CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview With Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) On Impeachment Questions
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
HARLOW: With us now is Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
Senator, thank you for taking the time on such a busy day. I know this thing kicks off again in a few hours.
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Good morning. Yes.
HARLOW: Have you submitted questions and, if so, what is your most pressing question?
HIRONO: We've all submitted questions. My questions will go to focusing us on exactly what the president did and then also some of the arguments that the president's team has made. For example, is it exonerating that the president said no quid pro quo, you know, after the fact? So those are the kind of questions that I would -- I have submitted.
SCIUTTO: You may have heard your colleague, your Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, say that in his view Hunter Biden would be a relevant witness in this trial.
[09:50:11]
What's your reaction to that?
HIRONO: I disagree with that. But my expectation is that there will be an opportunity to -- first of all, we have to get over the four hours of debate on whether or not we should even call any witnesses. But let's assume that four Republican senators decide that we should get to the issue or the motions of particular witnesses. So if we get over that and we start talking about witnesses, then I would expect that the Republicans will make a motion to have Hunter Biden come and be a witness and Joe Manchin can vote for that and I will not be voting for that.
HARLOW: OK. So speaking of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, you've got Doug Jones of Alabama, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona in a tight race herself who really hasn't tipped her hat during this trial on what she is thinking and has stayed pretty mum.
Do you think it's a real possibility, Senator, at this point that there are multiple Democratic senators who may vote to acquit the president?
HIRONO: I haven't talked to any of them, so I'm not going to speculate. What this is going to -- this impeachment trial is going to require is all of us to look at the evidence and to determine -- basically we have to make a judgment and ask our -- you know, it's a conscious decision -- conscience decision as to whether or not the president committed impeachable acts.
SCIUTTO: What is your answer to Republicans' argument, and you're hearing this more and more, not challenging the essential facts of the case.
HARLOW: Right.
SCIUTTO: That yes, the president withheld the aid and maybe he did so to force an investigation into Joe Biden but it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and oftentimes making that argument quoting Democratic senators from the Clinton impeachment, talking about just how high a standard that is. What's your answer to that argument?
HIRONO: Every impeachment trial is based on the facts that are provided. And with the Clinton impeachment trial, there was no factual evidence that he did anything that compromised national security or where a foreign power was involved, shaking down a foreign power. There was no evidence that $400 million of taxpayer money was used as a bribe. So every trial has its set of facts. And we are going to need to deal with the facts of this case to determine whether or not these facts cause us to conclude that the president committed an impeachable act.
And as far as I'm concerned, you know, how can that be promoting our national interest to have a president be part of an entire scheme that he was leading that shook down the president of another country for his own political gains? How is that promoting national security? So these are the kinds of questions that our team will be asked to expound on.
HARLOW: You wrote about John Bolton and the possibility of him testifying. Quote, "John Bolton's first-person testimony is crucial to the impeachment trial," but the House did not subpoena Bolton. They asked him to come and he did not because of the White House, let's make that very clear. But you didn't go through the courts, you didn't subpoena him.
You have impeachment managers like Schiff and Zoe Lofgren who say they would like the testimony, they don't need it, there's enough evidence here. Are they wrong? Is there not enough evidence without John Bolton?
HIRONO: There is enough evidence but on the other hand, it is the Republicans saying we want to hear first-person evidence and that is John Bolton, that is Mulvaney. So when given the opportunity to call forward first-person witnesses, they are struggling with it.
They don't want to do it. And why? Because of what they expect somebody like John Bolton to say and what John Bolton is probably going to say is the president did tell him that his hold on Ukrainian aid was dependent upon the investigations.
So, you know, this whole thing is supposed to be a search for the truth. And there's enough evidence that the president committed impeachable acts. Now, if the president's team, and this is what I was waiting for, if they had evidentiary arguments, not just arguments and conclusory statements like, oh, he said no quid pro quo.
SCIUTTO: Right.
HIRONO: That is what a call (INAUDIBLE), you know, that's not convincing at all. So those are the kind of arguments. And you mentioned they may at the end of the day use Dershowitz's argument, which is so he did all this, so what?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HIRONO: That's the Mick Mulvaney get over it. And they could do that but I think there's a definite danger in them ignoring the president's actions and just saying, so what? It is not so what.
SCIUTTO: And of course Dershowitz made precisely the opposite argument in terms of the standard for --
HIRONO: Well, of course.
SCIUTTO: Impeachment 22 years ago.
Senator Mazie Hirono, thanks very much for joining the program.
HIRONO: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source