Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Impeachment Trail Underway For Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas; Boeing In Hot Seat As Whistleblower Testifies To Congress; Netanyahu: Israel Will Make "Own Decisions" On Iran Response; Speaker Johnson Moving Forward With Ukraine Aid Bill Despite Pressure From Hard-Liners; Arizona Lawmakers Block Effort To Repeal Near-Total Abortion Ban. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired April 17, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:33]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 11:00 p.m. in Dubai, 12:00 p.m. in Phoenix, Arizona, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.
I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.
And let's get right to the news.
We begin on Capitol Hill with the Senate floor is for the moment, a courtroom, 100 senators, jurors now in the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the first impeachment of a cabinet secretary in nearly 150 years. Two articles of impeachment passed via a razor thin -- take a moment here, here's Republican Senator Mitch McConnell speaking on the Senate floor.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Listen, this is what our rules require of us as well. But the Senate does not have the opportunity to perform this duty. The Senate will not hear the House managers present the details of their case against Secretary Mayorkas that he willingly neglected the duties of his office and that he lied to Congress about the extent of that failure. Likewise, we will not hear that secretary's representatives present the vigorous defense to which he is entitled.
Our colleagues know that we are obligated to take these proceedings seriously. This is what our oath prescribes. It's what the history and precedent require. And I would urge each of our colleagues to consider that this is what the Framers actually envision.
The power of impeachment is one of the most delicate balances our constitutional system strikes with a portion of the American people, sovereign electoral authority. It purchases a safeguard against malpractice and it gives the Senate the power and the duty to decide.
This process must not be abused. It must not be short-circuited. History will not judge this moment well.
Therefore, I move to table the point of order and asked for the yeas and nays. SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Ms. Baldwin?
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): No.
CLERK: Mr. Barrasso.
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Bennet?
SCIUTTO: So we are back on the Senate floor, live events there. You saw the Republican Senator Mitch McConnell make the case for a trial in effect of these articles of impeachment that we are in the midst of a series of motions, points of order by Republicans to try to extend this. Democrats have made quite. They do not believe there's a basis to impeach Mayorkas and we'll move relatively quickly to dismiss those articles of impeachment.
Following all this is CNN's Melanie Zanona.
Melanie, we should note this simple fact as we hear from Republicans saying it is a violation of the Constitution, not to at least have a trial. Forty-five Republicans voted to dismiss impeachment articles against Donald Trump for his actions on January 6 without a trial.
So the arguments we're hearing as so often in Congress, what's good for one party, not necessarily good for the other.
MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Yeah, well, we have been seeing that play out throughout this entire impeachment process and Democrats and even some Republicans have said that they don't believe that this rises the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. They said this is just a policy dispute over the southern border, and the Republicans just want to make this a political issue ahead of November.
And they're using Alejandro Mayorkas as a punching bag for that. But what you're seeing play out right now on the Senate floor is Republicans are trying to drag this out as long as possible. They're trying to make a number of procedural moves. We're seeing them fail as they go down one by one here.
But they have been pushing for a full trial. They wanted the opportunity to have some debate and have some discussion and we should note that at the very start of this today, at 1:00 p.m. when senators are sworn in, Chuck Schumer, the House or Senate -- Senate majority leader, did offer the opportunity and try to make a unanimous and set agreement for them to have a full trial, to give them an agreement, to try to have some debate beforehand, but one of their Republican senators objecting.
So that's why we're seeing what is playing out on the floor right now.
[15:05:00]
But, of course, this is not going to result in a conviction. As we said, there are some Democrats and even some Republicans who might ultimately vote to dismiss this all together. Some of those Republicans were watching very closely include Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, two Republicans that have bucked their own party before when it comes to matters of impeachment in the Senate.
So well have to watch how this all plays out. It's unclear how long it's going to last. But we all know where this is headed. It still hasn't really taken away from the fact that this is a very big, rare moment to see a cabinet official who had been impeached in the House. That's something that hadn't happened in nearly 150 years.
So there's concern here about what the precedent could be going forward for future congresses, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Can you explain because I -- we were live on the air as Senator Schumer made that proposal for 60 minutes of debate each on each of the articles of impeachment. Can you explain why that was dismissed by Republicans given it was at least some debates, something of a trial that they had sought?
ZANONA: Yeah, Senator Schmidt is the one who had objected to that request. And the reason is because he said he wanted a full complete trial, not just what Schumer had offered, which was just spend a little bit of debate on each side before they moved to dismiss.
So that's why we saw that objected to at the very beginning there at the top.
SCIUTTO: And just very quickly, Melanie, before we go because there's another drama taking place on the House floor. Frankly, months of drama about getting to a vote simply on Ukraine aid, aid to Israel, aid to Taiwan. Johnson says he's moving forward, that there will be a vote perhaps on Saturday. Republicans have an opportunity to throw some roadblocks in the way.
What are the next steps?
ZANONA: Yeah. Well, at this point, they have finally released the bill text for that package of foreign aid. Johnson also notice that he is going to have a separate vote on a border security bill, that was something that was done to appease his right flank, who had been demanding that all of these issues get wrapped together.
But at this point, hardliners have warned that they're not going to support the procedural vote to get these bills over the finish line. So what that means, Jim, is that Johnson is going to need Democrats get this over the finish line. So far, they have not explicitly said that they will do that. They wanted to see the bill text first.
We should note, one of their key demands was that they wanted 9 billion in humanitarian assistance for Gaza. That is in the package. So, potentially, we could see some Democrats step in here, not only just to save these foreign aid packages because but also to save Johnson's speakership.
If he moves ahead with this plan as is expected, it's likely that we could see a motion to vacate the speakership at some point on the House floor.
And again, Johnson would be needing to rely on Democrats to bail him out here, Jim.
SCIUTTO: And we should remind folks, there actually was an aid and immigration security package negotiated in the Senate passed with bipartisan support, which the House refused to take up.
Melanie Zanona, thanks so much.
So with me now to discuss more, Laura Barron-Lopez of "PBS NewsHour", Molly Ball of "The Wall Street Journal".
Two topics of discussion, the impeachment and the aid. Let's begin on the impeachment.
I want to play here how Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer framed the impeachment trial today in his view, and the view of Democrats. Have a listen, I want to get your thoughts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Let's not kid ourselves about what's going on today. The impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors, and everything to do with helping Donald Trump on the campaign trail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Given that there was actually legislation that could have come to the House which pass these impeachment articles that could have, but they refused to address border security raise the standards there.
Does the Senate majority leader have a point?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. I think he does, Jim, because again, you know, Republicans in the House had a chance to take up this by bill that was arguably one of the most conservative immigration bills that the Congress has seen in decades. And it was one where Democrats were willing to essentially give Republicans almost everything. They weren't even seeking a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, which is often something that is a part of those negotiations in the past, whenever Congress was considering some type of border immigration bipartisan deal, and that wasn't even on the table this time around.
And so, the White House is really view when this exactly the way Chuck Schumer is, which is that it is a political stunt and they feel as though it's something that the majority of the country isn't necessarily paying attention to. And they're hoping that they can continue to hammer Republicans on the fact that they taint that bipartisan deal.
SCIUTTO: I wonder Molly Ball, it seems that part of the Republican strategy here to drag this out is to get Democrats -- particularly vulnerable Democrats in races coming up this fall, Senate Democrats, to cast a vote that might hurt them in those tight races.
[15:10:02]
Are there political risk for vulnerable Democratic senators by voting to dismiss without a trial?
MOLLY BALL, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There certainly could be. I mean, I think as Laura was saying, the politics of this to the extent that it is a move by Republicans to draw attention to border issues and look, those are issues that voters are concerned about that are top of mind for many voters especially in some of the states with top Senate races, I think particularly Montana, Ohio, two states that are not near the border, but where we've seen in polls that voters are very concerned about the situation on the border.
The problem with drawing attention to the border situation and the border policies of this administration in this way is exactly as Laura was saying, that it doesn't actually accomplish anything to impeach the Secretary Mayorkas. He's not the one who has made the border policies that Republicans object two so much. Some Republicans have even said getting rid of him wouldn't do anything to change those policies because the next homeland security secretary would likely implement Joe Biden's policies in the exact same way and they wouldn't be different policies.
And the Republicans did have a chance to implement tougher policies on the border. And they decided not to take it. So it is a potentially risky vote for some of those Senate Democrats. But I think it doesn't have necessarily the effect that Republicans are hoping for.
SCIUTTO: We should note what's taking place now. We've seen a series of points of order. This is the first vote underway to dismiss the first article of impeachment. This motion to dismiss brought, I believe, by the Senate majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, here, and I imagine Laura Barron-Lopez, as we watched this. We do expect, given the Democratic majority, we do expect this motion to dismiss to pass
BARRON-LOPEZ: That's right. We do. I mean, you know, and we also as Melanie Zanona was saying right before you came to us, Jim, I mean, it'll be interesting to really see how senators like Murkowski ultimately heard on this, because Senate -- Senator Murkowski, Republican herself was saying in the lead to this that she didn't think that this was something that rose to the level of impeachment that just because you don't like the policies of an administration doesn't mean that you can impeach one of their secretaries.
And so, you know, one thing that the White House is trying to highlight in this battle is not just the comments from Republicans like Senator Murkowski, but also from some constitutional scholars that have said that this isn't, you know, the accurate only used to impeachment proceeding.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. Jonathan Turley, one of them, who's become a favorite of some on the right for his support of Donald Trump and other proceedings. But in this one, he has -- to Laura's point -- said that this does not appear to meet -- to meet that standard.
And, Molly Ball, we should note, as we noted earlier that the part of the Republican argument here is whatever you think of the articles of impeachment, at least have a debate. That's what the Constitution intended. It's fair argument one can make, but we should note that 45 Republicans voted to dismiss the January 6 impeachment charges against Trump before a trial, 45, five Republicans, I believe, went against their party on that.
So there's not exactly principled consistency on that issue, is there?
BALL: No, not especially and I think that if we pull back the lens a little bit on this whole process, what we see is a cheapening of the idea of impeachment and the tool of impeachment as something that is serious. Obviously, Democrats believed that those impeachments of Trump were very serious, Republicans did not and treated them as such. And said at that time, you know, we're just going to start this back- and-forth of unending impeachments whenever -- you know, whichever party is in power.
And that is, I think what we are seeing now that impeachment has just become this cudgel that the parties use against each other, whether it's the ongoing, ill-fated impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden, that the House continues to consider or this what really should be considered a historic impeachment of a cabinet secretary, but something that I think is being treated as a mostly frivolous and partisan exercise.
SCIUTTO: Well, to that point, we should note, just moments ago, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, voted present on this motion. She did not vote against, present. Democrats already had the votes to dismiss, but that, Laura Barron-Lopez, and Lisa Murkowski, has proven herself willing to buck her own party in the past seems to be bucking her own party here once again, on this question.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Yeah, that's right. She's someone that Democrats looked to as a person that on issues like this, that they feel as though at times that she can be aligned with them. Now, present isn't necessarily voting against emotion to table, but it is a way for a senator or lawmaker to express their displeasure with what's being brought to begin with without necessarily putting herself in complete firing line of Republicans, of her own party.
[15:15:18]
SCIUTTO: There are two articles of impeachment as we watch this vote here, we would in effect be halfway there through ending this impeachment, pretty much as soon as it began.
I want to play what Mayorkas himself said this morning about the border, and the crucial question which is the need for legislation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: As they work an impeachment, I work in advancing the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. That's what I've done throughout this process.
We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution. We cannot a resource ourselves. We need Congress to do so. We cannot change a broken immigration system. Only Congress can do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: By the way, Molly Ball to that point, there was a bipartisan plan to do so piece of legislation, a bill that passed the Senate, but was not taken up by the House in part, we should know it because Trump himself made clear he did not want to give Biden in his view, a wind to have a bipartisan piece of legislation passed, even though it is one that addressed many of the primary concerns the Republicans as relate to the border. In effect, Molly Ball choosing continued trouble at the border over a bipartisan plan to address it. Molly?
BALL: That's right. Let's give Republicans some credit here. I do think that they, they, they brought Democrats to the table on this issue. I think if Republicans had not been pounding on this border issue day in and day out, you would not have the administration saying that they want to get tough on the border, you would not have the homeland security secretary who previously was reluctant to use the word saying that we do have a crisis on the border.
So they did bring the White House to the table. They did get the White House to agree to as Laura said, a much tougher immigration bill than they had previously been willing to support. What they weren't willing to do was to take the win and actually get something done.
And so, now, I think another question going forward on this issue is whether the White House is willing to go it alone and do some executive action. We've been hearing for months that the president might try to take matters into his own hands. But he hasn't done that out of a combination. I think of legal concerns and concerns about alienating his progressive base.
SCIUTTO: We should note, these are live pictures from the Senate floor, a vote underway to dismiss the first -- the articles of impeachment. Let's listen.
MURRAY: The point of order is well taken and the article falls.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Madam President?
MURRAY: Majority leader is recognized.
SCHUMER: I raise a point of order that impeachment article two does not alleged conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional. SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Madam President?
MURRAY: Under the precedence and practices of the Senate, the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order. The chair, therefore, under the precedence of the Senate, submits the question to the Senate. Is the point of order well-taken?
Senator from Utah is recognized.
LEE: Madam President, as wrong as the majority leader was moments ago and making this particular a point of order as to Article one of the impeachment articles, Article One, remember, refers to the willful defiance via Secretary Mayorkas of the law.
As wrong as he was in making that as to Article One and he was very wrong for the reasons articulated moments ago by the senator from Texas, he has even more wrong, far more so with respect to Article Two, because Article Two accuses him of knowingly making false statements.
This is a violation of 18 USC Section 1001, a felony offense. If this is not a high crime and misdemeanor, what is? If this is not impeachable, what is? What precedents will be --
(CROSSTALK)
LEE: Madam President, I move that the Senate proceed to closed session, to allow for deliberation on this very consequential point of order that he's just made that violates hundreds of years of Anglo- American legal precedent, and understanding.
(CROSSTALK)
LEE: -- rule 24.
MURRAY: Question is -- the question is on the motion.
[15:20:00]
Is there sufficient second?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is.
MURRAY: There is?
Clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Ms. Baldwin?
BALDWIN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Barrasso?
BARRASSO: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Bennet? Mrs. Blackburn?
SCIUTTO: All right. The Senate has just voted on the first of two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
That vote, 51 to dismiss, 48 not to dismiss. One senator, Lisa Murkowski, voting present.
So breaking news, the motion to dismiss the first article of impeachment has passed. We're voting on another motion now brought by Republican. Haven't quite got to the point, I believe where there will be -- but we do expect a vote soon on that second article of impeachment as well.
We're going to take a brief break here and we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
The breaking news from Capitol Hill live from the Senate floor there. The Senate has just voted to kill the first of two impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The vote 51-48, with one senator, the Republican senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, voting present. So, a vote along party lines except one Republican voting present.
That first article of impeachment fails, we are now in the midst of another procedural motion on which they're voting now. And soon after that, we do expect Democrats to make a motion to dismiss the second article of impeachment. We'll continue to monitor events from the Senate floor.
Meanwhile, there are other stories we're covering today, one relating to the embattled airplane manufacturer Boeing, which is facing more scrutiny of its safety record today as Congress holds a hearing on the safety culture, which one whistleblower from inside the company says could lead to planes falling apart midair.
[15:25:04]
Another whistle blower accused Boeing of what he called a, quote, criminal cover up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED PIERSON, FORMER BOEING SENIOR MANAGER: The NTSB chair reiterated to Congress last week that Boeing has said there are no records documenting the removal of the Alaska Airlines door. I'm not going to sugarcoat this. This is a criminal cover up.
Records do in fact exist. I know this because I've personally passed them to the FBI. A few -- a five-minute testimony is not nearly enough time to explain how insidious the story is. Boeing's corporate leaders continue to conceal the truth. They
continue to mislead or deceive the public about the safety of planes. That is the safety culture at the top of the Boeing Company right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: It's quite alarming testimony from inside Boeing, a former senior manager there.
Pete Muntean is our resident Boeing expert.
Pete, in a series of what had been genuine crises for Boeing, this internal criticism, this whistleblowers testimony is quite alarming, talking about the possibility of planes falling apart midair?
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is only the latest chapter in this saga, this crisis that Boeing has been facing for the last five or six years now. And there was allegation after allegation against Boeing today, Jim, in these dueling Senate hearings.
The newest was from whistleblower Sam Salehpour. He was a quality engineer on the 787 line. He saw those big sections of these 787 fuselage being joined together. But he says the gaps and those pieces are simply too big, which could create stress and wear which could lead to fatigue failure overtime.
Now, Boeing insists there is no evidence of that. In the 16 years the 787 has been flying, there are about 1,100 flying worldwide. None of them wants to a crash.
But I want you to listen out of this clip where Salehpour said the 787 is being put together dangerously.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM SALEHPOUR, WHISTLEBLOWER: Right now, from what I've seen, the airplanes are not being built per spec and per requirement.
As the plane gets older, you know, all of these things that you know, you took you said it's not a safety issue, it becomes a safety issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MUNTEAN: The Federal Aviation Administration says it's investigating this allegation. Boeing held a press briefing on Monday, but executives would not comment directly on Salehpour's allegations.
But here's the statement from Boeing. It says, quote: We are fully confident in the 787 Dreamliner. These claims about structural so integrity of the 787 are inaccurate and do not represent the comprehensive work Boeing has done to ensure the quality and long-term safety of the aircraft.
This is just the latest chapter in these years-long issues facing Boeing. Two 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, killed 346 people abroad, 20-month long grounding after that. And then the door plug blowout you mentioned this past January on the
5th on Alaska Airlines' 737 MAX 9.
Really, a lot of things coming to a head for Boeing. And this is all now landed in Capitol Hill.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, that's the thing. I mean, these aren't just problems in theory. We've seen the genuine effect here. As you mentioned, fatal crashes, crashes, as well as that well, quite alarming one with the door plug.
Pete Muntean, thanks so much.
Coming up, we will have the latest from Capitol Hill, the Senate. As we noted, has voted to kill the first article of impeachment against homeland security secretary without a trial. We do expect a vote soon on that second article of impeachment as well. We're going to bring you the latest next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:31:49]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
Dubai is reeling from historic flooding. The United Arab Emirates experiencing the heaviest rainfall in 75 years, leaving Dubai submerged in floodwaters after a years-worth of rain fell in just 12 hours on Tuesday.
It turned roads -- as you can see there -- into rivers, for some drivers to simply abandon their cars, as the water rose around them. The tarmac at Dubai International Airport extremely busy airport in the region, also, underwater forcing flights to be delayed and diverted. It's the world's second busiest airport.
Now to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sending a message to allies that Israel appreciates the international support following the direct missile attack by Iran over the weekend but that Israel alone will decide how and when to respond to Iran.
CNN international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, the latest from Jerusalem.
Nic, that is not unusual language from the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. He is though getting quite public pressure from U.S. officials to hem in any potential response here.
Where does the debate stand within the Israeli war cabinet?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It stands at discussion it appears and I use the word "it appears" cautiously because they're not making public any of the deliberations. The few tiny leaks we got earlier in the week that there was a push for a quick response, that was sort of stood down, that there will be action. It's a question of when and what scale and scope it will take. You know, I think we've got a sense of that today, still being the
current narrative, the British foreign secretary, David Cameron, when he came here, said, look, Israel is going to act. We can see they're making moves to act. What we ask is that they don't cause escalation.
And I think that is your insight into what the cabinets thinking. And I think what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after he met with British foreign secretary and the German foreign secretary, double dipping diplomacy, if you will, double pressure, double speed as well, if you like, on various Israeli officials.
But the message back is yes, thank you. You were great over the weekend, helping hold off these massive Iranian onslaught of missiles but we're going to take this decision but I think the question on everyone's minds outside of the cabinet that's weighing the decision is Israel and particularly the prime minister going to call it right because the estimation is that when they struck the Iranian consulate in Damascus they called it wrong because it crossed a red line for Iran that had never been crossed before and the interpretation of that here in the intelligence community is it crossed that line because around thinks Netanyahu is a bit weaker because of internal divisions over Gaza, hostages, weaker as well because his facing criticism over those issues from the White House and from his allies.
So I think while we don't know what the cabinet's thinking, we do know that the sort of informed intelligence circles are really hoping that they gauge Iran's response correctly this time.
[15:35:08]
And the Iranians are playing to that, the head of the military there today said 100 percent will respond -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Nic Robertson in Jerusalem, thanks so much.
Joining me now to discuss, Ian Bremmer, president and founder of the Eurasia Group and GZERO Media.
Ian, good to have you on. Thanks so much.
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, EURASIA GROUP: Good to be with you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, we have seen Netanyahu ignore advice from the U.S. before, including quite public advice and pressure. U.S. officials are now saying they do expect a somewhat limited response from Iran. And I wonder if you believe that's the most likely outcome here.
BREMMER: Yeah. I think you meant from Israel and yes, I agree.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BREMMER: I think we are in a de-escalatory cycle or part of -- a cycle as part of the broader war. And what I mean by that is I think what Israel has to do something, they have to have some form of strike against Iran. They've made that clear. Every interlocutor, senior official I've spoken to who has been
speaking with Israeli leaders have said they're going to do something. Fair enough. But that's something well be dramatically more restrained than the initial Israeli strikes in Damascus that set this whole thing on.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
BREMMER: And that will be perceived as -- by Iran, as a climb-down, as something that doesn't require them to have another massive display of force against Israel itself.
So in that regard, I think that this -- this cycle, this headline news of Israel versus Iran is coming to a close, but it's not like we've suddenly recreated deterrence between the two countries. And it's a very dangerous situation going forward.
SCIUTTO: No question.
It's interesting. A survey by Hebrew University in Jerusalem found that 74 percent of Israelis polled would oppose it a retaliatory strike against Iran if it undermines Israel security alliance with its allies -- seems to be a reference there to the relationship with the U.S.
I just wonder where the Israeli public is right now because there's -- you have this quite public and dangerous standoff with Iran. You have the ongoing military operations in Gaza and you have ongoing concern in Israel about Hezbollah in the north, and you have some public support in Israel for doing that job, finishing the job there after operations wrapped up in Gaza.
I mean, that's -- that's a lot and it goes to your point that while this cycle might be over, the tensions by no means are over.
BREMMER: There are about 80,000 Israeli Jews that have been evacuated from the north of Israel when the war started, in part because they thought that, you know, Hezbollah would engage in spectacular attacks against them, and it wouldn't make them safe. But now they're stuck because they can't send them back if they haven't done anything thing and well, what is it they're going to do? Well, they have to find some way to hit Hezbollah and push them back. That will then allow these Jews to live -- go back and live the normal lives and have kids attend the school season and all the rest.
So you're right. I mean, the Israelis are fighting on a number of fronts here. They don't really want to do it simultaneously. But then you also have internal tensions between Netanyahu and his right-wing government, who are very happy to see him use this opportunity to go after Iran in a big way. And resolve a problem that they've been sitting on for a very long time. And also by the way, suck the Americans into a war that will significantly raise oil prices and will make it more likely that Biden will be out.
If you're Prime Minister Netanyahu and you've watched Chuck Schumer and President Biden and others saying, we think it's time for Netanyahu to go. Well, if you're Bibi, you think it's time for Biden to ago.
And one way to make it more likely that Biden is out is if you find a way to get this conflict with Iran a little bit higher. The U.S. is aware of the fact that that's Bibi's interest.
SCIUTTO: Is that -- so for this argument, for some time and I hear it from Israelis to as I'm sure you do, that Bibi wouldn't mind that outcome. A war with U.S. involved. That is quite a big war.
We're talking -- we're talking about direct conflict, not just between Israel and Iran, but the U.S. and Iran and at a minimum, a regional conflict there. We're aware that Bibi's a fairly aggressive politician, one could say, but -- would he go that far?
BREMMER: If he could go that far, but Israel is still a democracy and he's got a war cabinet. And even though he runs the government, he doesn't run the war cabinet. Benny Gantz has already threatened to leave the war cabinet on the back of the dispute just over the Haredim, the ultra-orthodox and whether they're given exemptions to avoid service in the Israeli Defense Forces.
You know, Netanyahu is under pressure from all sides. And I think on this front, the Biden administration approached it very correctly.
[15:40:04]
Give the Israelis a bear hug and their defense, so public, so visible, so tight, showing how you will help defend them against Iran, that it makes it impossible for Netanyahu to pull off an escalation against Iran that the Americans publicly don't support because he'd be going against the interests of the other members of the war cabinet.
That is what the Biden administration is trying to accomplish, and Ii think they've succeeded in the near term. Have they succeeded through November? I wouldn't say that. Yeah, the dynamics in that war cabinet, I mean, you've got two political rivals in the area, you have two others who haven't talked to each other in years. I mean, to be in the room.
Ian Bremmer, thanks so much.
BREMMER: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Let's turn now to Ukraine. House Speaker Mike Johnson says he will move forward with a bill that includes funding for Ukraine, despite significant pressure from a small number of hardliners within his own party.
What does that mean for those on the front lines in Ukraine? And is there hope that there that this aid will finally get a vote and finally get passed?
Joining me now to discuss, Ukrainian Parliament member Oleksiy Goncharenko.
Thanks so much for joining. OLEKSIY GONCHARENKO, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello.
SCIUTTO: I'm sure you've been following the debate here on Capitol Hill. I mean, we've heard from reporters that soldiers on the front line are as well because it impacts them. The speaker of the House says he's moving ahead. It looks like there may be votes on this aid in the coming days. If it gets a vote, it's going to pass.
I wonder, do you have faith that the U.S. is finally going to get this aid done?
GONCHARENKO: Yeah, it came (INAUDIBLE) today, once again, the city of Cherniv, one of Ukrainian regional centers was attacked, for at least 14 people killed, including children and that's because we don't have them missiles for our air defense to intercept Russian attacks. So it influences lives of all of us, and for some of us, it's already even too late. And we lost two hundreds of lives because of this delay in the support of the United States.
That's why I think everybody in Ukraine knows the name of Speaker Johnson. And we hope and such congressman like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are opposing the support and by these helping Putin because I don't find any other explanation. And that is real result.
We are very happy to see that finally, the things started to move in the U.S. Congress, by the way, just today in the parliamentary is and the Council of Europe and United States of America is now the country observer in the Council of Europe. We adopted the resolution from 46 countries unanimously to U.S. Congress to finally make a decision.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
GONCHARENKO: So we hope that this decision will be made to the end of this week.
SCIUTTO: What happens if Congress delays again? Secretary Austin, the U.S. defense secretary, he told the House today that the battlefield is already shifting in Russia's favor.
GONCHARENKO: It is. I should be frank with you. It is shifting in Russians favor. But what is even more important and the whole world is watching in this, believed me, it's 46 countries and Council of Europe. They're watching what will be the move of the United States. Is really the United States of America, their life, you can count all the words of the United States of America means nothing. That's something which is at stake now, and definitely Putin, who is watching this and feels himself emboldened and Chairman Xi, who is watching this and thinking, why I can attack Taiwan timeline and, and do something like this.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
GONCHARENKO: So I think the whole world is watching without any reservation. The whole world is watching what will happen in the next days and the U.S. Congress. SCIUTTO: I've spoken to Taiwanese officials who make exactly that point, the Taiwan and China watching events in Ukraine very closely. President Biden, he wrote in "The Wall Street Journal", and I'm quoting here, if Russia triumphs, Mr. Putin's forces will move closer than ever to our NATO, our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, an attack on one is an attack on all means that if Mr. Putin invades NATO ally, we will come to its aid as our NATO allies did after the September 11th attacks. We should surge so support to Ukraine now to stop Mr. Putin from encroaching on our NATO allies and ensure that he doesn't draw us troops in a future war with Europe.
I wonder if you agree with that analysis that Putin would read a U.S. abandonment of Ukraine and a loss by Ukraine in this war as an invitation to threaten NATO allies in Eastern Europe?
GONCHARENKO: Not just to threaten, but to attack, hundred percent agree.
[15:45:02]
I mean, if for the United States of America and saying we will defend every inch of NATO territory. And the same country, United States of America is saying, we will be with a Ukraine as long as it takes. But then in two years, United States of America saying, okay, we are not with you anymore.
Why should Putin believe in the first statement that the United States of America will defend every inch of NATO territory? He will not.
SCIUTTO: Oleksiy Goncharenko, as I will always say when I speak to you, please keep yourself and your family safe. We appreciate you taking the time today.
GONCHARENKO: Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for covering.
SCIUTTO: Well, when we do come back, we're going to be live on Capitol Hill where the Senate has voted to kill the first article of impeachment against the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas without a trial, standing by four steps on the second article of impeachment. More to come.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
The Senate has voted to kill the first article of impeachment against the homeland security secretary without a trial. That article of impeachment alleged willing and systemic refusal to comply with the law. There is a second article of impeachment that alleges breach of public trust by Mayorkas.
I want to bring in CNN Capitol Hill reporter Annie Grayer here.
We're waiting for a vote or emotion rather to dismiss. Just a few minutes ago a motion to go to close session brought by Republican senator. That failed. So what happens next?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, Jim, we're seeing a number of delay votes brought by Republicans, where they're trying to delay the inevitable here, which is a second vote on the motion on the -- sorry, I'm hearing the votes coming in as I'm talking. What the impeachment -- second impeachment article about breach of public trust, but we've seen at least six or seven delay votes happened so far as Republicans try and extend this trial.
[15:50:05]
And when -- after senators were sworn in as jurors earlier today, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was first trying to set up a form of debate with Republicans and create some rules around not. But Republicans rejected that, meaning that Republicans couldn't bring amendments to the floor like they had wanted to, kind of extend this process even further.
So then Schumer just move too quickly dismiss each article of impeachment, the two and total. And after a couple of hours of delay, we finally saw that first vote against the first article impeachment. We saw Senator Lisa Murkowski, moderate Republican vote present. So she didn't go as far as joining Democrats, but she made a statement with by voting present.
Surprised to see Senator Mitt Romney, who has said that he has raised a lot of questions about whether or not the evidence against Mayorkas reaches a high level of impeachment. He voted with Republican. So, there were no Republicans who broke with their party and voted with Democrats on the first vote. But we're seeing a lot of delay tactics here as we wait for that second vote against the second article against Mayorkas, which would essentially and this trial.
SCIUTTO: Now to be clear, the Senate pro tem who Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the most senior Democrat has the ability, does she not? If these delay tactics mount up to say, okay, let's move it along, folks.
GRAYER: She definitely has special powers, Jim, but it doesn't seem like she's using that at least at this point. I think we're seeing that the Democrats let Republicans kind of play these -- these delay votes out, but were still in the early hours here. So we'll see how much longer this strategy holds.
SCIUTTO: Annie Grayer on the Hill, thanks so much.
We'll bring you updates from the Senate as they come in. Meanwhile, we'd take a short break, be back on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: A major story we've been following an Arizona. Republican lawmakers there have again blocked an effort to repeal an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions. This comes a week after the Arizona Supreme Court revived that Civil War era ban, which outlaws abortions at all stages of pregnancy except when the mother's life is at risk. CNN's Natasha Chen is in Phoenix with the latest.
And, Natasha, it's interesting. You're seeing again, it looks like state house Republicans making decisions here that we know national Republicans, including the Republican nominee for president, aren't that happy with.
[15:55:11]
NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It depends on which house Republicans you're talking to here in Arizona. The state representatives are here are really focused on their constituents, their districts if you can imagine. There is one Republican who is in a very tight race as swing district, Maricopa County. He was for discussing this repeal today, but it seems that it wasn't enough.
The votes to try to bypass the procedural hurdle to even bring this discussion to the floor failed a couple of times, 30-30 and the Republicans at this point only have very, very thin majorities in both chambers here in Arizona, a reflection of really what's happened in this state since 2020. They've gone Democratic for the governor's mansion, for Senate seats of -- and you see these razor-thin margins in the House and Senate. So this really sets us up for a very interesting discussion as November approaches.
But let's back up to today. We're seeing that this converse patient failed to make it to the full House floor because typically you would have to have this go through a committee hearing first. They've tried to bypass that, did not happen. Here is a little bit of what we saw on the floor today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALMA HERNANDEZ (D), STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ARIZONA: This is what we are arguing about right now, whether or not we should overturn something that is archaic, something that is going to really impact women in Arizona. I want to make sure that the audience and people who are watching today understand that, yes, we can change rules at any point to be able to bring things like this up for a vote.
BEN TOMA (R), SPEAKER, ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE: I understand that we have deeply held beliefs and I would ask everyone in this chamber to respect the fact that some of us to believe that abortion is in fact the murder of children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHEN: That last thing he said, we met some people outside the building today who would agree with that statement. But in talking to each of them, they had a little bit of a different view about what should be reasonable in the law. And that's where it becomes really interesting, the Right to Life group. There are about 100 of them who gathered outside before this all happened, the abortion rights group gathered afterward.
So in the morning, if you talk to the hundred people, they would all say their pro-life, but they may have different ideas of what that means as far as punishment, consequences, any exceptions.
We talked to some people who were for this law dating back to the 1860s that offers no exceptions except before saving the life of the mother. Others believed that maybe some consideration should be there for a rape victim. And some others who did not feel that prison time is appropriate and, of course, this law does state that providers could be put in prison for two to five years for violating the law -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, certainly an issue being watched very closely, not just the state of Arizona, but nationally.
Natasha Chen in Phoenix -- thanks so much.
Thanks so much all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
