Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
President Trump Impeached For Abuse Of Power, Obstruction Of Congress; House Intel Chair Adam Schiff Questions Senate Trial Fairness; Trump: Doesn't Really Feel Like We're Being Impeached. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 18, 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]
TIM NAFTALI, FORMER DIRECTOR, NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: --among some Republicans who ultimately voted against Nixon.
Should we go ahead and do this even if the Senate doesn't vote to remove him because no one had ever been removed by - by the Senate, and still hasn't happened. And they said, You know what? We have a responsibility in the House to do this because we've seen Presidential conduct that crosses the line.
So, I think there are two issues here. One is did the House have a reason to say this was an impeachable conduct for history. And the other is, is this good politics? I'd like to focus on the first of the two. I'll leave other people to decide if it's good politics.
The House decided that this kind of behavior was a threat to our constitutional order. And they, therefore, had as constitutional responsibility to do exactly what they did today, which is to say This shall not pass.
It will be up to the Senate to decide if President Trump should be removed. But the House has - has basically put down a marker, and said, This is behavior that we cannot countenance because of our constitutional responsibilities.
It's hard to - to understand that in this partisan time, but that's one important way of looking at this. The House has spoken. The House has decided to defend its institutional responsibilities as an Article One institution.
KIRSTEN POWERS, USA TODAY COLUMNIST, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I also - there's a very stark contrast between the parties. You have the Republicans who just are lockstep behind the President. They will, you know, do whatever the - the - the President says.
And then, you have people on the other side, on the Democratic side, who - some of whom are willing to lose their seats on - because to fulfill their constitutional duty. Some of them probably will lose their seats over this. I think it's been a little overstated. I don't think that the
Republicans are going to win the House back off of this, but - but - but this was a risk for - for dozens of Democrats who - who voted to have him impeached.
And so, I think it - it's very telling that they feel that they have to do this, even if it means they could potentially lose their seat.
RICK SANTORUM, FORMER U.S. SENATE MEMBER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the analysis that one is a noble - that the Democrats are noble and that the Republicans are hacks, which is pretty much what was just said, is a - is - is a gross mischaracterization and an oversimplification.
The - the reality is Republicans, and this is - this is what's missing in Washington, is an appreciation that people can actually look at a set of - set of circumstances and say that they just see that - see it differently.
And that not that they're hacks, not that they're in Donald Trump's back pocket, but - but you heard Republicans throughout the day, we all sat here and listened throughout the day, give multiple reasons where they didn't think that the evidence proved the case.
NAFTALI: Senator?
SANTORUM: And - and everyone here just dismisses that--
POWERS: It was--
NAFTALI: No--
SANTORUM: --as not as - as not true.
POWERS: That's because it was--
NAFTALI: No one said hacks.
POWERS: --a litany of untruths, literally a litany of--
SANTORUM: It's not a litany of untruths.
POWERS: Yes it - Rick, it really was that they repeatedly say things that aren't true to defend the President. And so - and - and we've unpacked them a million times.
You know, this idea that - that they - they got the aid. Well they got the aid because there was a whistleblower report. So everything is kind of, you know, massaged to make it seem like it's true that make us--
SANTORUM: They got the aid because there was a provision in the appropriations bill--
POWERS: No.
SANTORUM: --that was going to force--
POWERS: But because the President got caught.
SANTORUM: --forced - to do it.
POWERS: If the President--
SANTORUM: No.
POWERS: --hadn't gotten caught, and there hadn't been a whistleblower report, then - then it - none of this probably would have happened.
SANTORUM: But let me--
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, first of all, the idea here that you're suggesting, if you want to distill it down, impeachment is a constitutional remedy that's available to the Members of Congress. It is not the equivalent of an election nullification. It in fact is a remedy available.
SANTORUM: I agree with that.
COATES: And - but - and yet, you had Minority Member Collins talk about that very issue repeatedly.
SANTORUM: I--
COATES: Members - Yes, he did. And Members--
SANTORUM: I know. But I--
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Wait, hold on, let her finish. Let her finish. Let her finish.
COATES: Well I - I'll finish my point. I'm happy to hear your rhetoric.
SANTORUM: Yes.
COATES: It probably won't persuade me because the second point that you raise in terms of why it is that you think people are acting this way, and one's a hack, and one's the other, I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this coat is magenta or purple, but it's not yellow, and it never is going to be.
It's like we have the notion that people looking at sets of facts, and again, we're talking about whether or not any information has been provided. None has been provided.
Whether there actually was the idea of the aid being withheld, it was. What they were asking people to do today was to compartmentalize. You heard this time and time again by the litany of reasons of why this President is impressive on the economy, on the immigration reform, and a whole host of issues.
It was asking the American people to say Overlook this because you can compartmentalize effectively, and you still look at (ph) President. That's not what the Founders thought as provisions.
SANTORUM: That is not what they were saying. And again, you mischaracterize what they are saying. What they're saying on Article Two, which was just approved, is simply this.
There is a remedy for the Democrats, if they're not getting information from the President. It's a remedy that has been used consistently throughout the history of this country. You go to a court and you file a - a - a suit to compel them to deliver.
COOPER: Let's - start--
SANTORUM: And they didn't want to take the time to do that. That's why Republicans--
COOPER: Let's listen.
SANTORUM: --are voting no on Article Two.
COOPER: Let's listen in.
[21:05:00]
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): December 18th, a great day for the Constitution of the United States, a sad one for America that the President's reckless activities necessitated us, our having to introduce articles of impeachment.
May I thank our six Chairs who for a long period of time had been legislating, investigating, and litigating.
Today, that came to a culmination on the floor of the House for the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Jerry Nadler of New York, and the Intelligence Committee, under the leadership of Adam Schiff of California, brought the articles of impeachment to the floor to a conclusion, where they have passed.
I thank them for their tremendous leadership.
I thank Congress - Congresswoman - Chairwoman Maxine Waters of California, Richie Neal - of the Financial Services Committee, Richie Neal of Massachusetts, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Carolyn Maloney, the Chair of - of the Government Reform - Government Oversight Committee and, of course, Adam Schiff, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, for their great work over a period of time.
I just want to say, before yielding to the Chairman, that I could not be prouder or more inspired by - than by the moral courage of the House Democrats.
We never asked one of them how they were going to vote. We never whipped this vote. We saw the vote. Well you saw the public statements that some of them made. We saw the result when everyone else did, the - the statements on the floor about patriotism and about being very true to the vision of our Founders. And so, I view this - this day, this vote, as something that we did to
honor the vision of our Founders to establish a Republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend our democracy, and that Republic, and the aspirations of our children that they will always live in a democracy, and that we have tried to do everything we can to make sure that that is their reality.
We also - we'll hear from our Chairman and then we'll take three questions. I'm now honored to yield with great appreciation and respect to distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Nadler.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you. The Framers reserved the power of impeachment for the gravest offenses against our Constitution, against our liberty, and against our democratic institutions.
President Trump used the powers of his Office for his own personal political gain to the detriment of the national security interests of the United States. That is the very definition of an impeachable offense.
When Congress began to investigate President Trump's wrongdoing, he engaged in an unprecedented pattern of obstruction. That too is why the impeachment power exists.
A President who subverts both our elections and our Constitution - and our constitutional system of checks and balances puts himself above the law, and it is Congress' duty to hold the President, any President, accountable.
It gives us no pleasure, no pleasure to stand here today. But President Trump's conduct has put our next election at risk. President Trump's behavior puts the integrity of our constitutional order at risk. And President Trump's continued actions put the rule of law at risk.
The Framers gave us the - the power of impeachment for exactly this reason. And in fulfillment of our oath, and obligation, to the American people, today we took action to hold President Trump accountable for the serious and undisputed risk he poses to our free and fair elections, and to the separation of powers that safeguards our liberty.
A President must not be allowed to become a dictator.
I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, my fellow investigative Chairs, and all of my colleagues, who today defended the principles upon which our nation was established.
Today, the House of Representatives did its constitutional duty. Today, we lived up to our responsibility to the American people by taking action to defend our national security, to preserve our democratic elections, and to show that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
And now gives me - I'm now happy to introduce the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The President of the United States has been impeached for now only the third time in history. The President of the United States should be tried.
[21:10:00]
And the question is now whether Senator McConnell will allow a fair trial in the Senate, whether the Majority Leader will allow a trial that involves witnesses and testimony and documents, a trial that should be fair to the President, yes, but should be fair also to the American people.
The American people want to hear from people like John Bolton. The American people want to hear from people like Mick Mulvaney. The American people want to see what's in those documents that the President has been hiding at the State Department, in the Office of Management and Budget, in the White House itself.
We have done our duty here in the House. We have upheld the Constitution. We have done as the Framers would have us do when a President abuses his office and obstructs a co-equal branch of government.
The question now is would the Senate uphold its duty? Will the Senators uphold their oath? Do the Senators want to hear from the witnesses? Do they want a real trial? We have to hope that they do.
The reason we undertook this extraordinary step is because the President not only abused his office, but threatens to abuse it again, threatens to interfere again, by inviting foreign interference in our election. The remedy isn't complete as long as the President is free to continue to invite foreign interference in our affairs.
I just want to close by thanking the Speaker for guiding the Congress through this tumultuous time. There is no one, I think, who could have guided the Congress with a steadier hand or with more insight and intellect than the Speaker of the House.
And I also want to thank my colleagues, in particular, so many new Members of the House, who have displayed such courage, who have shown that they truly have the courage of their convictions. Thank you.
PELOSI: Just want to add that one person who isn't with us physically in this room, but I know is present - was present all day for the deliberations, our former - our Chair of the Government Reform, our Oversight Committee, Chair, our North Star, Elijah Cummings.
He said, When the history books are written about this tumultuous era, I want them to show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny.
He also said, somewhat presciently, When we're dancing with the angels, the question will be, what did you do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?
We did all we could, Elijah. We passed the two articles of impeachment. The President is impeached.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, do you--
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, will you--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --do you view - do you view the House's role in this as completed now? Or are there steps you might take, trying to ensure, as the Chairman suggested, a more fair trial in the Senate?
PELOSI: You mean more fair trial than they're contemplating because we had a very fair process--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Ma'am.
PELOSI: --in the House of Representatives. I would yield to our - I - let me just put it another way. We - we will - we'll have - we have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment.
We cannot name Managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side. And I would hope that that will be soon, as we did with our legislation, our Resolution 660 to describe what the process would be.
So far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully, it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we'll send our Managers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you--
RAJU: What - what are the standards - well what would you consider a fair trial, Madam Speaker?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --you would - you would wait to send the articles until you understand what the Senate is going to do?
PELOSI: We'll make a decision, as a group, as we always have, as we go along.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you could--
(CROSSTALK)
RAJU: Could you presumably withhold this, the articles - could you presumably withhold the articles for weeks until you get what you consider a fair - fair trial?
PELOSI: Well, again, we'll decide what that dynamic is. But we hope that the - the resolution of - of that process will be soon in the Senate.
RAJU: What do you consider a fair trial? What do you consider a fair trial?
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Cheryl had one (ph) Cheryl (ph) did you have one, Cheryl (ph)? Did you have a question Cheryl (ph)?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did I have a question?
PELOSI: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do have a question. What do you consider a fair trial? What are you looking for? Are you looking specifically for witnesses, for documents?
PELOSI: (OFF-MIKE). Well let me tell you what I don't consider--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you agree with the plan that Senator Schumer right now.
PELOSI: --what I don't consider a fair trial.
[21:15:00]
This is what I don't consider a trial - fair trial that Leader McConnell has stated that he's not an impartial juror, that he's going to take his cues, in quotes, from the White House, and he is working in total coordination with the White House Counsel's Office.
Any comments my colleagues wanted to? Go ahead.
NADLER: Let me just say that obviously Senator McConnell, by that declaration, has said that he is so, as in effect the foreman of the jury, is working with the defendant's counsel. That's not fair. And we'll have to see what else. But that's certainly an indication of an unfair - of an intention to have an unfair trial.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You would like this to.
PELOSI: We'd like to see a trial where they - where they - look, it's up to the - the Senators to reckon - to make their own decision, working together, hopefully, in recognition of their witnesses that the President withheld from us, there are documents that the President withheld from us.
And we would hope that that information would be available in a trial, to - to go to the next step because this - that's a - another level in terms of conviction in terms of - of this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What--
PELOSI: But, right now, the President is impeached.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Go ahead.
RAJU: So, you'd never send the articles that possibly you would never send the articles over? PELOSI: We're not having that discussion. We're - we - we have done what we have set out to do.
The House has acted on a very sad day, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to do so in a manner that was fair, even though the other side was mischaracterizing it. Nonetheless, it was fair and - and appropriate, and urgent, and urgent.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Speaker Pelosi?
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: So, we all agree, we'll make our decision as to when we're going to send it when we see what they're doing on the Senate side. But that's a decision that we will make jointly.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: OK. One, if you - wait, I'm sorry. You're starting to act like another country. Don't shout, OK? Who's not going to shout their question?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speaker?
PELOSI: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you guarantee that the impeachment articles will be at some point sent to the--
PELOSI: I'm not--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you guarantee that?
PELOSI: That would have been our intention. But we'll see what - what happens over there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you may not send--
PELOSI: That is not - that is not - you - you're asking me are we all going to go out and play in the snow? This - that has not been part of our conversation. That has not been part of our conversation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --of Nadler (OFF-MIKE).
PELOSI: Excuse me, what?
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: I'm sorry. Do you--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need some verification since you have raised the prospect of not sending the articles over.
PELOSI: No, I've never raised the prospect.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems like-- PELOSI: You asked the question. I never raised the prospect. I said we're not sending it tonight because it's difficult to determine who the Managers would be until we see the arena in which we will be participating. That's all I said.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any timetable?
PELOSI: I never raised the prospect.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any timetable?
PELOSI: Well we'll see what they when they come forward at the - it's up to the Senate to say - to say when - what their rules will be.
My colleagues, do you want to say anything about this because it is - you know, this is a serious matter, even though the Majority Leader in the United States Senate says it's OK for the foreman of the jury to be in cahoots with the lawyers of the accused, that doesn't sound right to us.
But let's see when they understand what - we have acted. And now, we'll - they'll understand what their responsibilities are, and we'll see what that is. But I never raised that possibility, no. That's it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
PELOSI: Any other comments anyone? No?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman?
PELOSI: But anyway, let me again thank our Chairman, all six of them, and our darling Elijah. They did a remarkable job.
And I think you probably, hopefully, will be inspired by the moral courage of our - our Caucus, especially as the distinguished Chairman recognized, our freshman Members who came here, revealed the - reviewed the facts, understood the Constitution, made their decision, again, to honor their oath of Office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much.
PELOSI: We are very proud of them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you all. Thank you all.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madam Speaker?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You just heard from Nancy Pelosi saying that they have not or will not pick Managers until they - to - to send this to the Senate until they learn what the rules are being decided on in the Senate. Jeff Toobin, it's confusing to hear this. Explain, to the best of your ability, what this means.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Well I think what's going on is that the - the Senate has not decided what the structure of the trial is.
[21:20:00]
There's a clear difference between what McConnell - Leader McConnell, the Majority Leader wants, which is a very fast trial with no witnesses, it seems, and the Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, who has said we want at least four witnesses to testify, including John Bolton.
And what Nancy - Nancy Pelosi is saying is we are not going to send over the--
COOPER: The articles of impeachment.
TOOBIN: --the articles of impeachment or the names of the House Managers until we know more about the trial.
Now, this raises the potential that she could say Well, I'm just not turning over these - the - the - the - the names and the articles until I'm satisfied that the trial will be a fair one, suggest - raising the possibility that this could just go on as a standoff between the House and the Senate.
COOPER: Wait. So, Tim Naftali, it would go on as a standoff, it would go on that he - that the President had been impeached in the House.
NAFTALI: Yes.
COOPER: And not acquitted in the Senate, right.
NAFTALI: I - I just can only say Wow! This is - this is unprecedented. We talked about the fact it's the third time in our history that a President has been impeached.
This is the - the - the first time that we've - we've seen the House potentially use its leverage, in this process, what little if - what - what - whatever leverage it has, to try to influence the Senate's rules for the trial. Now we--
COOPER: That's what - that's what Pelosi is doing.
NAFTALI: That's what I heard. That's what it seemed to--
TOOBIN: That what it seems to be right.
NAFTALI: Now, Mitch McConnell, I would argue, set up this situation by the comments he made on Fox News.
He made it clear that despite the fact he's supposed to take an oath, they're all supposed to take an oath, that he's already not impartial, and that he was coordinating his approach to the rules with the White House.
Now, in 1998 and '99, Trent Lott who was then Majority Leader, worked closely with Tom Daschle, and it was a very partisan time, as Senator Santorum can, I'm sure, attest to.
Nevertheless, they came up with rules that 100 Senators approved. There was a very sticky, I understand, there was a sticky situation, wasn't there, where you weren't sure whether there'll be witnesses, so you had a second vote on the witnesses, but you did come to an understanding.
And that what's happening now is the House is saying before we see that understanding, we want to be sure it's a fair trial. And if we don't think it's fair, well then Nancy Pelosi didn't answer that question.
SANTORUM: Well you - you - you jump to several weeks after the - the - the vote of the House.
I can tell you that Tom Daschle, who was the Leader of the Democrats at the time, working with President Clinton, who did not want a trial, who wanted a resolution voted to get rid of this immediately.
They wanted no witnesses. They wanted nothing. They wanted an up or down vote and to be done with this. Why? Because, as he said, Tom, from the very beginning, there's not a single Democrat vote for impeachment.
So, the idea that Republicans and Democrats were acting differently 20 years ago than now, they're not acting differently. They're acting actually the very much to say--
COOPER: Hold that thought. I want to bring in Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.
Manu, talk to me about what we just heard.
RAJU: Yes. Well what the Speaker is doing here is using this as leverage, using withholding the articles as leverage, in trying to push the Senate into moving forward on a trial that they want.
Now, what's unclear is exactly what is a fair trial for the Speaker? She is not - she did not detail that in any way. I tried to push her on that. Other reporters tried to push her on that.
When will she send it? Was - is there a possibility she may never send over the articles because the Republicans may not ever get to what she wants? She didn't specify.
So, what she's essentially trying to do is dangle the articles over the Senate, and say, Look, we are not going to send this to you until the Republicans agree to what we want. But we don't exactly know what they want.
The process is this, Anderson. They do need to - now have a vote on the floor to name those Impeachment Managers. And after those Impeachment Managers, the - the Democrats will
actually prosecute the case on the Senate side. After that actually happens, then they would send the articles over. And they have yet to have that vote to name the Impeachment Manager.
So, what Pelosi is doing here, really, is saying that we may - we'll see if and when we decide to send the articles over. She's not being clear about exactly what she wants, but she's using it as a clear point of leverage here, Anderson.
COOPER: I want to take - go over to Wolf, and to Jake, some really fascinating developments here.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER: And there's more fascinating developments coming in. The President of the United States, who has just been impeached, he's now reacting.
Jim Acosta, our Chief White House Correspondent is about to tell us what he's saying
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, I would say this is a Code Red at the President's rally in Michigan right now. He is reacting in real time, I suppose, as only Donald Trump can to being impeached.
[21:25:00]
And, you know, I say Code Red because he is red in the face. When you see this video of the President, speaking at this rally in Michigan, he is red in the face, and going off the rails, at one point, just a few moments ago, accusing Democrats of declaring war on democracy by impeaching him, talking about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in very personal terms, calling her Crazy Nancy, talking about other Members of the House, like Debbie Dingell.
Here's more what the President had to say just a few moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You're declaring open war on American democracy.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's democracy. We did nothing wrong, nothing whatsoever. This was just an excuse.
(CROWD CHEERS)
TRUMP: You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Now, the President was also saying how he is going to be unleashing his millions of supporters to somehow vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi out of Office. I don't think that's going to be possible in her San Francisco
district. But perhaps, he's talking about her majority in Congress, something that Republicans have been talking about for some time.
But Wolf and Jake, he just finished going off on Debbie Dingell, one Congresswoman who obviously voted with the Democrats, in favor of impeachment, and - and talked about how he provided what he described as being A-plus treatment to her late husband, the late Congressman John Dingell, when he passed away, the President making a remark just a short while ago that somehow John Dingell may be looking up, not down, as all this is taking place in Washington.
There are some folks who're watching this rally wondering whether or not the President is talking about John Dingell somehow being in Hell right now, watching all of this unfold. And so, the President making some very deeply personal, deeply shrined remarks at this rally in Michigan right now.
And this really lines up with what I heard from a Trump adviser, earlier today, that the President is not only, you know, feeling, you know, very unnerved by all of this. This is obviously under his skin.
But there are plans in the works, inside the White House, and obviously inside the President's political team, to really use and weaponize impeachment heading into the 2020 campaign, and that appears to be the case when you listen to the President at this rally tonight, Wolf and Jake.
BLITZER: Yes, it's amazing what's going on. You know, Jake, the President clearly is furious. He's so angry that he is now the third President in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER: It's certainly not being cool under pressure.
And in his remarks, this evening, he said a number of things. He imagined a conversation between Bill and Hillary Clinton. He insulted the looks of Congressman Adam Schiff. He went after James Comey.
And then again, just to touch on this, let's remember what happened here. Congressman John Dingell was a long-serving Member of the House of Representatives, beloved from Michigan. He passed away earlier this year.
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell who succeeded him in that seat, before he died obviously, was appreciative to President Trump, for providing the funeral, as the Trump Administration does, as any White House would do.
And then, take a listen to how President Trump described it just a few minutes ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Debbie Dingell, that's a real beauty. So she calls me up like eight months ago, her husband was there a long time. But I didn't give him the B-treatment, I didn't give him the C, or the D, I could've, nobody would ask, you know. I gave him the A-plus treatment. Take down the flags!
She calls me up. That's the nicest thing that's ever happened, thank you so much. John would be so thrilled. He's looking down, he'd be so thrilled, thank you so much, Sir. I said That's OK, don't worry about it.
Maybe he's looking up, I don't know.
(CROWD LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: I mean, once again, we - we - we saw something like this after the late Senator John McCain died.
First of all, the idea that by bestowing honors upon a long-serving Member of Congress who's passed away that that's somehow a personal favor by President Trump.
And second of all, just the lack of compassion, the lack of basic human decency. Debbie Dingell is still moaning her late husband. He - he's not even been gone for - for a year.
And the idea that he would suggest, and obviously Jim was being polite earlier, but obviously he's suggesting that maybe John Dingell is in Hell, just an--
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well this--
TAPPER: --incredibly crass thing, and - and more importantly, this shows how much this really bothers him, how rattled he is.
BLITZER: Yes.
BORGER: Well this is disgraceful.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes.
BORGER: I mean this is just disgraceful. What he is describing is a Congresswoman, who called him and thanked him after the funeral, and - and flying flags at half-staff, And I believe he was the longest serving Member of the Congress.
BLITZER: More than 50 years he was in the House.
BORGER: Right.
This is disgraceful. She called him to say thank you. And now, he is saying this vote of hers is some kind of betrayal, some personal betrayal to him, because John Dingell got the funeral that he deserved? [21:30:00]
And, by the way, this is a President saying this in the State of Michigan--
TAPPER: Right, his State.
BORGER: --where John Dingell was beloved. And it's - it's just, you know, and then going after Nancy Pelosi, I mean, he's - I - I can't think of another word other than Disgraceful, to describe what the President is doing this evening.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But this is the type of conduct, this is the reason Nancy Pelosi is Speaker.
BORGER: Right.
KING: This is the reason you had the suburban revolt against President Trump. This is the reason Democrats won by such a big margin in the 2018 Midterms.
And it is one of the reasons Democrats believe, even though this impeachment is controversial for a number of their Members, they believe the President will continue this behavior, and maybe even accelerate this behavior, because of his raw anger.
Now, Debbie Dingell is a partisan. She's a Nancy Pelosi Deputy. The President has every right to be upset with her vote.
BORGER: Sure.
KING: He's a Republican President. But there's a way to do it. And that's not the way to do it.
Especially in the case of John Dingell, any President would have done this for John Dingell. He's the longest serving Member of House of Representatives. He worked with Democrats and Republicans.
And a broader point, he's a member of America's greatest generation. He served in World War II. He's buried in Arlington National Cemetery. You can take issue with Debbie Dingell without doing that.
BLITZER: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes. But - but in some ways, you feel like this is a President who has to keep going lower, and lower, and lower--
KING: Right.
HENDERSON: --in many ways, to satisfy his - his base. He goes to these big rallies, you know, people who are adoring and his cheering fans. And they, in some ways, are immune to some of this.
And you saw him there. The - the crowd sort of not reacting, and then he goes below the belt there, talking about John Dingell being in Hell, and then the crowd reacts. This is a President beloved by White Evangelicals. They seem to give him a pass on everything he does.
So, I think, these coming months, we're going to see more and more of this President acting in this disgraceful way.
TAPPER: And this is just to the point I was making earlier, where this - which is this is a very historic night, a very momentous night, a night of - of gravity and solemnity.
It's also a night that is going to not only leave a stain on President Trump's Presidency. But I wonder what it's going to do to his psyche, and we see that happening in real-time.
BORGER: Exactly.
TAPPER: And I do wonder, as an American, what does that mean as we go forward?
BLITZER: Yes, he is clearly, clearly furious right now that he's in this category, only the third American President to be impeached by the House of Representatives, setting the stage for a trial in the U.S. Senate.
Our historic impeachment coverage continues right now with Chris Cuomo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, Wolf, thank you very much. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
The President of the United States, Donald John Trump has been impeached on two articles, one, abusing his power, two, obstructing Congress. How did this happen? And now, that question is replaced by where do we go from here?
The stain on his name is permanent. But what will the system do now, and where will it leave our democracy? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, I have some of our best minds around me to help understand the law, the history, the journalism, because history is being written right now, and we are still figuring out the next steps.
We have Preet Bharara, Maggie Haberman, and Michael Smerconish. Thank you for being on such an important night with me.
Maggie, history is being written right now. The President doing his best to distract the narrative, mocking the death of a former Member of Congress, taking potshots, but he cannot distract from what happened in the House tonight. How will this be remembered?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's an excellent question, Chris that we don't really have an answer to yet. We know that this is going to be remembered, you know, on its own, as the third impeachment in this country's history.
We know that people are going to remember some details around abuse of power. We don't know in 20 years whether there will have been other impeachments and whether this is the beginning of the process being redefined.
And we don't know what this will mean in a reelection campaign because we have not seen that in this country before where an impeached President is going into a reelection effort.
There are real open questions. What we have seen tonight is the President is reacting, I think, as we expected he would, emotionally, angrily, denigrating rivals, using pretty abusive language, including not just about Congressman Dingell, but his wife.
And - and I think you are going to see more of that going forward. I think the concern that I had heard from his allies and aides over the last couple of weeks, is how angry he would be after this took place. And I think we're going to see that play out over time.
CUOMO: It's not surprising to see how he's reacting. It's not surprising to see--
HABERMAN: Right.
CUOMO: --where he's reacting to it--
HABERMAN: That's right.
CUOMO: --by surrounding himself with people that love what he represents.
What is surprising a little bit, at least to me Michael, is Nancy Pelosi's play here at the end. Our job is done. We have done what the Constitution told us to do. We'll figure out when we're going to send over the articles of impeachment.
This is a gray area in the law. What is the play for Pelosi?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN HOST, SMERCONISH: I think that there's clearly some gamesmanship that's about to take place both by Speaker Pelosi and by Mitch McConnell.
[21:35:00]
I mean there's even an argument out there that says that as soon as McConnell takes the con, he wants to hold a trial immediately, and get it over before Christmas, if that were an option. Instead, she's not going to give him the opportunity to do so.
CUOMO: So, the theory would be she's holding it back to buy time to make this extend past the holidays.
SMERCONISH: Correct because otherwise, he wants to dispense of it immediately. And I think that in the back of the minds of the Republicans is if that plays out, fine, because now we're into the 2020 landscape.
And they like the argument that says Americans can settle this at the ballot box. People are already voting in the Iowa Caucus New Hampshire primary etcetera, etcetera.
CUOMO: Preet and I were looking through the actual constitutional language. There's no direction.
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR, NYU LAW SCHOOL: Like we do that sometimes.
CUOMO: Yes. There - there's no direction here other than the sole power is in the House to impeach.
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: And the sole power is in the Senate to try.
So, at some point, the process must culminate with the Senate. Pelosi said Well we can't name Managers. We can't hand this stuff over essentially until we see what the trial will look like.
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: That's not in there.
BHARARA: So - so, it's a little bit of a Game of Chicken. She wants to know what the process is going to look like to decide, I guess, strategically and tactically, who she wants to name as Managers.
I don't - I don't understand the speculation that there is for some period of time going to be the idea that you'll hold back the articles of impeachment because for a couple reasons.
One is the Democrats have been saying, I think correctly, for a long time, We're in a rush. We got to do this quickly. We can't wait. This person is a recidivist. The President can't be allowed to do this again.
And now, you're going to say Hurry up, hurry up, we - just before Christmas, now wait, that doesn't make a lot of sense either. And I don't understand what leverage the Democrats have, having now successfully got articles of impeachment passed.
I understand the need and - and they should want badly to have other witnesses who have been, you know, absent to come and testify. But what is the leverage on Mitch McConnell to rush. I understand what Michael was saying about if you know that you have to have the trial maybe you have it super quick, even before Christmas.
But if there's a possibility that the Democrats say Unless these witnesses come forward, we're not going to send you the articles, and the prospect then hangs in the air, not to have a trial, that's great. That's wonderful for Mitch McConnell.
CUOMO: And just to be understood, there's a little bit of confusion out there.
No matter when they pass the articles of impeachment over, the President of the United States has been impeached. That process is over.
He is not out of Office. There is no consequence to his being impeached. Consequence can only come from the Senate. So, his being impeached doesn't mean he's out. It means nothing other than that now there must be a trial in the Senate. When is what we're discussing here.
What kind of play is this for Pelosi? Yes, little bit of gamesmanship, little bit of chicken, little contradictory, because you said he's a threat, a continuing threat.
HABERMAN: Right.
CUOMO: But now you're delaying. So, politically?
HABERMAN: I think politically, I think it's actually a risky play.
I think the - in the short term, it is getting in the President's head. And I do think that that is to some extent something they want to do. They have done what they can do. They've done the best they can here when the White House has denied them witnesses.
CUOMO: The guy's describing everybody by animal face, and he's disrespecting the dead. I think they've done their job there.
HABERMAN: I think--
CUOMO: What - what do they want him to do?
HABERMAN: Well I think they want to see more of this, and basically, let him know that if he is going to disrupt the process, they're going to do a version of that. If the White House is going to simply not participate at all, in this process, and they didn't, then they're going to not necessarily abide the same way.
But to your point about contradictory messages, I think they're coming to that a little bit late. I think that there have been a lot of competing messages coming out of the House Democrats over the last two weeks.
One is about this Hurry-up-and-wait thing in terms of moving the articles forward.
The other is, in describing him, in these terms, through this impeachment process, Democrats have described him as a national emergency over and over again. And a lot of Democrats would say, even those who aren't to rule (ph) impeachment, there was a reason for that, and that they had to.
At the same time, they are cutting a trade deal with him. So, he is a national emergency, but they've also given him his chief legislative priority over the last year. Voters do have trouble understanding two things at once sometimes. And I'm not sure how this helps the House case.
CUOMO: The President says We didn't lose a vote. That's true unless you count Justin Amash who has been defecting from the Party somewhat.
The Democrats did. They lost five, OK? So, there's Van Drew from New Jersey, who's thinking about changing parties. There's Collin Peterson from Minnesota, and Tulsi Gabbard voted present on the first article, abuse of power.
Now, Van Drew and Peterson also voted No on the second one, which was abuse of Congress, and they were joined by Jared Golden of Maine.
So, all in all, there are five names on the Democrat side that either voted present or nay to one or both of those articles, just to keep track.
His reaction is ugly, early, surrounded by people at a rally. Pelosi shut his people up twice during the actual proceeding. Let's just remind you of what happened. This was during the debate voting period.
[21:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: On this vote, the ayes are 230. The nays are 197. Present is one. Article One is adopted.
(GAVEL BANGS AND HOUSE MEMBERS CLAP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They soon asked (ph) the question.
(HOUSE MEMBERS SHOUTING IN DISAGREEMENT)
PELOSI: The question is on adoption of Article Two.
On this vote, the ayes are 229. The nays are 198. Present is one. Article Two is adopted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That is face that any a child, Italian child, knows, The zip it. I don't want to hear it.
She has played strength for strength. So, where does that leave her right now though? I mean she did the job. You know, this is compelling this.
You keep saying he's a continuing national security threat. That's why you had to do this so quickly and you couldn't fight what they saw as pretentious legal fights over access to these big names who supposedly have the answers for the President.
So, where's the leverage?
SMERCONISH: I'm most interested to see whether the result of today and tonight is a momentum shift. I have to believe that there were more eyes on the proceedings that have just ended than at any other point in this process.
But here's the question that needs to be answered. Why has public support for impeachment actually declined as the hearings have played themselves up?
CUOMO: And his approval is up.
SMERCONISH: And his approval is up. But with regard to the decline, I mean, you can look at the Marquette Study of Wisconsin, most critical state, probably of all 50, in the election, the Gallup survey that came out today.
My own theory is that most Americans, many Americans, in the end, because it got so damn nasty, just decided to chalk this up to partisan bickering, pinnacle of partisanship.
You asked Maggie what's the headline in the future. That would be mine. I don't think that this was born of partisanship. I think this was born of his conduct.
And frankly, the underlying facts are pretty straightforward, in the end. But in - but it was very hard for people who are working for a living, and raising kids, and so forth, to follow all the names and the places and the dates. I - I--
CUOMO: So, why would that redound to his benefit?
SMERCONISH: I think a lot of it just got chalked up to It's really more fighting going on in Washington. We have an election. Here's the answer to your question. We have an election on the horizon. Let's go resolve it at the ballot box.
CUOMO: Causation, correlation, in terms of his job approval going up, and the impeachment going down, do you think those just go together?
BHARARA: Yes. I mean I don't know. That's a political question. What I know from a--
CUOMO: And you must answer it Preet. You have to--
BHARARA: --from a - from a legal - from a legal perspective is public sentiment can change when people pay more attention.
And in the same way that Michael says, you know, more people probably paid attention today, as we got to the seriousness of the final moment of the vote on impeachment, I think - I think the nation got a little quieter.
And notwithstanding all the histrionics leading up to it, it's a big deal. It's an important deal.
I know Trump makes fun of the fact that Nancy Pelosi says she's prayerful, and that it's a somber moment. It is. It really is. And I felt it. I think a lot of people felt it, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.
And my question is, to answer your question with a question, is if and when there is a trial, if it takes the form that - that I think the Democrats want, with live compelling witnesses once again, I think more of the nation is going to tune in, because the stakes are now higher. Now, it's the trial.
CUOMO: But it's unlikely.
BHARARA: You know, Mitch McConnell is a smart guy. I think he will try to avoid that. And he probably has the power to avoid it.
But if, for some reason, you have an actual trial with actual witnesses who are telling the same story, I think more people will tune in, and it's an open question whether that will change minds. Maybe we're so polarized that it won't. But that's the next opportunity for public sentiment to shift.
HABERMAN: You know, one person who actually wants witnesses also, by the way, is Donald Trump.
CUOMO: Right.
HABERMAN: And that is I think--
SMERCONISH: I don't know why that is.
HABERMAN: Because he thinks that it is his opportunity to tell his side of the story. If he has to himself--
CUOMO: Not himself though
HABERMAN: Not himself. But certainly to get people who he thinks can animate his story as characters in his show like Hunter Biden is on his wish list.
It was made very clear to White House aides, several weeks ago, by Senator Ted Cruz, in a meeting, there are not 51 votes in the Senate to approve witnesses like that, and that's not going to happen. But he still wants it.
BHARARA: Can I make a point just from--
CUOMO: Sure.
BHARARA: --from my experience? Good defense lawyers figure out whether or not there's enough evidence
to convict their client.
And some defense lawyers, sometimes because they have clients who have a certain kind of ego, make the mistake of putting on a case.
Sometimes the most powerful defense case to make is they got nothing. They didn't prove it. And the defense, immediately after the prosecution rests, they stand up, and they say, The Defense rests, and they don't have a competing story.
Sometimes, I might have cases where the defendant puts on witnesses. And now, you have competing tales. Sometimes the best argument is simply like some of the - some of the, I think, the better arguers on - on the part of the President just said there's just not enough here.
CUOMO: Right.
Just to - to negate it, let's take a break. And we do know this. If they were to put on any of the big shots, they have built in counter narratives already that they'd have to contend with.
HABERMAN: Yes.
CUOMO: That's never an easy spot when you're putting on a case.
Everybody stay with me. Let's discuss the implications. Momentum shift, well where do we go from here? Stay with CNN's continuing coverage. History in progress.
[21:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Well no matter how you feel about President Clinton, more often than not, when his name is mentioned, the word impeachment soon thereafter follows.
That is now also the case for the 45th President, Donald John Trump. His legacy is still yet to be written in many ways, but impeachment will always be a part of it. So, what happens now? He's been impeached.
Here's a little bit of the President's reaction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It doesn't really feel like we're being impeached.
(CROWD CHEERS)
[21:50:00]
TRUMP: The country is doing better than ever before. We did nothing wrong.
(CROWD CHEERS)
TRUMP: We did nothing wrong. And we have tremendous support in the Republican Party like we've never had before.
(CROWD CHEERS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right. I'm joined by Preet Bharara, Maggie Haberman, and Michael Smerconish.
Maggie, help me. The stages of grief are shock, denial--
HABERMAN: And then rally.
CUOMO: --anger and they're - right. So he doesn't feel like he's being impeached.
HABERMAN: Right.
CUOMO: You know, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so the country is great. And then he did some really ugly talking at that rally about people alive and dead. This was all predictable. Where does it leave him within his Party tonight?
HABERMAN: I think it leaves him burrowed more deeply into them than before.
I think one of the things we have seen, his political folks said this was going to happen. They were right that we were going to see the fissures in the Republican Party co - close basically, and everybody coalesce around him.
He is doing what we have seen him do since that weekend with the Access Hollywood Tape in 2016. His impulse that weekend was to go downstairs at Trump Tower and burrow himself into a rally of supporters standing on Fifth Avenue.
This is basically a version of that. This is what he does in humiliation. He describes it as We, not I'm impeached. We're getting impeached. Can you believe that? And you're going to see that going forward.
You're going to see an angrier version. And you're going to see, I think, his voters feel as if they are being attacked personally.
What that means over 10 months, we don't know. He's heading into a reelection. It is still going to be an up or down referendum on him. There will be a choice argument that they are making with the Democratic nominee.
But this is still ultimately about him, and how he defines this, when he has a stain that we know bothers him, on his record, how he manages to focus on the economy, on legislative accomplishments that he is actually proud of, instead of talking about this all the time, remains to be seen.
CUOMO: Nancy Pelosi said It is a good day for the Constitution. It is a sad day for America. And Michael asked you, how can those two things be true at the same time?
SMERCONISH: They seem at odds to me.
CUOMO: Yes. I think it's a sad day. The - the Constitution is what it is. It's how you use it.
SMERCONISH: Can I make up a point in terms of what you asked Maggie, and - and where we are a big picture on this? He is still controlling the narrative.
You know, I - I watched you last night when the six-page single-space letter came out that many were regarding as unhinged.
And I could tell how torn you were in terms of Hey, I've got to deal with this subject matter because he's the President of the United States. And yet, I don't know that I want to give platform to some of the things that he's saying.
But he controlled the news cycle last night. He controlled the news cycle this morning. Whatever it is that he is saying about John Dingell, we're talking about it, and we're not talking, when we talk about Dingell, about the - the two causes that led to his impeachment.
He's masterful at that. I'm not saying it as a positive attribute. But I've always said that the - the man gives good ear.
He knows what inflames that base, the conversation that he's had, from the moment he descended the escalator at Trump Tower, has always been to one side of the aisle, and they're still in the tent thus far.
HABERMAN: I - I want to make one counterpoint to that though, and I totally agree with you about his supporters. But I think that if one of the things that can vote Donald Trump out of Office is his own behavior. And the problem with this impeachment is it's about his conduct.
And so, the more he does things that reinforce the aspects of his conduct that voters are either tired of, or never liked in the first place, and aren't willing to tolerate anymore, for whatever reason, I'm not sure that that actually is done. SMERCONISH: I - I guess my response would be I'm not - I don't understand why this, even though it's now with a capital I, would be a breakpoint--
HABERMAN: Wouldn't be a break--
SMERCONISH: --when there have been so many things that haven't been.
HABERMAN: Not for his true blue folks. But for the people who held their nose and voted for him because they wanted to convince themselves he would change. This was an act. They didn't like Hillary Clinton. This could be enough to--
SMERCONISH: Could be.
HABERMAN: --make them move away.
CUOMO: You know, the Greeks had a word for what the President behaves as and it was a Demagogue. And I don't ever know in history of a demagogue being removed for being too much of what it was that made him a demagogue in the first place.
So, it's a little bit of an open question. What is their threshold? What is too much? Because we keep thinking it's too much. It never is.
But in terms of his leverage, Maggie has to be right that there's a galvanizing within the Party to a degree in the House.
In the Senate, what does it mean to you that he has been told, more than once, by more than one Republican, Go easy on this, we want this parade of circus of people, we don't know how much the Republicans can take of people coming up and saying things that may not sit well with them.
BHARARA: Well the Senate, I - I worked for 4.5 years in the Senate. And we - we were always very proud of being in the Senate, as opposed to the House, both great wonderful American patriotic chambers.
But as the Founders said in an analogy that people forget, The Senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer for legislation, and the hot stuff that comes from the House gets moderated somewhat in the Senate.
And there are some figures in the Senate who may care a little bit more about their legacy and may care a little bit more about history, they're not going to totally jump overboard, but they want to have, you know, some moderation.
Mitt Romney might be one of those people. Lisa Murkowski might be one of those people.
[21:55:00]
And depending on what the mood of the country is, and depending on what they think they need to say there - to their constituents, and to say for posterity, they might at a minimum, this is the gambit, right, insist on some rules of the trial that don't turn it into a mockery, and then let the chips fall where they may at the end. And I think that's where the leverage is. And that's what Mitch McConnell is trying to figure out.
But the fact that he basically said it's going to go a certain way, and it's going to go quickly, and he's denying those witnesses to the Democrats, may mean that he's done the count.
And he knows there's some people are going to, you know, mouth off a little bit, at the margins, but he's got his people in line, and the basic contours of what he wants to do have been approved by at least 51 Senators, and he's ready to go.
CUOMO: You see McConnell in the past do what the President didn't like in the moment, but he felt it was most helpful for him.
Preet, Maggie, Mike, thanks so much for being me - with me on such an important night. Appreciate it.
We're going to take a quick break. Please don't go anywhere. We're going to check in with Don Lemon. We're going to talk about where this stands and what is next. The handover, right after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: History has been made. President Trump has been impeached. Two articles, one, abusing his power, two, obstruction of Congress. That is done. Does not mean he's no longer President. All it means is that the House has impeached him, and that cannot ever be undone.
What comes next is a trial in the Senate.
Now, between these two events, there's been an unknown injected. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, saying, We've done our job, and she's asked about handing over those articles to the Senate, to allow it to be their chance, and she said, We'll see what happens. We want to see what shape it takes.
