Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Democrats Unveil Two Articles Of Impeachment Against Trump; Democrats Speak On North American Trade Deal. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 10, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Good morning. I'm Jim Sciutto. We are covering history today. You're witnessing it today.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: Absolutely. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.

As Jim said, a historic day on Capitol Hill, the House announcing articles of impeachment against the sitting resident, Donald Trump, two articles, specifically, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): A president who declares himself above accountability, above the American people and above Congress' power of impeachment, which is meant to protect against threats to our democratic institutions, is a president who sees himself as above the law. We must be clear, no one, not even the president, is above the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: And yet, within an hour of uttering those comments, saying that the president should be removed from office, Democrats, any minute now, are going to announce an update on a trade deal they're trying to strike on the very same day they're officially planning to impeach the president, a replacement for the NAFTA deal, a moment of agreement, separated just about an hour from a moment of great disagreement with consequence.

Let's begin with the latest on impeachment. CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, is on Capitol Hill.

Manu, they've announced those two articles of impeachment, included to some degree as a pattern of behavior, so references to past instances of what they say are alleged malfeasance by the president. What happens next?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. Expect votes in the House Judiciary Committee are going to happen as soon as Thursday. That's what we're expecting, and a vote in the full House next week.

Now, I just had the chance to talk to several members of the House Judiciary Committee who have been involved in these closed-door discussions about how they got to this point of two articles of impeachment, one about abuse of power, another about obstruction of Congress. A big question about whether or not they would also include obstruction of justice allegations in the Mueller report, the president trying to undercut that investigation.

At least several members I've talked to tell me they do not feel it was even necessary to go that route, because they say abuse of power is such an overreaching article of impeachment that it encompasses all these other issues. It will be references to past behavior. So expect when we see the language, it will be referenced in some way that the president, in their view, has help from Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections. They're going to be discussing that as well.

And here's the House Speaker right now. We'll see if she answers.

Madam Speaker, why not include obstruction of justice in the articles of impeachment?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): MCA -- Mexico/U.S. Trade Agreement.

RAJU: She said that they're dealing with the USMCA. I'm not sure if you heard that. That's what she's trying to keep her message on. She didn't take our questions at the press conference just moments ago. And I'm told in the closed-door meeting just now, she did talk also about that USMCA and she said, quote, we ate our lunch in reference to the Republicans, but she didn't talk about the articles of impeachment. We'll see if she said anything else.

Nevertheless, Democrats are also defending, guys, their decision to not go to court and fight for those firsthand witnesses, because the White House had blocked that decision from going forward. Adam Schiff, at the press conference earlier, explained why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The argument, why don't you just wait, amounts to this. Why don't you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So that's going to be the debate going forward. And the question ultimately is, how many Democrats vote for this on the floor. We do expect at least two Democrats to defect. We'll see if any others decide to as well. Guys?

HARLOW: Okay. Manu, thank you very much. We know where the speaker is headed, to make yet another historic announcement in just a minute, you'll see it here. SCIUTTO: What is the administration saying about all of this? What do they plan to do about all of this? Let's go to CNN Senior White House Correspondent, Pamela Brown.

You have some new reporting shared on this broadcast just in the last hour about what the president wants. Will he get it?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that is the question. The president does want the Senate trial to happen quickly, even over the holidays, over the Christmas holiday. That is something White House aides have made clear to Republican senators on Capitol Hill. But it's unlikely it's going to happen, because many senators want the trial to start in January.

And, you know, it really is a sign that the White House wants this to be wrapped up quickly and it's testing the waters to see how far it can go in influencing the process with the senators. Of course, it's ultimately up to Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who we're expecting to hear from later today. I can imagine that this will come up.

The White House is firmly setting its sights ahead, looking at the Senate trial. At the same time, the president just tweeted moments ago in response to this press conference this morning with the Democrats laying out those two articles of impeachment.

[10:05:03]

The president, once again, reiterating a key White House talking point, saying that he never pressured Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. He pointed to Zelensky's own words on that matter.

The White House is working up a statement right now as well in response to that press conference. It is expected to, once again, lay out its case, as it's been making, saying that the Democrats don't have any evidence to prove the president abused the power of his office. The Democrats, as you know, have said there is overwhelming evidence to prove it. Back to you.

HARLOW: Okay, Pam. Notable though, as we wait for the official White House statement, that the Trump 2020 campaign has already put out their statement on all of this, saying, essentially, Democrats don't have a viable candidate. They know it, that's why they're doing this. That's their take.

Eli Honig is here, former former assistant U.S attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ross Garber, an expert on impeachment, has been through a few of them, representing governors going through it, joins us, and David Gergen, former presidential adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton.

So, David Gergen, as someone who has been an adviser to two presidents who have been down this road before, how historic of a day is this and how different of a day is it given that it comes in the first term of this president's presidency? DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's a very significant day, and may well be an historic day. We'll have to see how it plays out. But for the first 36 presidents we had in this country, we only had one who was impeached. We've had nine presidents since then and we're about to see the third one impeached. I do regret that the impeachment is increasingly a political weapon and a partisanship in Washington.

But I think at the same time, there are strong grounds for what the Democrats are arguing, and that is the -- they're going after the Trump administration saying, look, you violated the sanctity of our understandings of the rules going all the way back to Hamilton and the Federalist Papers that you don't interfere and meddle with our elections. We're not going to let you do that this time. And secondly, Congress does have a role under the Constitution for oversight, we're not going to let you destroy that as well.

SCIUTTO: Ross Garber, you have been a skeptic of the impeachment case of the Democrats for some time. And just -- Nancy Pelosi may speak momentarily. If she does, Ross -- here she is. Hold that thought. Let's listen to the speaker.

PELOSI: Good morning, everyone. This is a day we've all been working to and working for on the path to, yes. We were in range for a while, but until we could cross a certain threshold of enforcement for our workers' rights, for the environment and for the prescription drug issue, as you know, they were three of the areas that we had put out there.

I want to thank our chairman, Ritchie Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the eight members of the task force, and I will acknowledge momentarily, but thanking them for their leadership in negotiating on different segments of the legislation.

I also want to thank Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO. He was persistent, dissatisfied, knowledgeable, he really got us to a place which is a far distance from where we started with the proposal that was given to us. There is no question, of course, that this trade agreement is much better than NAFTA. But in terms of our work here, it is infinitely better than what was initially proposed by the administration.

And I credit our chairman, Ritchie Neal, for helping us navigate all of these places, the unity of our caucus on specific priorities in order to get the job done, and again, the brilliance and knowledge of Richard Trumka as to the ramifications of every provision that was in the legislation.

We'll be handing out a memo from the Ways and Means Committee. You may have it, which explains why we are so proud of the distance that we have come from where we started with the administration on this legislation. It's a victory for America's workers. It's one that we take great pride in advancing.

The eight members of the task force, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has a markup in her committee about workers' rights and appropriations, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.

[10:10:07]

You'll be hearing from, Mike Thompson of California, Terri Sewell of Alabama, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, whom you'll be hearing from, Jimmy Gomez of California, you'll be hearing from as well. And where are my others? John Larson, John Larson of Connecticut, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. One, two, three, four, five, six. Here we are.

And now it's my honor to yield to Ritchie. He was, indeed, a maestro to make all of this happen. It's with great respect and administration for his work and gratitude that I yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Ritchie Neal.

REP. RICHARD NEAL (D-MA): Thanks, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Every once in a great while, you get to participate in a, it will never happen moment. And we are witnessing that today. The other value of technology I will point out was after a round of intense finishing conversations and negotiations over the weekend that started on Saturday morning with the speaker and myself and the trade rep, Robert Lighthizer, we went back -- and Mr. Trumka, the speaker was on a hunting expedition. We spoke with him frequently. But the speaker talked to me earnestly about, we're near, we're near, we're near.

And on Sunday, when Tom Brady was about to take it in, all of a sudden, I looked at my phone, and it said, Pelosi for caller I.D., long wisdom tells me, the hell with Brady, take the call.

PELOSI: And I was watching Baltimore and the 49ers.

NEAL: So this is a transformative agreement. It's a template, I believe, for future agreements. Our constant emphasis was on enforceability, enforceability, enforceability. We fixed that. And the idea and the notion that the president of the AFL-CIO, Rich Trumka, would be supportive of this initiative, I think, tells the story.

But this is more than a triumph for organized labor. It's a triumph for workers everywhere across America. In terms of the working group members, I want to say that they strengthened the labor standards. They strengthened the environmental chapters. They enhanced the verification mechanisms for environmental trade.

With the unflinching leadership of the speaker, we also secured important changes in USMCA that preserve Congress' ability to changed U.S. law to address the crisis we are facing with respect to high prescription drug prices.

Over the intense period of these negotiations with the administration, I repeatedly emphasized that USMCA will deserve a vote because it's an agreement that Democrats shaped. I don't think anybody on this dais would have said two months ago that we would have been able to get as far as we did in this negotiation. It was based upon goodwill, but also a determination what we acknowledge the problems that have existed in the past with enforceability, and it was a very telling moment that was shared with the media.

On the day of the break in August with the working group, I said to the trade rep at the last meeting, I said, nothing has fostered more disagreement about trade than the lack of enforceability. And the trade rep said to me, you are absolutely right. And he said, I want to tell you.

And this is, I think I'm not speaking out of school, he said, there have been people in the State Department, the Defense Department and the Oval Office over the years who said, don't get this one upset and don't get that one upset, because we might need them on future geographic issues. He said, our position has been that we are supportive of the thrust of what you want to do here.

And I think that the initiative that we offer -- his position. I think the offering that we have in front of us today is indicative of the goodwill, but some of the members on this task force, and including the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Blumenauer, what a job they did. These were intense, argumentative, angry negotiations. I mean, this got really hot on a number of occasions. I think we set a world record for hanging up on each other, myself and the trade rep. But at the same time, we also knew that this was an opportunity that we couldn't let get away from us, and we did that.

So we will continue to share for details and texts. The last point is a reminder that I traveled to Mexico with the delegation to meet the president of Mexico, then right after that, I traveled to Canada to meet with the prime minister of Canada and the Minister for Defense and Trade, Freeland. They are -- I believe, they were good partners in this. They conceded to just about every point that we asked for because of the following, enforceability, enforceability, enforceability.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I'll turn it back to you.

PELOSI: Well, we will turn it to Jan Schakowsky, a champion on the issues related to pharmaceuticals in the trade agreement.

[10:15:04]

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's been an honor to serve on the working group. The Trump administration sent us a deeply flawed trade deal that among other things would have raised the price of pharmaceuticals across North America by locking in high drug prices and expanding big pharma's monopoly.

Over the past six months, my Democratic colleagues and I on the working group, we worked for a deal that helps America's patients --

SCIUTTO: You've been listening there to Democratic leaders announcing an agreement, we should note, with Republicans, with the White House, on a replacement for the NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, known as USMCA. Crucially there, Democrats saying, in effect, that they shaped this deal to the benefit of their caucus, their view. You even have a quote from Nancy Pelosi, using the phrase, we ate Republicans' lunch in this negotiation there. But we should -- HARLOW: I'm sure the White House loved that one.

SCIUTTO: I'm sure they loved that. But we should note, on this day, a little more than an hour after Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, announced those articles of impeachment against the president, would announce a key trade deal with agreement with the president.

HARLOW: One really notable thing in all of this in USMCA and the new NAFTA, if you will, once this thing gets signed, is Richard Trumka, union leader, AFL-CIO, says at the end of his statement, President Trump may have opened this deal, but working people closed it. They have not -- the unions have not backed a trade deal in two decades. So to have their support on this is huge.

SCIUTTO: Yes, exactly. And set aside the politics there, let's, for a moment, talk about what's actually in this deal and what it means to you at home, your businesses, stocks you own, your jobs. We're joined now by Ron Brownstein, Senior Editor for The Atlantic, as well as here with us New York, CNN Chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans and .Catherine Rampell, Opinion Columnist for The Washington Post.

Christine, you know these deals very well. How much of this new deal is different substantively and much is window dressing? What's changed?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: So it's a lot different from a year ago when the president signed this with the two countries. But how is it different from NAFTA? Well, it's the elements of NAFTA and other trade deals put together, repackaged as a Trump product with new enforcement, and that is the part that's the Democratic addition here.

Look, American trade deals for decades have been full of promises about the environment and American workers that have never been enforced. So what you're hearing from the Democrats is they took Trump's flawed repackaging of NAFTA and made it even better with enforceability. You'll have to convince Mexican factories, Mexican governments to let American inspectors into their factories to make sure people are being paid what they say they're being paid.

There's a core element of here, which is higher wages for the content that make American cars and North American cars, right? So 40 to 45 percent of the content of an automobile has to be made by a worker making $16 an hour or more. That is a price point that is very specific.

Now, you can argue whether that just drives production offshore completely or whether that benefits American and Canadian factories, which is what the architects say it will.

SCIUTTO: The proof will be in the pudding, how do companies react to this new deal.

HARLOW: Catherine, to Christine's important point there about the wage barriers that were set, you have to make at least $16 an hour to make these cars, for example, in Mexico, the hope is that Schiff's production here to the United States, what do you think it means for the American consumer at home that might be watching this and saying, I'm a little worried that I'm going to pay more now.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: There is a big question here about the knock-on economic effects. As Christine mentioned, there is some research, including an independent analysis from the IMF, suggesting that instead of raising employment in the auto industry within the United States, it will actually just push it abroad and auto employment may either stay flat or go down. But if it does actually move employment to the United States, move it to higher- wage areas, those costs, could, in fact, be passed along to consumers. So it's sort of a double-edged sword. Are you prioritizing the jobs or are you prioritizing the costs?

SCIUTTO: That's always the choice, right? It's nice to have a cheaper television in your living room or furniture, et cetera, as this offshoring has happened but at lower wages. So what are consumers willing to pay?

Ron Brownstein, describe to us the amazement of one hour apart on this date in 2019 for Democrats to announce articles of impeachment against a sitting president for only the fourth time in this country's history, and then an hour later say, oh, and we've managed to have this big deal with that same sitting president.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. You know, it feels like cognitive dissidence, but I think it fits together a little nore than you might think at first blush for two reasons. First, Democrats have very clearly tried to send the message that what they are doing with impeachment is not litigating a difference in policy, a disagreement over policy. They are responding to an abuse of power. And I think this allows them to kind of say, look, this is something that is completely different.

And then on the kind of the more immediate -- I actually don't think it's a coincidence that these two things are happening in the same day.

[10:20:04]

Because if you look at the question on impeachment, the weakest link are the 31 Democrats who we have talked about many times who are representing districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2016. And they want to be able to show that in addition to holding him account for his behavior, they are capable of working with him when interests align.

By the way, they will also pass their prescription drug bill this week to reduce prescription drug prices, which will be another piece of evidence against the inevitable Republican charge in these districts that all they have done is wage a campaign --

SCIUTTO: Do-nothing Democrats. That's the president's new moniker.

HARLOW: You took the words out of my mouth? I was literally going to say, how many Republicans have we had on this show who have said, yes, yes, yes, but the Democrats won't even get USMCA done.

Ron is this -- Ron Brownstein, is this Nancy Pelosi's day?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, in one sense, it's a reflection of reality. I mean, the Democratic Party position on trade has been behind their actual coalition. If you look at the counties that voted for Hillary Clinton, she won only 1/6 of the counties in the country, they account for 60 percent of all the country's exports. And the Democratic Party is the party of metro, globally engaged America and they have been behind that on kind of where they have been on trade.

But, yes, I think this is a reflection of how deftly and with how much nuance she manages the caucus. Because I think, you know, I'm guessing there were probably a few Democrats from marginal districts who said, look, I will take this difficult vote for impeachment on you, but you have to give me something to go home with. And I think she kind of, you know, is reflecting that here. And the fact that Richard Trumka is endorsing this is pretty remarkable in itself as well.

SCIUTTO: No question, Ron Brownstein, Christine Romans, Catherine Rampell, thanks very much to all of you.

Listen, if you think -- if you ever think, and you could be reasonably -- we can all be guilty of this, nothing ever changes. In the last 60 minutes, two remarkable things have happened in this country. A solemn moment, articles of impeachment against this president, and a moment of economic progress, a new significant trade deal.

Stay with us. We're going to keep you on top of all of it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

HARLOW: The White House is now officially reacting with a statement after House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against the president. Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham sent a statement out. Let me read it in part. Quote, the announcement of two baseless articles of impeachment does not hurt the president, it hurts the American people, who expect their elected officials to work on their behalf to strengthen our nation.

She goes on to say, the president will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated, because he did nothing wrong.

SCIUTTO: We're joined now by Eli Honig, Ross Garber and David Gergen back with us.

David Gergen, tell me about the politics of the last 90 minutes in our country's history.

HARLOW: A lot, the juxtaposition.

SCIUTTO: Nancy Pelosi announcing those articles of impeachment and then perhaps preempting that point from Stephanie Grisham there, announcing a major trade deal to make the case to American voters they are doing something for the American people.

GERGEN: Well, listen, I think it does go beyond politics, but the politics are pretty clear, and that is this has been a major priority for President Trump for this year and his critics say they don't like it, but they have to acknowledge that this is going to be helpful to him politically.

At the same time, the Democrats, I think, will gain something from it, because the argument has been from the president, we can't get anything done in Washington, because these damned Democrats are just pursuing me and they're trying to put me up on a stake somewhere and we're completely at paralysis. And this is a breakthrough which says, no, actually, you got things done. And I think that helps the Democrats.

Remember this, Jim, if I might, that is when President Clinton was in office and faced this same question, his strategy was, show people in the country that you're still doing your work, you're still doing your job, you're not so distracted and he got welfare reform done during that period. He got a balanced budget during that time. And he got new funding for the Children's Health Program, CHIP. So -- and it really helped Clinton to lay a foundation for the rest of his time in office.

HARLOW: Let's all take a moment and listen to something that the president's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICK MULVANEY, WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEFF OF STAFF: Politics can and should influence foreign policy. You may have one foreign policy you're running on, I may have a different one. Whoever wins gets to set that foreign policy. That was the point I was trying to make in that press conference, was that politics can and should influence foreign policy and hopefully always will.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But stopping short of getting another country to investigate your political rival?

MULVANEY: Yes, yes, well, again, I'm not going to go into facts. You're doing a nice job and I appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just asking.

MULVANEY: But I'm not going to talk about the facts until the president tells me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Ross Garber, Mick Mulvaney punted on that question, but the fact is we know that that's what's happening right now. The president's personal attorney has been to Ukraine, He's met with Ukrainian politicians, who we should note, are from the prior pro- Russian government. One of them that he met with formerly worked for the KGB, digging up, it appears, dirt on a political opponent.

[10:30:06]

I mean, this is central to the Democrats' case, as you heard them a little more than an hour --