Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Democrats Move Closer To Articles Of Impeachment; Interview With Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) Regarding The Impeachment Inquiry. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 22, 2019 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --real and doesn't just go away, especially when new facts are still coming out.

[10:00:04]

Guys?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: That's quite an amazing omission there. Brynn Gingras, thanks very much.

A very good Friday morning to you, what a week. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: What a week indeed. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

A dozen impeachment witnesses and a dozen points of view, all of their sworn testimony adding to evidence pointing to a president potentially abusing his power, demanding that an ally at war with Russia conduct what one witness calls a domestic political errand, a risk losing millions in key aid and access to the White House, all for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.

SCIUTTO: So now, instead of a court fight over the witnesses and evidence blocked by the Trump administration of the senior-most officials involved, Democrats are looking to the next stage of the impeachment fight, drafting the specific articles of impeachment for the Judiciary Committee and staying on track for a House-wide vote on impeachment before Christmas.

HARLOW: The president is also looking ahead this morning to a possible Senate trial. He is already meeting with GOP senators at the White House whose votes he needs to remain there.

Joining us from Capitol Hill is CNN's Senior Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju.

Good morning, Manu. Great work all week, and it has been quite a week for you and your team certainly. What do we know about the Democrats and their strategy now that this flips over to judiciary?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Democrats right now are drafting a report that would detail the findings of this investigation that's been going on since late September, and will lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee will take up. We're expecting the Judiciary Committee action to happen in the first two weeks of December followed by a full House vote before Christmas that can make President Trump just the third president in American history to be impeached.

The Democrats have already made the decision not to pursue some of the key witness who have not come forward, not to go to court to get them, because they believe they have enough evidence so far and don't necessarily have to hear from Mick Mulvaney, from Mike Pompeo, from John Bolton in order to make the case that they believe the president abused his office in his handling with Ukraine.

But Republicans are falling in lock step behind the president. The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, told me last night that he expects no Republicans to vote for impeachment. He expects to pick up some Democratic votes.

And Republican members who I spoke with in the aftermath of yesterday's testimony by Fiona Hill, who raised serious concerns about the theory pushed by the president and others that it was Ukraine who meddled in the 2016 elections, they are making it very clear they are siding with the president, not the experts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SCOTT PERRY (R-PA): Suddenly, they are a key strategic ally. I never that before the last eight weeks. I never that Ukraine was a key strategic ally. And I'm not disputing that they are a key ally and a strategic ally. But it's just interesting how you phrase that in this context, like they can't survive without A White House meeting.

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): I do think there's ample evidence of Ukraine having engagement and involvement with things talking about our 2016 election so far. I think there's more than enough evidence -- RAJU: She says that kind of theory helps Russia. That is the kind of theory that actually bolsters Russia's case and what Russia wants you to say.

ROY: In what universe are these things mutually exclusive?

RAJU: She testified to it.

ROY: All right. So that's her opinion. Well, that's her opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So you're hearing that from Republicans siding with what the president has been saying that he believes that Ukraine meddle in the election. Of course, that's what he urged the Ukrainian president to investigate and that's been set as part of the precondition for that meeting that would occur between Zelensky and Trump in the White House, as well as the White House aid to be released, one of the investigations that he had sought.

But you're hearing there, listening to that witness testimony, disputing that Ukraine had any role in meddling in the 2016 election, making it clear where they stand, which is with the president.

SCIUTTO: Well, as you know, it's a sleight of hand there. Because what the president has talked about with Ukraine interference is a conspiracy theory that the DNC server ended up in Ukraine. It wasn't the Russians who did it. What Republicans like him are talking about is that some Ukrainian officials wrote some op-eds leading up to 2016 against Trump. That's not the same thing and yet here we are.

Manu Raju, I know you have a tough time out there with these folks, but it's always good to have you ask them a lot of questions.

RAJU: Thanks, guys.

HARLOW: All right. So let's talk about what's ahead. CNN Legal Analyst Ross Garber is with us. He teaches impeachment law at Tulane and he's represented four different governors going through this. Sabrina Siddiqui also joins us, National Politics Reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Good morning.

So, Ross, let me just begin with you, a pretty straightforward question. Where does this go from here? How do you see it playing out?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: All right. So the next thing that's going to happen is the House Intel Committee is supposed to draft a report. It will be interesting to see what that looks like. Is it just going to be a sort of plain text on paper, like the Mueller reporter, or is it going to have video, audio, is it going to include things that go beyond what we heard in these hearings?

[10:05:05]

Is it going to include the president's statements? Is it going to include Mick Mulvaney's press conference? Is it going to include Rudy Giuliani's T.V. appearances?

Because one of the purposes of this report is to communicate with the American people, to, again, kind of make the case. These hearings were very interesting. The Democrats did a very -- I think a very good job sort of laying things out. It's not clear yet whether the American people were moved. So this is another way to move them. And then it gets to the Judiciary Committee.

HARLOW: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you just, Ross, a legal question as well, because you've got this Don McGahn case in court decision next week, relates to another case but it would be relevant about executive privilege, et cetera. You have another case being heard that relates specifically to the impeachment inquiry. That argument is heard in December.

From a legal perspective, could these courts decide, compel witnesses like a Bolton, Mulvaney, et cetera? Could they then show up in a Senate trial or has that ship sailed?

GARBER: No, it definitely could affect things, and it could even affect things at the House level. I mean, imagine if -- I think the McGahn decision is probably the most significant one. I mean, imagine if there's a decision related to McGahn, we're probably not going to see McGahn at the House level, but it could support an article of impeachment, and we definitely then have a stronger chance of seeing him at the Senate level if the Senate Republicans agree, because they control the

subpoenas there.

HARLOW: Sabrina, talk about how much power Mitch McConnell now has once this reaches to Senate. Because, as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's like totally up to him how this process works. It could be a one-day trial, it could be a two-week thing, it could be the whole shebang, right?

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And that's the debate taking place among Senate Republicans right now. You'll recall that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said that the Republican- led Senate will acquit President Trump. So he feels confident that they aren't going to have any significant defects, if any at all. That remains to be seen.

But the White House met privately with a group of about half a dozen Republican senators on Thursday in what is one of the first meetings to try and map out a strategy. And I think that level of coordination amid these impeachment proceedings shows is that Republicans are taking their cues from the president. And there are some discussions of just how long the trial should be.

Republicans disagree with the president in terms of just dismissing this from the outset. They do believe they have to take it up or and at least hold some kind of trial. And I think they were thinking perhaps two weeks, maybe not much longer, so that it does not drag out in an election year, where Republicans are trying to hold on to their majority in the Senate. So that is also a key calculation.

We've seen these uncomfortable videos where vulnerable, incumbent Republicans are repeatedly being asked if it's not wrong to try and solicit help from a foreign government to investigate your political rival, and they have tried to duck that question repeatedly. So they don't want this to carry forward much longer than it needs to.

There's also some kind of debate over what kind of witnesses they should call, someone to call Hunter Biden. Others think that's not a good idea.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, dangerous for both parties as this thing proceeds. You heard Kevin McCarthy, according to our reporting, say, Sabrina, that he does not expect to lose a single Republican vote in the House. In the Senate, and, again, it's early, but is there any sense of wobbly senators, Republican senators?

SIDDIQUI: Well, I think that all eyes are on senators like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. These are people who have been critical of the president in the past. The president did, in fact, dined with Collins and Romney the other day, although they said that there was not much discussion of impeachment and declined that it was an effort to and coral them to rally behind the president.

But I think if you just take a step back and you look at the way this process has unfolded thus far, it was very clear from the line of questioning from House Republicans that they are fully behind the president.

And from the Senate, I think one of the lines you've heard is that they don't agree with the president's conduct, and it makes them uncomfortable, but it does not amount to an impeachable offense.

So I think that's the strategy, that's the argument they're going to put forward. Whether or not that's sustainable in the eyes of the American public, what the political cost of that calculation might be, that remains to be seen.

HARLOW: That was the Will Hurd argument, right?

Ross, before we go, it was interesting. Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell was on New Day this morning on CNN. She's on the House Judiciary. And she said that, essentially, they're going to hold the hearing to help explain to the American people what high crimes and misdemeanors are, like what an impeachment offense is.

[10:10:05]

If they do that, is that a wise strategy?

GARBER: Yes, I think it makes sense for everybody. It makes sense for Republicans, Democrats, the country and the citizens to remind everybody, this is not just sort of a political tit for tat. This is a huge deal in the American political process. And I think it makes sense to sort of set the bar, set the standard, and have people explain what an impeachable offense is, why we have the impeachment clause and have that guide at the rest of the proceedings.

HARLOW: Okay. It's going to be not only a busy few weeks, a busy few months. Sabrina Siddiqui, Ross Garber, we appreciate your expertise. Have a nice holiday if we don't see you before.

SIDDIQUI: Happy holidays.

HARLOW: Still to come, one 2020 contender says the impeachment process may not help Democrats in the election next year. That's Andrew Yang.

SCIUTTO: Plus, Trump's former top Russia adviser appointed by him, Fiona Hill, debunks Republican conspiracy theories over election interference and the Russia investigation. We're going to speak to someone who has done extensive reporting on that. That's just ahead.

And students at Syracuse University are protesting after a series of racist incidents on campus. The response from the school and why students say it's not enough yet. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

HARLOW: Well, this morning, the impeachment inquiry moves into a new different stage. Democratic House Intelligence Committee members now say they could hand it off to the Judiciary Committee pretty soon after the Thanksgiving break.

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California, who serves in the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committee, joins me. Thank you.

I know it's such a busy week, so thank you for being here, sir.

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Good to be with you, Poppy.

HARLOW: Let's just first take a moment to listen to your Republican colleague in the House, Congressman Mike Turner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): You guys want to be the laughingstock of history to impeach a president of the United States because he didn't take a meeting? Oh, please, dear God, please undertake that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right. So you've got zero Republicans so far, at least publicly, in the House or in the Senate on board with you guys. So what now?

SHERMAN: Well, the key thing is we've drawn a line. We've made this president feel that he's not invulnerable, he's not invincible. That process started 2 1/2 years ago, when we began talking about impeachment.

And you'll notice the big change. In his first six months in office, when the president wanted to commit a crime, he just did it on T.V. Now that he wants to abuse our relationship with the Ukraine, he at least has the good sense to do it secretly. So he knows he's not invulnerable.

The old President Trump would have just tweeted, Zelensky, get me good dirt on Biden or you'll never see your aid. This president sent Rudy Giuliani instead (ph), sent this message, made that call, all trying to keep it secret from the American people. He tried to keep it secret, because he knew it was wrong.

HARLOW: I'm confused though. I mean, A, is that any better to do it in a roundabout way with Giuliani, and B, if the accomplishment you're saying the Democrats have made is to draw a line in the sand, but you're not saying this is going to mean the president is removed from the office, to what end for the American people if it hasn't fundamentally changed the behavior? SHERMAN: We have -- the question is how many crimes would the president have committed beyond what he's done, if he thought he was invulnerable and invincible, if he thought no one would talk about impeachment back in July of 2017 --

HARLOW: Well, respectfully, it was just a few weeks ago that he said in public on television, China should investigate the Bidens in the middle of trade negotiations with China.

SHERMAN: That was pretty blatant. But imagine the crimes -- what we don't have is him tweeting Zelensky, I need those gold bars or you're not going to get your aid. There are worst things that the president has thought of doing that he has not done, and that is because we have that oversight.

HARLOW: How do you know that? Is that based on fact? I'm just -- I'm confused as to the evidence behind that and to what end for the American people.

SHERMAN: Well, we know what's he's done. When you have someone who -- when you have a professional burglar, and you know they have committed three or four burglaries over a period of several years, you figure they would commit more burglaries if there was no burglar alarm and no police department. So --

HARLOW: So then is it a win for Democrats, you're saying, even if you don't succeed in getting a single Republican vote to impeach the president in the House or the Senate, because you think you have changed his behavior?

SHERMAN: It's a necessary protection for this country that we do everything possible to restrain a president with clear criminal tendencies. And if we can - if we did nothing, if there were no burglar alarms, if there was no police department, how many more burglaries would there be? This is a -

HARLOW: It sounds -

SHERMAN: Yes, go ahead.

HARLOW: It sounds to me like you're saying -- and please correct me if I'm hearing you wrong, but it sounds like you're saying you don't think that you're going to get Republicans on board, and you certainly don't think the president is going to be removed from office, but this is the best you can do.

[10:20:07]

Is that your feeling right now, Congressman?

SHERMAN: No one is coming on CNN and predicting that there will be 20 Republican senators who join the Democratic senators and vote to remove this president. But no one should come on this and say that impeachment is therefore meaningless.

The impeachment process is the check that we do have. And if the president felt completely invulnerable, God knows what he would have done.

HARLOW: It's an interesting argument and an interesting point, and one I haven't heard much.

SHERMAN: That's why I came on.

HARLOW: We always appreciate that.

So to that point, listen to this from Democrat Andrew Yang, who is running for president. Here is the argument he made to my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW YANG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The fact is Donald Trump thrives on attention, even negative attention. And so the concentration on the impeachment proceedings, I don't think is going to work for the Democrats, particularly because not a single Republican has crossed party lines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Do you think he has a point? He is saying this could backfire for the party.

SHERMAN: Well, we're not doing this for the party. We're doing it for the country. We're not doing it because it's a clever political poll-tested device. We're doing it because the Constitution demands it.

That being said, support for impeachment and removal is right about positive 2 percent. It stayed there consistently over the last month. But if the party turns its back on the Constitution, ignores its responsibility to do everything it can to control this president, then what would happen to our support in the polls? This party has got to stand up for the country.

HARLOW: We do know, at least from "The Washington Post" reporting, that the language shift among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee and elsewhere from quid pro quo to bribery may not have been poll- tested but it was focus group-tested. But I hear your point.

So to your final point --

SHERMAN: I -- well, long before there was any focus group, I was on saying, don't speak Latin. Bribery is the English.

HARLOW: I think Sciutto -- Jim Scuitto -- is, I believe, fluent in Latin. So he can school us all on that.

SHERMAN: Let's put it like this. I know enough about politics to know that the Latin-speaking quadrant is not what you're really aiming for (ph).

HARLOW: Yes. Well, there you go. Final point, you say this is not about party, this is about country. If that's the case, would it be prudent for the Democratic Party led by Nancy Pelosi on the House side of this right now to wait? She says, we're not at the mercy of the courts. We're going to get a McGahn ruling possibly on Monday. That could inform Bolton, et cetera, through the courts on whether they can be compelled to testify and the limits potentially of executive privilege.

If it's about the country and the process and not the party and not 2020, then should the Democrats move more slowly on this, wait to try to get documents, wait to hear from more people?

SHERMAN: If we wait until we get all the evidence of all the crimes committed by this president, it's going to be well into the next decade. The fact is when we have --

HARLOW: Come on, Congressman.

SHERMAN: Look --

HARLOW: Like how long are you willing to wait?

SHERMAN: No. The point I'm making is we shouldn't wait until we have all the evidence of all the crimes, because new crimes come up every few months.

What we should do is move forward when we have the proof that he committed a particular high crime and misdemeanor.

I think we have reached that point, but it wouldn't hurt for us to get a bit more information. That's why we'll have hearings in the Judiciary Committee that will add on to what we've done in the Intelligence Committee.

But I think there's no doubt in the minds of the American people, this president was trying to get dirt on Biden for his own political purposes, and he held up American aid to an ally to do that. The only question before us now is, is that reason enough to impeach the president, or should we say no harm, no foul?

HARLOW: I really appreciate the conversation and you coming on. Thank you, Congressman Brad Sherman.

SHERMAN: Thank you.

HARLOW: Have a nice holiday. Jim?

SHERMAN: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Poppy, if you have to suffer through four years of all boys' Catholic high school, you're going to come out with a little Latin in the end.

HARLOW: I was just touting your language skills, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Thank you. Maybe embellishing the, but I will take that. I will take that on.

Well, coming up this hour, as House Dems inch closer to articles of impeachment, a possible Senate trial could force several 2020 contenders off the campaign trail back to Washington. We're going to discuss the political implications and more, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]

SCIUTTO: If the House approves articles of impeachment against the president, the Senate will then hold a trial.

HARLOW: Right. And that could have a major impact on the Democratic nomination for president, considering there are six senators in that race.

For more on this and everything we saw this week, Ron Brownstein joins us, Senior Editor at The Atlantic.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

HARLOW: Great piece, Trump's foreign expertise is only intensifying. We'll get to that in a moment. But can we just first listen to Andrew Yang, one of the contenders for the 2020 nomination? Because what he says matters for Senator Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Booker, you name it.

[10:30:05]

BROWNSTEIN: Right.

Here is Andrew Yang last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YANG: I would hate to see half the --