The Daily - Chuck Schumer on Impeachment, Witnesses and the Truth

Episode Date: January 29, 2020

Today, we sit down with Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, to discuss what it’s like to be the leader of a party out of power at this moment in the impeachment trial of President Trump. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: "Look, is it an uphill fight? Yes.” he said. “Are we making progress? Yes.” Why Mr. Schumer believes he can persuade his Republican colleagues to allow new witnesses in the trial.Here are the latest updates on impeachment, including the Senate’s response to a Times investigation revealing new claims about the president’s conduct from his former national security adviser John Bolton.

How are you? Good, how are you? Good morning. Is that your phone? I know it's... So it's a little before 9 a.m. We're just outside the U.S. Capitol. We are here... To meet with the staff of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and to talk to him about this moment in impeachment and what it's like to be the leader of the party out of power in

the middle of the Senate trial of Donald Trump. Hi. Senator. How are you? I'm good. Good morning. Pleasure. Thanks for coming down. How do you want to do this? Do you mind if we just like... Whatever you want to do.

Do you want to do this? We'll do it want to do. That's fine. Whatever you want. And if you don't mind, I put my feet up for my old basketball knees. So, Senator, it is Tuesday morning. Yes. Over the weekend, as I'm sure you know, my colleagues reported that John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, is about to publish a book in which he directly corroborates the central accusation in the impeachment inquiry, that President Trump conditioned the military aid to Ukraine on the country's willingness to furnish information on his political rivals, including Joe Biden. Meantime, you're heading into day three of listening to the president's defense

lawyers make their case to the Senate in this trial. So in an impeachment trial where it is more or less seen 100% clear that Republican colleagues of yours in the Senate would acquit the president, this seems like a pretty unexpected and damning development, maybe even the most unexpected and damning development to date even the most unexpected and damning development to date. So does this change anything? I think it does some. Look, we have been saying all along, what we want is the truth.

And that means, as Americans realize, in any trial, you have facts, and the facts are determined by witnesses and documents. So our goal, we thought originally we would be able to negotiate with Mitch McConnell to have witnesses and documents. It seemed so logical. And what happened was he went on Sean Hannity about a month ago and said he's taking his total cues from Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is not interested in the truth. He's not interested in facts. And so we figured, how do we get at the truth? We looked at the four witnesses who had the eyewitness view of the actual charge. Why was the aid withheld and who did it? We asked for them and the contemporaneous four sets of documents surrounding them. One of them was John Bolton. One of them was John Bolton. And for a month, we have been sort of relentless, focusing on getting witnesses and getting

documents. Because we believe the American people, they may be very polarized when it comes to whether to acquit or convict, but how could people resist witnesses and documents? Now, the American people, after we pushed and pushed and pushed this message just about every day. Witnesses, witnesses, witnesses. Witnesses, witnesses, witnesses, documents, documents, documents are on our side. That's rare. But only two senators have publicly said that documents are on our side. That's rare. But only two senators have publicly said that they are on your side. But the Republican senators know that their constituencies want witnesses and documents. Now, on the other side, of course,

is Trump. He will strong arm them. He will be nasty. He will be vindictive. And that's, I think, one of the things that's held them back. That's what makes it so hard. But Bolton is far and away the most major revelation. Let's circle back to Bolton. What does that development with Bolton mean for you? Because I'm guessing that you're getting at the fact that the power of the voters, that might start to change the balance. And we saw yesterday, because the Bolton revelation was so devastating. And let me tell you the contrast. When Sekulow got up yesterday morning after the revelation about Bolton was published in the New York Times, he said there are four mainstays to our case.

And the third is there are no eyewitnesses to the account that the House managers had put forward. And there obviously is at least a newspaper report that there is one. It cries out. So why don't you bring him forward and testify? And a number of Republicans who had been silent until then said, maybe we need witnesses and documents. So do I think this is a done deal? Far from it. But do I think we have a chance now to get witnesses and documents? Yes. Senator, how are you talking to these Republican senators, these colleagues of yours? Yes. I'm starting to imagine the conversations. Maybe you're poking your head into the gym. Maybe it's- How did you know that? That is where we do a lot of discussing.

I know you have a morning routine. Yes. So help me understand, you're standing next to the elliptical, Mitt Romney's on it. Well, I'm not going to any individual. I have conversations with Republicans, but I don't talk about them publicly. But I would say this, for maybe a good chunk of the Republicans appealing to their higher instincts, their better angels, as Abraham Lincoln used to call it, is meaningless because there aren't too many better angels around there. But for a good number of Republicans, certainly more than four, considerably more than four, the idea that this is historic, the idea that this is so important to the nation, and the

idea that we are a nation founded on truth, that the founding fathers believed that the truth would prevail and right would prevail, and history is upon them, and they'll be remembered for this vote long after they've left the Senate, has some effect. So are you making a moral case? Yeah, I'm making a case that truth should matter. This does not apply to every Republican, this better angels argument, but it applies to some. And those are the ones I try to talk to. And to the others, do you make a more pragmatic, practical case? To the others, look, we only need four. And we know there are about 25 we'll never get. So you got to focus on the

people you can. And that leaves you a pool of roughly... Well, look, there are about 12 Republicans who have never said we shouldn't have witnesses and documents. They make other arguments. They're mad about this. Jerry Nadler said that. But they have not made an argument that there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. But look, is it an uphill fight? Yes. Are we making progress? Yes. So without naming names, I understand why you don't want to do that. Can you give me a little bit of a sense of how this conversation tends to go with the people who seem open to this? And what do they say to you? Well, they listen. And I think they know, you know, when Adam Schiff

sat on the floor in that closing argument, Republicans' eyes were riveted on Schiff. You know, when you hear the argument that you don't like to hear, you'll put your head down, you'll look this way, you'll chat with your neighbor. But in Schiff's both closing moments, their eyes were riveted on him. Sounds like you were watching their heads and their eyes. Oh, yes, I do. I do.

I watch that. And he said, you know we're right. I think many of them know we're right but are afraid of the consequences. And our best recourse, the two things, truth and the public's on our side. For witnesses and documents. If we had started out at the beginning and simply tried to get Republicans to vote to convict, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. But the strategy that we used, which I think is the right strategy, ethically, morally, but also substantively,

is witnesses and documents are much harder to resist. And then we'll let the chips fall where they may, as I've said. And I said that to my Republican colleagues. That's one thing I tell them all the time. I don't know what these witnesses will say. I don't know what these documents will reveal. It could go against you. Yes, it could be exculpatory of Trump. But we have an obligation to the Constitution, to the country, to what America has always stood for, to get the facts, get the truth.

Do you accept the possibility that for many of the Republicans who are off the table, who cannot be convinced, that the reason they can't be convinced is because they think they are going with their better angels, because they just don't think this is an impeachable offense? Look, they've made that argument and Dershowitz tried to make it last night. You're referring to one of the president's lawyers. Yes. and Dershowitz tried to make it last night. You're referring to one of the president's lawyers.

Yes. To me, it's hard to say this should not be something where removal is justified, that Trump wanted to cut off the aid to get investigations of Biden and of the 2016 elections. But some of them may think that, yes. So let's say for a moment that you get this scenario that you're pursuing. You get four Republicans to vote to hear witnesses, including John Bolton, which would mean that his testimony would be given in the Senate. It would be admissible in the trial. Under oath.

And this would be testimony not heard in the House. It would be brand new evidence. Both. And this would be testimony not heard in the House. It would be brand new evidence. As you said, Dershowitz is making this argument that the president's behavior, the central charge in this trial, is not behavior that rises to the level of impeachment. If the president's lawyers don't really dispute the basic facts of the case, and then Bolton comes and bolsters those facts. What's to be gained from his testimony? We shall see. There may be some Republicans who feel that this is serious enough to merit removal from office. But if everyone agrees with these facts, right, an acquittal isn't going to mean much. Because most Americans would feel,

I think, that cutting off aid, threatening a foreign country, where our national security is at stake, if our elections are subject to foreign interference, that's a... When I was in high school, you read the Constitution and all that. One of the things the founding fathers were most afraid of was foreign interference in our elections. It's in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. And when I read it then, back in the 60s, I said, what? That's not going to happen. Well, as usual, the founding fathers were a lot smarter than all of us. It's serious stuff. So even if you get these four senators to come along with you, it sounds like what you're saying is this is still about American sentiment, voter sentiment. It's not that you think that if you hear from Bolton, suddenly that might lead 20 senators

to vote to convict the president. It's that if Bolton testifies, you think it will only strengthen Americans' belief that something bad and wrong has occurred here. Yes, but yes, I agree with that. But I'd make another point. Things keep coming out. New revelations keep coming out. And you never know what's going to happen. Is it an uphill fight when you have the power of Trump and the fear of Trump among the Republican senators and the fear of the Trump hardcore constituency? Absolutely. But do we have a moral obligation to make the fight as strong as

we can? Yes. That's what motivates me, getting at the truth. And somehow, in ways that go beyond my knowledge, it usually ends up creating the right result. But who knows when and who knows how. I still struggle to see the political incentive for these Republicans to allow for a witness because they're in the political bind that you have described very well here. And allowing witnesses only seems to make the public case against the president worse. Except they won't vote him out of office. So shouldn't they just not allow? Well, they may. That's why this is a difficult argument. But when they don't allow witnesses, their constituencies know they stood with Trump to go against fairness and with a cover-up. But it's a little bit of a snarl because he has told us... It is. If this were easy, we wouldn't be sitting here. more after the break

so let's talk about what may be more likely scenarios when it comes to these witnesses. Okay. There have been two other possibilities raised than a straightforward four Republican senators vote to get any witness whatsoever. Republicans are raising the prospect of what at least one of them is calling a witness swap. Yes. calling a witness swap. Yes. They will give you your desired witness, John Bolton, but in exchange, they would like Hunter Biden, the vice president's son, to testify. In other words, if you're going to embarrass us, we're going to embarrass you. Would you agree to that?

No. Period. Let me say this. Our position is the four witnesses we want and the four sets of documents we want are essential to getting out the truth. So all or nothing at all is the four witnesses we want and the four sets of documents we want are essential to getting out. So all or nothing at all is the same? Well, so let me say, and that's our position. The Republicans, they have a majority and they can vote for any witness they want. Why haven't they? They could have voted for Hunter Biden run now. They don't need our OK. You're saying they're only bringing him up in the context of getting John Bolton?

Well, I'm saying that bringing in a shiny object, a distraction like Hunter Biden, who has nothing to do with our witnesses, all were eyewitness at the scene, if you will. Hunter Biden was nowhere near the scene. Joe Biden was nowhere near the scene. It's a distraction. It has nothing to do with the impeachment case. OK. And I think a good number of their senators realize it. And I think the American public realizes it.

So they themselves haven't rushed to call Hunter Biden. Why do you think they haven't called Hunter Biden? For that reason. I think they realize it might backfire. That there will be nothing to say. And it's sort of, you know, what did you use to learn in biology? Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Pardon?

I don't know what it means. Forget it. It means certain things measure up in different places. So I don't know if it helps their case. And so far, I'm not sure the Republicans would want him. So no witness swap. The other possibility that has been raised is that instead of relying on Republicans, Democrats should appeal directly to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who presides over the Senate impeachment trial,

and who has the discretionary power to subpoena witnesses like John Bolton. Would you pursue that route, or would you encourage the House Democratic managers to pursue it to get Bolton on the stand? Well, we just don't know where Justice Roberts will come down. And you won't until you ask. And we won't until we ask. But the rules right now are he can be overruled by a majority of the Senate. So even if Chief Justice Roberts were to say, yes, Bolton's a relevant witness, we ought to have him, they could vote it down. They'd be voting against the Chief Justice. That makes it so much the harder. So we'll have to see if he rules.

Are you inclined to ask? I'll say just one other point, Michael, on this. It may be that Roberts just doesn't want to get involved at all. But he's a conservative figure. He doesn't seem inclined to put his thumb on the scales. Right. And remember what Rehnquist did in the Clinton trial. Here's how he summed it up.

He said, I did nothing and I did it very well. He just wouldn't opine. And he'd say, I'm leaving it up to the Senate. And Roberts could do that. So the House managers could say, we want Bolton and we want you to rule. And he's saying, I'm going to leave that up to the Senate. I'm not ruling. You mentioned the Clinton impeachment trial. And I want to talk about that. You sat through it in an interesting way, both as a member of the House and you ran for Senate in the middle of it all, became the senator from New York and you ended up voting twice. No, three times. I'm a historical footnote.

Judiciary. I'm the only one who ever voted three times. House, judiciary, House and Senate. So does any, and you voted in all those cases against impeachment. So does any part of you, Senator, sympathize with Republicans who are resistant to your overtures, who may not be willing to vote for witnesses, who are not willing to vote to convict? Because you yourself did this. Yeah, but the analogy is different in just about every way. First and foremost, what Clinton did was a personal bad thing, but it didn't affect the government. It wasn't an abuse of power. It wasn't, it didn't go to the heart of what our democracy is all about. He had a human frailty and that was that. Lie to a grand jury. Yep. Yep. Well, but again, over a frailty of the,

it wasn't governmental. I understand. Okay. But do you understand the conundrum? Yes, I do. But wait, let me just second. He didn't do what Trump is doing. He didn't stonewall. He went before a grand jury himself, and he allowed all these witnesses to come forward. So there was a strong record before it got to the Senate. So that's the second difference. And the third difference is there was much more bipartisanship going on then. Mitch McConnell would not even entertain talking to us about witnesses and documents.

There is a sense from you all, and I've heard you say it, that Republicans prejudged this case. And I bring that up because you were in a somewhat unique situation where you had come out and said, and I know this is, this case is not about you, but it's, you're in a unique position of being able to identify. Well, I had to be first a grand juror or a prosecutor and then a juror. It's a sort of anomalous position. But you had made clear by the time the trial started that you would vote to acquit you as a Senate candidate. You said, I will be, I will be voting to acquit. Because I had seen the evidence as a House prosecutor. I just wonder, having been on both sides of this, having been accused of prejudging a trial,

which you were. But it's a different, if any Republican was in the House at the first time when the House voted, and now it's different. It's not analogous. In any way? No, it's different. It's not analogous. In any way? No, it's not. So, Senator, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you what an acquittal will mean for 2020. You just can't tell. And that's not what guides me. What guides me is getting at the truth and things in a broad sense,

in almost a biblical theological sense, things will work out. Why doesn't that guide you? You're the Senate minority leader. You're the top Democrat in this body, 2020. Why doesn't that guide you, thinking about 2020? Well, no, you asked me, I don't know how this impeachment trial

will affect the election one way or the other, but I knew you had to do the right thing. That's what I'm saying. Obviously, I want to fight to win the election. You know, this will have some effect on it. We'll see. I always believe truth prevails. But so will health care. So will infrastructure. So will college. So will democracy. So will criminal justice. So will immigration reform. And those matter to me. Those matter to me a lot. You hope it will be one of the things that influence you, as you said throughout this conversation. You hope it will be one of the things that influence you. As you said throughout this conversation.

You know, again, I can't, I always believe truth will prevail one way or the other. Yeah. Senator, thank you. Right. We always appreciate your time. Likewise. Cheers. Cheers.

Cheers. During their final day of oral arguments on Tuesday, lawyers for President Trump discouraged senators from voting to call Bolton as a witness. Are you going to stop? Are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone that says what they hear is in a manuscript? Is that where we are? I don't think so. I hope not.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a meeting of Republican senators to make his own case against calling witnesses like Bolton. During that gathering, McConnell warned that he was unsure whether he had enough votes to prevent such a witness because so many Senate Republicans remain publicly uncommitted on the question. The vote on whether to hear witnesses in the trial is now expected on Friday. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Today, Israel takes a big step towards peace. Young people across the Middle East are ready for a more hopeful future. And governments throughout the region are realizing that terrorism and Islamic extremism are everyone's common enemy. During a ceremony at the White House on Tuesday, President Trump unveiled his long-awaited blueprint for a two-state plan for Middle East peace, a plan that gives Israel much of what it has sought for decades and offers Palestinians a conditional path to statehood over several years. The plan would formalize Israeli control over large and controversial settlements and grant limited autonomy to Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem if their leadership undertakes political reforms and renounces violence.

But Palestinian leaders rejected the plan before it was even released, saying that it clearly favors Israel. And the number of coronavirus infections has skyrocketed by almost 60 percent between Monday and Tuesday to nearly 5,000 and was expected to rapidly rise again by Wednesday morning. In Germany and Japan, officials reported the first cases of transmission there, meaning that they must not only identify and quarantine sick patients traveling from China, but limit the spread of the disease among their own populations. their own populations.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Babarro. See you tomorrow.