Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

Impeachment Inquiry Takes Shape, Focus On Ukraine; Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Subpoenaed For Ukraine Documents; Rep. Nancy Pelosi Says, Impeachment Path Not A Cause For Joy; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D- MA) On Accusation Against Biden, This Is About Trump. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 28, 2019 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

S.E. CUPP, CNN S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED: Welcome to Unfiltered.

Special coverage, road to impeachment, what a week. If you're feeling a little overwhelmed, a little exhausted, maybe even a little confused, well, that's understandable.

The bombs went off in rapid clusters this week and they're still exploiting even today. News that President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, boom. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces an impeachment inquiry, boom. The White House releases a rough phone call transcript confirming the whistleblower account, boom. The House releases the redacted whistleblower complaint and hears testimony from acting DNI Joseph Maguire, who calls the situation unprecedented, boom.

The word that comes to my mind is seismic. And just within the past 24 hours, more aftershocks. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been subpoenaed. We have a member of one of the committees who subpoenaed him on in just a minute.

Here is tonight's headline, it just got real.

This, folks, is just the beginning. The dam has broken, and we all need to prepare ourselves for what will be a constant flood of new revelations, important revelations, as this process unfolds. We must also be prepared for the flood of misinformation, misdirection, obfuscation, distraction that will come from the president and his supporters.

And to that end, Trump is calling for Congressman Adam Schiff's resignation, calling him a sick man. He's called for the whistleblower and the people who gave him information to be treated as traitors and handled accordingly. He tweeted earlier today, can you imagine if these do-nothing Democrat savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC plus three, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the do-nothings are doing to me. Oh, well, maybe next time. He has already flooded Twitter with rantings and ravings all designed to confuse and clutter the process. But here is the deal. Through all of it, you just have to trust your gut and common sense. There's been a lot of spin surrounding the whistleblower complaint and the transcript of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, but you be the judge.

On page two of the rough call logs, Zelensky brings up military funding for Ukraine. He says, we are almost ready to buy more Javelins for defense purposes. The next words out of Trump's mouth, I would like you to do us a favor though.

Trump's Republican defenders insist there's no explicit quid pro quo there, but common sense says the military aid is dependent upon agreeing to whatever favor Trump is about to request. He later makes the ask, urging Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

On Monday, Trump shrugs off the news defending his call with Zelensky, saying, why would you give money to a country you think is corrupt? Common sense says Trump himself right there, was tying the military aid to an investigation of Biden.

Trump defenders are spinning the call and the allegations in the whistleblower complaint as, quote, nothing more than a collection of third-hand accounts of events and cobbled together press clippings, all of which shows noting improper. That's according to White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.

But common sense, well, when the White House admits that they've directed the call transcript to be locked down and filed in a separate classified system where few people could see it, well, that sounds like there's plenty improper. To a lot of people, that sounds like a cover-up, in fact.

Guys, Trump is hoping that we are too stupid to put these pieces together. He's betting he can gaslight his way through this and create enough confusion and chaos that we get too tired and overwhelmed to see it as clearly as it really is. But this isn't complicated. It's pretty darn crystal clear.

Now, whether this results in his impeachment is another story, and I have been very hesitant to jump on that bandwagon thus far, namely because there's simply wasn't enough there, and impeachment is generally bad for America. But we have crossed the Rubicon, folks.

[18:05:01]

There is simply no way around opening an impeachment inquiry. It's the right thing to do, and time is now.

Congressman Dean Phillips, who flipped a red seat in 2018, and this week, called for the impeachment inquiry, joins me now.

Congressman, Nancy Pelosi is now willing to go down this road, but she wants to keep it narrowly focused on Ukraine and that whistleblower complaint. Does that strategy make sense to you?

REP. DEAN PHILLIPS (D-MN): You know, S.E., it does. This behavior is so egregious. And remember, I'm one of 92 new members of Congress, we just took other oath of office nine months ago and we are very mindful of that right now. And I think in light of the facts that are coming out in rapid succession over the past few days, we have no choice but to do what the Constitution requires us to do to uphold the rule of law. And I think this specific example is one that should be pursued because, again, it is so egregious. And I think that's right. I think we should do it expeditiously, because that is also in the country's best interest.

CUPP: That's what I want to ask you about next because leadership further said they want this wrapped up by the holidays. They're reluctant to make this a long drawn out process. I don't blame them. Do you think that's possible though, given, I mean, just the voluminous amounts of news uncovered this week alone, we're likely to get a whole lot more?

PHILLIPS: I think the answer is, absolutely. We have a number of committees that have been doing investigations for some months now. I have right next to me the whistleblower's report and the summary of that transcript. Those two items alone, S.E., are so clear in the wrongdoing. And I do believe on some level the president may not even know that what he did is wrong, but ignorance is no defense. And I think we can conclude this quickly and I think we should.

We have a lot of work to do in Congress. Those of us who just joined the 116th Congress came here to do good work for people. This is not what we wanted to do. In fact, it's sad for America, but it's good for the Constitution and good for the rule of law.

CUPP: So you're on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as I mentioned, you've issued a subpoena to Secretary of State Pompeo for various documents, which he has yet to turn over. If he refuses, what then, what's the plan?

PHILLIPS: Well, then he'll be held in contempt. This is obstruction. This is one of the grave issues that we're facing right now. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. We should have access to those documents that were requested two weeks ago with no response. They've been subpoenaed. We have other depositions, five depositions forthcoming next week. There's a lot of smoke, S.E..

And our job, our responsibility is to investigate it, draw out the facts, and then proceed on principle. And that's exactly what we intend to do.

CUPP: Yes, I agree. However, there were some complaints even among Democrats that hearings with people like Corey Lewandowski were kind of unhelpful to the cause, kind of look like a circus. Do you think Democrats need to be careful with the way that these hearings are conducted, even if just to avoid the perception that this is partisan or just meant to embarrass certain Trump allies?

PHILLIPS: Yes, I agree. I think that was unfortunate. And nobody wants to see that kind of behavior in our Congress. I'd like to see forthcoming hearings shown as broadly as possible to the American public, so the facts can be brought out. In fact, I am one who favors letting professionals do the questioning in those hearings so that this is not partisan. I think that would be in the best interest of our Congress and hopefully restore some trust in an institution that certainly needs more of it.

CUPP: I think it's a great idea.

Okay, so the House, as you know, is going on a two-week recess. What great timing. You're in a swing district. When you go home, what do you expect to hear from your constituents on impeachment? How do you plan to talk about impeachment with them?

PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, S.E. I've been listens for many months since my election to constituents, a growing chorus from my district and beyond. My district is an affluent, highly engaged district, very moderate and thoughtful. That course has grown. And now, a lot of independents and a lot of Republicans are sharing their perspective that we have no other choice, despite the fact that it's a distasteful pursuit.

In fact, I spent this morning on the phone calling constituents of mine that have registered their grave concerns about proceeding with impeachment. So I'm listening to everybody, I'm speaking with everybody who wishes to do so with me. That's our job. Representation begins with listening. But at the end of the day, it is the constitution and the rule of law and we have to abide by that. And it's not just for this president. It's for the president's seat and the future, and that's what we have to be focused on at this moment in our history.

CUPP: Yes. I'm going to talk over the course of the rest of the hour about potential political consequences as a result of doing this. But I really appreciate you coming on, Congressman. Thanks for speaking with me tonight. I'll have you back as this continues.

PHILLIPS: My pleasure.

CUPP: Thanks.

[18:10:00]

Okay. The gravity of an impeachment investigation can't be overstated nor can the political risk. Someone who worked closely with Nancy Pelosi will talk to me about the path forward, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): None of us, my colleagues will agree, came to Congress to impeach a president.

So this is not a cause for any joy that we have to go down this path. It's a difficult decision to make. But we have that obligation because in the actions that were taken would undermine the Constitution and the oath we take to protect and defend, including the oath that the president takes. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: After being criticized for her caution on impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the plunge. She speaks in about two hours in Texas, where she'll undoubtedly continue to make her case as to why now. Perhaps one reason she was hesitant, impeachment has consequences, not just for the subject of impeachment, but for the impeaching party.

Right now, the polling is trending in Pelosi's favor. According to the latest one night Marist poll from Wednesday, 49 percent approve of an impeachment inquiry.

[18:15:06]

That's up from the Quinnipiac poll just before Pelosi's official impeachment announcement showing that found 37 percent support.

Now, that's an improvement, but it's still not a majority. And that's why Democrats are fielding questions like these.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you had vote on articles of impeachment right now, how would you vote?

REP. MATT CARTWRIGHT (D-PA): I would vote no right now because we haven't seen all the facts. We have to presume that people are innocent, don't we?

RAJU: Do you have to worry about the political ramifications of moving forward on impeachment, particularly in a district like yours?

CARTWRIGHT: Manu, at some point, you have to toss the political calculations out the window and do what's right for our republic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Joining me now to talk about the cross-politics of impeachment is someone who knows Pelosi well. He was the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, former Congressman Joe Crowley.

Congressman, to Rep. Cartwright's point, at some point, the political calculations get tossed out the window to do what's right, but the political calculations don't really go away. So let's talk about what some of them are likely to be. The first is the most obvious potential consequence, which is that it helps Trump get re-elected. Your thoughts on that?

FMR. REP. JOE CROWLEY (D-NY): Well, I don't think you could base a decision as to whether or not to move forward on impeachment, how it affects the president or affects, really, the Democratic caucus at this point.

And I think Nancy Pelosi was reluctant to come to this. Often, I heard her talk about the pressure she was under back in '06, when Democrats took back the House during the Bush administration, the pressure to bring impeachment against George W. Bush. And she said repeatedly, we will not put the American people through that.

She believes that elections have consequences and that this is -- we're not a banana republic. We don't want to use impeachment every time a person is elected president to try to remove them.

So I do believe she is very reluctant despite her credible reservations (ph) about this president. I think she still was reluctant to move forward on this.

CUPP: But we know -- you know, Clinton's impeachment, for example, only helped his approval numbers. You don't think there is any concern that impeachment will have the same effect on Trump? Not as a reason not to pursue it, just that is it a concern among some Democrats?

CROWLEY: Well, I think we don't know what the future will hold until those facts, as Matt Cartwright have mentioned, the facts are fully known and understood. I think there is serious evidence so far that I've seen that would suggest the president has violated his constitutional oath (ph), to uphold the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.

And so what the president was engaged, I think, is very -- is more than troubling. I think there is certainly evidence here.

So regardless as to what the political outcome will be, this is not a good thing for our country, period, but it is good in the sense that we are upholding to the rules of the Constitution itself that was meant to deal with issues just like this.

CUPP: And I think you and I can both agree that opening an impeachment inquiry is the right thing to do. I'm trying to gauge whether or not some of these political consequences, and if they're real, are going to, you know, affect this s process.

Another concern that I'm sure weighed into Pelosi's initial reluctance was the effect down-ballot on some House members in more moderate districts, maybe who were up for re-election in 2020. How do you think they might have to sort of handle impeachment when they go home to their constituents?

CROWLEY: Well, S.E., I think that's a great point you raise, because I think it will -- it wasn't the pressure from the left here that I think moved this process forward. I think it was those -- maybe those specially seven vulnerable Democrats who took a very courageous stance early this week and they said that they believe that we needed to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. It was those folks who are on the front line that, not that we're facing a difficult challenge of re-election anyway, instead, it's not about my seat, it's not about my personal politics, it's about the country.

And I think even Republicans have to admire that. There's a great admiration for people who put aside their own personal politics. And they're all human. We all want to win again, right? But it doesn't always work that way. And there's nothing wrong with losing if you're doing that to uphold the principles that you hold dear.

CUPP: So let me -- I mean, let me just flip that on its head for the sake of argument. Do you think Democrats are willing to pursue impeachment even if it costs them the House, even if it costs them the White House?

CROWLEY: I think that Democrats are prepared to take this to the American people, let the facts speak for themselves, and you just can't get around that. The president violated the law. If the president violated this oath of office, they really have no choice.

And I think, S.E., this is the straw that broke the camel's back. There have been many things that have happened over a period of time here that just a want on (ph) disregard for the Constitution.

[18:20:07]

And I just think that Nancy Pelosi just -- she really had no other choice at this point. She didn't want to go down this path. I think she had to go down this path.

CUPP: I just want to give you one last question, a chance to respond to Trump's latest tweet calling Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, the squad, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic savages.

CROWLEY: I've known many of these people, Jerry Nadler, for instance, for almost 35 years. I've known Adam Schiff for as long as he's been elected in office here in the House of Representatives. These are some of the finest people you will ever meet.

Jerry Nadler was a constitutional lawyer. They love the Constitution. They love everything about this country. And it's typical for this president to use that type of tactic to obfuscate, to throw covers over what's happening. But it won't work here. These professionals, they know the law, and especially when it comes to Adam Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, they know how to move this case.

CUPP: Former Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, I really appreciate you coming on tonight.

CROWLEY: Thank you, S.E.

CUPP: Okay. There's no place on the campaign that's far enough to escape the impeachment aftershocks. It's something that some of the 2020 candidates are learning the hard way.

And a little later, Republican lawmakers are once again privately concerned. Don't get me started.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUPP: The impeachment inquiry to be sure will not only hang over Trump's re-election efforts, but the 2020 Dems too.

[18:25:06] It might, upon first glance, seem like this is all good news for Democrats running against Trump, but not so fast. There will likely be some landmines for them to navigate too. Chief among them, how to answer questions about Trump's scurrilous and wrong accusations against the Bidens. Elizabeth Warren was given a shot at that and, well, here is how that went.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You offered two at expense (ph). Could you say whether or not, under Warren administration, would your vice president's child be allowed to serve on a board of a foreign company?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: no.

REPORTER: Why not?

WARREN: I don't know. I would have to go back and look at the details on the plan.

REPORTER: do you think there would be a problem with that?

WARREN: I would have to go back and look.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: After she realizing she may have just implied Hunter Biden's role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company was improper, she used her second opportunity to shift it back to Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And just very quickly, obviously, the president has gone over Joe Biden and his son. Do you think his conduct, his business dealings, Hunter Biden's, should be off-limits in this campaign?

WARREN: I believe that this issue is about Donald Trump, and that's where we need to keep our focus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Let's be clear. Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. So why didn't Warren just say that?

Well, let's discuss with my panel, Republican strategist and CNN Political Commentator, Alice Stewart, and Democratic Strategist, also a CNN Political Commentator, Hillary Rosen.

Alice, shouldn't Biden's Democratic opponents defend him against the Trump smears that he and his son are corrupt? Warren didn't do that in either of those responses.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They should if they want to follow President Obama's advice and not engage in a certain firing squad. However, what we're going to see, and I don't expect it to stop, as the Democrats rush to go about this impeachment inquiry, they will be dropping bombs, they will be setting landmines and Joe Biden will be the collateral damage. He not only has to deal with answering questions with regard to his potential involvement with Ukraine, but while he's spending time doing that, he is not able to be on the campaign trail talking about healthcare, about education, about what they're going to do with regard to immigration. And that is a big detriment to him.

Meanwhile, the other candidates are able to point the finger at Trump, not answer questions on Biden, and talk about issues that the American people are concerned with.

CUPP: Hillary, I think a fair question though of Biden is will a Biden administration permit your son or daughter to take positions of influence either in the White House, the government or foreign entities, where there may be conflicts of interest? I view that as a question more related to Trump's decision to do just that and less to Hunter's involvement on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. Is that a fair question of Biden?

HILLARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, at the time, of course, it wasn't a conflict of interest. Ukraine was an ally and this was a legitimate company, so there wasn't really an issue. The issue became what happened later when people made a deal of it.

But, look, I think that the -- Joe Biden has had a bit of an open book about this. Reporters have been on this story for a very long time and have found nothing. You had the Obama State Department back him up in terms of their own interest on this issue. So I don't think this is really an issue of whether there is anything there. I think it's really more an issue of whether this kind of constant drumbeat by President Trump scares the other candidates a little bit and encourages them to just keep their mouths shut instead of fighting back on Vice President Biden's behalf. And that will hurt him, I think.

But the really bigger problem, I think, for Democrats running for president is they want to be talking about healthcare. They want to be talking about what's wrong with Donald Trump's, you know, economic agenda. They want to be talking about education. And all of the energy is going to get sucked into Washington right now, and not Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina.

CUPP: That's another landmine to navigate, yes, finding ways on the campaign trails in debates to bring the story back. That will be hard to do.

Alice, there are other landmines here for the Democrats. One is going to be pushing the House Democrats further than they're willing to go, getting ahead of the inquiry process. That's sort of the flipside of not wanting to talk about impeachment except when they want to talk about impeachment. And I think for folks like Warren and Bernie, who have been out in front of the impeachment, that might be a risk for them. STEWART: The risk is setting a level of expectations that they possibly cannot meet. This is what happened with the Mueller report. They set the level of expectation. We thought there was going to be a huge bombshell, and the Mueller report didn't raise to that level.

[18:30:03]

And if they get ahead of their skis and have everyone anticipating this was going to be end all and beyond a true smoking gun with regard to an impeachment, if that level isn't met, they're going to be the party of the boy who cried wolf and that will backfire on them. And that's going to turn off a lot of independence that may come there and also Democrats who are putting their faith in the process playing out.

But at the end of the day, I think the best advice is to slow down, take a look at the facts and let the facts lead to the ultimate (inaudible) ...

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Well, Hilary, to that point what if this goes as quickly as Pelosi and some Democrats want it to and just a few months, maybe six months before the election we learned impeachment was unsuccessful maybe. I mean, how does that affect Democrats on the trail?

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, I think you see the two leaders on the trail over the last 24 hours say that there should be a non-political process, there should be an investigation. Neither Vice President Biden nor Elizabeth Warren has actually said that this calls for impeachment.

They said it calls for serious investigation and it should be a non- political investigation. I think that the Speaker is trying to move this along, so that no matter what happens there is time between this inquiry and the election to kind of level set back. The problem is that I don't see the White House giving over these documents very easily. I don't see their witnesses cooperating.

I think that the more that Nancy Pelosi says we want to move faster with this investigation, the more they will slow walk everything to try and dare the Democrats to go forward without all of the facts.

CUPP: I think you're right. Yes.

ROSEN: And I think that's the stalemate we're going to come up against when it comes to Thanksgiving and Christmas.

CUPP: Great. Well, Alice Stewart, Hilary Rosen, thanks so much for joining me both of you. I appreciate it.

STEWART: Thank you.

ROSEN: Take care.

CUPP: All right. Coming up, I'm talking to the man who has correctly predicted the past nine presidential elections and his most recent forecast in light of the impeachment news, well, that's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:55]

CUPP: In THE RED FILE tonight, what's in store for the nation now that House Democrats have opened an impeachment inquiry? There are some 10 million first time voters who are not alive in 1998. The last time a president was impeached.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached by the House but the Senate failed to convict. And President Nixon faced an impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment or drafted, but he resigned before the full House voted.

So what's going to happen next? Let's walk through it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has broken with President and said the Committee is already investigating the President are now doing so as a formal impeachment inquiry. She's also instructed the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead and focus narrowly on the whistleblower complaint and the President's phone call with Ukraine.

Whatever information is gathered over the course of the next several weeks will form the basis for any articles of impeachment that would be drawn up by the Judiciary Committee. Sort of like a grand jury indictment. The Committee would then vote and if approved would send it on to the House floor.

It takes a simple majority to approve articles of impeachment. If that happens, the process would then move on to the Senate for a trial. Senators then become the jurors and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside.

In that chamber, it would take a supermajority. Meaning, 67 senators to remove Trump from office, so 20 Republicans would have to vote to remove the President to get to that number which currently stands at zero.

OK. With me now is Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman who has correctly predicted the last nine elections using his keys to winning an election. He's also author of The Case for Impeachment. So Allan, Democrats are pushing for a quick impeachment process. These things though, they aren't usually fast. The impeachment against President Johnson lasted 94 days against President Clinton it was 127 days. How long do you think this one is going to last?

ALLAN LICHTMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: There should be no timetable on impeachment. The critical thing here is to get all of the facts out however long or short that might take. And given the obstructionism of the Trump administration, I don't think it's going to be quite as quick as the Democrats say.

Also, yes, they say it's focused on the Ukrainian matter, but the whistleblower complaint revealed something that may be far more significant and that is that Trump put in this top secret system conversations with two murderous dictators, MbS of Saudi Arabia and Vladimir Putin of Russia. What he said to them may be much more damning than what he said to the Ukrainian president.

CUPP: Well, yes, and these impeachment inquiries have a way of bringing out a lot of other information, which to your point ...

LICHTMAN: That's right.

CUPP: ... might add to the length of time. Now, I've seen countless articles this week comparing Trump to Nixon and then countless more saying don't compare them to Nixon. When it comes to their respective impeachment prospects and impeachment environments, how do you think they stack up?

LICHTMAN: I think they're very similar, but let me say, Richard Nixon started at 67 percent approval. The impeachment process drove it down even before the release of the smoking gun tape to 24 percent. Trump starting at 42 percent or 43 percent. Even a small hit would be disastrous to him and the Nixon impeachment was disastrous, at least in the short-term for the Republican Party.

In addition, some of the articles that the Judiciary Committee voted against Nixon that led to his resignation could be reprise this time, abuse of power and obstruction of justice and, of course, contempt of Congress. Those three are all in play.

CUPP: So impeachment whenever it's invoked, as you know, is a dark time for American politics. What do you expect the mood to be like in the country over the next few months?

[18:39:58]

LICHTMAN: Yes. I think people are way too hysterical about the impeachment process. The framers put impeachment into the constitution advisedly, not as a catastrophic event, but as a legal peaceful means of dealing with a rogue president and they expected there to be rogue presidents.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached, we just fought a civil war. And people thought, "Oh, my god, the civil war is going to occur again." Nothing of the kind happened. In fact, although he was acquitted, he stopped obstructing reconstruction. The impeachment of Richard Nixon was good for the country, because it removed a threat to our democracy.

Everyone said, "Oh, my gosh, the impeachment of Bill Clinton is going to so weaken the presidency." But the presidency emerged stronger than ever. So impeachment is not necessarily the catastrophe that the conventional wisdom says it is.

CUPP: So as I mentioned, you've correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections and you say Democrats would lose in 2020 if they didn't impeach Trump. So do you think impeachment will help Democrats?

LICHTMAN: Absolutely. Everybody gets that wrong. The reason I've been able to predict the election since 1984 is my keys to the White House system, which measures the strength and performance of the party holding the White House. And Trump would have to lose six keys to be defeated.

Right now, he's only down three keys. The impeachment would nail down as the only the third president ever to be impeached. The scandal key, that's a fourth key. And it could trigger other keys like a real challenge to his renomination or a third party. And let's not forget, after the Clinton impeachment, Republicans won the presidency in 2000.

CUPP: I know.

LICHTMAN: Election the Democrats should have easily won otherwise.

CUPP: Well, Professor Allan Lichtman, we will have you on over the course of this process I'm sure again to weigh in. Thanks so much for joining me tonight.

LICHTMAN: My great pleasure, S.E.

CUPP: All right, we're in a historic moment now that's going to shine a spotlight not just on Trump, but on Republicans as well. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:08]

CUPP: This has been an eventful week for both President Trump and Congressional Democrats. But largely MIA Republicans. While there's been an effort to circle the wagons around Trump among his House supporters, GOP senators have had little to say.

A number of them, in fact, when asked on Thursday said they hadn't even read the whistleblower complaint. A nine-page document concerning the National Security and election integrity of our country. My five-year-old's bedtime stories are longer than nine pages.

Let's name these guys, shall we? James Lankford, John Hoeven, Mike Braun, Lamar Alexander, Rob Portman, Joni Ernst and offering a courageous no comment, Tom Cotton. Now, some others have shown a willingness to take off their partisan hats. Senator Mitt Romney for one so the call between Trump and Zelensky was deeply troubling. So what will republicans do?

With me now as former Spokesman for the RNC, Tim Miller who was also the Communications Director for Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. Thank you so much for courageously, Tim, stepping away from the Clemson game tonight to join me. I know that was difficult.

TIM MILLER, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, JEB BUSH PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: It was a good finish I missed and my bedtime reading also longer than nine pages for my toddler.

CUPP: Yes, ridiculous. Don't even get me started. Look, the time for reckoning is upon the GOP. Republicans who did not support this president were concerned about these very kinds of things and so Republicans who did support this president will now have to answer to them. How do you expect this to go? Do you expect Republican lawmakers to turn on Trump?

MILLER: No, of course not. Look, as you said in the intro the Governor or Senator Romney's, excuse me, statement that this was troubling in the extreme was frankly mild, but he was the most aggressive of everyone and the President immediately followed the childish series of tweets and videos making fun of them.

These guys are scared to death. They are petrified of getting a mean tweet from Donald Trump that their constituents will read that'll be on their local news. And so they're not going to say anything, they're going to pretend like they haven't seen it and this is going to happen up until the last second.

There would need to be these silverest of bullets to get any of these folks to switch in my view.

CUPP: So Jeff Flake says that at least 35 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump if it were a silent vote. Well, it isn't, at least not as it currently exists. Who, if anyone, do you predict might have the courage to break their silence?

MILLER: I don't know, maybe Ben Sasse. But how could you say that? I guess he was the only other one that put out a statement.

CUPP: Yes, he did.

MILLER: I think they've been silent people. Richard Burr - look, Senator Burr did an honorable job overseeing the Intel Committee during the Mueller hearing, so you could see someone like that, someone who's thinking about retiring, switching.

But look, I mean, I don't know if I agree with Flake. I think that there are at least maybe a dozen that would vote against it in a silent vote. And honestly, I'd rather just get rid of those guys and bring in Trumpers. It seems like it's worse to me that you can't be honest with your citizens or with your constituents. I mean, about something as serious as the President committing these sorts of atrocities and serious foreign policy issues.

I mean, what is the point of being in the Senate if you can't be at least honest with your constituents about where you stand on something this serious.

CUPP: And the point that I've been making just over the past week is that while the Republican Party will be held accountable for what they do now, so will individual Republicans. It's not like their names get expunged from the record books and all we talk about is the effect this had on the party. Do you think some Republicans in Congress are aware of how history might judge them for this moment?

MILLER: No, I really don't think that they do. I feel like they think that people have short memories.

[18:49:59]

I was asking The Texas Tribune reporter at Tribfest, Evan Watt (ph), he talked about why Ted Cruz who Donald Trump was so belittling to, why he wouldn't use this moments to stand up for the Constitution and to get some revenge on Donald Trump.

These guys all are short-term. They're looking at their next re election or 2024. Every senator wants to be president and they don't want to get on the wrong side of Trump voters and so maybe some of them are considering historic states ...

CUPP: Well, they're getting on the wrong side of history.

MILLER: ... yes. But I think the ones who are - who do feel that way left. Look, if you look at Speaker Ryan, a lot of folks retired and Senator Flake and I think it's sad that not more people who understand the stakes, the historic stakes didn't stay and fight.

CUPP: Tim Miller, thanks for joining me. I appreciate it.

MILLER: Thank you, S.E. You have a good weekend.

CUPP: All right. You too. Quick programming note, tomorrow night at eight, Dr. Sanjay Gupta searches for the truth about CBD in his new CNN SPECIAL REPORT WEED 5 THE CBD CRAZE, do not miss it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:54:53]

CUPP: The President was tweeting earlier today about Democrat savages and Democrat do nothings. He also seriously complain a presidential harassment. Life comes at you fast, doesn't it, Mr. President? I'm old enough to remember when he made a cottage industry of harassing President Obama.

From 2011 to 2016, Trump went on countless talk shows and news outlets as well as Twitter to challenge Obama's legitimacy as president, questioning his birthplace and American citizenship as well as his religion. There were no lows to which Trump would not sink in this endeavor.

He even grotesquely use the untimely and tragic death of Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash to boost his conspiracy theory tweeting, "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama's 'birth certificate' died in a plane crash today. All others lived."

For years he did this building a mountain of hypotheticals, conspiracy theories and nonevidence to, yes, harass the sitting president. All the while giving safe harbor to other birthers, white nationalists, Islamophobes and bigots who wouldn't conveniently turn up to support his presidential run.

The bogus birther charges against Obama had nothing to do with his policies, had nothing to do with National Security. They were just for the sake of ginning up a racist base of personal support. That's harassment. So spare us the pity party, Mr. President.

All right. That's it for me. Wolf Blitzer continues CNN's special live coverage from D.C., stay right there.