Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Now: Impeachment Trial Underway For DHS Secretary Mayorkas; Prosecutors Want To Bring Trump's Legal Past If He Testifies; Now: House Speaker Mike Johnson On The Lead. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 17, 2024 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:03]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Several points of order presented. One article of impeachment dismissed. Now the potential for the second to get dismissed, still out there.
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Yeah. It's the most deliberative body in the world for a reason, it moves at its own pace. And that's what they are doing right now.
But we know that it will ultimately as you mentioned, with them dismissing these. It's just how will we get there and how long will it take? We'll continue to keep an eye on it?
SANCHEZ: Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.
The one-year anniversary of "CNN NEWS CENTRAL".
DEAN: Congrats!
SANCHEZ: We made it. Look at us.
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER starts right now.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: House Speaker Mike Johnson's here and, boy, do we have some questions?
THE LEAD starts right now.
Urgent action on the Hill as Speaker Johnson finds a way to allow votes on aid to Israel and Taiwan and Ukraine. But it's Johnson's path forward that has his rightward flank in an uproar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I don't know how much longer are members are going to tolerate the Republican speaker that we elected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Is it all just talk? Does Johnson need Democrats to be his lifeline?
I'll ask the speaker himself here on THE LEAD. Plus, more drama on the Senate side and impeachment trials underway. Democrats are trying to save Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, but Republicans -- well, they've got their own plans.
And a brand new filing just in from the New York hush money case, a line of questioning that the prosecution may take if Donald Trump makes good on his pledge and takes the stand.
(MUSIC)
TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
And we start today with our politics lead. In just 15 minutes or so, I'm going to be join live by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who is fighting for his political survival and facing growing pressure from his far-right flank. Speaker Johnson announced this afternoon, he's sticking with his plan to put funding for key allies such as Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine on the House floor this Saturday after members have had 72 hours first to read the legislation.
At least two hard line Republicans say this move, putting this on the floor for a vote, will cost Speaker Johnson his job. Now, there are some murmurs that Democrats might be willing to step in and vote to keep Johnson in power. Is that something that Speaker Johnson would welcome? Nothing is going to be off limits when he joins me live ahead.
On the others side of the Capitol, the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is looking as if it will meet a quick demise. The trial in the Senate officially began just this afternoon, according, but the Democratically-controlled Senate has already voted to dismiss one of the two articles against Mayorkas with a vote on killing the second one set to start any minute. Mayorkas, as you know, became the very first cabinet secretary to be impeached in nearly 150 years.
In a vote led by House Republicans, but not even the entire Senate Republican conference appears on the same page, Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, told "Axios" today, quote, I don't believe there's a constitutional standard met, unquote.
Let's go straight to our reporters covering all the drama happening right now on Capitol Hill.
CNN's Lauren Fox and Melanie Zanona.
Melanie, first to you, the Senate showdown going on over U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas impeachment trial, the first cabinet secretary to be impeached in nearly 150 years.
Melanie, are there any signs to suggest this trial is going to go forward the way Republicans wanted to?
MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, Jake, Republicans wanted a full trial. They also want this to end in a conviction, but that is just not what we are seeing play out on the Senate floor. That first impeachment article was already killed on a party-line vote with all Democrats voting to kill it.
And one Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, someone we are watching very closely, voting present, so a sign of her discontent with the process. Now, Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has teed up a second vote to kill that second article. But Republicans at the moment, are forcing a number of procedural votes. This is a delay tactic. They're really trying to drag this out as long as possible.
So we're seeing some theatrics there on the Senate floor, but it's really important to point out that politics are driving so much of what we are seeing right now, playing out on the Senate floor. Republicans really want to have some ammunition heading into the November election where they're planning to make them border a top issue. But Democrats feel completely comfortable taking these votes and moving too quickly dismiss this trial and dismiss these articles.
They do not believe if that this policy dispute amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, and they also feel really bolstered by the fact that Donald Trump helped kill -- kill a Senate bipartisan border deal, something that they said would have actually helped secure the border.
But again, just a rare moment here on the Senate floor, we have not seen a cabinet official impeached in nearly 150 years. So there is plenty concerned right now about the precedent for future congresses. But again, we'll have to see how this process plays out, how long it takes.
[16:05:03]
The bottom line here though is we are not expecting this to result in a conviction, Jake.
TAPPER: And, Lauren, now to you and the Republican dysfunction in the House. Speaker Mike Johnsons job a job appears to be in peril. These conservative hardliners threatening to oust him for moving forward with sending money to Ukraine for allowing a vote to send money on Ukraine to be specific. They're accusing Johnson of surrendering to Democrats?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, exactly, Jake.
And the speaker, as you noted, is not asking for hardliners to actually support the underlying legislation. All he's doing is putting this on the floor, but they are frustrated, they are mad, specifically because this package, despite the fact that it's divided into three parts, really does look a lot like the Senate-passed supplemental package that passed back this winter it, and that is because it includes about $95 billion, and $61 billion specifically for Ukraine.
Now there's about a $10 billion loan aspect to this, but even that is forgivable and the administration can make that decision unilaterally. So what hardliners are arguing here is that Johnson is not fighting in hard enough. Now the reality for Johnson is that there was no Ukraine package that he was ever going to be able to put on the floor of the House that was going to satisfy someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Of course, the difference now is that Greene has an ally in Thomas Massie and other conservative who was already vowing to vote with her to oust Johnson if she moves to do that on the floor. Now, she has not said precisely when or even if she is definitely going to move to try to vacate him from his speakership. But obviously that at weighing heavily on Johnson, that weighing heavily on the entire Republican conference right now, as they move toward this Saturday vote -- Jake.
TAPPER: All right. Melanie Zanona, and Lauren Fox, thanks to both you.
My panel is with me now to discuss. Let's start with the impeachment hearing of Mayorkas if you would.
Scott, today, senators were sworn in as jurors for this impeachment. They have already voted to kill one of the two articles of impeachment. This all -- we are all -- always seemed doomed to fail. What do you make of it all?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think the Republicans in the House felt like they had no other choices. I mean, you have a secretary that they think is not enforcing the laws that they think lied to them. And he has a boss who seems indifferent to the whole thing.
I don't know that they felt like they had any recourse, so yeah, I think it was predictable that it was going to fail in the Senate, but I'll tell you what they have done and that they've shined a bright light on the failures of this administration to enforce the laws at the border and expose the crisis that's there.
So they're not going to win this thing. But as a political matter, you can see what's happened in the polling. The American people are worried about it and they do think Biden has failed on it.
TAPPER: So let's play some of what Secretary Mayorkas had to say about his impeachment trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: As they work an impeachment I work in advancing the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. That's what I've done throughout this process.
We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Jonah, if Republicans want to secure the border, and I take them at their word that they do. Doesn't he have a point passing if even not even that piece of legislation, but some sort of bipartisan legislation?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, look, I mean, the problem we have in our politics right now is a massive collective action problem -- collective action problem where the partisan incentives are not for craft and good public policy. It's for owning various issues.
And frankly, I -- look, I think this thing is largely a waste of time.
TAPPER: The impeachment?
GOLDBERG: The impeachment, at the same time I think Joe Biden should have thrown the guy to the wolves a long time ago. I think Mayorkas should have resigned and said, look, I don't think I did anything wrong, but I'm clearly a distraction to these issues, given -- give Biden a fresh nominee to have in there. Take this take this issue away.
Look, whether it's unfair to Mayorkas or not is sort of beside the point at this -- at this stage. It's -- it's all political theater. And I think Biden has played it badly. And I think for the Republicans who wanted to impeach him, they've played it smart, whether its cynical, whether its going to get any policy accomplished is a different issue, but its smarter politics.
TAPPER: So what happens now, Margaret? I mean, Mayorkas has been the number one cudgel for the Republicans to attack Joe Biden. He's now been impeached. He will not be convicted, it looks like, and then he goes back to work and a lot of -- whether or not they like to acknowledge it publicly, a lot of House Republicans actually like working with him, as a representative of the administration. He is, believe it or not, probably more conservative on a lot of these immigration issues than a lot of people in the White House.
What happens now?
MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there are two things happen, but one is that this moves again back to the political theater where its always been and we just know from survey after poll after focus group after consultation with voters that this issue is problematic for Joe Biden and like it's now April and there, you know, you're in a six month stretch to, you know, election day.
[16:10:03]
So I think immigration continues to be a major issue, but, yeah, it's not going to stopping a political issue just because the impeachment exercise is about to come to an end. I do think that we're going to see, maybe we're seeing now the limits of impeachment as a political tool. It's just like once upon a time, impeachment was like it's break glass kind of thing, and now, it's like -- it's pro forma, it's become a matter of course. It's not just going to be used against any president no matter what, but it's now open to the cabinet.
TAPPER: Yeah, so shocking back in the Nixon days, he resigned before he could even be impeached.
Let's -- Jonah, let's step back if we can talk about the state of the Republican Party right now. Okay?
So Donald Trump, the party's presidential nominee, is due back in court tomorrow for this case. Speaker Johnson is, you know, holding onto his seat for dear life, might have to rely on the help of Hakeem Jeffries to stay as speaker.
How do you see this current status of the GOP?
GOLDBERG: The technical term from political science is hot mess. And I think look said -- we have a collective action problem before, like we're going into this situation where I think if Nikki Haley were the nominee, she would be running away with this election. But people have invested their interests in Donald Trump and the theater of the absurd that he's going through.
A majority of Republicans want to support Ukraine aid but there's this -- this rump of hotheads who think the worst crime you can commit is actually using Democratic votes for anything. Again, everyone has narrow incentives that they benefit from doing the wrong thing that lead to it being very difficult to do the right thing collectively.
TAPPER: Just to point to the chyron. Right now, the Senate is voting to kill the second article of impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Scott, do you agree with Jonah's assessment of your party?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on hot mess. I mean --
GOLDBERG: That's true.
JENNINGS: Democrats have --
TAPPER: No, no, but they are in control of the House majority right now.
JENNINGS: Yeah, barely. And that meant that ultimately is that it's the most forefront problem that we have right now. Speaker Johnson, who I think is doing his level best here, is effectively leading a coalition government. In, you know, most days, part of the coalition is trying to throw him overboard, and now, he may switch the coalition in order to save his job. He may import a few Democrats, at least for the purpose of leadership.
And so, it does show the limits though of the way the House works. And when you have a majority this small and if the election is going to be as close as we all think it's going be, we may have another Congress where the majority is this small, one way or the other.
So we may just be at the beginning of people with an ungovernable House of Representatives.
TAPPER: So let's just dip in. I just -- I'm such a history nerd. I want to hear some just some of the roll call vote if we can.
(U.S. SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE)
TAPPER: The aye vote is a vote to kill the second article of impeachment. And that was a -- that was a real speed round. I don't think I've ever heard take go that quick with a vote. But you heard all the Democrats, Warner, Warnock, voting aye to kill
it. I'm not sure what I heard from Todd Young of Indiana. But you heard some of the Republicans voting now.
So here we are a little moment in history.
TALEV: Yeah, actually you heard the more liberal Democratic senators screaming aye much louder than the more centrist Democrats, and then the Republican to say no.
TAPPER: Yeah.
TALEV: Well, yeah, no, it was, that you did -- you did just watch it play out.
But, you know, this is what you back to Ukraine as Speaker Johnson's dilemma. I think you really -- that's a real legacy moment for that speaker and it does feel like every Republican House speaker of recent years or months realizes there's that moment when there's a decision they have to make that might end up killing them, but that is going to live long on their legacy. And this is one of those votes.
JENNINGS: It's okay for there to be policy differences within a party. There are big differences in both parties. It's just in this case, I agree with Jonah. I think most Republicans and maybe a slim majority, but I think a majority of Republicans want to do this. They want to help all of our allies.
Certainly, this package that came out of the Senate got 70 votes. So when you look, I mean, yes, there are there people who strongly oppose this, yes, but that's why we vote. And let's see where the votes --
TAPPER: So that's what's so interesting about this is because what -- they're mad about a number of things, but some of them appear matches that he's allowing a vote on this even though it will be when he brings his forward, I predict and I'm sure we all agree some substantial majority of the House of Representatives is going to vote in favor of aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
[16:15:09]
JENNINGS: Yeah.
TAPPER: They don't even want that.
One of the things that I always think is interesting about like a Congressman Massie, if you have the strong opinion that there shouldn't be foreign aid, go convinced 217 other members of the House that your -- that your point is correct, right? I mean --
GOLDBERG: Well, also, there's this weird thing and we saw this with the defenestration of McCarthy as well. The chief indictment, the chief reason why you cant have a speaker who uses Democratic votes is that it somehow it's outrageous to use Democratic votes for anything. But the Gang of Eight that ousted McCarthy use the -- all of the Democratic Party's votes to oust McCarthy and the motion to vacate and now they're furious at the possibility that Democratic votes might save Speaker Johnson.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think it's outrageous to use Democratic votes, or it's not. And -- what this really boils down to is the tail really wants to run the dog when it comes to this handful of Republican.
TAPPER: Let's listen in to the Senate.
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): The nays are 49. The point of order is well- taken. Article two falls.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Madam President?
MURRAY: Majority leader is recognized.
SCHUMER: I move to adjourn the impeachment trial of Alejandro N. Mayorkas sine die. And I ask for the yeas and nays.
MURRAY: Is there a sufficient second?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is.
MURRAY: There is a sufficient second.
Clerk will call the roll.
(U.S. SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE)
TAPPER: So, Senator Bennet of Colorado can be a rather soft guy, which is why you heard Senator Patty Murray presiding over it, asking, this is Bennet say no. I believe it was that Bennet. Are there two Senate Bennets? There might be, who knows?
Anyway, back to what we were talking about before. So there it goes, the Mayorkas impeachment.
Melanie Zanona is on Capitol Hill for us covering this on the Senate.
What happens now? Is that just all she wrote and Mayorkas goes back to work?
ZANONA: Yeah, Jake, effectively, this trial of Senate -- Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is over now. They just voted as you saw there to kill that second impeachment article, which alleged him of a public breach of trust.
We should note, this was a party-line vote and one notable vote that we were keeping an eye on was Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She had voted on the first article as present in a sign of potential discontent. But in this vote, she voted against it.
So this was a straight party-line vote. This was after a few hours since they opened the trial then were sworn in as jurors. We saw some procedural theatrical on the floor as Republicans, attempted to drag this out, as long as possible they had been demanding a full trial. That is not what they got. This only lasted a few hours here. And
again, it did not result in a conviction for Alejandro Mayorkas, which we expected all along, Jake.
TAPPER: All right. Melanie Zanona, thanks so much.
As all this plays out, Speaker Johnson will be with me in just a few minutes. I'll ask him about all this. Plus, the GOP members losing their patients with his speakership.
Plus, a brand new court filing just in from the New York hush money cover up case, the plan the prosecution wants to use of Donald Trump does indeed testify as he -- as he has pledged he will.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:13]
TAPPER: Wild day on Capitol Hill today. We're following breaking news in the Senate, where the senators are just wrapping up their vote to end the impeachment trial of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Democrats voted against both measures, and they are moving on to new business.
Turning to our law and justice lead, court might be out of session today when it comes to Trump's hush money cover up trial. But in a brand new filing, I have right here, prosecutors are gearing up for the former president to potentially take the stand as he has pledged he would do. They are doing so by highlighting Donald Trump's past, quote, misconduct and criminal acts, so that they can question him about them. This is part of what's called a Sandoval brief, I believe.
Joining us down to discuss, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who is the former chief assistant district attorney in Manhattan -- in the Manhattan district attorney's office. That's the office prosecuting Donald Trump, but she's not part of the prosecution.
So, Karen, let me start with you.
So, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the hush money case, he's ultimately going to get to decide if prosecutors can bring up any of these past legal issues. And again, this isn't the prosecution being jerks.
This is -- if they're ever going to break going up, anything, if Trump testifies and they want to impeach his credibility and they're going to bring up previous legal acts. They have to file this so the prosecution is just doing this as required by law.
That said, let's dive in. The first item on their list is Trump's recent civil fraud trial from the New York attorney general where the judge found that Trump did falsify business records and lie about the value of his assets, and the judge ordered him to pay $355 million.
Do you think prosecutors should be allowed to ask Trump about this case? It doesn't involve hush money.
KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, look, when somebody testifies at trial, whether its a defendant or a witness, any time there's somebody on trial are testifying, I should say, credibility is an issue. And so, if you've lied in documents and you've lied in business practices and you've lied in general in the past, that should be fair game.
What the judge will do here and its the Sandoval hearing that he'll have and what he'll do is he'll look at all the prior bad acts that the prosecution wants to cross-examine the defendant with and he'll weigh the probative value with the prejudicial effect.
So, obviously, because credibility is an issue, lying in the past is probative. But what the judge will do is he'll determine whether it outweigh -- the prejudicial effect of that outweighs the probative value as to not be too prejudicial to the defendant.
TAPPER: But this is just legal matters, right? I mean, the prosecution could not introduce -- for example, "The Washington Post" said that Donald Trump lied 30,000 times.
[16:25:04]
Like that, even though that might go to his credibility, that doesn't have to be introduced in a Sandoval hearing, right?
AGNIFILO: Well, that's a great question. It's a matter of whether its a prior bad act or not. And I would argue -- I would -- if I was the defense attorney in this case, I would argue I would if I was the defense attorney in this case, I would argue if you want to impeach him with prior bad acts, specifically, you would have to make it as part of the Sandoval motion because you're cross-examining that -- you're asking seem to essentially cross-examine the defendant on things that really have nothing to do with this trial, right? Or nothing to do with this case.
So they can -- anything about this case is fair game, but if you want to go outside the facts of this case and talk about prior bad acts, you do have to ask permission so they can weigh this prejudicial part of it.
TAPPER: All right. And, Elliot, I mean, this only lists legal matters.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah.
TAPPER: This document. So I guess they're not going to bring up my brilliant "Washington Post" idea.
But the second case referenced here is the E. Jean Carroll case where a jury found that Donald Trump defamed her --
WILLIAMS: Right.
TAPPER: -- and was liable for sexual abuse.
Is that relevant to this case?
WILLIAMS: It starts getting into murkier territory, but still could be relevant, Jake, for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's a credibility question as to whether the defendant made statements in the prior case that our conscious -- that he contradicts on the stand here.
So, prosecutors, again, as you'd said, have to be able to put the defendant on notice that we might use statements you make if you were to impeach yourself on the stand by contradicting yourself. So, number one. Number two -- I guess you have the credibility questions.
I think generally -- in contradiction as well. Those would be the big ones.
But again, it's because of the nature of the E. Jean Carroll case and because the details are so salacious, you really do start tip toeing up to that point that Karen was talking about where the probative value starts might get outweighed by the prejudicial value to the defendant. It might actually just dirty him up.
TAPPER: Well, he denies doing what E. Jean Carroll accuses him of doing, and a court sided with her.
WILLIAMS: Right.
TAPPER: I don't know that that's -- according to this. Does that mean according to the state of New York, Donald Trump is lying about E. Jean Carroll?
WILLIAMS: It could. It could, and again, like I said, that becomes -- the prosecution is trying to make the point that you can't trust this person on the stand based on literally what another court in the state has found.
TAPPER: So, Karen, then there's the New York case against -- it's Trump versus Clinton when he sued Hillary Clinton and former Justice Department officials claiming they conspired against him in the 2016 campaign. The judge called it a frivolous lawsuit, issued nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump and his lawyers.
Should prosecutors be able to bring that up?
AGNIFILO: Again, it goes to credibility and I think what the prosecutors are going to try to do here like they would in any case when -- if the defendant chooses to testify, is showed that he is lying and they're going to try to cross-examine him with things to prove that he's lying.
And look, anytime you have a court finding that somebody was not credible, I think that's pretty significant and that's going to be something that a prosecutor is going to want to use. That's different than a characterization from "The Washington Post" or someone else, just saying he's lied 1,000 times. That's different than a court ruling or a court finding.
TAPPER: Thirty thousand.
Elliot Williams, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Speaker Mike Johnson said it this way, I'm going to ask him about his latest move that has so many hard-right members of his Republican conference telling CNN that they are losing patience with him and his days might be numbered.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:31]
TAPPER: And we're back with breaking news.
The Senate has just voted to end the impeachment trial of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, meaning that the Republican led effort is officially over.
On the other side of the Capitol building, there is growing fury from the far-right flank of the House GOP directed right now at Speaker Mike Johnson who's going to join me a few minutes.
Here's what some of those Republicans told CNN's Manu Raju earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The speaker just two out of his element here?
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): No, I just think the speaker needs to get home and listen to our base.
REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): I'm not very pleased with him.
RAJU: Would you -- would you support a motion to vacate?
BIGGS: That's hypothetical. I think that's -- frankly, it's more bluster than real.
RAJU: Well, how disappointed are you at the speaker?
REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Very. I mean, I'm well past the point of giving grace here.
REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm not happy about this rule. And he's pushing us to the brink here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Manu's with me now.
Manu, what specifically are the demands that have these Republicans so upset and pass the point of grace as Congressman Chip Roy said?
RAJU: Well, they're concerned about the policy and the process.
On the policy, many of them don't want to spend another nickel to provide aid to Ukraine. Mike Johnson is moving ahead with tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine. And also, Johnson had indicated before that any aid to Ukraine would include border security measures. But the process that Johnson is now employing would allow that border security plan that he announced would be taken up on Saturday evening would go on a separate track, would actually not be part of this overall package.
Now, Johnson indicated that he would move on each of these bills individually, but the House is expected to employ an arcane procedural move to essentially wrap all those bills together into one big package and sending it over to the Senate.
That is what the White House wanted. That is what Democrats wanted. That's what many Republicans wanted, but not these hardliners who don't want to give any more aid to Ukraine, which is reason why several of them are threatening his job at this moment.
TAPPER: All right. Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. We'll check back with you later.
Let's talk right now to the man himself, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
Mr. Speaker, explain your plan to break up these different foreign aid bills.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, thanks, Jake. Good to see you.
Listen, this is a better policy and a better process, OK? We got the Senate supplemental several weeks back, and it was everything sandwiched together. That's not the way that regular order is supposed to work. And many of my conservative friends, some that you just pictured there, are some of the most vocal advocates for the regular process of the House.
[16:35:05]
And that means that we look at things in single-subject. We look at them individually on their own merits. And so I made the decision that we should break this into four parts, so that you evaluate Israel and Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific funding measures and then our separate national and foreign aid responsibilities separately.
So, there's four separate bills. Everyone will be able to give it an up-and-down vote based on their own merits. And that's what -- that's what they desire. Now, listen, we made a better product as well, because there is -- Ukraine, as you know, is controversial.
What we did, Jake, in this package, we changed it. Eighty percent of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks. That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base. And that's going to be a very important part of it.
And we added other innovations that conservatives like and that make good sense. I mean, for the Ukraine piece, for example, any assistance that goes for governmental aid is converted to a loan. That's what a lot of people said was very important. And we implemented that. There's a lot of innovations here. And I think it's a better product in the end.
TAPPER: So, one -- I guess one of the things that some of these Republicans are upset about is that they also want border security to be attached to that.
Now, you're -- you're going to put forward a border security bill, although I don't think it's been -- released yet. But answer their question as to why it's not part of this.
JOHNSON: This is very simple. I'm operating with the smallest margin in U.S. history. I have a one-vote margin, Jake.
So, in order to get something into this underlying package, we have to have the votes on the floor to pass a rule. That's how the process works here. The rule allows for the substantive bill to be put on the floor. I don't have all my Republicans who agree on that rule, and that means the only way to get a rule on the floor is that it requires a couple of Democrats.
Well, they're not for the border security. That's not their policy. They -- some of these folks like open borders. That's what their votes show and indicate. And so we don't have a way. I literally don't have the numbers. I don't have a way to merge it together.
So we're running two separate packages. The border security measure is an absolutely critical one. It has changes for reinstating remain-in- Mexico, ending catch-and-release, the asylum reform, the parole reform, even rebuilding the wall. Those are key priorities that would keep America safe.
The Republican Party, the House Republicans have been using that, working on it every day this Congress, every single day. And we will continue to, and that's our priority. And I think it shows the contrast between our side and the other side.
TAPPER: So, I understand what you're doing, breaking up these foreign aid packages, Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, letting the House work its will, and then sending over to the Senate into one bill whatever passes.
Why didn't you do this months ago? I mean, Ukraine is desperate for aid.
JOHNSON: Yes, they are. Well, it takes a long time to socialize and build consensus when you have the smallest majority in U.S. history. So that's part of it, and it's very practical politics here. But, also, we have had other big lifts in this Congress. As you know, we had to get the government appropriations bills done, and then we had to do the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and some pretty heavy measures. And it was -- it was a lot to handle at one time.
Look, we know what the timetable is. We know the urgency in Ukraine and in Israel. And we are going to stand by Israel, our close ally and dear friend, and we're going to stand for freedom and make sure that Vladimir Putin doesn't march through Europe. These are important responsibilities.
A strong America is good for the entire world. Since World War II, really, really, the responsibility for the free world has been shifted onto our shoulders. And we accept that role. We're an exceptional nation. We're the greatest nation on the planet, and we have to act like it. And we have to project to Putin and Xi and Iran and North Korea and anybody else that we will defend freedom.
It doesn't mean boots on the ground. We're not the world's policeman. But we're going to do the right thing. And I think the Congress is going to take an important stand here.
TAPPER: So, some of your colleagues are blasting your plan to separate the bills. Here's a little sampler that we presented and prepared for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): It's surrender. It's disappointing. I won't support it.
REP. ELI CRANE (R-AZ): It's disappointing. It's completely detached from what our base wants, what our voters want.
REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): Well, go ahead, move it. I mean, I'm a -- voting no. I'm voting no. I have never voted to give any money to Ukraine, and I'm not going to do it today.
REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): I'm absolutely disappointed.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I don't know how long people are going to tolerate this, because he's doing nothing but serving the Democrats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: All right. I'm sure you know those voices, but it's Gaetz, Crane, Nehls, Burlison, and, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Are you going to have to rely on Democrats to pass the rule in order to bring these bills to the floor and also the legislation itself?
JOHNSON: Well, I hope not. I hope that our Republican colleagues will stand together, stick together on this. I think we understand -- look, I'm a child of the '80s. I'm -- regard myself as a Reagan Republican. I understand the concept of maintaining peace through strength. That's one of our guiding principles. It's a really important philosophy, and it's a big part of our party and our world view.
And I think here is an opportunity to make that stand at a really critical time in world history.
[16:40:04]
I mean, there are global implications to what we do.
So, look, everybody can grumble about details of the legislation. What I remind my friends -- and everybody you just showed are all good friends -- listen, we're not going to get 100 percent of what we want right now because we have the smallest majority in history, and we only have the majority in one chamber.
The Republicans run the House. We have the small majority in the House. The Democrats are in charge of the Senate and the White House. So, we're -- by definition, we won't get everything we want, but we got a great product here at the end, much better than the alternative that came in the Senate supplemental.
And now everybody gets to vote their conscience, up or down. That's what we're for, regular process, regular order, and accountability to the people. And I think you will see that here this week.
TAPPER: So, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has emerged as perhaps your chief nemesis in the House Republican Conference, is promising that this motion to vacate, to get rid of you, will happen.
And I'm wondering. Have you talked to Democrats at all about, if that happens, and if some of these Republicans vote to remove you as speaker -- and it's -- this is not a hypothetical -- it looks like this actually might happen -- will Democrats vote to keep you as speaker?
JOHNSON: I have not asked any Democrats to get involved in that. I believe the House will do its will.
Look, I'm trying to govern and lead this institution at a very interesting, unprecedented time. We have challenges right now that no previous generation has faced. Newt Gingrich posted a few days ago on social media, the speaker's job is effectively impossible now. He said that I'm doing the hardest job that maybe has ever been in the history of the U.S. House, maybe he said arguably since the Civil War.
Why? Because we live in a very divided time, with very divisive politics, in the age of social media, a 24-hour news cycle where everybody can express their opinions every moment of the day about things they're disgruntled about. There's -- it makes a lot of challenges, but we're going to get through this.
Listen, we are the greatest nation in the history of the world, OK? We are going to show that. We're going to keep the train on the tracks, and not get derailed and get involved in all of this at such a dangerous time on the world stage.
And I -- look, I don't think -- I don't walk around thinking about the motion to vacate. It's a procedural matter here that I think has been abused in recent times. Maybe, at some point, we change that. But, right now, I have got to do my job. And so do all my colleagues. And I'm confident, at the end of the day, in spite of all the drama and all the palace intrigue, I think we're going to get that done.
TAPPER: Well, whoever -- I mean, if they bring the motion to vacate forward, there aren't enough Republican -- there aren't 218 or whatever Republicans to remove you.
Somebody's going to need Democrats. I mean, it's only going to happen -- whatever the outcome is, that person will need Democrats. So, if you win and keep your job, if there is a motion to vacate, it will be with Democratic support, or these people who are -- who rebelled against Kevin McCarthy and thought voting with Democrats was the worst thing in the world will also use Democratic votes.
JOHNSON: Jake, I don't know what's going to happen. I'm not focused on that. I'm focused on doing my job.
Look, when you do the right thing, you let the chits fall where they may. I mean, that's how I -- that's my life philosophy, and that's how I govern here every single day. We try to get the best possible outcome for the American people, to move the ball forward for the American people. And I have got to stay focused on that every day, and not -- not all the drama.
That's my answer.
TAPPER: So there's another player here that we haven't talked about, Donald Trump, who you support for president.
JOHNSON: Mm-hmm.
TAPPER: I want to play some of what he said last night when he was asked if he plans to protect you from any sort of motion to depose of you by the far right. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Mr. President, how do you plan to protect Speaker Johnson?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we will see what happens with that. I think he's a very good person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: "We will see what happens with that. I think he's a very good person."
Have you talked to Trump about this plan, this legislative plan, in terms of how you're introducing these foreign aid bills? And, ultimately, will he have your back?
JOHNSON: Oh, I think he will.
I was just with him on Friday down at Mar-a-Lago, and we had dinner together. And my wife was with me. And we had a great visit. We talked about a lot of things, all the politics going on in the country. And he said at a press conference we had there together that I'm doing a very good job and he supports me and all of that.
Listen, I think this is all going to work out. I think it's going to be fine. I did tell the president the plan on all of this, and I think he clearly understands why we're running this play and why we need to do this.
I think this sets up the next election, the next administration, the next president -- and I believe he's going to win -- in a better position. I think that President Trump is strong enough that he could enter the world stage and broker a peace deal in Ukraine if Russia is still advancing at that time.
I mean, I think he has the strong enough hand to be able to do that. And that's why this election is so important. There's a very stark contrast. You -- we didn't have all these global conflicts, we didn't have hot wars around the globe when Donald Trump was the president. You know why?
Because our adversaries feared him and respected him. They don't fear and respect Joseph Biden. And that's a real problem for all of us.
TAPPER: So, let me just ask one quick question about policy.
If Donald Trump does win and if the Republicans keep the majority, will you bring the national abortion ban up for a vote?
[16:45:03]
JOHNSON: I don't -- I don't even know what you're talking about, national abortion ban. No.
Listen, President Trump has said this very well. Look, I'm pro-life personally. But I have 434 colleagues. You have to build a political consensus after cultural consensus. Breitbart famously observed that politics is downstream from culture.
And there is no consensus at the moment on what to do at the federal level. So that's -- that's not on the legislative agenda. That's -- that's not something that's being planned. I think President Trump's spoken clearly about that.
It -- our individual views are our individual views, but we have a lot of work to build a cultural life, to go out as a party, because we believe in that, to speak to that issue and to support families and young mothers who are in unplanned pregnancy situations, and to support those who are in need.
That's a role that, by the way, is cross-cultural. I mean, we need to do that through the churches, through our communities, at the state level, the local level. All of us have a role to play, and I think that's the important thing that we will focus on in the days ahead.
TAPPER: Well, you say you didn't know what I meant by a national abortion ban. I meant the Life Begins at Conception Act, which you are a co-sponsor of.
But let's move on, because I just have this last question. I know you got a lot to do in terms of the cat herding you need to do.
You have called it absurd that your job is on the line for merely allowing votes on legislation. I wonder if you ever look at this swirl of chaos that you are now in the center of, the members of Congress who think they live in a world where they don't have to compromise with Democrats, even though Democrats control the Senate and control the White House, these individuals who, many of whom seem to say things, like calling you a Democrat -- Marjorie Taylor Greene called you a Democrat, opinions based not in reality.
I wonder how much you look at that, and you wonder if you contributed to it in any way.
JOHNSON: That's a good question, Jake.
You and I have known each other a long time. I think we go back maybe 20 or 25 years.
TAPPER: We do.
JOHNSON: And I'm a lifelong conservative.
TAPPER: Yes.
JOHNSON: You know my whole record.
TAPPER: A hundred percent.
JOHNSON: But I'm also -- I believe what Mike Huckabee said one time he was running for governor of Arkansas. He said, I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody about it.
I mean, that's my philosophy, right? What I tried to do as a freshman in Congress -- I came in the same time Donald Trump did in 2017. The first thing I did here was, I authored what I called the Commitment to Civility. I founded the Honor and Civility Caucus. We had a huge group, I think 168 Republicans and Democrats, everybody from John Lewis to Paul Ryan on the other side, who signed on to that commitment.
And it said, you know what? We're going to treat one another with dignity and respect. We can disagree on philosophy and policy, and we will, because that's kind of part of the process here. But we don't hate each other. Everybody in this building is a fellow American.
I consider them colleagues and friends. I mean, I have vehement disagreements with my colleagues on the other side on the ideas and the legislation, but I don't hate anybody. I mean, we're supposed to regard one another as Americans and honor one another with dignity and respect.
I think that's a human quality. I think it's about human dignity at the end of the day, and I think that's what we ought to advance here. And it saddens me that the institution has devolved to where it is, but I think we can bring it back. I'm an optimist, Jake. I always have been.
TAPPER: Good luck with that, sir. And thank you so much for dropping by.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
TAPPER: House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, it's good to see you.
Reaction next from a key House Democrat who has watched this entire drama among Republicans play out. Congressman Adam Schiff is going to join us next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:23]
TAPPER: In our politics lead, we just spoke with the speaker of the House, second in line to the presidency, Mike Johnson. He's fighting to hold onto his job as momentum seems to be building within his party to oust him.
And joining us is Congressman Adam Schiff. He's a Democratic from California. He's also running to represent California in the U.S. Senate, but his day job is in Washington, D.C.
Congressman, a lot to talk with you about. I have to start with the divisions on display within the Republican Party. Some of your fellow Democrats have suggested that they might vote to keep Speaker Johnson as Speaker Johnson. Would you?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, you know, it depends on what we have come up on the floor. But if it is as the speaker is representing that were going to take up largely the Senate bill, but in pieces, I certainly wouldn't want to see him punished for doing the right thing. But this discussion we'll have as a caucus. I wouldn't be surprised if it is as it is represented to be that there is some agreement or some understanding that either handful of Democrats vote to defeat the motion or we simply don't vote and it reduces the threshold and therefore, a very small number of Republicans who just seem devoted to tearing down the institution cannot succeed.
But ultimately, we'll have that conversation with Hakeem Jeffries and we'll make that decision together.
TAPPER: How does that work not voting? Do you have to leave the floor of the House or you just don't vote?
SCHIFF: You don't vote. I think if you vote present, it has a different impact. But we'll figure that out, consulting with the parliamentarian if necessary. But, you know, we want this place to be governed and we wanted to be governable. We've been demanding four months that we bring up Ukraine funding.
Of course, the speaker could have done that months ago. He could have done it up, done at separately like were doing today or get a brought up the Senate bill. It would have passed overwhelmingly in the House.
But nevertheless, we are where we are and hopefully this week, we'll finally get that aid passed that Ukraine so desperately needs, that we need just send to Israel, the humanitarian assistance as well, as well as aid to Taiwan and our other allies.
TAPPER: Let's start to Trump's criminal trial because you're one of the most prominent critics of the former president. You were the lead prosecutor in Trump's first impeachment trial, for example. What's your reaction to seeing Trump in this Manhattan courtroom as jury selection is underway in his hush money cover up case?
And do you wish it was a different trial going forward like the January 6 trial in Georgia or the January 6 trial that the special counsel, Jack Smith, is bringing?
[16:55:02]
SCHIFF: Well, in terms of seeing him finally sit in the defendants chair where I think he belongs, it's been a long time in coming and it is, you know, I think from the perspective of the justice system, an affirmation that even a foreign president is not above the law and ultimately, there is accountability. But after seeing him successfully delay one proceeding after another, after another, literally for years, but then these criminal trials for months and months and months, finally seeing him face justice and the courtroom is a long awaited reckoning for the former president.
In terms of whether I would have liked to have seen a different case go forward, first, to be candid, yes. I think the most serious and substantial of all the cases is the January 6 federal prosecution and, you know, there, the Justice Department took a long time to get that case investigated to begin with.
But nevertheless, the Supreme Court has quite willfully allowed Trump to delay that preceding by continuing to sit on its hands when it comes to one of the bogus appeals involving this purported claim of immunity. So there, the large part of the responsibility goes to the court that seems to be doing his will by delaying.
O'DONNELL: Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, Senate candidate as well, thanks so much.
We're going to get a Republican reaction next. Congressman Chip Roy of Texas, he's one of those expressing frustration with Speaker Johnson. He's going to join me next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
