Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

House Judiciary Debates Impeachment Articles Before Vote; Jayapal: Republicans Essentially Trying To "Distract" Us From Anything That Is Substantive; Sam Donaldson On Impeachment Articles Against President Trump. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired December 12, 2019 - 21:00   ET

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


[21:00:00]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cohen?

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of Georgia?

REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch?

REP. TED DEUTCH (D-FL): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bass?

REP. KAREN BASS (D-CA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond?

REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND (D-LA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Cicilline?

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swalwell?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Lieu - Mr. Raskin?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal?

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Jayapal votes no. Ms. Demings?

REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Correa?

REP. LOU CORREA (D-CA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlon?

REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Scanlon votes no. Ms. Garcia?

REP. SYLVIA GARCIA (D-TX): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Neguse?

REP. JOE NEGUSE (D-CO): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Neguse votes no. Ms. McBath?

REP. LUCY KAY MCBATH (D-GA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. McBath votes no. Mr. Stanton?

REP. GREG STANTON (D-AZ): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean?

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?

REP. DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL (D-FL): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes no. Ms. Escobar?

REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TX): No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Collins?

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner?

REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Chabot?

REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Gohmert?

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Gohmert votes aye. Mr. Jordan? REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck?

REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO): Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Buck votes yes. Mr. Ratcliffe?

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes. Ms. Roby?

REP. MARTHA ROBY (R-AL): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Roby votes aye. Mr. Gaetz?

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Gaetz votes aye. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs?

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. McClintock?

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. McClintock votes aye. Ms. Lesko?

REP. DEBBIE LESKO (R-AZ): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ms. Lesko votes aye. Mr. Reschenthaler?

REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER (R-PA): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Reschenthaler votes aye. Mr. Cline?

REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong?

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube?

REP. GREG STEUBE (R-FL): Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Steube votes yes.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Are there any - are there any Members of the Committee who wish to vote who haven't voted?

The clerk will report. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 nos.

NADLER: Then the amendment is not agreed to. The Committee will now stand in recess for half an hour.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Good evening. You are watching the House Judiciary Committee debating the impeachment articles before voting. There was just a role - roll call vote on a Republican-introduced amendment. It failed to pass. 17 ayes, 23 nos, as you saw, along party lines, for the most part.

I want to go to CNN's Dana Bash who has been watching these hearings along with us here.

Dana, what stands out to you at this point?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, maybe at this point, one of the most telling comments was from a Republican, kind of pleading with people on both sides, but it's probably most pertinent to those on his side that they've heard the same arguments made over and over for hours.

And that is true. We have heard a lot of the arguments made over and over. But for the Republicans, in the House, this is it. I mean, this is - there will be a vote next week on the - on the floor where there will - it will be the final moment.

But, for this Committee, this very important Committee, historically, on the impeachment process, it is their Committee that is charged with giving the House of Representatives the articles of impeachment.

It is the Republicans' last chance, which is why you've seen Republicans put forward a half a dozen amendments knowing that they will fail to - to - to strike or to change parts of the Democrats' articles of impeachment.

But it's a chance to talk and a chance to make arguments for - for the people back home and for - for the historical record.

COOPER: Dana, I want to hand things over to Chris Cuomo, who is standing by, for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you very much, Anderson. I appreciate it.

We have Manu Raju.

There is a 30-minute recess. It's not over. They are taking a break. This was long. It was heated. There are a number of amendments that have basically been a chance to recycle the same debate.

You have Republicans saying that "This is a miscarriage of duty." And you have the Democrats saying, "No, this is what the Constitution requires." And we're seeing iteration after iteration of that.

Manu, this 30-minute break is done to accomplish what exactly? Is it just a breather?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's just a breather because this process is, as you can see, unpredictable. Members just can go as long as Members want, essentially, because this is not like a typical Congressional hearing where there's usually an end point.

Here, Members, if they want to offer an amendment, they are allowed to offer an amendment. Then, each Member of this Committee, there are 40 who are attending these proceedings, they each get five minutes each to speak.

So, that's why we've only seen five amendments voted down today, five Republican amendments, because each time there's an amendment offered, everyone gets a chance to speak, so that's why this has been going on since 9:00 A.M. Eastern.

And, at the moment, Dem - Democrats are saying they are just taking a break because they expect more Republican amendments to be offered through the course of this evening.

[21:05:00]

And Jerry Nadler, the Chairman of the - the Judiciary Committee, does have the authority to essentially block more Republican amendments. He can take that.

But what we're hearing from our Democratic sources is they - that's not what Jerry Nadler wants to do, for one reason, because that would spark Republican protests. They would argue - raise another process argument, contend that this was not a fair process.

So, what the Democrats are doing, saying, "Fine, offer as many amendments as you want, and we're going to just keep going. We're going to plow right through this," until they ultimately get to that final historic vote, which is to advance those two articles of impeachment about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress to the full House for its consideration next week.

So, expect much more theatrics, fireworks, and potentially more amendments in the hours to come, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Manu, thank you very much. Let's head back to Dana Bash, real quick.

From a strategy perspective, what are you hearing on the Republican side of the ball? I mean they seem to be making the same point. They've been very disciplined in terms of following talking points.

And, I think, often they catch the Democrats looking back to history, which can be edifying for people, but they are staying very present, the Republicans, about what they see here as a miscarriage of duty.

Dana, what are you hearing about any kind of strategy play?

BASH: This is it. The biggest difference we've seen in the, I guess now, 12 hours that this hearing has been going on was - was early on, in the day, when the Republicans started for the first time in the months, since we've seen the summary of the call that now infamous July 25th phone call between the President and the Ukrainian leader, trying to make the case when President Trump said "Do us a favor though," that "Us" was all of us, America, and that it wasn't about his personal political needs. It was about what America needs.

It was fascinating that we heard that today and even more evidence that the President of the United States is pushing his fellow Republicans to defend the substance of that phone call that he's called "Perfect" since day one, but in a way that these Republicans haven't done.

Beyond that, you know, it's a lot of, you know, frank - frankly a lot of clickbait, not to sort of, you know, downplay the historical importance of this, and they are putting very important arguments, from their perspective, into the historical record, into the Congressional record.

But there's a lot of "Look at how wonderful the President is. He'd sent so many things for this country. How can you do this to him?" in addition to the arguments about the--

CUOMO: Right.

BASH: --the impeachment at hand.

CUOMO: All right, well look, this is a very interesting moment because it'll be so great to see what happens when they come out of this break. I guarantee you it's almost like a halftime game, not to trivialize it at all.

Now, we're very lucky - Dana, I'm going to come back to you in a second.

BASH: Sure.

CUOMO: We're lucky to have former A.G. Mike Mukasey with us tonight. We were actually pre-taping an interview with him when they took this unexpected break.

So, A.G., thank you for staying with me. I got lucky having you in the chair at this time. Help me understand something from a legal perspective. You're not a politician. You've been, you know, you've been an Attorney General. You've served the President.

But just in terms of logic of thought and argument, why this insistence on denying what was pretty well-established through the testimony by respectable people about what happened here and why it happened?

Why isn't the stronger argument for Republicans, "Look, what he did was not textbook. Maybe that's because he's not a politician. It was even wrong in some ways. But they got the aid. He never got any dirt on the Bidens. The election is safe. How can this be worthy of impeachment or removal from Office?" Why deny everything?

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Well there's a lot more going on than just denying everything, number one. They're making the points that you made.

Number two, there is still, I think, some legitimate question about whether what was happening at Burisma, which was a crooked operation, as a great deal in the Ukraine is, didn't warrant some taking a look.

CUOMO: Is that the issue?

MUKASEY: It's an issue.

CUOMO: But in terms of how you're supposed to act as President, you want to look at Burisma, you go to the DOJ, you exercise the agreement with Ukraine, you go to your friends in the Senate.

You don't do what he did, which is hold up aid, and leverage them, to get them to announce an investigation only. That's very self-serving.

MUKASEY: If he had an - it is self-serving.

If he had an interest I mean I'm sorry - a - a history of going by the book, knowing precisely the way things happen in government, and stepped out of it, in - in this instance, and did something different, I would agree with you that - that there's a problem.

CUOMO: I hear you.

MUKASEY: But his - his history--

CUOMO: But Mike Mukasey--

MUKASEY: --his history has been that he is not somebody with a great deal of knowledge of or high regard for the usual procedure.

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: Are you one of the integrity mentors in my life creating a low bar for the President of the United States, where "He usually does shady things, so let's assume that"--

MUKASEY: No.

CUOMO: --"that's just pro forma?"

MUKASEY: No. I'm not creating a low bar for the President of the United States. What I'm doing is telling you that he is here running true to form. Whether that warrants removal or not is something that's for those folks who are on recess to decide.

CUOMO: But we know that if you were counsel, if he were lucky enough to have you as counsel, and he said here's what I'm going to do.

MUKASEY: What - what - what did I - what did I ever do to you? CUOMO: That's right. I don't wish it on yours.

MUKASEY: Right.

CUOMO: But here's a - look, let's be honest. He needs as many people like you as he can get around him right now because he needs someone to help him with better judgment. That is clear from every fact pattern we've seen all the way through the Presidency.

But he says "This is what I'm going to do. I'm not going after Biden. I'm not going to go after these guys and these Ukraine stuff. But it'd be helpful for it to come out. I'm going to have Ukraine own it."

You tell him "Don't do this this way."

MUKASEY: I don't know that that's what he said. I think what he said was "This is a handy way to get something on Biden. I'm going to do whatever I do with regard to"--

CUOMO: But he did it--

MUKASEY: --"Biden as well."

CUOMO: --the wrong way. So, why--

MUKASEY: Of course.

CUOMO: --won't the Republican defenders admit that, and say, "But here's our argument against removal" because by denying everything--

MUKASEY: You're asking - well--

CUOMO: --it seems they're open to suggestion on everything.

MUKASEY: You're asking me to imagine, and you're really asking the wrong guy.

CUOMO: Well you're living it in real time, Mike.

MUKASEY: I know that. I know that. But they are the people who are making the decisions.

CUOMO: They are denying things that you wouldn't deny.

MUKASEY: Pardon?

CUOMO: You - they are denying things that you wouldn't deny if you were in the counsel chair.

MUKASEY: Maybe I would. I'm not - not if I were on the counsel chair. I think where on the counsel chair, I would counsel that it be done differently. But, you know, if my grandmother had a wheel, it should be a trolley car.

CUOMO: Except to keep it away from the absurd, the country's watching this right now. It's about what is the standard of behavior. You have the Republicans pointing the finger at the Left, and saying, "You guys are just purely political. You hate the President."

That's gratuitous because the person who uses hate and animus is our President. But they haven't made any good-faith effort to do any oversight as the constitutional demands, as a duty they took an oath to uphold. They've just been his defense counsel. Bravo for him, but bad for the process.

Why not at least own what's obvious?

MUKASEY: What is the proper standard? This is - this is a - this is an impeachment proceeding.

CUOMO: Yes.

MUKASEY: You don't remove somebody from Office for not meeting the proper standard, for not displaying those qualities of mind, character, and temperament that are appropriate to a President because that--

CUOMO: What if they lead to abuse of your power?

MUKASEY: The qualities of mind, character, and temperament that he's displayed in this or on gaudy display throughout the primaries and throughout the election, and we had an election and he was elected, for good (ph).

CUOMO: So, your defense is this is who they elected. But they didn't know what he--

MUKASEY: It's not a--

CUOMO: --would do with those. A lot of people thought he was joking with a lot of the things that he said.

MUKASEY: Well I don't know that people thought he was joking. Some people thought he was serious and liked it.

CUOMO: Do you think people would like the idea of a President abusing their power in this way?

MUKASEY: I think people would be understanding of it. I think people might give him a pass if--

CUOMO: For abusing his power? Go ahead, I mean this is--

MUKASEY: I - I'm--

CUOMO: --this is tough stuff to hear.

MUKASEY: I know. For - if - if - if the - if the abuse consisted of asking for something that perhaps that - that under no circumstances should be done. We don't know whether it was appropriate to conduct an investigation of Biden's son. I don't know. You don't know.

But, look, what - what he did, he did. I'm not - I'm not excusing it. I'm not saying it was proper - a proper performance. What I am saying is that the question is whether you remove somebody from Office or not over this, and that's something Congress is going to have to deal with.

CUOMO: Well a little bit of it is how they deal with it also. That's really what I'm scrutinizing. It's up to them to make the decision, and then we can all analyze it, and go through it afterwards.

That takes me to your area of expertise with the A.G. You know, you vouched for him when he wanted this job, Attorney General Barr, and said, "This guy will not be pushed around by a White House."

Help me understand how - he may not be being pushed around. But he seems in lockstep with protecting this President's interests, even if it means going bad on his own Inspector General.

MUKASEY: First off, he's not going bad on his own Inspector General.

Secondly, it's not - I mean the Inspector General is the Inspector General. It's not his. It's not anybody's in particular. He's not obligated to walk in lockstep with the Attorney General with it - with - with the Inspector General.

CUOMO: True.

MUKASEY: And--

CUOMO: And a lot of people don't like their Inspector Generals because they're--

MUKASEY: You're - you're looking at one of them.

CUOMO: --they're digging in your own backyard.

MUKASEY: Right.

CUOMO: But to basically say he got it wrong.

MUKASEY: And they're also - they're also reporting to Con - well he got part of it wrong is what he said. And understand that the Inspector General has a limited--

CUOMO: Yes.

MUKASEY: --authority and limited tools at his - at - that are available to him. He's limited to investigating the Department of Justice and the FBI--

CUOMO: FBI.

MUKASEY: --which is part of it. He's not - he can't investigate the CIA. He can't investigate the - the Department of State. He can't investigate the NSA, all of which, by the way, I think will be--

CUOMO: But you're looking--

MUKASEY: --shown to (ph) what their involvement is. CUOMO: --at what the FBI did and how they did it. He comes back, he says, "No political animus." You have an Attorney General who accused his own agency of spying. We've never heard of that before.

MUKASEY: Look, what he - he characterized surveillance as spying. That's - that's not an incorrect term, number one.

CUOMO: But you well--

MUKASEY: Number - number two--

[21:15:00]

CUOMO: But you know they don't like the term. They take it as something that is done in a nefarious fashion, and they find that objectionable--

MUKASEY: Well--

CUOMO: --considering what they do to a citizen.

MUKASEY: If you - yes, if you take a look at what was done to Carter Page, who was never charged with any crime, I don't think that's--

CUOMO: Well you don't need to--

MUKASEY: --that's an improper.

CUOMO: --charge him with a crime to do a FISA right? It's a different probable cause standard. But hey, by the way, let me stop.

MUKASEY: Right.

CUOMO: I'm a journalist who does a lot of investigative work.

MUKASEY: OK.

CUOMO: I've had lots of problems with how the FBI does its job over the years. I think these 17 recommendations, findings, allegations, are pitiful, and that the FBI should be ashamed of themselves for how they did the job.

MUKASEY: That's not - that's not the only finding though. The - the - you say they found - he - he found no - what he found was no testimony and no documentary evidence--

CUOMO: Of bias.

MUKASEY: --showing of bias. But he did - he said - and he said that in his first report too, which puzzles me, because of the following exchange that he didn't discuss in his first report, didn't discuss in this one.

The night that Trump was nominated, Lisa Page texted Strzok, "I can't believe that that" whatever - I'm - I don't know what she called him that that "Bozo got the nomination." CUOMO: So what Mike?

MUKASEY: OK. Wait, no, wait a second.

CUOMO: They found texts from people who said--

MUKASEY: Wait a second. No, no.

CUOMO: --"We like Clinton. We don't like Trump."

MUKASEY: It's the return text that counts. The return text was "This raises the pressure to terminate MYE." MYE stood for Mid Year Exam, which was the code for the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Now, you tell me how does the nomination of Donald Trump raise the pressure to terminate the--

CUOMO: But, Mike, what you're saying is, you're taking--

MUKASEY: --Hillary Clinton investigation unless--

CUOMO: --one text between two lovers, and adding context to it, when what do we know about the Hillary Clinton thing?

You wound up getting Andrew McCabe jammed up because he wanted to investigate it more. You had Comey come out to say that he was investigating it, doing more damage to her campaign than anything else that happened during the campaign. Clearly, the FBI wasn't out to help her.

MUKASEY: The FBI was out to help the FBI and make sure that nobody criticized them for covering it up. The - the text said that this raises the pressure to terminate that investigation.

CUOMO: But there was no termination.

MUKASEY: Of course there was.

CUOMO: Not right then, not for that reason.

MUKASEY: Soon - yes, you don't--

CUOMO: They dragged it out as much as they would.

MUKASEY: No. They didn't drag it out as much as they could. They ended it as soon as they could.

CUOMO: They came out and did something--

MUKASEY: And--

CUOMO: --we've never seen with an investigation before. You guys never talk about ongoing investigations. He comes out and talks about it, not once, but twice, both times putting stink on Clinton, and they make the decision not to do the--

MUKASEY: Because he didn't--

CUOMO: --same about Trump.

MUKASEY: Because he didn't want to - obviously, he didn't want to be criticized for covering it up that was this--

CUOMO: Well he - he made his choices.

MUKASEY: Right.

CUOMO: I'm just saying I don't see that part. But what I do see is you adding value to nuanced issues that are going on right now, and I always appreciate it.

MUKASEY: Thanks for having me.

CUOMO: Mike Mukasey, a pleasure, best for the holidays, if I don't get to see you.

MUKASEY: Thank you, same to you.

CUOMO: You and the family.

MUKASEY: Merry Christmas.

CUOMO: All right, we're in the middle of a 30-minute break. Why? Because this has been going on for over 12 hours.

And the way it works, this procedure, this isn't something they do all the time, and there's flexibility, and how many amendments can be made. And each one of the calls for an amendment warrants debate, and it could be somewhat open-ended, as we've seen tonight.

Now, what is the strategy at play? We asked Dana Bash. She says the word she hears is "You're looking at it. Keep coming. Keep pounding. Keep pounding the Democrats extend this show, how tortuous it is, see how difficult it is, and divisive it is."

So, now let's get it from the Democrat perspective. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat, Washington, what is it like in the room? What do you think of this strategy at play?

JAYAPAL: Well, I think, Chris, that we have been all day, Democrats have been laying out the facts, substantive facts that are on the record that are uncontested by anybody, except the Republicans, who are in this room, who are essentially trying to distract us from anything that is substantive.

So, they want to talk about, you know, Peter Strzok. They want to talk about all kinds of other investigations. But they don't want to talk about the fact that the President abused his power, coerced a foreign ally, to interfere in our elections, and is consistently going on to do that.

The President is a smoking gun. He has reloaded that gun. And whether or not he fires it is up to us if we can stop him from using this-- CUOMO: OK.

JAYAPAL: --Office, and abusing his power.

CUOMO: So, they have three pushbacks. I'll do them in reverse order.

JAYAPAL: Yes.

CUOMO: The one is, "Oh, he's not going to do. He's not a continuing threat. You're the continuing threat because you hate him, and you want to get him." That's their pushback to that.

The second point of pushback is "We're not going to deal with the facts because there are no facts because this entire procedure has been a sham."

And then they do have - and those are political arguments that I tee up for your response. The third one though has more teeth. "You've had Members of your Caucus talking about impeaching him a long time ago."

And now, it shows that it wasn't just a style problem, it's a substance issue for you to deal with, and it winds up dovetailing with not including specific crimes in the article of impeachment, which is now fueling a political argument by the Republicans that you don't have a crime.

What's your response to those as a basket of arguments?

[21:20:00]

JAYAPAL: Well, you know, on - on the process argument, this is a very fair process that has been going on, actually, for eight months.

The Intel Committee had 17 witnesses. They had numerous people come in. The Republicans had a chance to cross-examine those witnesses.

Here, in the Judiciary Committee, we have had the ability to bring in, and we have invited the President and his legal counsel to come in for both of the hearings that we've done. The President has refused. That is consistent with his behavior.

It is unprecedented, when we talk about process, it is unprecedented for any President in the - of the United States that has ever faced impeachment, to refuse to give us a single witness, to refuse to give us a single document. That is just unprecedented.

It's taking away the sole power of impeachment that, as you know, is in Article One. It's taking that away from Congress, and it's saying, "The President's just going to obstruct Congress in this investigation into the President." That's a check and balance that the Framers included in the Constitution.

I've forgotten what your first point was. But your third one--

CUOMO: I threw it to you in a big bundle to confuse you.

No, look, the - the first one was that they're not going to deal with the facts because they say the process is a sham.

JAYAPAL: OK.

CUOMO: And they also say that you guys have always wanted to impeach him.

JAYAPAL: OK. That was your third point, right.

CUOMO: And - and that's what this is about. And look, the third part for you to deal with is their idea of not having the specific crime in the article of impeachment.

JAYAPAL: Sure. Well--

CUOMO: Because you guys don't have the proof.

JAYAPAL: But - but here's the thing. The - the Constitution and - is the ultimate, the supreme law of the land.

And so, what we are saying is that the Constitution and the highest crimes and violation of the Constitution are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, because they get in the way of the very things that the - that the Framers were so afraid of.

So, we are charging him with the highest crimes, constitutional crimes that we can find. And so, I think that that is very, very important.

But on this thing of impeachment, that's just a red herring. You know, they keep saying it over and over again. There - there might have been some Members of Congress who actually said "We are ready to impeach him."

But the votes that they talk about on the floor were simply to refer articles of impeachment or impeachment inquiry resolution to the Judiciary Committee. They were not final votes on impeachment.

And I think that they just - this is another - it's just a red herring. And so much of what they've said today has been to distract--

CUOMO: Well--

JAYAPAL: --to obstruct and to stop us from actually dealing with the facts. One thing I want to say Chris is--

CUOMO: Go ahead.

JAYAPAL: --you know, I asked them directly, I turned to them at one point, and I said, "Forget about Trump. Just - just forget about Donald Trump. Will any of you on the other side say that it is wrong for a President to ask a foreign country to interfere in our elections?"

Now, crickets, we saw nothing, crickets.

Later on, John Ratcliffe said, he sort of reworded the - the question to say "Involvement," instead of "Interference," I'd love to know what the difference is between those two, he said, "Absolutely it's OK to ask a foreign country to involve themselves in our elections."

I think that is a stunning thing for him to say.

CUOMO: Certainly something he's going to have to explain.

JAYAPAL: And I think it is outrageous.

CUOMO: Because it was--

JAYAPAL: He is.

CUOMO: --one of the few things that everybody agreed to, after the Mueller probe.

JAYAPAL: That's right.

CUOMO: Was that "You got to keep foreign powers out of it." Certainly the Founders wanted, and so does our legal structure, when it comes to campaigns.

JAYAPAL: That's right.

CUOMO: Representative Jayapal, I wish you good energy because it seems like--

JAYAPAL: Thank you. We're going to go all night.

CUOMO: --you guys are going to be at this a while.

JAYAPAL: We're going to go all night.

CUOMO: And we'll be here too, all day.

JAYAPAL: Thank you.

CUOMO: 100 percent. Hundo P.

All right, few people have had a front row seat to impeachment against one President, let alone two. Very often in my life I have turned to Sam Donaldson, for example, for advice.

And the veteran White House Correspondent is going to join us after this break about what matters right now, what do we have to keep pointing out to you, how will this be remembered, and why?

A word from the Master, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, while Democrats push ahead on impeachment, the President's Party remained staunchly behind him. In fact, I would argue to you, we've never seen anything like it. Now, that demands some historical perspective, so let's get some.

I have legendary journalist Sam Donaldson with me. He was with ABC's - ABC News forever. He was the Chief Watergate Correspondent. He was the White House Correspondent during President - President Clinton's impeachment. And full disclosure, he is a mentor to me, and someone that I always pray to my absolute best day, I'd be half as good as.

Sam Donaldson, thank you. As we spoke--

SAM DONALDSON, FORMER ANCHOR, ABC NEWS, COVERED THE NIXON & CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS: Ah! It's--

CUOMO: Hilarious. It's the first time you've ever listened to anything I said.

DONALDSON: No, you're blowing a lot of smoke there.

CUOMO: It's - no, it's all - it's all true.

DONALDSON: You are very good, Chris.

CUOMO: It's--

DONALDSON: I don't go on someone's show who's not.

CUOMO: Thank you very much.

Sam, so this is tricky times to understand what is happening before the American audience, why it matters, which part of it to focus on, what is your perspective?

DONALDSON: I don't think it matters because of the case the Democrats are making, what your last guest just said. Do we all believe that it's great to call on a foreign power to aid you in your reelection campaign in the United States?

As you said earlier, Chris, we have money restrictions. Foreigners can't give money. China can't send money. Ukraine can't. Vladimir Putin can't send money on the table. But this is OK? No, it's not OK. So, the Democrats have the case.

The Republicans don't argue the case. They argue the process. They say it's your - "Witch-hunt. You're out to get him. You've always hated him," and then they pound the table.

CUOMO: That's powerful. DONALDSON: Like a lawyer who doesn't have a case.

CUOMO: But that's powerful, Sam.

DONALDSON: It's powerful because it's emotional.

CUOMO: And people repeat it to us.

[21:30:00]

DONALDSON: It's emotional. That's true. But let's face it.

Tactics tonight don't matter. This Committee is going to vote those two articles out. The Democrats have the majority. Next week, the Democrats have the majority. They're going to vote impeachment of this President.

And the thing that interests me is that Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, both agree they want a short trial. They want to get it over with for different reasons, and then they want to get on with the election.

CUOMO: Where does it leave us?

DONALDSON: And that's what I think we're going to see.

Well it leaves us with bad taste in our mouths on both sides. You've pointed out, everyone's pointed out, correctly. We hate each other in this country these days.

We don't just argue the facts and say "Now, let's have a beer."

"You're not a good American because you don't agree with me. And therefore, we've got to stop you in any way possible. Any way is fair to stop you being a bad American."

Well no. There's no America if they were at that - each other's throat. So, it leaves us from this trial--

CUOMO: How does this compare to '98?

DONALDSON: Well, in '98, it was about sex. And when Bill Clinton went before the United States Senate, and the trial was held, 70 percent approval rating among the public. The Republicans had no chance to remove him, none whatsoever.

There were only 45 Democrats. But they needed a lot of other help, you know, and they got it. They got 10 Republicans to make certain that on Article One, he'd won 55 to 45. No - no two-thirds vote. I mean Oh! And on Article Two, it was a 50/50 vote, so they couldn't even get 51 votes against him.

Everybody decided, maybe wrongly, because he had - he did commit perjury. He admitted that on his last day in Office or else the Robert Ray would have brought him into court afterward, and he left the President. CUOMO: Yes.

DONALDSON: You know, Chris, a lot of people want this who don't like this President, they don't want the Senate to remove him.

He's not going to be removed by the Senate, and why? Because if he's removed and there's President Pence, President Pence can pardon him, and they don't want him pardoned.

CUOMO: They'd also have to have a second vote.

DONALDSON: They want to have to do this time itself (ph).

CUOMO: To disqualify him, Sam, so they could remove him from his Office. But they don't get the votes to disqualify, and then he'd be able to run again. But all that's totally far-fetched.

My last question for you. They're starting to reassemble in the room.

DONALDSON: Well that's a--

CUOMO: We don't know exactly when it's going to end or resume. As it does, we'll - we'll go right back to coverage.

But from what you learned through Nixon, through Clinton, have you ever seen the President's party in lockstep during a proceeding like this, the way we've seen with the Republicans at least in the House?

DONALDSON: No. When the first article gets to Richard Nixon was - the roll call was called. Six Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted "Aye." How many Republicans tonight are going to vote "Aye?"

CUOMO: Zero.

DONALDSON: How many Republicans in the Senate are going to vote convict? None. None.

So, whatever the evidence that you and I or anyone else thinks is there on the table is disregarded by today's Republican Party, as represented by their Washington Representatives.

There are a lot of good Republicans in this country and I hope the Carty - Party is reconstituted as it once was. We need two good parties with people, good people, on both sides contending over the years in different ways for their constituencies.

CUOMO: Maybe this is proof that we need five good parties. Sam Donaldson, I certainly--

DONALDSON: No, no, that's Italy.

CUOMO: That is Italy. Maybe that's my roots talking. Sam, thank you so much for being with us. Thank you for your example and your perspective on such an important night. Be well.

DONALDSON: Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Chris. CUOMO: All right, so they're starting to come back into the room. This has been a surprise. The number of amendments, a surprise. The volume of argumentation, a surprise.

We thought they were going to the White House Christmas party tonight, the - the event at the White House tonight, not the Christmas party. The Republicans didn't.

They're coming back soon. And when they do, we will. Stay with CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, we're waiting for the Judiciary Committee to reassemble. It's slow-going. The break was random. It was a surprise. We were told it was 30 minutes. When they get back after it, so will we.

But let's bring in, right now, some of our top political and legal minds, Dana Bash, Elliot Williams, and Tim Naftali, of course, Historian.

Dana Bash, do me a favor, Dana. Keep me honest. If you hear that they're coming in, or you see something, just let me know, but we'll be talking all along anyway.

Tim?

BASH: OK.

CUOMO: So, you were moved the same way I was by talking to A.G. Mukasey, smart guy, not a politician.

TIM NAFTALI, FORMER DIRECTOR, NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Yes.

CUOMO: But he was iterating, very honestly, the argument that is coming across more subtly from these lawmakers, which is, "Tim, this is who he is."

NAFTALI: Yes.

CUOMO: "You want to impeach him for who he is? He's not a political tactician, this President. He's rough. He's a power player. And that's all it was. And this is who he's always been, and they elected him, so you can't impeach him for being who he is."

NAFTALI: In 1974, I believe, the House Judiciary Committee was the gold standard for running an impeachment. And I think they helped define high crimes and misdemeanors.

And one of the most powerful high crime and misdemeanor was Article Two, which was the abuse of power article regarding Richard Nixon. And they documented the efforts that Richard Nixon made to use instruments of government to hurt his enemies.

I think, for the American people, that is the most powerful misuse of power imaginable. Imagine if your President, because he doesn't like you, can go after you, and can use the IRS against you, or the FBI?

It's ironic to hear Jim Jordan and others talk about 63 million Americans that are hated by Democrats, now this is the issue of whether the President can hate one person, and hurt that one person.

So, I think we have a standard for abuse of power that was given to us in a bipartisan manner by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. I ask all Americans to read that article then think about what it means, and then apply it, if you think you can, to this President.

What I want to hear from - from the Republicans is why it doesn't apply. One of the challenges for us today, and I think a source of real pain, is that we don't have one set of facts. We are arguing two separate system of facts.

CUOMO: Well you have a set of facts. What people do is they ignore the facts unless they agree with them. Right--

NAFTALI: But when you're listening - when you listen to these folks talking, the Democrats have the facts, which are the facts. They're based on all that testimony we all watched. And the Republicans are in some other Fantasyland. And that's a danger to us.

CUOMO: Well they're not arguing the facts.

They are arguing, Dana, to the point that you've made many times to me, and others, that this process is unfair because they just don't like the President, as Mukasey expressed, in more high-minded fashion, "You don't like who he is. But this is all who - is who he's been, so this process is really a personality test."

BASH: Yes. That - that's a lot of what they're arguing, a lot of the process.

They did begin to, as I mentioned earlier, kind of wade into the - the notion of the President and the substance of - of what the Democrats say he did that is an impeachable offense, that phone call.

[21:40:00]

Never mind standing on the - on the White House lawn, and saying, "Please, Ukraine and - and China, investigate Joe Biden."

Them trying to explain it away, them trying to justify it, and in large part say - to say what - what Mr. Mukasey said to you, but also to say that it's not - it's not just that it's "Let Trump be Trump, and that's who he is, and that's who we elected," it's - it's totally appropriate, which is, you know, what the Congresswoman was saying to you that she tried to press them on--

CUOMO: That's why they dumped the--

BASH: --and to put it to--

CUOMO: --question of "Would you do it?"

BASH: put - to put at you, exactly.

CUOMO: Right.

BASH: "Would you do it?" Because the answer is "No" because they would get in big trouble.

CUOMO: That's right. They duck it.

But, you know, Elliot, let me - let me bring you in here for a little legal analysis on this aspect of did the Democrats give them a little bit of a break?

I get the argument of "It's all in there. Abuse of process is the most dangerous crime there is when it comes to impeachment, and it's all in there."

But by not including bribery, the low fruit satisfaction of "Here's the crime," I know it's not necessary. But for the regular people that are watching at home, they're used to hearing about a crime being articulated, and they're not getting one.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, PRINCIPAL, THE RABEN GROUP'S GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PRACTICE GROUP: Right. But again, Chris, it's got - the point has to be made that a crime is not necessary for an impeachment that's--

CUOMO: That's unsatisfying to hear, Elliot.

WILLIAMS: I know it's unsatisfying to hear, but that's the law, and that's the Constitution. There are two different standards. And if we--

CUOMO: So, you're going to impeach somebody for not breaking the law? See that's what you have to deal with.

WILLIAMS: Yes, you are going to impeach someone--

CUOMO: The persuasion.

WILLIAMS: Yes, you are going to impeach someone for not breaking the law because they haven't been charged with a criminal offense. It is a different scheme. The Constitution never - use of the words bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors, it does not say that someone ought to be charged with a crime.

And there's, frankly, throughout history, federal judges, Tim can talk about this too, federal judges, not just Presidents, have been impeached over conduct that was not distinctly criminal, but was conduct that was unfit and incompatible with the oath of Office--

CUOMO: Right.

WILLIAMS: --of that individual.

CUOMO: But when you look at the dovetailing of law and politics that this is - and we're watching.

As soon as they get back, and they stop looking at their phones, we'll pick up the proceedings right away. Don't worry. We're watching it. And Dana's got her eyes on it as too - as well.

Tim, if you didn't have the burglary against Nixon, would it have been as bad? If you didn't have the lie--

BASH: Absolutely.

CUOMO: --under oath with Clinton, would it have been bad?

NAFTALI: Listen, listen, if you didn't have tapes, Richard Nixon would have completed a second term.

CUOMO: Well that's proof.

NAFTALI: That's proof. But - but the--

CUOMO: That's proof.

NAFTALI: --what - with the impeachment - what started the impeachment process was when Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox.

CUOMO: Yes.

NAFTALI: He wouldn't have had impeachment even with the burglary.

CUOMO: But if they didn't have the burglary, you think--

NAFTALI: Well--

CUOMO: --it still winds up the same way?

NAFTALI: The burglary makes - what happens with the burglary is it - it pushes the special prosecutor to work with the judge to move Grand Jury information to the House.

So, I think that the fact that you had an underlying crime was very significant, yes, in the movement of material.

CUOMO: With Clinton, you know-- NAFTALI: Oh--

CUOMO: --they started with a land deal.

NAFTALI: Oh, wait, hey there's--

CUOMO: They wound up with Monica Lewinsky. If he hadn't lied about it--

NAFTALI: Oh--

CUOMO: --can you impeach?

NAFTALI: No. Chris, in fact, there was no Clinton impeachment without the perjury. The reason why the Republicans would make the argument about impeachment, and by the way, it was a wrong argument.

In 1974, Richard Nixon was found guilty of cheating on his taxes. But he was not impeached for it. Why? Because it's a crime but it's not a crime that's a high crime. You don't impeach somebody for cheating on tax.

CUOMO: They didn't involve foreign interference. There wasn't corruption of bribery.

NAFTALI: No.

CUOMO: He wasn't playing with his power.

NAFTALI: So, when Bill Clinton lies under oath, bad thing to do, don't do it, and the rest of us will get in big trouble, you don't overturn election because somebody lied under oath.

CUOMO: And they made all this - some of them, only few were left, but they made these arguments, Lindsey Graham, most notably, "It's not about a crime, Tim. It's about cleansing the office."

NAFTALI: Oh, right, yes.

CUOMO: This is about the kind of a behavior and decency we expect from a President.

NAFTALI: Yes.

CUOMO: And then, of course, people like Pence made a lot of moral majoritarian arguments. And now, he stands proudly next to a man who is arguably a repository for most of our immorality.

But now they're arguing "You don't have a crime, you can't impeach."

NAFTALI: Well it's cynical. This is all cynical. I don't want to say it's all politics because I believe honor - politics can be honorable, and I'd like people still to go into politics. But it's cynicism. It's completely cynical.

CUOMO: All right, so Jerry Nadler's walking up to his aforementioned position as the Chair of this. We'll give it a couple more beats.

Dana, how long do we expect this to go? What word you're getting?

BASH: Late. It could go--

CUOMO: Thank you.

BASH: --very late. Let's see. It's a quarter to 10:00 Eastern Time. You know, it could go at least a - a couple more hours.

CUOMO: And the Pope - the point of duration is what, from the - the perspective of the Republicans because they're pushing the clock?

BASH: Just put - put - just to - to make this as long and as painful for everybody as possible rhetorically and, you know, when it comes to being sleep - sleep-deprived, and to - and because this is their chance.

[21:45:00]

Because the White House chose not to bring witnesses, the White House chose not to participate, this is the Republicans' chance, according to the House Judiciary rules, to show their opposition to the substance of these articles.

And so, they're going to keep going. They've done about a half a dozen amendments that have gotten voted down because they know they have no shot because they don't have the votes. But they're going to keep doing it for a little while.

CUOMO: It's an interesting contrast of perceived strategy, Elliot, because here you have the, you know, let's run the clock, let's make this as painful and as divisive as possible. But in the Senate, he's looking to do it very quickly, and avoid any of this.

All right, the Chairman is taking his position. That assumes that this is going to resume, so our coverage will as well. Thank you everybody for being with me during this time.

[21:45:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The pending matter before the Committee is the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Mr. Chairman --

NADLER: Does anyone -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

SENSENBRENNER: Strike the last word on the amendment in the nature of substitute.

NADLER: Gentleman is recognized. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, this debate is going to be the last of a

very long day that we've had. I would like to start out my commending the Chairman for following the rules. I think that this mark-up has been a lot better than it could have been, and I think the Chairman has been probably very even-handed on that.

With that being said, let me say that the Chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead wrong on all of the issues that we have been debating both today and last night, as well as beforehand.

The Constitution says that the president, and other civil officials can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I think it's very obvious that there was no treason or bribery alleged here, and it goes (ph) down to what has been alleged in these two articles whether they really are high crimes and misdemeanors.

I would submit the answer on both of them as an emphatic no. What is accused of being -- you know, an abuse of power? Is, in my opinion a policy disagreement on how the president should have approached the issues that are outlined there.

And let me say that as far as foreign aid goes, and the issue of the $391 million of foreign aid to Ukraine as the one in the center (ph), is that practically every bit of foreign aid that the United States disperses following a Congressional appropriation is contingent on something, or another.

And one of the common threads whether it's so stated in the foreign aid enactment or not, is whether or not there is any type of corruption that is involved in that. I think we all have conceded that Ukraine has been a pretty corrupt country, and that President Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform, and we with him (ph) well in cleaning the place up.

But the fact is, is that I think the president would have been derelict in his duty, at least had he held off -- or just given the foreign aid without trying to check on corruption, and that was what was going on.

As far as obstruction of Congress is concerned, earlier today I talked a bit about the fact that this article is drafted so loosely, and so weakly that it turns the United States in to a parliamentary form of government.

And the consequence of that is that whenever we have a president, and the majority of the House of Representatives controlled by opposite parties you're going to attempt to see the majority in the House of Representatives try to impeach the president.

But I would like to finally say that we have heard an awful lot about the fact that if Donald Trump is not impeached or removed from office, he's going to steal the 2020 election.

That is one of the most outlandish predictions that I have ever heard -- the 2020 election is going to be looked at very closely by representatives of both the candidates, by the news media, by a lot of citizens whether they're involved with the campaigns of the candidates or not, it's going to be pretty darn hard to steal the 2020 election after all of this has happened.

[21:50:00]

But what's happening here is there is an attempt to steal the 2016 election, three years after the fact. Because if Donald Trump is impeached and removed from office based on this flimsy record based upon all of the problems extinguishing minority rights both in the Intelligence Committee, and before tonight here -- and that will (ph) end up stealing the 2016 election.

It will end up voiding the votes of the 63 million people who voted for Donald Trump for President of the United States. And I think that that will be something that will haunt this country for decades to come. The time to stand up for the Constitution is now, the time to determine how you stand up to the Constitution is by voting no on both articles of impeachment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

NADLER: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek recognition?

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Strike the last word.

NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.

COHEN: Thank you, sir. I joined with Mr. Sensenbrenner in commending the Chairman on his running this Committee tonight, it's been very difficult -- it's been a long day and all of our -- we're a little bit tired, at least I am. And the Chairman's done a great job.

But I totally disagree with Chairman Sensenbrenner in his summation of what we have before us. I think they are dead wrong in their opinion on the articles of -- articles. This is no way stealing -- Donald Trump is removed from office, the election of 2016 is not nullified. Mike Pence will be the president, and that's no walk in the park.

It's the same policies, some of them may be even worse -- maybe a little bit better ethics and morals, a little bit more civility. But as far as policies they'd be about the same. There's been a lot of discussion of what we've had here, but basically this is an issue about abuse of power based on testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Yovanovitch, Ambassador Taylor, and Dr. Hill.

These are four independent class acts, people we should all look to -- we all talk about them as patriots, they are patriots. But they are career foreign service folk, who have done great jobs for America, are nonpartisan -- and they came forth out of (ph) -- and what they've testified to is what happened with the Ukraine was wrong, that there was an abuse of power, and that's why they came forth.

And to say that this whole process is corrupt, is basically an affront to each of those four patriots who came forward, to those four career foreign service officials -- those four people who are nonpartisan. They did a service to this country. The fact is, their facts are undisputed that what happened was a favor

though (ph) -- although I'd like to ask you for a favor though (ph), and then Mulvaney going out, get used to it, that's politics -- that's what happened.

And then we had Sondland say they were all in on it and it was -- it was a requirement, and to get the military aid you've got to have the -- announce the investigation. There's nothing other than that, and we've been here the last few hours, it's -- they used it as a campaign ad for Trump, he had the markets up -- all that kind of stuff.

SNAP payments are being cut drastically, and poor people are going to be hurt -- and they didn't benefit from the Trump tax scam. Bob Corker, who serves in the Senate said the two biggest mistakes he made when he was up here were voting for the tax scam -- which he didn't call it that, and then voting for the budget that came afterwards, exploding the debt.

And somebody on the other side talked about how we need to be up and fighting -- they have exploded the debt, they have no traditional Republican philosophy whatsoever. The Kurds, sayonara. They've ruined us in the Middle East (ph) forever, Trump just sold them out for his friend in Turkey, and then the Kurds were the hell with you (ph).

And we gave Syria to the Russians, and just yesterday Trump met with Lavrov, the Russian Ambassador. No report of what they talked about, except the White House said they talked about influence -- not to have influence in the next election. That Trump told him, you shouldn't try to influence our next elections. Lavrov said, we didn't discuss the elections -- that's not true. It's hard to figure out which one is lying, neither one of them have a very good track record.

[21:55:00]

So I hope we can get it finished today, pass these two articles and do what's important to protect our democracy, defend our -- support our oath, abide by our oath -- support the Constitution, and support our national security. Because all of which have been jeopardized by Donald J. Trump, by his self-dealing with Ukraine.

I said earlier today that the president of Ukraine was an actor and a politician -- I wouldn't (ph) say anything bad about him. A lot of actors are great, I love actors -- I love politicians -- I am a politician. But that's why he couldn't say that there was -- he was under any duress, or any influence and he felt like he was being pressured.

He couldn't say that because he's in an inferior (ph) position, it's like a battered wife with her husband around who beat her up -- he can't say to the police -- oh, she can't say he beat me up, because he's there and when the police leave he'll do it again.

And so, he was in a terrible position. I look forward to meeting him, I'm going to be in Ukraine in February, and I think he's going to do (ph) a wonderful job. And for some people over there who said Ukraine was the third-worst in the world, it's like 120th in the rankings out of 180 -- not good, but not the third-worst. I yield back the balance of my time, God bless the United States of America.

NADLER: The gentleman yields back, I think we all share those sentiments. Who else seeks recognition? What purpose does Mr. Chabot seek recognition?

CHABOT: Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.

CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get in to impeachment, I just have to respond to the gentleman from Tennessee who made a couple remarks. I would start of by saying I really like the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cohen. It's mutual, we've worked on a number of bills together, introduced them -- and he's just -- he's really a good guy.

But he's flat out wrong about the taxes -- the tax cuts have really helped this country, it's one of the main reasons we're seeing the economy take off and people's bank accounts and their savings accounts, and their retirement accounts are so much better, and more positive right now.

Because the president and a Republican Congress pay us those tax cuts without a single Democratic vote, and the difference -- one big difference between the two parties is Republicans want to cut your taxes, and Democrats in general -- not every one of them, but most of them want to raise your taxes, just a big difference.

But relative to impeachment, back in the early 1970s I was a college student and our nation was going through another impeachment at the time, Richard Nixon. I had actually voted for him, he was the first president I voted for in 1972 and obviously he got in trouble and was going to be impeached, but he resigned before -- he was -- the articles of impeachment were voted on the Judiciary Committee, this Committee. But then before the House took it up, he resigned from office.

And little did I know that about 25 years later our nation would be going through another impeachment, and that was Bill Clinton obviously, and that I'd be very closely involved in that. And of the 41 people on this Committee, 5 of us were here in those days -- Mr. Sensenbrenner and I on the Republican side, and Chairman -- Mr. Nadler, and Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. Jackson-Lee -- all 5 of us were in that.

Mr. Sensenbrenner and I happened to be House managers, the prosecutors in the case -- and some of the folks on the other side are going to get that opportunity, and good luck. The -- and Mr. Sensenbrenner remembers Henry Hyde was our leader at the time, and he said we're not going to be very welcomed over there, and we weren't -- so we'll see what happens when you all are over there.

But he was the -- you know, Bill Clinton, he was impeached by the House and then the Senate obviously, did not remove him from office. And I think it's very likely that's what we're going to see happen in this case.

But -- excuse me. Bill Clinton did (ph) put his hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- and then he lied, he committed perjury. And that's something hundreds of people were in jail across the country for at the time, and I thought -- and still think presidents shouldn't be above the law.

He had committed a high crime and misdemeanor, very different from this case -- they're not even alleging a crime in this case. There's clearly not a high crime and misdemeanor, that's why I'll be voting against impeaching the president.

And I think the Democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach this president for a long time now. In fact, when they took over the House one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day. And really, since inauguration day many of them wanted to impeach him.

This is really all about, in my view, it's all about politics. It's all about hurting the president, hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely as I mentioned the other day

[22:00:00]