Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
House Judiciary Debates Articles Of Impeachment, Abuse Of Power And Obstruction Of Congress. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 11, 2019 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
Next, it was obstruction of justice. But after searching diligently and trying to find any evidence that the President obstructed justice, Democrats abandon that theory. By comparison, Clinton's impeachment in Article II had seven different incidents of obstruction of justice, supported by the evidence collected by an independent council. Seven different incidents of a crime being committed.
Then out of the blue, after coordinating with Democratic staff in the Intel committee, a whistleblower filed a carefully scripted complaint based solely and completely on hearsay.
Democrats theory now turned to a quid pro quo, which I'm assuming, because one of their own candidates for president clearly admitted to a quid pro quo on national television and there is no evidence of a quid pro quo on the phone transcript President Trump released, that they abandoned that theory as well.
The process that ensued was anything but open, transparent, bipartisan or equitable. Abandoning all past historic due process afforded the minority and the president.
The Democrats ran a partisan investigation refusing the rights of the minority, refusing the ability the President's counsel to call witnesses. Bill Clinton alone called 14 witnesses on his behalf during his impeachment proceedings. Refusing to allow the President's counsel to cross-examine fact witnesses and refusing a minority hearing day, just to name a few.
Now before us are articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton who were impeached for actual crimes, President Trump is being impeached based on theories concocted by the Democrats.
I imagine just about any law professor could make an argument that every president in the history of our country abused his power at some point in time in their presidency because that would be an opinion, not a crime. When they needed backup for their approach, they paraded out liberal professors with animus against the president who gave them license to impeach the president for any reason that they wish. Those professors, astoundingly, and in direct contradiction to
even the most simplistic concept of due process, stated that an impeachment does not have to be rooted in any recognized criminal standard because the impeachment portion of the Constitution was written before criminal statutes.
Their second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, serves only to highlight the absurdity of the situation that they have put us in. Congressional oversight is a serious constitutional responsibility. It's a bedrock of the checks and balances that the founders envisioned. However, Democrats have now created a standard that if you don't give them what when they want when they want it, they will impeach you for obstruction of Congress. This is not the solemn duty envisioned by the founders.
When this Democratic Congress issued a flurry of subpoenas in accordance with their rights, the President did what is taught to every first-year law student and Civil Procedure, seek judicial review of a subpoena that would lead to the disclosure of privileged information. This is one of the core principles of our nation's judicial system.
By not allowing for a judicial review of the subpoenas, the stance the Democrats are taking is that the legislative branch has an unlimited and indisputable right to any and all information they so choose, regardless of the rights and privileges of the President or the executive, a co-equal branch of our government.
House Democrats are making themselves kings in a manner far worse and more obvious than what they are accusing the president of doing. To quote Mr. Turley, who testified before this Committee, "basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent set for future presidents and Congress' and making an appeal to the judiciary into high crimes and misdemeanors."
The Constitution states in Article II Section 4 that a president or vice president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state we can impeach a president for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress.
In fact, the term of art doesn't exist in the Constitution and to imply that high crimes and misdemeanors would include abuse of power or obstruction of Congress is a fiction. So, let me recap.
No collusion, no obstruction, no quid pro quo, no treason, no bribery, and no high crimes and misdemeanors. The only abuse of power that I see is that which Mr. Turley highlighted, that abuse of power of this Congress and how this Democratic majority has run this chamber, this Committee and this investigation.
The Chairman and Members of this Committee keeps saying that history will judge our decisions. Well, I would offer that your decisions and that of your colleagues in the majority will be judged much sooner than in history. They will be judged by the voters in November of 2020. Then I guess we will see who was on the right side of history.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Mr. Neguse?
NEGUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin tonight by speaking directly to the Americans listening and watching who may disagree with the steps this committee is taking.
I hope that you will understand that we are proceeding on this path truly out of love for our country. We are your neighbors, we are your colleagues, your fellow worshipers, and we are all citizens of the greatest nation on earth.
We are blessed to live in a country where our similarities far outweigh our differences. My parents immigrated to this country and every day, I am grateful to them for their decision and to the United States of America for giving us the opportunity to live the American dream.
[22:05:00]
My parents came to this country because they wanted their children to grow up in a place that is free, a country where leaders respect the rule of law and where they don't use the power of government to target political opponents, a country with fair elections and where everyone has the right to vote.
Thomas Paine described voting as the primary right by which other rights are protected. Our sacred right to a free and fair election is ingrained in our Constitution. It is a right offer to every American no matter their background. And yet today, that right is under attack like never before.
In 2016, Russia interfered in our elections in sweeping and systematic fashion. And as we know, the Trump administration, the campaign welcomed at that time that interference. And now, the President of the United States has solicited the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 presidential election for his own advantage.
President Trump abused his power and then engaged in a wholesale obstruction of Congress to cover it up. The fact remains that in the history of our republic, no president has ever ordered such a complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry until now.
If anything is clear, it is this, every American deserves to know that their president will not endanger our national security, that he or she won't seek to use their power to undermine our free and fair elections and that they won't tap a foreign government to help tip the scales in their favor.
The framers of the Constitution prescribed impeachment in that sacred document because they feared a moment like this one. And the articles of impeachment before us are our mechanism for accountability. So, ultimately, we must move forward with the solemn and heavy work
before us, but I hope that as we do so, while some may agree with this process and some may oppose it, everyone will remember that at the end of the day, each and every one of us are Americans. We all treasure the same flag. We all revere the same Constitution that this Committee is working so hard to uphold.
Like many of my colleagues, when I ran for Congress, I knew that the hardest part would be being away from my wife and my infant daughter. My daughter is 15 months old now and I think a lot about the world that she will inherit. She's not old enough to understand the proceedings before us today. But one day, she will be, and one day, I hope that she will know that this Committee had an obligation to defend our democracy, to honor our oaths, and to uphold the rule of law.
So, I will support the articles of impeachment before us because it is what the Constitution requires of us and it is what my conscience demands. And I hope and I pray that my colleagues will do the same.
And with that, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Ms. McBath?
MCBATH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since January, I have been privileged to serve the people of Georgia Sixth Congressional District. When I was a small child, my family instilled in me the importance of service and building community.
And as I have grown in life, I have held many roles, daughter, wife, working mother, but I never imagined congresswoman would be one of them. My goals were the same as many other Americans. I wanted to start a family and raise a caring, compassionate child.
[22:10:00]
Like many women, I struggled to get pregnant and after years of trying, my son Jordan was a miracle for me for our family. I dreamed of who Jordan would become. I dreamed of watching him walk across the stage at his high school graduation full of love and hope for the future. I dreamed of him carrying on our family's legacy of public service.
But seven years ago, on a day much like today, Jordan was sitting in the back seat of a car with his friends at a gas station. A man pulled up next to their car and complained about the loud music that they were playing. He pulled out a gun and fired 10 shots into their car hitting Jordan three times and killing my only son.
I found myself asking God, how could this happen, how did he allow this to happen to me, to my family and to Jordan. I prayed to God and found the strength to forgive my killer. I stood up for families like mine. I stood up for families in
Marietta, Georgia who are terrified that they will send their kids to school and never see them come home. I stood up for the teens who sent texts to their parents in Parkland, Florida. I stood up for their mothers reading messages from their children that pled if I don't make it home, I love you and thank you for everything that you've done for me.
I made a promise to my community that I would act. I promised that I would take that sense of protection that love a mother has for her son and I would use it for my community.
For the American people, I promised I would work when the -- with the president when his policies are right for Georgia and stand up to him when they are not. And I am proud of our progress, I am proud to have passed bills that protect our communities. I am proud to have written a bill that was signed into law by President Trump, a bill that protects our veterans.
But I am not proud of the President's actions that bring us here tonight. For months, we have carefully and methodically explored the facts. I have listened to our witnesses, have examined the evidence from our intelligence community and I've heard from the brave men and women who have dedicated their lives and service to our country, both at home and abroad.
I am greatly saddened by what we have learned and I am forced to face a solemn conclusion. I believe the President abused the power of his office putting his own interests above the needs of our nation, above the needs of the people that I love and I serve. And for that, I must vote my conscience and I do so with a heavy heart and a grieving soul.
This is not why I came to Washington. I came to Washington because I love my country. I came to Washington full of hope empowered by my community to serve them in Congress and it is an honor to carry out this work every single day to make sure that no one else goes through the same pain that I have.
But after this vote, I will continue to champion the ideals this country instilled in me to stand up for the safety and security of our communities and to fight for America. I prayed that my son Jordan would be proud of.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Stanton?
STANTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been in public life for two decades and it is not lost on me that these are the most consequential votes that I will ever take. Throughout the impeachment process, I have weighed three questions that are central to whether we must use the power to impeach and recommend removal of a president.
[22:15:00]
Did the president grossly abuse his power? Did his actions harm our nation? And if unchecked, is the president likely to repeat his behavior?
Clear and convincing evidence shows that the answer to all of these questions is yes. President Trump grossly abused his power. He withheld aid to our ally at war until that ally agreed to help him damage a top political opponent.
The Ukraine plot put our elections and our democracy at risk and it helped Vladimir Putin and Russia. When career diplomats got in the President's way, he fired them and he smeared them, and he used a political henchman outside the official lines of diplomacy to avoid getting caught.
But he did get caught. A courageous public servant blew the whistle and only once the President was exposed did he relent and release the aid that this Congress approved to help our ally in its war against an aggressive Russia.
The President revealed his consciousness of guilt when he ordered the coverup, the most sweeping obstruction of congressional investigation in our nation's history. When Congress lawfully subpoenaed witnesses who could help us learn the truth, the President ordered those witnesses not to appear.
When Congress lawfully subpoenaed documents that might point the finger at him, the President ordered his administration to not turn over a single one. And the excuses the White House used for obstructing Congress are a disgrace to the Constitution and to the rule of law.
The Ukraine plot and the obstruction that followed are gross abuses of power, both harm our national security and the integrity of our democracy. Yet, what worries me most is that every sign, every sign points to the near certainty that if we allow him, the President will continue to violate the law.
Just last night, he said abuse of power is not even a crime. He has repeatedly said that his powers are unbounded and unlimited. He has claimed, quote, "Article II allows me to do whatever I want," unquote. These are the words of a president who does not understand or respect the Constitution, one who believes there should be zero checks on his power.
Make no mistake. A president who will certainly abuse his power again threatens the very soul of our nation. This president must be impeached and he must be removed not because he has been offensive or because of policy disagreements, impeachment is necessary because this president does not believe the law applies to him because he poses a clear and present danger to our democracy.
I asked my colleagues and my fellow Americans, where is the line? And if I -- and I submit that if we do not impeach the President for this conduct, we will send the message there is no line. Right and wrong would forever blend together and corrupt abuse of power from the executive branch would become acceptable and unchecked.
I served as mayor of one of the largest cities in this country. If I had concocted a scheme to withhold public funds to help my own reelection, I would be charged with a crime. And the truth is if this were anyone else but President Trump, they'd be in a jail house, not the White House.
We have a duty to protect our democracy. We owe it to the framers of our Constitution. We owe it to the men and women who spilled their own blood defending it. We owe it to our children and generations to come. We have a responsibility to every single American to ensure that our government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Ms. Dean?
DEAN: As members of Congress, we are entrusted with a generational duty, a duty to ensure that we leave our grandchildren with a Constitution as strong or even stronger than our predecessors gave us.
I want to tell you about a conversation that took place the week of July 25th, but it's not the one you're thinking of. This was a quiet moment between a leader and me, just a freshman on the floor.
I sought out Elijah Cummings and sat down next to him. He looked up into the gallery and he said, Madeleine, 300 years from now, your ancestors will remember you were here. We are only here a short while. Make sure what you do here matters.
[22:20:00]
As First Corinthians tells us, now we see through a glass darkly. Months later, I'm beginning to see face to face what our recently departed Chairman Cummings meant. What we do here today will matter for generations. He saw a broader horizon.
Now, there's immense constitutional responsibility vested in us by our founding fathers requires us to decide where President Donald J. Trump has purposefully and perilously abused the power entrusted to him by the people. The evidence shows the President's wrongdoings. They're as clear as they are dangerous.
He has abused the power of his office as president for personal gain, including his corrupt scheme to win reelection. He has betrayed our nation and his oath by asking foreign governments to interfere with our elections.
When he was caught, he obstructed Congress blocking our constitutional investigation at every turn, telling executive branch agencies and witnesses to defy subpoenas. And even in the midst of this investigation, he called on a third foreign power to interfere in the upcoming election. The President's ongoing pattern of conduct threatens our most
precious rights as Americans, the rights to choose our own leaders and hold them accountable. In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, he said, since foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
We cannot allow this President to reach his hands and the hands of foreign leaders into our ballot boxes because for us to maintain our faith in this country, the democratic process is as important as the result. Some have suggested that our actions, this historic call for impeachment, are based in dislike or even hatred of a single man. They are not.
This is not about punishment or hate. It is about love. It is about love of this country. It's about protecting this country and our precious Constitution for all Americans yet to come.
No one wishes to be where we are today but this is where we are called to be. Today is about the congressional oath I swore, we all swore, to well and faithfully discharge the duties of our office.
My favorite Uncle Walter was a Catholic priest. Years after his death, I swore my oath of office on Walter's Bible. My first grandchild Aubrey, aged 7, held it from below as I placed my hand and bore true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.
Walter's daily prayer washed over me. May God grant success to the work of our hands, he would say. I remember the gravity of that moment of accepting the mantle from those who came before us and striving to protect the promise of the Constitution for generations who have yet to inherit it. It is in our hands now.
Many people have walked these hallowed halls, few of us remember their names. Some day too, we will be gone and forgotten. Yet, what we do here will not. It will matter for decades and centuries to come. It will matter to my children and grandchildren and to yours.
It will matter to a democracy battle-tested and hard-won and yet only as strong as those willing to stand up and defend it. To defend the aspirations and the constitutional promise of this country.
These are the moments that define us, that determine whether the United States will become less free or more perfect. The grand horizon is in our hands now. May God grant us success. Our forefathers demand it and our granddaughters deserve it.
NADLER: Does the gentlelady yield back?
DEAN: With that, I yield.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
MUCARSEL-POWELL: I did not have the privilege of being born into this country. When I was 14, my mother brought my sisters and I from Ecuador in search of freedom and opportunities, and this is not just my story, but it's the story of so many of the people that I represent in Florida's 26 district and all over the country.
Many of us have experienced firsthand the political corruption in our countries of birth. We understand the corrosive effects of this corruption and the abuse of power by authoritarian leaders, both on the left and on the right, that destroyed democratic institutions.
[22:25:00]
Many of my constituents fled the brutal dictatorships of Cuba and Venezuela that have choked the economic, social and political potential of those countries for the benefit of those who hold power. The United States is a beacon of freedom, a place where anyone can get a fair shot. But also, where even the most powerful are held to account.
It's why I feel so fortunate to raise my children in this great country and it's because of the opportunities that I received as an immigrant and how I feel about this country that has led me to give back, run for Congress and come here to fight to reduce the cost of healthcare, protect our communities from gun violence and act on climate change. I did not come to impeach the President.
But this President has violated the rule of law. The evidence is overwhelming that the President withheld military aid approved by Congress and leveraged a White House meeting in order to extract a personal and political favor from a foreign government.
You see what the President wanted was the announcement of an investigation into his political opponent to help in his re-election campaign. One of our most fundamental rights, the right to a free and fair election was threatened.
In an attempted coverup, he instructed his administration to ignore legally binding congressional subpoenas and he has done all of this to benefit himself personally, not to benefit the country. It is undeniable that this President has violated his oath of office, abuse his power and obstructed Congress.
This is a clear and present danger to the future of our democracy, a system of government that was a beacon of freedom for my family and for so many that have come here.
Tonight, I ask all Americans to put their personal affections and their political affiliations aside and consider the long-term health of our democracy. It's what I've tried to do in reviewing all of the information and the testimony that is before this Committee.
I know that there are patriots and proud Americans in my district and all over the country, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, some born here and others who chose to make their home here in America, who agree that we must put our democracy and Constitution first and who will come together in the most difficult times because we are all Americans.
The issue we face now as a country as a result of this President's conduct is bigger than party and the Constitution has no partisan allegiance. We all agree that we cannot allow a president, this President or any future president, to abuse the power of the office.
We cannot accept a president who says America first but really puts his own interest before the country. We cannot accept a president who makes a show of hugging the American flag but whose obstruction of Congress takes a big black sharpie on Article I of the Constitution.
Therefore, understanding and having sworn an oath to the Constitution I'm faced on making a decision on impeachment. It is a determination that I must make for our children.
It is for this reason that I must vote with my conscience for my country and for my children in support of these articles of impeachment. That is my duty as a member of this body and that is my duty as a mother.
I yield back.
NADLER: Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Escobar?
ESCOBAR: Thank you, Chairman.
In moments of great tragedy, Americans have always found a way to come together and to be unified, not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans. One only need look at the great tragedies that we have faced together to see that barring out.
Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, our innumerable mass shootings, we have always found our way to come together again. And those of us who are elected leaders who have the great fortune and responsibility to be elected leaders, we have a unique obligation to help Americans find their path to unity. We have a unique obligation to ensure that America triumphs over her challenges.
My friends, today, we face one of those great tragedies and it is a moment of truth for us. We have witnessed, and I will repeat, we have witnessed the President of the United States betraying his oath of office, inviting foreign countries to interfere in our elections and then covering up his wrongdoing to ensure that the American people don't know about it.
This is not the first time that he has sought foreign interference. In fact, we only need to look at 2016, rewind the tape and recall him saying, Russia, if you're listening, he invited a foreign adversary into our 2016 elections and he has not stopped since.
We witnessed him standing on the White House lawn as he called on Ukraine and then he called on China to also interfere in our elections. This time the 2020 elections. This is why this is called an ongoing threat, a crime that is in progress.
This also isn't the first time that we've seen him obstruct Congress. I was shocked to hear the Ranking Member deny that the President of the United States has obstructed Congress when we have witnessed it time and again at unprecedented levels.
The President of the United States has withheld documents making sure that they don't see the light of day, prohibited witnesses from coming before Congress. He has even vowed to fight all the subpoenas desperately attempting to keep Americans in the dark. He's even engaged in witness intimidation.
But what is even worse than a president who violates his oath is the other tragedy, the tragedy of enablers who choose to look the other way, turn a blind eye and explain this wrongdoing away. They tell us to ignore what we've witnessed with our own eyes, ignore what we've heard with our own ears.
When we should be unified in this moment, unified in confronting what the framers warned us about, what our founding fathers feared and to stand up for what brave Patriots fought and died for. Instead, we've seen attacks against those patriots. We've seen blanket denials of the truth and we've seen something absolutely terrifying.
We've seen Russia be wildly successful not just in the 2016 election but in dividing us as Americans. My God, we've even seen the highest elected officials in this land parroting the same conspiracy theories fed by Putin, the same Russian talking points.
This selling out of America's soul is all intended to protect one man, Donald Trump. Donald Trump is not for America. Donald Trump is for Donald Trump.
As leaders, we should be unified in protecting our republic, a democracy that is far more fragile than we ever understood. I fear that the President was right when he warned us that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not be held accountable by his supporters.
If we do not proceed with impeachment, I am afraid that our democracy will cease to exist as we know it. Earlier, some of our Republican colleagues talked about how perilous, how politically perilous this moment is and two of our freshman front liners know that better than anyone.
But that speaks to the courage that it takes to do the right thing. I pray tonight that all of our colleagues have the courage to do the right thing, defend our beloved America and uphold their oath of office.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.
Given the lateness of the hour, the Committee will now stand in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning at which time we will call up the resolution for consideration.
The Committee now stands in recess.
[22:30:00]
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN tonight. I'm Don Lemon. And there you have it, history in the making. You have been watching the members of the House Judiciary Committee debating two articles of impeachment against a sitting president, President Donald Trump, the fourth American president to face impeachment. The hearing gaveled in shortly after 7:00 p.m., just wrapping up now. History being made, as I said, in the halls of Congress and broadcast on television tonight in primetime.
[22:35:07]
Let's get right to it now. David Gergen joins us. Kirsten Powers as well and Elliot Williams, all joining us. As I said, this is really history in the making and also being broadcast in primetime, something that is new here. I'm personally glad that the American people got to see it in primetime. Usually these things happen during the day when folks are at work. And they may not get to see this, Kirsten, a historic day here, marathon three hours plus. What have we been watching? What do you --?
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I mean, what we saw was the Democrats basically laying out their case, talking about the testimony, talking about the transcript, talking about the founders and their concerns about foreign interference and, you know, really making the case for impeachment. And what you saw with the Republicans wasn't really so much a defense of Donald Trump or even engaging on those facts.
It was a lot of invoking the boogeyman of liberals, of the scary liberals, Jim Jordan saying, they don't like us. You know, one of the Congress people brought up, you know, something Robert De Niro said, something Kathy Griffin did. I mean, they were talking about people that had nothing to do with this and staying away from the substance and really trying to convince people that liberals just hate you because you like Donald Trump and they hate Donald Trump, and ignoring the actual facts.
LEMON: Yes. David, President Trump likely to become only the third president to be impeached by the House.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
LEMON: Yes. Tell us about that.
GERGEN: Well, I thought I would never see a third impeachment frankly, but I started out with one with Nixon and went through Clinton and now here we are. Listen, I think the reputations of the great orators of Congress, you know, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, I think those reputations are pretty safe tonight. But I did agree with you very strongly that it was worthwhile to have this on live television, because it gives American people who ultimately are going to make the decision next November -- that's going to be the ultimate test of a lot of this.
I think, it gave them a chance to see up close and raw some of the feelings and the kind of rhetoric and how poisonous the Washington atmosphere is. I did think there was a distinct difference between the Republicans who were on the attack and people like Jordan and Collins, you know, and Gaetz were really tough, and I think it was good for Americans to see that.
I thought that Nadler and the Democrats were more statesmanlike. I think they wanted to send a message that this was not done in anger, but they wanted to be taken seriously. So, I thought in general terms of tone, the Democrats did better. But the Democrats never really rose to the occasion of debating the Republicans and taking them on. The Republicans went after process again and again and again, the attack. And there was nobody on the Democratic side who really made a good defense.
LEMON: You mean tonight?
GERGEN: Yes, tonight.
LEMON: Not throughout the whole process?
GERGEN: Tonight. I thought they missed opportunities.
LEMON: What -- was that the point of tonight, because there was -- we were sitting here discussing it when they were doing it. Was that the point of tonight, because there was no debate? This wasn't really testimony. It was their own personal testimony about what they saw happening. This was really -- these were really statements that were --
GERGEN: Well, they were, but they were presented as a debate. I mean, that was the formulation we went in to it.
LEMON: It was a lot of process from the Republican side. No substance.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No substance. And you know, I think what we saw were two hearings. Ultimately one based on the constitution and history and the Democrats and the reports they put out and the testimony they put on thus far have tried to frame this as a constitutional process. There's a lot of quotes of James Madison, a lot of quotes of the framers. And the Republicans just focused on, as we talked about, process and so on.
Now, something's clear. The facts are not in dispute. Like we know about the July 25th phone call. We know about the president's conduct with respect to Ambassador Yovanovitch and seeking to have her terminated. We know about the president's attitude with respect to corruption in Ukraine. None of that's in dispute.
Now, the question is what do we or Congress choose to do about it? And Jerry Nadler talked about this in his opening statement. He made the point that. if Congress does not stop this now, nothing precludes a future president from engaging in the same conduct. This has profoundly historical consequences if this is not stopped today, and that's what the stakes of the Democrats tried to lay out. You know, I think for the first time in primetime tonight. Now we'll
see if it's successful. Now, no Republicans are going to vote for this. This is not going to be a bipartisan vote in any sense. And so the question is to what extent do the American people who put Congress in place -- where does their opinion move on this.
LEMON: David said, you know, he didn't think that the Democrats made their case. Cedric Richmond, you know, who is from New Orleans, said, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.
POWERS: Right.
LEMON: He said the facts are not in dispute. Do you -- what do you think?
POWERS: Well, I think that's right but the problem is that the Republicans put forward some other facts that weren't accurate and, I agree, could have been challenged more almost in a repetitive way just to really drive it home that it's not true.
[22:40:02]
One thing that they continually say and I know Jim (inaudible) said it tonight and you know, other Republicans makes this argument that if you look at the Bill Clinton impeachment, you can't even compare because there was a crime. But of course there doesn't have to be a crime for an impeachment.
And furthermore, the crime was lying under oath, and I don't think there's any doubt that if Donald Trump had gone under oath, probably there would have been a perjury charge. So, it's a completely misleading comparison and in fact what Donald Trump has been charged with is far graver than what Bill Clinton did.
WILLIAMS: Every single time someone says the words -- talks about the political donations of a witness, it's a distraction.
LEMON: Right.
WILLIAMS: It doesn't matter. Number one, let's be clear it's their right as under the first amendment of United States constitution. They can donate to political candidates, but it's a distraction from the facts. This now -- could Democrats or should they have gotten pulled into a fight over some of these issues? I don't know. But Republicans were frankly quite successful at just throwing distractions out there.
LEMON: David, there were some falsehoods. Congressman Jim Jordan making the claim that the Ukrainians didn't know the military aid had been held. But listen, Laura Cooper from the Defense Department testified about that. I want you to watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On July 25th, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine's security assistance. (END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: The same day as the infamous call. More gaslighting?
GERGEN: Absolutely. You know and listen, the Republicans are going to keep pressing their stories whether they're true or not as long as they can get away with it. And that's why I think it's good to rebut. Tonight I ask viewers to go back, oh, but you remember this person who testified two weeks ago? She said something different. You had to rebut it right on the spot.
Here's what I did think, Don, another thing they did well beyond the statesmanlike atmosphere, and that was they clearly got together over the weekend and talked about, each -- a number of them telling their stories, their coming of age stories about being Americans, to show to the country that these are patriotic people. They're not some radical left, you know, that has been scaring everybody. I think especially the women members of Congress. I thought the Democrats did well with that.
LEMON: Yes. We were talking about this being in prime time, right?
GERGEN: Right.
LEMON: The witnesses who testified, would it have been better if that had been later on in the evening where they could have made their case?
POWERS: I think it would have been. I actually didn't find this that compelling, and I don't -- I think people just expect members of Congress to take a certain position. It's not as compelling as seeing a Fiona Hill, for example, testifying to see people who don't have a political interest necessarily. And I think that if there would have been a way to intersperse that somehow, so people could have seen that. Because I just don't -- I don't know. I think the average American kind of looks and says, oh, the Democrats are taking the Democrat side, and the Republicans are taking the Republican side.
LEMON: All right. Standby, I want to bring in Scott Jennings. Now, Scott, thank you so much for joining us. Listen, you support the president. Democrats, you know, one after another, saying that he placed his own interest above the country, tried to cheat to win, endanger the national security of the country. Give me your reaction to that this evening.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think they have been consistent in their message, you know, from the beginning of this process that they want to throw the president out over this issue. I think, where they've fallen short -- I mean you can see it in the political metrics. The polling that has not really moved in their direction. The swing state polling has not moved in their direction.
Look, I think there are Americans out there, Republicans, independents, maybe some Democrats who aren't so liberal that may have varying degrees of concern with what the president did. Some may be a little concerned. Some may be a little more. Some may be a lot. But a lot of people just never believed that it achieved the level of an impeachable offense.
And I think this is where, Don, the Democrats structurally ran into an issue. They wanted to force everybody into a binary choice which is either you support the president fully and you're not listening or you want to impeach him. And I really do believe there's a spectrum in the middle there, where a lot of people fall and they never really considered that path.
I know that there were some moderate Democrats this week floating the idea of censure, which actually could have possibly attracted some bipartisan support in the House, but they took that off the table because they want to go all the way. So, for that reason, I think they're unlikely to attract any Republican votes in either chamber.
LEMON: Do you think there are Republicans in the House who would vote to censure the president?
JENNINGS: I think there are Republicans in the House who would come a heck of a lot closer on something like that, of course depending on how it was worded, than they are going to be to throw a president out of office for the first time in American history.
Yes, I mean, look, I think you can look at this set of facts, anybody in any party can look at this set of facts and these witnesses and the things that have been said and done and come to a conclusion that, look, I don't love everything that happened here. Now, if the censure resolution were written in a way that was over top, maybe they wouldn't.
[22:45:05]
But if it were written in a responsible way that they agreed with, sure. But there's a big difference between slapping someone on the wrist or expressing some dismay than literally throwing out an American president for the first time in our history. And I think the drastic nature of it is what frankly has caused a lot of Republicans to back up and say we're not ready to do this.
LEMON: Wouldn't that be an admission that the phone call wasn't perfect and that he did something wrong?
JENNINGS: Oh, sure, I think if you voted for a censure resolution like that. Yes, you'd be saying some part of this story, some of these facts, you know, I don't like whether it was a phone call or the fact they've got Rudy Giuliani running around over there, which, as you know, I thought was a terrible idea from the beginning. So sure.
I mean, but that's different, you know, expressing your displeasure with something is a lot different than throwing out a president. You know, we just don't have a precedent for throwing out an American president over anything, and I just think Republicans look at the way the process was handled. They, you know, look at the political situation in the country and they say, we're not going to go all the way based on, you know, just because the Democrats have desire to do this since really before the guy took office. LEMON: All right. Scott, listen, I have more questions for you, but
before these other guests, their heads pop off, because they are squirming, and --
(LAUGHTER)
-- they're like -- they're wishing that you were here in the room.
JENNINGS: I can't see them. And I find that hard to believe. I find that hard to believe.
LEMON: Who wants to go -- Kirsten, you go first.
POWERS: I'll go first. Yes, I mean, the first thing you're saying that it's so unprecedented. I mean, this is exactly what the Republicans wanted to do to the Bill Clintons. So, this doesn't even make sense. I mean you think it's so egregious for this to happen and have the Republicans had control of the Senate, they would have thrown Bill Clinton out of office over far less bad behavior. So, I don't really understand why you find this to cross some line that's never been crossed before.
JENNINGS: Well, I find it -- I find it unprecedented that we would throw an American president out of office because we've never done it. I mean, you never throw a president out of office.
POWERS: But you tried to do it. Republicans tried to do it with Bill Clinton for something that was --
JENNINGS: No, I didn't try to do anything. I was in college when it happened.
POWERS: So, do you think it was a mistake?
LEMON: She means Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They stopped short.
POWERS: They stopped short because they didn't control the Senate. They didn't control the Senate, so it was the same -- so it' not that they stopped it. They impeached him in the House.
JENNINGS: Yes, and a lot of Democrats, you know, weren't happy with the president in that particular case either. But, look, my point is this. We've never thrown a president out of office, and I just -- I don't know very many Republicans who think that this behavior warrants taking that step.
LEMON: But, Scott, her point is - that -- if Republicans controlled the Senate at that point, at that time, they would have thrown the president out of office.
POWERS: That's exactly what they wanted to do.
LEMON: It's hypocrisy. That's her point. Am I wrong, Kirsten?
POWERS: Well, its hypocrisy, but it is also just -- it doesn't make sense. I mean, Bill Clinton, really if you're compare the two things, compare lying about an affair versus -
LEMON: A sexual relationship.
POWERS: Versus, you know, trying to get a foreign government to interfere in an American election. I don't think it's really even a competition, right? So, it just doesn't make sense to me --
JENNINGS: I didn't expect this conversation to turn into a defense of Bill Clinton taking advantage and preying on a young woman --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: I mean come on, Scott. No, don't do that --
POWERS: I'm not defending. I'm saying I don't think it's an impeachable. I don't think it's an impeachable offense. And I think its --
JENNINGS: Well, OK. That's a good point. You don't think that's impeachable, and I respect your opinion, and a lot of Republicans don't think this situation is either. And I'm just saying that reasonable people in both cases came to a conclusion that it was bad, but not impeachable. And that's the spectrum I'm talking about here.
POWERS: The difference is the two things have nothing to do with each other because it wasn't -- what Donald Trump did actually was --
LEMON: Far more egregious.
POWERS: -- in fact actually is impeachable. I mean, for you, just to like -- make them comparable, just because they both involve impeachment, you can't believe that they're the same things. You can't believe that trying to get a foreign government to interfere in an election is the same thing as lying about under oath about an affair with an intern.
LEMON: David Gergen, you were there, you're here for this one and you were there for that one, and you were there for Nixon, so why don't you weigh in?
GERGEN: I hope -- never another one. Listen, I think Scott has a very good point about the vote on censure, that that might have been wise to introduce that earlier in the process. But, Scott, the problem with that that I've seen is, we have virtually no Republicans. I can't think of more than five Republicans who have said that the president did anything inappropriate.
You know, they have defended him right down the line on that, and I think you think it was inappropriate, and I think that there are other people like you who are, you know, fair-minded people who agree with that. But I don't understand this party never even conceding that point or acknowledging that point. JENNINGS: Yes. Look, I don't know that the Republicans in the House,
you know, a lot of these folks come from districts that have constituents and they've got to answer to those people. David, you and I have talked about this on and off the air.
GERGEN: Right.
JENNINGS: If you look at the polling in the swing states, and especially in the districts that are controlled by Republican members of Congress, none of their constituents have budged. In fact, there's some evidence that they've gone the other way since the hearings have started.
[22:20:12]
GERGEN: Well, that's right but --
JENNINGS: You might look at this set of facts and listen to a hearing. You know, you're also hearing from your constituents back home. And I think people have forgotten about that in this whole ordeal, which is, you know, Congress -- people get calls and emails and letters too, and I think a lot of what people are hearing from back home is, I don't think you shove the president out over this.
GERGEN: Well, I understand the last point. But it's also true that during the Clinton, especially during the Nixon, there were a lot of Republicans who voiced their unhappiness and said it was absolutely wrong, and they stood up and they -- and the country really respected the Republican Party because there were people who did that. And it's been a real surprise that we have had nobody, basically, from a Republican side saying that the effort to pressure the Ukrainians was wrong.
Do you think that the Republicans, I mean, just to say, well, it's, you know, their districts, there were a lot of very brave people back in the Clinton -- (Inaudible), being one of them who's out there tonight as a Republican. You know, who broke with the party and they broke with the opinion, but that's what leadership is about because opinions started to follow those Republicans and it, actually, they were able to form opinion by getting -- jumping out in front taking on their own constituency by simply saying this is, we have to look at this straight in the eye and say, it's unacceptable.
LEMON: Yes. Elliot --
JENNINGS: I think in this particular case, a core difference from the Nixon example is that people have access to a lot -- a direct access to a lot more information than they had in those days. You may have access to -- you know, like tonight, you could watch it on CNN Tonight, you have access to it in real-time.
So, public opinion, the fact that public opinion hasn't changed, in fact, in some places may have gone the wrong way on this, I think is actually pretty informative to members of Congress. So to me, the situations are not comparable because of direct access to information than people previously had. GERGEN: But don't you think -- I actually think we have less
information than we did in the Nixon case. In the Nixon case we had tapes that went public and we have documents that he sent up to the Hill. He sent his people up to the Hill. One of the reasons we had -- we have very, very little information here, because the president has stonewalled.
LEMON: Which is one of the articles of --
GERGEN: I mean, it's been a successful stonewall.
LEMON: Which is one of the articles of impeachment, right?
GERGEN: Yes.
LEMON: Because he won't give any information, right, which is obstruction of Congress and then you also have a huge propaganda machine which is another television network which is spinning the facts and the truth. Elliot, you want some of this. Scott, you're being -- Scott can take it. Go ahead.
WILLIAMS: Actually, a lot of this isn't directed at Scott. I think big picture, I don't think it's really productive to compare Clinton's conduct to President Trump's conduct because that takes us off President Trump's conduct and the simple fact, as we said earlier at the beginning of the segment, the facts are not in dispute as to what happened on the July 25th call, to what led in to the months leading up to it and so on.
So, I just don't think the exercise of was it lying about personal sexual conduct versus obstruction versus -- let's look at President Trump's conduct. And, frankly, it's quite serious both legally, constitutionally, and so on. Where I strongly differ from Scott and David is on this question of whether censure might have picked off a couple good-minded Republicans who are looking out for the good of the nation and taking a stand against the president.
From the beginning the president has had an overwhelming -- he's overwhelmingly popular with I assume the Republican base and also Republicans in Congress. And I think it's foolish to assume that merely changing the level of whatever we -- whatever punishment the president would receive would somehow pick off certainly Republicans in the House and likely in the Senate.
That's just look at how voting plays out on virtually every issue in Congress, and particularly, look at the statements we saw today for three hours over the course of three hours from the Republicans. It's just -- nothing would have changed with respect to the votes. I think he would have gotten from House Republicans and then, just the final point I would just -- where I differ with Scott, this whole -- Scott danced up to it a little bit and we talked about this before, this whole question of overturning the results of an election. He didn't use those words, folks said it today, and it's just -- that's what the framers talked about when laying out what impeachment --
LEMON: That's what -- WILLIAMS: -- was thought to have been.
JENNINGS: You know --
LEMON: I've got to go, Scott. Scott --
JENNINGS: One last --
WILLIAMS: I'll text you, Scott. We'll talk about it.
LEMON: I've got to run, Scott. I got to go. Thank you. You've been a good sport. And thank you, all.
Yes, sir.
OK. We'll come back after the break. I got to get a break in. We'll be back. Scott, don't go anywhere. Everybody else, don't go anywhere. We have more on tonight's impeachment. We're going to debate more. We're going to hear from members of the Judiciary Committee who were there tonight. So stay with us. Congressman Madeleine Dean is going to join us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
LEMON: All right. We're back now with David Gergen, Kirsten Powers, Elliot Williams and Scott Jennings. Scott, I cut you off. You were responding to Elliot saying, talking about removing a sitting president from office and the will of the people.
JENNINGS: Yes, Elliot was talking about the argument about overturning, you know, the will of 63 million voters. I've actually looked at it from the other end of the equation which is we have another election upcoming, and what I expect to hear from a lot of Republicans especially in the Senate is that, we can all have arguments about whether this is impeachable conduct. But one thing is true, is that we're about to start casting ballots in the next presidential election.
And so since Democrats haven't succeeded in attracting any Republicans in Congress to their cause, the American people can step into the breach here and make a decision. If the Democrats are right, that they are righteous, that they've got all the answers and that the president ought to be thrown out of office, then they should have no trouble making this case to the American people. I expect the Republicans to really lean on that argument, not about the last election, Elliot, but about the next one coming this November.
[23:00:00]
