CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Sen. John Kennedy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Joining me now is Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. He's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us. Merry Christmas, and happy new year.

Before we get to politics, I do want to start with this horrific anti- Semitic attack in New York last night. Governor Cuomo just said that he's going to push for a law in the state of New York to make these kinds of attacks domestic terrorism.

Would you support a law like that at a national level?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Well, I'd want to see the law that the governor's talking about.

You know, America is a big, wide-open, pluralistic country. I don't think any of us want to live in a police state. Freedom has risk.

Having said that, these are people who have hate in their heart. And I don't buy and never have bought the proposition that people who do these reprehensible things are sick, necessarily, or confused or mixed up. I think some of them are evil. And we have got to get them off the

street.

And if I make it to heaven, that's the first thing I'm going to ask is, is, why is there evil in the world, and why do people think it's necessary to hate, instead of just disagree? I think it's -- I think all public officials can try to do a better job of setting an example by being respectful in their disagreement and showing that, well, you can disagree, but you don't have to hate.

I just think it's terrible. But all acts of violence are terrible, not just for what happened, as bad as it is, in New York. The killings on the streets in Chicago, the -- the anti-Semitic murders elsewhere, the racial murders elsewhere, the same-race killings, I mean, all that's horrible, Jake.

And if I had an answer, I'd go pass a bill. But you can't legislate hate away from people who have it in their heart.

TAPPER: All right, fair enough. Thanks, Senator Kennedy.

Let's turn to politics, if we can, now.

Obviously, the Senate trial is pending, although we don't know when.

You have said -- quote -- "My objective, first and foremost, is to be fair to both sides."

You heard Senator Lisa Murkowski there. Were you also bothered at all when Majority Leader McConnell said there would be no daylight between him and the White House?

JOHN KENNEDY: I think Senator McConnell is entitled to his opinion and his and his approach. So is Senator Murkowski. So is Senator Schumer. So is Senator Blumenthal.

[09:10:05]

If you look, Jake, at the Constitution, the standing rules of the Senate, the essays and analyses by the Congressional Research Service, if you look at the case law, Nixon v. U.S. -- not Richard Nixon, a federal judge named Nixon -- if you look at the case of Porteous v. Baron, what you will see is that, when it comes to impeachment, the rule is that there are virtually no substantive rules.

It's not a criminal trial. The Senate is not really a jury. It's both jury and judge. The chief justice is not the judge. He's the presiding officer. There are no standards of proof. There are no rules of evidence. And every senator, unless we pass a new rule by 51 votes in the Senate, is entitled to approach it his own way.

I think many positions by many senators are calcified. I can only speak for me. I'm going to keep an open mind. I want to be fair to both sides.

When -- I thought that the House proceedings were unnecessarily unfair. And when the American people walk away from the Senate trial, if we ever have one, I don't want them saying, well, we were just run over by the same truck twice.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

JOHN KENNEDY: It was unfair in the House and it was unfair in the Senate.

I want people to think that it was a -- it was a level playing field.

TAPPER: So, you said earlier this month that, in the name of fairness, you would vote, theoretically, to allow Democrats, Republicans, anyone involved in this trial to -- quote -- "call any witness that they want" in a Senate trial.

Do you think that's the only fair way to do it, to allow Democrats, Republicans, those representing Trump, those House impeachment managers to call the witnesses they feel they need to bring?

JOHN KENNEDY: Well, the first issue that the Senate has got to decide is whether we hear evidence or hear the case, if you will, based on the record.

One point of view is that the House is sort of like a district court. And the Senate -- once again, not a perfect analogy, but the Senate is more like an appellate court. And we hear the record as put together by the House.

That is what happened, in part, in the Clinton proceedings. Originally, the Senate heard -- heard the prosecution and defense argue the case on the record from the House. Then they decided whether to dismiss. A motion to dismiss was defeated. And that's when the Senate decided to hear three additional witnesses.

I think that's a pretty sound approach for us to follow. We had a unanimity in the Senate with respect to Clinton, but -- with respect to Clinton procedure.

But, look, there are no rules here. It's -- for example, what's an impeachable offense? I think the precedent that shows that not all impeachable offenses are crimes, but it also shows that not all crimes are impeachable offenses.

TAPPER: Right. I hear what you're saying.

Do you think that, if there are no witnesses -- I mean, you expressed a concern earlier in this interview that, if the Senate trial is perceived as unfair as the House impeachment inquiry was, in your view, then the American people will feel like they have been hit by the same truck twice or something like that.

You said it better and more -- and more colorfully.

JOHN KENNEDY: Right.

TAPPER: Do you think that, if the Senate trial goes forward, and no witnesses are called, as Mitch McConnell wants to do it, the Senate majority leader, that will be the truck running over the American people a second time, that people will not feel like it was fair?

JOHN KENNEDY: I don't know yet. I will have to make that decision at the -- at that juncture.

I would start by giving each side a good amount of time to present their case. I would -- I would give the prosecution, say, 24 hours. I would give the defense, the president, 24 hours.

Then I would allow plenty of time, maybe 10 to 15 hours of time, for senators to ask questions.

Now, we can't ask questions. We submit them in writing. Either side, prosecution or defense, can object.

And, at that juncture, I think we should step back and say, OK, have we heard enough? Do we want to go further?

I suspect, at that juncture, somebody will make a motion to dismiss. That's what happened in President Clinton's impeachment. The motion to dismiss was defeated, and the Senate decided to hear three more witnesses.

It's also possible -- I'm not recommending it, but it's possible for the Senate, through the presiding officer, the chief justice, to appoint a committee to hear additional evidence, if the Senate thinks it's necessary.

[09:15:13]

All I know today, Jake, is, I don't know if we will ever get the case. I don't know if we will ever get the case.

TAPPER: Yes.

JOHN KENNEDY: And I don't know why the speaker's doing this.

Maybe she's telling the truth that she wants to dictate the policy -- or the procedure, rather, to the Senate. If that's -- if she's sincere in that, I think it's unconstitutional.

Maybe it's a cynical political ploy. Maybe her actions demonstrate indecision.

I don't know.

TAPPER: Yes. So...

JOHN KENNEDY: But I think, in the meantime -- go ahead.

TAPPER: Well, I -- finish your thought.

JOHN KENNEDY: No, you go ahead.

TAPPER: Well, I just want to ask you, because one of the witnesses... JOHN KENNEDY: I was just going to say...

TAPPER: Please.

JOHN KENNEDY: OK.

I was just saying, in the meantime, I would get back to work.

TAPPER: OK.

JOHN KENNEDY: I think the Senate ought to take up the USMCA.

Go ahead.

TAPPER: One the witnesses the Democrats want to hear from is from Trump aide Mike Duffey of the Office of Management and Budget.

JOHN KENNEDY: Right.

TAPPER: There are these FOIAed mails, e-mails that show -- that just came out -- that show that roughly 90 minutes after President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to give us a favor for the investigation into the Bidens and the other investigation, July 25, 90 minutes later, Duffey ordered a freeze on the U.S. security assistance for Ukraine.

Duffey, in that e-mail, acknowledged the -- quote -- "sensitive nature" of the request and asked the other officials to keep the information closely held.

Doesn't that make you, as a juror, want to hear from Mike Duffey?

JOHN KENNEDY: Well, two points.

Number one, executive privilege. Now, the president, as has just about every president going back to George Washington, asserted executive privilege in the House.

Speaker Pelosi decided not to take the normal route and get a decision by a third branch of government. That was her call.

In the Senate, if we tomorrow agreed with Senator Schumer, who I think is speaking for Speaker Pelosi, to call all of the witnesses that he wants, I fully expect the president to do two things, claim executive privilege, which is his right, and, number two, demand his own list of witnesses.

TAPPER: Right.

JOHN KENNEDY: Now, if the president does that, we could end up with a scenario where Chuck caught the car. The president's witnesses don't testify, if the Senate doesn't want to pursue it in court, but -- or the -- or Senator Schumer's witnesses don't testify, but the president's witnesses do.

I don't think Senator Schumer would think that's fair. TAPPER: Lastly, sir, I just want to ask you.

President Trump, just a few days ago, retweeted an unsubstantiated claim about the identity of the intelligence community whistle-blower. One of your colleagues in the senior members of your caucus, Senator Chuck Grassley, has been a champion of whistle-blowers for decades.

He has said in the past that it is -- quote -- "strictly up to the whistle-blower," this one, to reveal his or her identity, that the whistle-blower should be -- quote -- "heard out and protected."

You, on the other hand, have said that the whistle-blower should be publicly named. Why is Senator Grassley wrong? And do you think it's appropriate for the president to be identifying this whistle-blower -- I don't know if it's true or not, but identifying this individual?

JOHN KENNEDY: I don't know who the whistle-blower is.

Number two, I think we ought to follow the law. Number three, there have been some allegations in the press about the identity of the whistle-blower. If -- if those -- those statements are true, one of the thoughts I had was that, well, the whistle-blower could easily -- easily be called by the defense, not as the whistle-blower, but as a fact witness.

It wouldn't surprise me if the president's counsel, being the good lawyers that they are, if we move to additional evidence, wanted to call the whistle-blower, or the alleged whistle-blower, not as the whistle-blower, but as a fact witness.

Number four, with respect to what the president tweeted, look, I have enough trouble paddling my own canoe. But I do agree with Mrs. Trump that -- and I have suggested before to the White House that, if the president would tweet a little bit less, it wouldn't cause brain damage.

But the president does not have to take my advice, nor do I expect him to.

TAPPER: Senator John Kennedy of -- Kennedy of Louisiana, merry Christmas and happy new year to you, sir. Thank you so much.

JOHN KENNEDY: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: Former Vice President Joe Biden now backtracking, after saying he would not comply with a Senate subpoena to testify in President Trump's trial. Does he have any more of a right to do that than someone like the president's chief of staff?

[09:20:03]

We will talk to Democratic Congressman Joe Kennedy -- no relation to Senator Kennedy -- next.

Plus: the state of play in the Democratic primary just weeks before the Iowa caucus. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.

House Democrats are defending Speaker Pelosi for sitting on President Trump's articles of impeachment for now, saying that they are in a holding pattern because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not doing his job.

But how long could this standoff last?

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Happy new year.

REP. JOE KENNEDY (D-MA): Jake, thanks for having me. Happy new year to you.

TAPPER: So, House Democratic Deputy Whip Dan Kildee told CNN on Friday that House Speaker Pelosi might even need to wait until February to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate in order to get a fair trial.

Do you think that Speaker Pelosi should be willing to hold the articles until February or even longer?

JOE KENNEDY: I think the speaker should do what's necessary in order to make sure that there is, in fact, a fair proceeding that takes place in the United States Senate.

Look, this is about an impeachment proceeding for the president of the United States. This is -- literally nothing more consequential that Congress, both the House and Senate, can engage in.

And you have got a Senate majority leader that has already said, in Mr. McConnell, that they're working hand in glove with the White House to ensure that this process is essentially cooked.

I think the speaker is doing everything she can to ensure that there is as fair and open and transparent a process as there can be, particularly given the weight of the evidence that came out during the House investigation and the impeachment proceeding.

[09:25:06]

So, I think she should do everything we can to ensure that that process is as accurate and fair as can be.

TAPPER: What do you make of the argument from Republicans that Speaker Pelosi holding these articles indefinitely, that that undermines the Democrats' case that this impeachment was such a pressing matter of national security, it had to be voted on quickly, even before the courts were able to rule on whether or not to force witness testimony?

JOE KENNEDY: I think a couple of things, Jake.

One, look, I was a prosecutor. There was the old adage in the courtroom, when you had the facts, you argued the facts. When you had the law, you argued the law. And when you had nothing, you got loud.

You have seen Republicans get loud throughout this process over and over and over again. Yes, do I believe there's an urgency to do this? Absolutely, but understanding that there's a two-part process to this.

You don't go through the first part in the House, and then just tee this up for a Senate process where the guy that is going to be in charge of orchestrating the entire Senate trial has said that the whole thing is already baked and cooked, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.

You don't go and do that. That makes a mockery of the entire system.

And so I would hope that Mr. McConnell would understand the weight of the responsibility that is coming down on his shoulders and the shoulders of the United States Senate.

You saw Senator Patrick Leahy, I think, pen an op-ed last week, saying, what is on trial here is not just the president, but it is, in fact, the United States Senate and the legitimacy of the United States Senate. I would hope that the Senate majority leader would understand that as well.

TAPPER: So Democrats are pushing to call Trump officials as witnesses in the Senate trial. That's one of the things that I think Pelosi wants.

But any agreement in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, would mean, obviously, that they get to call their witnesses too.

Here's former Vice President Joe Biden yesterday clearing up his position whether or not he would be willing to testify.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would honor whatever the Congress, in fact, legitimately asked me to do.

I would, in fact, abide by the -- whatever was legally required of me. I always have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Do you think, if Biden gets subpoenaed, he should comply and testify?

JOE KENNEDY: Look, I think the vice president has indicated that he would abide by any lawful order that comes his way.

And I think that's -- that's probably the right thing to do. Now, let's also be clear, Jake. There is zero evidence at all that he

is a relevant factual witness to what is actually being alleged. This is, again, more smoke and mirrors from Republicans in the House and Senate that are trying to obfuscate and hide around it and misdirect the attention of the American public off of the actions of the president of the United States, who clearly abused his power.

And that's it. There's nothing else here. There's no -- been credible allegation that the vice president has done anything wrong put forward by anybody.

And, yet again, to the extent that you have got Republicans that are arguing that this was, in fact, about corruption, the very first readout of the call that was in question, the president, President Trump, never once indicated -- said the word corruption once.

And so, once again, these are -- it's Republicans getting loud, trying to hide the ball from what is a very serious abuse of power by President Trump.

TAPPER: You know, it's true that there's no evidence of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden or that Hunter Biden broke any laws at all.

But, frankly, it does stink that Hunter Biden got this contract with no expertise in the energy sector, and that he likely -- he's already said, basically, he probably got that money, which was significant, because of his connection with his father, the vice president at the time, who was also in charge of Ukraine at the time.

Do you think that future presidents and vice presidents should say, my relatives cannot cash in any way on their connection to me?

JOE KENNEDY: Look, I think it is certainly -- I think it's certainly worth putting that out there and worth trying to make sure that there is not any sort of profit that is going to be earned by close relatives being in office.

I have had plenty of family members in office. I understand the responsibility that comes with holding a position of public responsibility and ensuring that there is a very clear delineation there, so that others aren't profiting off of it.

I do think, though, that if we, again, are going to get into this conversation, it's awfully hard for me to reconcile and to square those comments and that clarity put forth by Vice President Biden, by Hunter Biden, with the fact that you have got the current president's children running around on an international hotel chain that is being supported by U.S. military service members staying at their hotels across the world, that is -- where he tried to host the G7 at a struggling hotel in Florida, and where his daughter, who runs clothing lines and jewelry lines, just got patents from China in the midst of a trade war.

[09:30:13] So, look, some of those might be legitimate, some of them might not be. But let's be clear and make sure that everybody is being held to the same standard. And once again I just don't think that is the case here.

TAPPER: And you said earlier this month that if President Trump is not removed from office -- quote -- "I don't think anything stops him from thinking that he can't do it again" -- unquote.

Is there a possibility you think that the House could impeach President Trump again before the end of this term or even in his next term if there is another term?

KENNEDY: Jake, I -- I -- we talked about it before. I would hope that we would not have to impeach President Trump once. I would hope that -- obviously I voted for -- to remove the president from office because I believe he has abused his power. I hope we don't have to do that again.

But let's be clear, this is not the House of Representatives voting to impeachment Donald Trump. This is the House of Representatives standing up for our constitution and holding the president accountable for his own actions. Remember, the call in question that brought down the scrutiny about the president's actions vis-a-vis Ukraine happened the day after Director Mueller testified about electoral interference and the Trump administration's handling of Russian interference in our election, the next day, the day after Director Mueller was there when plenty of news reports said that it was clear that the president wasn't going to be held accountable for those actions the very next day he calls up the president of Ukraine and says, do us a favor though.

And the fact that you have got somebody that engaged in the behavior as outlined in that Mueller report, and I read every page of it, as atrocious and as I think disrespectful of the office and the country as it was, the fact that after he was clearly going to skate on that, the next day he engages in this behavior and then when called to account on this on he gets in front of news cameras and asked China to do the very same thing. At what point does this stop? At what point does this president actually abide by the laws, rules, regulations and national security concerns of this country? And at this point he hasn't and that is what this process is about.

And I did not run for office to try to impeach a president but if the president is going to keep abusing his office I'm not sure what else I can do.

TAPPER: Congressman Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts, thank you so much, sir. Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you and your whole family -- growing. Two kids --

KENNEDY: To you as well. Thanks, Jake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT `

Source