Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Showdown Over Mayorkas Impeachment Articles; Rep. Mike Johnson Defiant Amid Growing Threat to His Speakership; U.S., Europe Push for Sanctions Against Iran Over Military Strikes. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 17, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

This morning, we begin with chaos and revolt up on Capitol Hill. And just hours from now a showdown in the Senate as members will be sworn in as jurors for the impeachment trial of the Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. And at that moment, other work in the Senate grinds to a halt.

Over in the House, the GOP revolt against House Speaker Mike Johnson is gaining steam, meaning he will now need some Democratic support to keep his job if his fellow Republicans carry through with their threats to remove him.

All of this as crucial military aid Ukraine and Israel remain stalled.

A lot to discuss now with CNN Congressional correspondent Lauren Fox. Lauren, let's start with the Mayorkas impeachment trial. It's going to happen now, it sounds like, isn't it?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, what we're going to see today is that 1:00, Jim, the senators will be sworn in as jurors. At that point, it's a little unclear what precisely the next steps will be. Senate conservatives have been pushing very hard to get Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to hold a fulsome Senate trial on this impeachment article against Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

But it is clear that Democrats may move expeditiously to try and dismiss this all together. That is because they argue this is a political disagreement. This is about Republicans attacking policy proposals they don't like from the Biden administration. This is not the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors that are typically the bar when it comes to moving forward with an impeachment trial against someone, especially a historic trial like this one against a member of the president's cabinet, something that hasn't happened in almost 150 years.

So, you are at this moment right now on Capitol Hill where this could actually move very quickly. This could all be wrapped up later this afternoon. But, again, we just have to watch and see, especially whether or not some of those Republicans may cross the aisle and vote with Democrats to quickly dismiss this. I'm keeping an eye on people like Senator Mitt Romney, Senator Lisa Murkowski, two members who have been known to cross the aisle before on these kinds of impeachment matters.

ACOSTA: Yes, those are certainly ones to watch, Lauren.

And what about the chaos over in the House, House Speaker Mike Johnson refusing to resign after another Republican lawmaker jumping on the bandwagon, it sounds, like to oust him? It sounds like Johnson may need Democratic support to survive. What's the latest on that?

FOX: Yes, Jim. One thing I'm keeping an eye on is it is 10:00 this morning, and we still have not seen legislative text a full plan from Speaker Mike Johnson's office as to how he plans to tackle four separate bills, including aid to Ukraine.

And the reason that that's such an interesting point right now is the fact that Johnson is under fire from hardliners within his conference who are pressuring him not to bring up Ukraine aid at all.

When he made that announcement on Monday that his plan was to move forward later this week on those votes, you saw an eruption of frustration, not just for Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been holding over him this threat of bringing forward emotion to vacate against him.

But yesterday you saw Thomas Massie, another Republican hardliner, announce in the Republican conference meeting behind closed doors that he, too, would join Marjorie Taylor Greene. And the reason that that is so significant is it does make this threat very real for Johnson, because on Friday, Mike Gallagher, a Republican member, will give up his congressional seat, step aside.

At that point, Johnson will have just a one vote margin. And what that means for him is that he would either need Democratic support to help him keep his job. There are already a handful of members willing to do that.

But, again, it becomes a question, is that how Mike Johnson wants to stay in the speakership if Marjorie Taylor Greene forces this issue of vacating the speaker? Jim?

ACOSTA: All right, it sounds very tenuous. All right, Lauren Fox, thank you very much.

[10:05:01]

Let's discuss more now with Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas. She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being here.

I guess just very quickly, Secretary Mayorkas was impeached in the House. Now this moves over to the Senate. What are your thoughts on all of that as this may actually happen now over in the Senate an impeachment trial of the Homeland Security secretary? REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Yes, unfortunately, the chaos that you were just discussing is pouring over into the Senate and the American people should just be looking at this and recognizing this for what it is.

In fact, you're talking about retirements. We know that one of the members of the Republican Party recently left simply because he said it was too much. And we're talking about a Freedom Caucus member who felt as if we had these sham impeachments that they were continuously trying to push through, whether it was on Mayorkas or whether it was on the president of the United States.

The people really want a body that can govern. And this body has proven that at least in this Congress under Republican control, it has no ability whatsoever to govern or at least no desire to govern.

ACOSTA: And Congresswoman, I mean, as for the fate of the House speaker, Mike Johnson, what do you think? I mean, if it comes down to it and he needs Democratic votes to survive, is that something you can get on board with? If he gives Democrats something like aid to Ukraine, where do you stand on that?

CROCKETT: I'm not voting for Speaker Johnson at all. I will continue to stand and vote for my leader. That is Leader Jeffries. But I will tell you this. If this speaker is smarter than the previous one, McCarthy, then what he will do is he will talk to our leadership. He will talk with Leader Jeffries. He will ask Leader Jeffries what it would take to make sure that he could save his job if that's something that he's looking forward to do.

The one thing that I can say about McCarthy, if I had something nice to say about him, it would be that, you know what, he said, basically, to hell with it. You know what? I'm going to do what's right, and that means keeping this government open.

The fact that we are debating whether or not there will be support for Putin and allowing Putin to continue to wage this unrelentless and unwarranted war against Ukraine is absolutely -- it boggles my mind.

But here is the other part. If we are really looking out for national security, if we're looking out for the security of America, it doesn't make sense because now we're establishing that we cannot be relied upon when our friends and our allies call on us.

It is important that we don't set a precedent that if we ever need help, that people say, well, you know what, you didn't have your friends and allies' backs, so why should we have yours?

This is bigger than just this moment. We have to recognize that this is a huge moment right now for the Ukrainian people, but it's also a huge moment for the world as well as America. And it is time to do what's right, even if it means that you could lose your job. At least you know that the history books will look kindly upon you because you did what was right for the American people.

ACOSTA: And, Congresswoman, I do want to ask you about this because it does pertain to who's really in charge over in the House of Representatives. Former President Trump was asked yesterday whether he would protect Johnson against these threats to his speakership.

Let's play a little bit of what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, how do you plan to protect Speaker Johnson?

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we'll see what happens with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Congressman, he just says, well, we'll see what happens with that. It wasn't that long ago, just last week, that Mike Johnson went down to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump. And now here we are just less than a week later, and it doesn't sound like Trump is fully on board with the House speaker. How does that affect the way business is done in the House of Representatives?

CROCKETT: Yes. Right now, unfortunately, it definitely feels as if Trump is puppeteering the Republicans between Trump and the -- Trump and Putin's party. I don't really know who's doing more puppeteering, but both are absolutely puppeteering the Republicans in the House.

What is unfortunate is that Trump continues to tell people who he is and they continue to ignore. Trump only cares about Trump. The fact that the speaker did go down and bend the knee and did this sham press conference and supports any and everything that the president does, and the president's only response was, we will see what happens, why would you want to remain loyal to someone who has no loyalty whatsoever to you and ultimately who has no loyalty to the American people?

So, it's time for Speaker Johnson to recognize that in this body we are supposed to govern. And with this slim majority governing looks like stepping across the aisle, talking to Leader Hakeem Jeffries and coming up with a solution that will help to protect the American people, help the Ukrainian people, help to protect our actual reputation on the international level, as well as make sure that the American people can say, you know what, what they've got going on in Washington may not be as dysfunctional as it has appeared to be, and we can deal with Trump on another day.

[10:10:11]

But I got to say last time I checked, Trump is not one of Speaker Johnson's constituents. He can't vote him in and he cannot vote them out.

ACOSTA: All right. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you so much for your time this morning. I really appreciate it.

CROCKETT: Absolutely. ACOSTA: All right. My next guest is no stranger to disarray up on Capitol Hill. CNN Senior Political Commentator, a former Republican Congressman from Illinois Adam Kinzinger joins us now.

I mean, what do you make of what's happening right now? Do you have a thought as to -- does Mike Johnson hang on? I mean, there's a part of me that thinks, Adam, that the members in the House Republican Conference can't possibly think it's good for them to have another speaker thrown overboard, and that that is going to really impact all of this?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, look, first off, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene really is persona non grata in the Republican ranks of the House. The problem is, with such a tight majority, she has kind of a ton of power, quite honestly, because she can put a motion to vacate up.

And then you have Thomas Massey, who, by the way, used to actually be a serious legislator, and in, the last number of years has really, I think actually turn his back on his own principles. He's joined this motion to vacate. And now those two have the ability to hold the entire House hostage. And this is a rare moment in history.

The problem is, and I've used this analogy before, imagine every member of the Republican caucus having a hand grenade, right? Everybody is equally powerful. But if somebody is willing to pull the pin on the hand grenades, they become the most powerful person in the room until somebody else says they're willing to do it as well.

And the problem you have right now people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are willing to go beyond what anybody ever imagined, you know, is like regular order or good order in the House and we have to have people on the other side of that debate that are willing do the same.

So, there are people that need to go to Speaker Johnson right now and say, look, if you don't put Ukraine it on the floor, we will vacate the chair, or if you put Ukrainian in on the floor, we will vote against every rule and a rule is required for a bill to go forward under a certain way.

And that would give him the cover and force him to put it on the floor. And, of course, he's going to have to cut -- he is going have do this. He's going to have cut a deal with the Democrats to get this through. And I think that's a good thing for democracy, to be quite honest with you.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, you know, there was a time when both parties worked together from time to time up on Capitol Hill. It may be a faint memory, but it did happen.

And, Adam, I mean, Mike Johnson remains defiant. He put it this way yesterday. Let's talk about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I am not resigning, and it is, in my view, an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs. It is not helpful to the cause. It not is helpful to the country.

We need steady leadership. We needs steady hands at the wheel. Look, I regard myself as a wartime speaker.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: What did you make of that when he said a wartime speaker? What does that mean?

KINZINGER: Well, he thought he was right in saying, you know, that this is not good for the country. I mean, it really, regardless of your feelings of Speaker Johnson, this makes us look bad. It's bad.

The wartime speaker thing was odd. Because, first off, you know I don't know if this war times. Certainly, there's conflict around the world. But, secondly, if you're going to call yourself a wartime speaker, you need to act like a wartime Speaker.

And the fact that we are six months, frankly, after we should have passed aid to Ukraine and, what, four months -- three months after the Senate did, and it's been sitting in the House, don't call yourself a wartime speaker if your unwilling to do what needs to be done in wartime.

And this is, I think, a big issue that we need to kind of change the way we're looking at. Look, we are not helping Ukraine. Okay? Let's be clear. Ukraine is helping us. Yes, they're doing it to defend their own country, but they are fighting one of the chief enemies of the United States who's made it clear that they want to see the United States fall.

And, frankly, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea is this kind of axis that's working together. Ukraine is the only one doing kinetic fighting against the Russians. They're fighting for us, so we're not helping Ukraine. They are helping. And it is essential for us to remember that and get them the tools they need to defend themselves.

ACOSTA: You know, Adam, I did want to ask you about this because it gets to I think where we are as a country right now and the level of discourse that we have in this country right now. And I know you and I have talked about this on a number of occasions.

I'm sure you've seen these demonstrators opposed to the war in Gaza, have been shutting down traffic in cities across the country on bridges and so on.

[10:15:02]

And Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas went on Twitter, formerly -- well, X, formerly known as Twitter, and to urge people whose routes were inconvenienced to, quote, take matters into your own hands. He later edited the post to say that people should take matters into their own hands to get protesters out of the way. He made similar comments like this on Fox, where he kind of echoed -- sort of doubled down on the remarks.

What did you think of all that when you saw that?

KINZINGER: Well, let me tell you about Tom Cotton. So, Tom -- first off, let me just say, quit shutting down the highways, everybody. First off, it's stupid. Secondly, dangerous. Third, you're not convincing anybody. You're actually turning people against your cause.

Now, Tom Cotton, the thing about him is, and I served with him in the house, he always loves to go on Fox and talk tough and sound like a real tough guy. And that's what he was trying to do in this tweet. The reality is he's actually not that tough. And you can see when he is subservient to Donald Trump, particularly when you look at things like Ukraine and how he hasn't really spoken out, kind of like Lindsey Graham.

Look, it is dangerous what Tom Cotton said because there is somebody that's going to take that as marching orders. And as much as I disagree with shutting down highways for these protestors, nobody deserves to die over it, and that's the danger here.

And the other thing is, again, he is divorced from the consequences. It is easy, as a guy that uses Twitter, it's easy to tweet anything you want. But to realize that your words have an impact and can have an impact on people's lives, you need to think that through.

Tom Cotton is a try hard. Tom Cotton is a pretend tough guy. He's actually not that tough. And that's, I think, what you saw on Twitter is just trying to sound like Mr. Tough Guy.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well -- and, Adam, I mean there are some on the Republican side who -- Trump apologists who will say, well, the folks who were up on the Capitol on January 6th, they were just protesting and it got out of control, and there was a riot. You know, nobody was out there saying, take matters into your own hands and go after those guys in the way that Tom Cotton is saying go after these protesters who are tying up traffic somewhere.

KINZINGER: Well, that's true. And also these protesters that are tying up traffic aren't threatening the transition of power and the self-governance of the United States. And this is where a lot of people that think that somehow this is January 6th was equivalent to the summer riots.

By the way, I was activated with the National Guard. I worked the summer riots in 2020. But it was very different. You can burn parts of the city down, as terrible as that is, and not threaten self- governance. January 6th was a threat to self governance and has had the potential of frankly changing how we look at the transition of power and failing at that.

ACOSTA: All right. Adam Kinzinger, always appreciate the time. Thanks a lot.

KINZINGER: Yes. See you. ACOSTA: Still to come, as Israel is preparing a response to Iran's weekend attack, the U.S. is looking at more sanctions against Tehran, but will it be enough to send a message? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

ACOSTA: Right now, Secretary of State Tony Blinken is in Italy for a key meeting with U.S. allies, a critical topic at hand, an impending response from Israel after a direct attack from Iran over the weekend.

Pressure is growing for Israel to back away from a military strike and opting for more international sanctions instead.

CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt joins us now. Alex, it sounds like the international pressure that has been building on Israel is growing, but it's not really clear whether or not that's going to deter what Netanyahu ultimately decides to do.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Netanyahu today is essentially saying, we hear what you're saying, but we're going to do what we want to do. And this G7 meeting in Capri, in Italy, is going to be really interesting, because those countries do want to get on the same page in terms of new sanctions for Iran, which the U.S. has already talked about it in terms of sanctions against Iran's drone and missile programs, the IRGC, the defense ministry.

But at the same time, they want to get on the same page in terms of the pressure on Israel to essentially not do anything. And the message from the U.S., the U.K., who, by the way, were part of that coalition on Saturday that helped defend Israel is, guys, equilibrium has been reestablished. You attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus. They attacked you, and you did a great job defending yourself. So, why don't you hold back and refocus on the war in Gaza, which is exactly what the British foreign minister, David Cameron, said to Netanyahu today. He was visiting Israel.

Take a listen to a little bit more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: It's clear the Israelis are making a decision to act. We hope they do so in a way that does as little to escalate this as possible, and in a way that, as I said yesterday, is smart as well as tough. But the real need is to refocus back on Hamas, back on the hostages, back on getting the aid in, back on getting a pause in the conflict in Gaza.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, Jim, there is a real sense that Israel does want to do something. What that is, we simply don't know. There does appear to be real division among the Israeli war cabinet about the path forward.

ACOSTA: Yes. And how does this affect the war in Gaza? I mean, that that is still going on.

MARQUARDT: It is. And I think David Cameron made that point right there that we need to refocus on it. You know, this is we haven't really talked about the war in Gaza in the past few days. It is a war that is still very much going on. People are still dying. There are still hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of starvation.

What it has done in concrete terms is it appears to have delayed the talk about the Rafah offensive, the planning for the Rafah offensive.

[10:25:00]

The Israelis and the Americans have been talking about that quite intensely. And Israel still hasn't given a plan that the U.S. feels is suitable to be able to move hundreds of thousands of people out of Rafah so that they can go in and they say continue their efforts to dismantle Hamas.

ACOSTA: All right. Alex Marquardt, a very busy week on your on your beat. Alex, thank you very much.

I want to bring in Jonathan Schanzer. He's the senior vice president for research at the non-partisan Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, and a former terrorism finance analyst who has developed sanction packages against Al Qaeda and Hamas. We're also joined by our friend, CNN Military Analyst Colonel Cedric Leighton, retired from the U.S. Air Force.

Jonathan, let me start with you. You're meeting with Israeli officials, talking with folks in Israel. What are they saying? Does it sound like -- I mean, with these signals that we're getting from Prime Minister Netanyahu, is that something is going to happen. It's just a matter of time.

JONATHAN SCHANZER, SENIOR V.P. FOR RESEARCH, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: I think that's right. It does look like there will be some kind of an attack, whether it is a measured one, whether it is commensurate with the numbers that we saw the other night remains unclear. I do think the Israelis are still taking their time.

I think their rationale is that the Iranians took their time in responding to that strike on that facility near the Iranian embassy in Damascus. It was, of course, not an embassy, not a consulate. It was a building outside of that, which has been a source of some debate.

But the Israelis are saying, look, they let us do in our juices for a week or two. We can do the same. There's no rush here. That does seem to be part of the calculus.

What is interesting, though, is they keep saying, look, you know, if you are trying to tell us to stop or to hold back, just a diplomatic response won't work. Perfunctory sanctions won't work.

I do believe that there are some things that the United States might dangle, whether they be weapons packages, maybe a true effort to push Hezbollah north of the Litani River in Lebanon. In other words, the U.S., I think, has its work cut out for it in terms of just simply trying to appeal to what the Israelis need right now if the goal is indeed to get them to stand down.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, not a lot of great options for the international community watching all of this in terms of contemplating what Israel might ultimately decide to do. Colonel Leighton, what do you think? If Israel wanted to strike back at Iran but do it in a way that did not trigger an automatic, very aggressive response from the Iranians, what might they do?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, that's a very interesting question, Jim. I think in that particular case, they'll always get some kind of a response from the Iranians. But if they wanted to go small or mild, I would say it would be something like a cyberattack.

But a limited cyberattack would be something that would probably affect, say, the military networks that Iran uses, or potentially the nuclear networks. And, of course, the Iranians know a lot about having that kind of an impact.

Now, if they go big or medium, then there are several other options. For example, you have bases everywhere from Tabriz to Dezful, all the way down to Chabahar, that could potentially be targeted. Plus, Tehran is a pretty lucrative area for targeting as well. And that would indicate a really high level of maximum response that would probably escalate things.

But if the Iranians are going to respond to something like this, they are going to do it probably like their president announced, in other words, anything that the Israelis do will get a response. And that is going to, of course, be a significant issue going forward for the G7, as well as for everybody else involved in this.

ACOSTA: Yes. Jonathan, I mean, after October 7th, I mean, there seemed to be a kind of a universal recognition around the world that Israel was going to have to respond. It was going to have to do something to punish Hamas. There doesn't seem to be that uniformity after what the Iranians did over the weekend, maybe perhaps in part because of what Alex was just saying a few moments ago, the Israelis did and the allies did such a spectacular job in defending Israel.

But I mean the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said Israel needs to focus on the hostages. He doesn't really want to see Netanyahu go overboard here. It sounds as though there are some mixed feelings about all of this inside Israel about what to do, how to press forward here.

SCHANZER: Yes. I mean, I think with all respect to former Prime Minister Olmert, I think he's got it exactly wrong. In fact, if anything right now, Hamas really looks like small fries compared to what just happened.

The Iranians have surrounded the Israelis with multiple proxy armies, not just Hamas but Hezbollah, the Houthis, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. They've been waging a proxy war against Israel for the last six months. I think the world has not awakened to that. And now the Iranians are attacking Israel directly.

The Israelis, I think, at this point are feeling like they have no choice but to go at the head of the snake here and to make them pay a severe price.

[10:30:00]

This, by the way, is the war. It's the real war right now. It's Israel versus Iran. These other groups are really not the issue.