CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: nterview with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I'm joined now by GOP Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. He, of course, will serve as senator -- as juror during the impeachment trial. He also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, we appreciate you taking the time this morning.

SEN JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Earlier this week, you said justice will be done in the Senate. Since the vote on impeachment articles in the House, we have a new witness -- a central one -- who's volunteered to testify before the Senate, that of course, John Bolton.

We have new White House documents showing communications back and forth about direction from the president to withhold this aid from Ukraine. And we also have new text messages back and forth between Giuliani's associate here about surveilling the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, who the president forced out.

I wonder, how can you do justice in the Senate without considering that new evidence and these new witnesses?

BARRASSO: Well, number one is, in the Senate, we will listen to whatever the House impeachment managers bring to us to consider. They may include all --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Including new evidence?

BARRASSO: -- that and new -- we will listen to whatever --

SCIUTTO: So you would listen to it if they include it? BARRASSO: -- case -- whatever they present to us, we will be there, a

hundred of us, in the Senate, listening to them present their case. We will then listen to the White House in their defense. We're then going to be allowed to ask questions, and we will do that in a written form through the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

[10:35:05]

I imagine this is going to take several weeks to get to that point. And new information may continue to come out on a daily basis.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BARRASSO: But this shows how rushed the House was, because they claimed urgency, they had to get things done before Christmas. They rushed to such a point that they didn't take the time to look at what evidence may be available and what may be coming shortly.

SCIUTTO: Well, to be fair, as you know, the White House blocked that evidence. I mean, for instance, one reason we only -- we got Lev Parnas' text messages now is because the Justice Department withheld his devices, wouldn't even let him look at it. I mean, that was the White House that was doing that.

But I want to be clear about what you're saying here. Would you vote yes if, for instance, Democrats proposed calling John Bolton to testify? Would you vote for that?

BARRASSO: I think we're all going to be asked to vote after we hear what the House says in terms of making their case, what the White House says in their defense. After we hear the written answers, we are all going to be asked --

SCIUTTO: OK, so your mind is open?

BARRASSO: -- have we heard enough or do we need additional witnesses? Do we need to hear --

SCIUTTO: Sounds like you're --

BARRASSO: -- we want -- I'll --

SCIUTTO: -- sorry to interrupt, I just -- it sounds like your mind's open, and I want to be clear. Is your mind open to voting for witnesses?

BARRASSO: My mind is open to witnesses on both sides, witnesses that the -- that the Senate -- that the House members may want to call, and witnesses that the White House may want to call. But after two weeks, we're going to say, have we heard enough to make an informed judgment or do we need more information? And that's when the decision will be made about witnesses, which is what they did in the Bill Clinton trial in 1999.

SCIUTTO: Fair enough. Just in the last hour, the Government Accounting Office, U.S. -- the

GAO concluded that the Trump administration, in its view, broke the law when it withheld U.S. security aid to Ukraine. I'm just going to read from that judgment, just very briefly.

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."

You serve in the Senate. The Senate and the House passed this legislation, giving this aid to Ukraine. As a sitting senator, do you agree with that finding? That -- listen, it's the Senate's power to pass this kind of funding.

BARRASSO: Well, I just saw the headline, I want to read the full report. I've been very interested in the funding to Ukraine for years because I was in Ukraine with a group of eight U.S. senators the day that Russia took over the gas plants in Crimea. I've been trying to get lethal assistance to Ukraine since back then. We were blocked by President Obama in that administration.

Now, we are finally getting aid there, but I've always worried about corruption in Ukraine and wanting to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars were actually wisely spent when we sent either money or arms to Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And you've done your homework there, we talked about it before. You deserve credit for that.

The other news today -- and I know I'm throwing a lot at you, but it's happening so quickly, we're just trying to keep up -- police in Ukraine now say that they're investigating the possible surveillance of the former U.S. ambassador there, Marie Yovanovitch. This is arising from these messages, back and forth between Parnas, a congressional candidate -- a Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut.

The State Department, we've asked them, are they investigating this because of course, she served the U.S. State Department, she served the country. We don't have a straight answer. Should the U.S. investigate this threat, given -- I mean, you talk about Ukraine being corrupt country, it can be a dangerous place? Shouldn't the U.S. be looking into this as well since it's one of our own?

BARRASSO: Well, it is a place that we have a lot of interest and Russia has a lot of interest in Ukraine. I've been concerned about corruption there for a long period of time. Obviously there is a new spotlight on Ukraine as a result of what's gone on in the last number of months, but I don't think all the evidence is in yet.

SCIUTTO: OK. But should the U.S. look for that evidence to make sure that this ambassador was safe?

BARRASSO: Well, you want -- I want our ambassadors to be safe everywhere around the world. That is a big function of the Foreign Relations Committee, whether it's in Iraq -- SCIUTTO: Yes.

BARRASSO: -- with the way the Iranian troops stormed our embassy, they're -- all of those things, yes, we want to make sure our embassies and ambassadors and personnel around the world are safe. And it is a bigger problem now than before.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

I want to ask you on Iran. Of course, you're on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you've been very vocal on this. Continuing questions just about how specific and imminent the threat was to U.S. embassies from Iran prior to the killing of Soleimani.

Based on what you've heard and seen -- and I don't want you to compromise classified intelligence, but your judgment based on what you've seen -- was that a genuine credible imminent threat?

BARRASSO: Well, my judgment is it was justifiable to eliminate Soleimani, looking at the ongoing escalation from the attack on our drone, on our personnel, on the oil wells and on our embassy, and then the killing of an American citizen. He was the mastermind, the super glue that held together all the terrorist groups. I continue to see an escalating pattern. I think it was the right call, and completely justified.

[10:40:09]

SCIUTTO: I covered the aftermath of many of the attacks he engineered. Senator John Barrasso, it's always a pleasure to have you on the program.

BARRASSO: Thanks, Jim. Thanks for having me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source