CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Jack Reed

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HARLOW: Democratic Senator Jack Reed is with us now. Of course, sir, good to have you. You're a juror in this proceeding as it continues today. Do you believe that you now have a majority of sitting senators who will vote in favor of witnesses or a witness, namely, John Bolton?

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Well, I hope we do. Ambassador Bolton's comments that have been mentioned in the press suggests that he had firsthand knowledge of the President's rationale and reason. And according to what I read in the past, that was to use American military aid and other political favors to get an investigation of the 2016 election in the Bidens.

[09:55:11]

That information has to come out and apparently the White House has had that knowledge since the end of December when Ambassador Bolton submitted his book review. So comments by White House counsel and others that there's no value to Ambassador Bolton's testimony are absolutely unsubstantiated and supported.

So I think we need to make a decision. We do have to give both sides their due, but he's critical and we have to listen to him.

SCIUTTO: You may have heard Mike Rogers just there float an idea saying Senators should negotiate and propose the idea of a classified setting for Ambassador Bolton and Bolton's testimony, is that something that you and other Democratic senators would be open to as opposed to Bolton say on the Senate floor, depose him in a classified setting in case issues of national security come up that should not be public.

REED: The typical procedure for any witnesses is, my understanding, I participated in the Clinton impeachment also, is there's a deposition and that deposition is not done on the floor. And the deposition is not public. There are obviously opportunities for both sides to raise issues of objections either based on classified material or executive privilege or other types of legal objections. And then that deposition after it's been fully vetted will be available to the Senate.

HARLOW: There is a fascinating opinion piece in The Times this morning about the power that the Chief Justice, some believe wields, it's by Neil Katya, another Georgetown Law professor and a former Republican member of Congress, it sounds like you've read it.

They say that the Chief Justice has the power here to call witnesses and they say their interpretation of the rules, Senator, is it's not just the 51-vote simple majority needed to overrule and it's actually a two-thirds of the Senate vote to overrule him. He's got the power and that Democratic House managers should call on him to use it today. Do you agree with that assessment?

REED: Well, I think it represents, I think, a powerful argument. My experience and the experience of particularly the Clinton impeachment is that the Chief Justice played a very nominal role. That he was more or less a sort of a referee between both sides. He didn't interfere. I think the argument they've raised has to be considered and should be looked at very thoughtfully.

But frankly, right before us now we will have votes on witnesses. That's already, I think, been included in the procedures. And without involving the Chief Justice, my colleague on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to stand up and say we'd like Ambassador Bolton to come forward to testify with protections for national security and for classified information.

But he was the first person, firsthand witness to it that went by. He can tell us what happened and then we can make a judgment based on his sworn testimony and emphasized sworn testimony. The President keeps going back and says read the transcript of this call of July 25th. It's not a transcript. It's a summary of the call.

In fact, there's some real questions of whether the actual summary, the one that has been locked away, is exactly the same as the one we've received. So in addition to read the transcript, we should get the actual document.

SCIUTTO: OK. Lindsey Graham this morning raising, again, what has been raised before the idea of Democrats get their witnesses, Republicans get their witnesses. I know that Democrats have made the argument only witnesses relevant to this and, of course, if said for instance Hunter Biden would not be relevant. But I'm curious, if such an agreement would get you John Bolton to testify, would you be open to such a quid pro quo perhaps you could call it? REED: That's a well used term, quid pro quo. And I think we're a

little reluctant on quid pro quo lately. But the issue is relevancy. The issue is who has first hand information of what the President did and why did he do it, so that we can make a judgment about the President's conduct. This is about the President's conduct. That's all it's about and we have to get that information. And it's based on relevant witnesses and I think relevancy is the most important issue.

SCIUTTO: Right. Senator Jack Reed, we know you had a busy day and week ahead of you.

REED: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Thanks very much for joining the program.

REED: Thank you.

HARLOW: Thank you, Senator.

REED: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source