CNN "Erin Burnett Outfront" - Transcript: Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is Interviewed About the Coming Impeachment Trial

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

OUTFRONT now, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who sits on the Budget and Appropriations Committees.

Senator, there's guarantee of a vote on witnesses after opening arguments. Those arguments, of course, could take quite some time, right? You could have a week and a half by the time the witnesses presenting their position. Are you satisfied waiting that long to have a vote on witnesses?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Erin, that's right. That's the way Mitch McConnell has structured this.

It really doesn't make sense to do it that way. It's a little bit backwards. In fact, it's very backwards because under any normal trial proceedings, you would have the witnesses and the documents that you wanted as part of the case being put on at trial.

But this is something Senator McConnell rounded up the Republican Senate votes to do. And what that means is that House managers will put on their case as is. And then you'll hear from the president's lawyers. And only then will we have votes on calling relevant fact witnesses and documents.

But make no mistake, Senate Republicans will face that very important vote, and that will be a signal to the country as to whether or not they want a fair trial or they want to participate in rigging the trial.

BURNETT: So, Senator Susan Collins, of course, as you well know, is one of the Republicans who said she's open to calling witnesses. She expressed skepticism today which I thought was notable about the information from Lev Parnas and specifically why it wasn't included in the House impeachment majority report.

She said and I quote, Senator: I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it's only now being revealed.

Now, she was immediately told that information is new. It wasn't just being revealed. It hadn't been held back.

So, when that was clarified to her, she responded saying, quote, well, doesn't that suggest the House did an incomplete job then?

Are you worried if someone like Senator Collins is saying that? Is she looking for a reason to back Trump's side do you think?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, she may well be looking for a reason to back President Trump. And her responsibility however is not to the president. It's to her constituents and to the Constitution. And Senator Collins should know very well that the House put on a very

big case. They've got lots of evidence already to support the two articles of impeachment, but that this president engaged in an unprecedented amount of obstruction, more than any other president in our history, claiming absolute immunity. And that is why these witnesses were not called, the four witnesses that we've requested, and that's why they've refused to present a single document from the administration.

And it's not unusual at all after a grand jury proceeding to have new witnesses at the trial.

BURNETT: Yes.

VAN HOLLEN: And as you indicated, this new information from Lev Parnas has just been provided to the House.

[19:35:07]

And the other evidence was evidence that was deliberately kept from the house by the president's own order. So, it is now time to do what the Constitution says which is to try the case in the United States Senate, and that means being able to hear all the evidence.

BURNETT: You're hours away from receiving a report from the GAO, a government investigative agency, and it tackles whether President Trump broke the law by withholding aid to Ukraine, so the act of withholding the aid alone could be a violence of law because Congress approved that aid. So, separate from the president's motive in doing so or alleged abuses in how he handled the situation.

Do you think a black and white conclusion that Trump broke the law from the GAO will change any minds in the Senate?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Erin, I don't want to get into the GAO report because I haven't seen its conclusions, and I do want to stress the fact that the House findings were totally independent of this question of whether or not the president violated the Impoundment Control Act, right? The fact that the president used the prestige and power of his office to essentially threaten Ukraine with withholding these funds until they did his political bidding is the core of the first article of impeachment.

However, we've asked GAO to look at this. They're an independent body. And look forward to their conclusions. And I'm happy to talk more about that them when we actually see their opinion.

BURNETT: Before we go, the president signed phase one of a new China trade deal, a deal which while there are a lot of uncertainties and the market certainly sees them, does include a pledge from China to buy nearly $100 billion more in agricultural and energy products than they do now. That's $100 billion more coming into the United States from China if this goes through. The market hitting an all-time high today, 29,000 for the Dow, never before seen.

Do you think this is a big victory for the president and for this country?

VAN HOLLEN: No, I don't, and I can tell you in talking to Maryland farmers and Maryland businesses, they're only breathing a sigh of relief because it may be that we're at least getting out of the very problem that the president himself created.

This is a little bit like being the arsonist who lights the fire and then the fireman who wants to take credit for putting out the fire. I mean, the president created these huge problems, and now he wants to have a big signing ceremony to put out the problems that he solved.

Now, I will say that there are some fundamental issues where I've supported the president's complaints, primarily with respect to Chinese telecom companies like Huawei and the fact that they stole a lot of U.S. technology and now they pose a security threat to the United States and our allies. But this agreement does not deal at all with the Huawei issue, which is why I join with Republican members of Congress to pass legislation to essentially say the president's got to come back to Congress before he provides relief to Huawei.

BURNETT: Understood. I will say again I know there are questions about whether this all happens as it is laid out. That is fair to point it out. But $100 billion more would be a win, right? If that happens in terms of buying more agricultural products?

VAN HOLLEN: All I would say, Erin, this is like Charlie Brown and the football. We keep hearing that X is going to happen next, and it just doesn't happen. The football gets pulled away.

I would also make the point that some of the fundamental structural issues that really do need to be addressed are still left on the table here. So, look, I would -- I hope we'll stay at it with China. I especially hope we'll address issues like Huawei which the president did not address in the context of this stage one agreement. But -- those are the big things we need to deal with when it comes to China.

BURNETT: All right. Senator, thank you very much. I appreciate your time as always, sir. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source