Oh, interesting. So the Republicans, even though they have the majority in the Senate, they don't completely control this process. They can if they want to. It really depends what they want. What I think it means is that Mitch McConnell, although he has a lot of control over his senators, he does not have absolute control over them. And he is fighting to shore up those cracks. But it is more dynamic than I expected it would be at the beginning of this week. And looping back to John Bolton for a second, the president has talked about how, you know, he has all this information that could be national security secrets. And CNN reported yesterday that the White House sent a letter last week, essentially threatening them and saying that there are parts of his book that are divulging classified information.

Is there a scenario in which the White House can stop John Bolton from testifying? You know, I think when you look at the timing of that last week, it suggests that there might have been people who thought that the President of the White House could intervene and prevent Bolton's book from being published. And it's interesting, therefore, to consider that only a couple of days later, the crucial parts of the book are leaked by someone to the New York Times, which has created the fuss that we're seeing this week. So I don't know that one is a consequence of the other, but I do think that the timing suggests that's something to consider. And would the White House have a leg to stand on if they wanted to try and prevent Bolton from even showing up to the Senate trial?

Whatever chance they might have had is at least diminished now that it's become public. Partly because it has become public and partly because the politics of it have now changed. Anything they do now is going to look like it's contributing to a cover-up. But what about the potential overall outcome here? Because we have been talking for months about how this is just sort of sewn up, right?

Like the Republicans are just going to acquit Donald Trump. But do you see enough shifts happening that, you know, maybe in a week or two weeks, you and I could be having a completely different conversation about that? First of all, let me get right to the end of it. I don't think any of this changes the prospects for an acquittal at all. The standard for that is still very high. It's a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is 67 votes. That's 20 more than the Democrats have. And it doesn't look like the Republican Partythirds majority in the Senate which is 67 votes that's 20 more than the Democrats have

and it doesn't look like the Republican Party is collapsing in the Senate they're not going to shed 20 votes I just it just seems clearer every day though that the question about whether there should be witnesses is a much more difficult one than the question about whether the president should be removed I'm not saying nothing's going to move the needle on the final vote. I just don't think it will lead to the president's removal. But the goal might be simply to have a majority of the Senate vote to remove the president of the United States. That would not result in his being removed,

but it would be a huge talking point for Democrats in an election campaign to say that a majority in the House felt he should be impeached and a majority in the Senate felt he should be convicted. But because they demanded a higher standard, we couldn't do it. Keith Vogt, thank you so much. Bye-bye. Before we go today, just a few updates on the coronavirus. On Wednesday, the number of cases in China surpassed 6,000. That officially surpasses the number of people affected in China with SARS. Canada announced it had secured a plane to bring Canadians home from affected regions. Some 160 Canadians had requested consular assistance as of yesterday.

Actually getting the plane to take off could take several days because the region is effectively on lockdown. Other countries are evacuating their citizens too. Australia is planning to fly citizens out of Wuhan. They will be quarantined on Christmas Island up to 14 days, that's 2,000 kilometers away from the mainland. This came as airlines around the world also started canceling flights to China. Air Canada announced it was suspending direct flights to Shanghai and Beijing. Meantime, the WHO is meeting again to discuss whether this should be considered a public health emergency of international concern. We'll keep you posted on that. That's all for today, though. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner and see you tomorrow.