Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
House Committee Chairman Postpone the Vote in the House; House Judiciary Committee Delays Vote on Articles of Impeachment. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is Interviewed About Delayed of Votes by Judiciary Committee on Articles of Impeachment. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired December 12, 2019 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The Jury, Senate Republicans -- are going to coordinate with the defendant, Donald Trump on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run.
I submit to you, respectfully, that is a process concern that the American people should be worried about. Now America is a resilient nation, and we've been through moments of turmoil before, and we've always come through. We're a resilient nation.
Lincoln said during the height of the Civil War, America is the last best hope on Earth. FDR said on the eve of the Secord World War, democracy is not dying. Reagan said in the midst of the Cold War, America is a shining city on a hill. What exactly will history say about us? Will we put principle over party? Will we put the Constitution above corruption? Will we put democracy over demagoguery? What exactly will history say about us?
I yield now to my distinguished colleague from the great state of Texas, Ms. Escobar.
REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR, (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak directly to the American people once again, and I'm going to ask that they bypass the Republican talking points that they've heard over, and over, and over again. Especially for those Americans who've been listening and watching all day.
And instead, go directly to the evidence yourself. Over 100 hours of testimony -- testimony by some of America's greatest patriots. Over 250 text messages. Mick Mulvaney's own words, Mr. Mulvaney is the president's Chief of Staff.
And finally, the president's own words -- his own words inviting Russia, Ukraine, and China in to our election. The Republican colleagues that we have on this Committee claim there is not enough evidence -- review it for yourself.
And as to obstruction, we have given a number of examples about obstruction, but we have a living example that was released just tonight. And actually, before I talk about that example, if my colleagues -- my Republican colleagues think the president is so free from wrongdoing, I would ask them to join us in calling on President Trump to release it all.
Release the witnesses, release the documents -- let the American public make up their own minds, let them see it all. Call on transparency, join us. But they won't, because the obstruction is convenient.
Tonight there was a victory, the Center for Public Integrity sued in federal court for documents related to the Ukraine scandal, and this is what they've got. They won in court, but what they got were heavily redacted documents. Why? Because the president doesn't want these documents to see the light of day.
I ask for unanimous consent, Chairman to enter these documents in to the record --
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Without objection.
ESCOBAR: Along with the article "Trump Administration Resists Ukraine Disclosures Ordered By Court," --
NADLER: Without objection.
ESCOBAR: I yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
NADLER: The time of the gentlelady has expired. For what purpose does the Ranking Member, Mr. Collins, seek recognition?
COLLINS: Move to strike last word.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
COLLINS: Thank you Mr. Chairman, as we're coming to the end here it is amazing to me -- especially from hearing from one of the -- my -- frankly on either side of the aisle, one of my closest friends on this dais, Mr. Jeffries, make a statement that said that the only thing we had (ph) to offer was a process argument all day.
He may have had to come in and out, I'm not sure -- but for the most part, for over 12 hours we have ordered the facts (ph), and argued the facts that there is over, and over, and over again that the call -- the aid was released, there was nothing done.
And that has been our argument (ph), we have a process argument because the process argument has a lot to do with where we're at right now. But the facts have been taken on and rebuffed every single hour of this day since 9 o'clock.
[23:05:00]
It is amazing to me also though, that one thing that my friend said though, is as we look forward to this, and going forward it has to be said -- this is a -- basically the concerning part for many of us is the focus group impeachment. When you couldn't make -- as one of my colleagues, Mr. Richmond said, it's quid pro quo (ph) is not something we all use. But bribery is something somebody understands, extortion is what somebody understands -- you know, doing something illegal is (inaudible).
And what we have heard today from my colleagues is a lot of discussion about crimes that they couldn't charge, crimes that they wouldn't put in the articles of impeachment. If they were so set that he had done all of these crimes that were always (ph) mentioned, then put them in the articles, but you can't -- that's the biggest flaw and struggle you're having right now.
And I know we still have just a little bit of debate left, but that is just the issue that we're dealing with. You can't put them in there. And for those who have said we will -- that you will not defend the actions of this president, we are defending the president's action. We defended that there is nothing wrong, and I will do that right now for someone to say we haven't (ph), again, is not listening.
The problem we're having is this is a clock and calendar impeachment, it never got -- one of the things that's just disturbed me most, is I've worked with this Chairman now in the minority and majority on both ways (ph). And it is amazing to me how little we have gotten in this.
I wrote six letters to this Chairman about issues of how we're to actually conduct it -- what has now become the real, short rubber stamp version of impeachment, which we have tonight in the Judiciary Committee.
I received an answer to none of those letters except one, just the other night when it was rejected of any of our witnesses -- not a chance that we have any of our witnesses. So in some ways I turn it back on the Democrats, what were you scared of? What were you afraid of that they might actually say?
Because we didn't get it -- we just -- (inaudible) rejected them, so my question would be honest is, what are you afraid of from the witnesses? Some of which had already been called, that we wanted to call?
Or (ph) understanding that the fact (ph) -- that we have now become a Committee that unfortunately has mirrored what the Chairman said over 20 years ago. We have accepted the facts from other places and not checked them out ourselves. We've regurgitated thrown out, talked about, other people's work -- but yet not having a chance to look at it ourselves -- we are the rubber stamp.
This is no longer the Judiciary Committee that actually a trier (ph), a fact, or a witness interrogator -- it is a rubber stamp to what someone else, Mr. Schiff, in particular has told us, and that is sad -- because that's not what this Committee is about.
I watched last Congress', my friends who are now in the majority win the minority -- make passionate arguments for hours at a time on very little -- nothing, including the rules of the Committee. We went almost, I think it was seven or eight hours and the rules of the Committee passionate (ph).
I understand that -- that's what this Committee is about. But can you tell me, honestly, from the majority's perspective that we've almost spent less hours percentage-wise on impeachment, of actually doing anything remotely related to a hearing, as you did in the minority when you were arguing about the rules of the Committee, and the oversight?
That should tell you a lot about what this is about, because we're spending more time in the minority arguing about things that really, at the end of the day we're not moving the needle and we're spending less time percentage-wise arguing about what you have called the highest of all calls that you're doing, and honoring the Constitution, and honoring the college (ph) you've had as a commitment to serve in this body.
I think it's just not congruent with what you're doing. The other problem I have is, this is going to be never-ending. It doesn't matter, in just a matter of a few weeks whenever the Senate finishes up whatever they do, then we're back to this again.
And I know that, because Adam Schiff told me so. I know this because Al Green's told me so -- they'll impeach him over, and over, and over again -- investigate (ph) over, and over, again. I guess I'm waiting for the Committee hearing scheduled in February to see what we're investigating next. I guess that will nominate us (ph) (inaudible).
But the two most -- the one most disturbing thing of all today is at the end of the day if you can't make that President Zelensky felt threatened, then you attack President Zelensky. I cannot believe, just in the last little bit here he was actually called a battered wife -- President Zelensky called, "a battered wife."
The absolute destruction, and compared (ph) to a battered wife is just amazing that this is where we've stooped in this Committee at this time during this important moment. Vote no on this impeachment debacle. I yield back.
REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentlelady is recognized.
DEMINGS: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things I want to clear up right off the bat. I feel compelled to say that Lieutenant Alexander Vindman is a hero, because he received the Purple Heart for sustaining injuries in Iraq. And I am extremely proud of him for his courage on and off the battlefield.
[23:10:00]
Secondly, we can say this one more time -- the Intelligence Committee did not subpoena the phone records of any member of Congress, or any member of the press. Abuse of power has been defied as official misconduct, commission of an unlawful act done in an official capacity which effects the performance of official duties.
President Trump sought an announcement of political investigations in return for performing two official acts. Number one, he conditioned release of vital military assistance in Ukraine on President' Zelensky's public announcement of the investigations.
Now imagine if there was a mayor who withheld critical dollars from a police chief to fight terrorism, until that chief went to a microphone and simply announced an investigation of the mayor's political opponent. I do not believe any community anywhere would allow that.
Number two, the president conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House on Ukraine publically announcing the investigations. And finally President Trump acted corruptly throughout this course of conduct because he offered to perform these official acts in exchange for a private political benefit, rather than because it was in the country's interest.
This last element, the president acting corruptly is perhaps the most important act. And it bears repeating because it explains why this article is structured as an abuse of power. It has been suggested that it's as simple as we hate the president.
I don't hate the president. I attended President Trump's inauguration. I wanted to be there to watch the peaceful transfer of power. I felt it was my duty before coming to Congress, I have provided dignitary protection for Republican and Democratic presidents. I always consider it an honor.
But President Trump, with all that has been said, with all of the excuses that we have heard today -- President Trump used his office to serve himself. To serve his private benefit, and by doing so he jeopardized America's national security interests and the integrity of our precious elections -- every vote should count.
And, went all out to completely obstruct any investigation in to his wrongdoing. Yes, we've heard it many times -- yes, the president was duly elected by the American people, we know that. And we take it very seriously. I want my vote to count, and everybody, I believe who pressed their way to the polls want their vote to count.
But are you suggesting that the American people will allow the president to do anything that he wants to do, anytime, anyplace, anywhere? To my Republican colleagues, I reject what you are willing to settle for.
We have a responsibility to hold the president accountable, and I plan on doing my Constitutional duty -- he shall be held accountable. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
NADLER: Gentlelady yields back. There being no further amendments, we have concluded debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The question occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor respond by saying, "aye, aye," -- opposed, "no."
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
To be clear, the -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So the ayes have it.
NADLER: The ayes have it, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. To be clear, the vote this Committee just took was not a vote on final passage of the article, it was a procedural vote which precedes final passage of each of the articles.
It has been a long two days of consideration of these articles and it is now very late at night. I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these last two days, and to search their consciences before we cast our final votes.
Therefore the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., at which point i will move to divide the question so that each of us may have the opportunity to cast up or down votes on each of the articles of impeachment. And through (ph) history be our judge. The committee is in recess.
REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Mr. Chairman, there was no consulting from the minority - the ranking member on your schedule for tomorrow, in which you've just blown off (ph) schedules for everyone - you chose not to consult the ranking member on a schedule issue of this magnitude?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So typical.
COLLINS: This is the kangaroo court that we're talking about.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is outrageous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's more Stalin-esque (ph) and outrageous -
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: -- not even consult.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- Stalin-esque (ph) - let's have a dictator. It was good to hear about that.
COLLINS: 10 a.m. --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unbelievable.
[23:15:00]
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.
As you can see there is some tumult happening there on the -- on the -- in Congress. Nadler calling a recess. And not voting there. He's going to call a recess until tomorrow morning so they can have an up or down vote.
That wasn't expected. They were expected to vote and then on having the -- on the two articles of impeachment. The first one for obstruction of Congress. And also abuse of power. But he is saying he is going to do that in the morning. So, let's move on. And figure out exactly why that happened. And
what's going on. You have been watching tonight. What you have been watching all day really is history in the making. Members of the House judiciary committee arguing over articles of impeachment against the President of the United States.
Starting at 9 a.m., 9 this morning, Republicans offering amendment after amendment after amendment that would change the text of the impeachment. Articles. Or block them completely, offer those amendments well into the night. It's 11.17 now. Ahead of a vote to move -- 11.17 Eastern -- to move those articles out of committee.
I want to get to Phil Mattingly who is who knows all things congressional. And he's our congressional correspondent here on CNN. Let's bring in Phil Mattingly.
So, Phil, they were -- once they were done debating these proposed amendments, they were supposed to get to these three votes. Right? They voted for this substitute article, right? Which was procedural. Didn't mean anything.
And then they were supposed to get to the second vote was for this first impeachment article, right? And then the second article of impeachment they didn't do that. He called a recess. And they're going to get to it tomorrow morning.
You say Doug Collins, the ranking member saying wait a minute now, what's going on? And then you heard Louie Gohmert saying this was sort of a kangaroo court. What is going on here? So, can you explain to us what's happening?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is a surprise, Don, to be completely honest. The expectation throughout the course of the last 14 hours is this mark up this consideration of the two articles of impeachment would end tonight. At some point. We didn't know when throughout the 14 hours.
And as you noted, there were going to be three votes at the end. The vote on the substitute amendment which was adopted. And then the two votes on the two articles of impeachment one right after the other. Those votes have now been postponed until tomorrow morning.
We haven't gotten an explanation yet for as to why exactly that happened. And you noted quite well that the Republicans made clear on the dais that they were not informed that this was going to happen. Nobody consulted with them before this happen.
So, I think we're still trying to figure out why exactly they decided to do this. One idea might be that it's 11, past 11 p.m. at night. Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. they'll have an opportunity to do it when maybe more people are watching or more people are awake to see how this is going.
Now Chairman Nadler did say when he announced this, again, it was a surprise that he wanted to give the members the time and the opportunity to really kind of take this all in knowing what a major vote this was going to be on two articles of impeachment, to send this two articles of impeachment to the floor.
But, Don, to be completely honest, we've all gone through this entire process sitting through this entire hearing throughout the course of the day. Not expecting this to happen. I will note that Doug Collins is coming up right now, the top Republican on the committee. So, we should probably toss over to him to see what he gets to say, Don.
LEMON: OK. So, you -- is he coming near you? Are you going to question him or is he coming to the cameras? What's going on?
MATTINGLY: He's coming to the cameras right now.
LEMON: OK.
MATTINGLY: So, he should be up in a second.
LEMON: OK. So, listen. We'll bring -- we'll bring our guys in. So, listen. Try to find out what's going on.
MATTINGLY: Yes.
LEMON: Phil, we'll let you go. I want to bring these guys in and we'll discuss. But again, this is a surprise.
Kaitlan Collins is here. John Dean, Frank Bruni, and Douglas Brinkley, as well.
[23:20:02]
Phil Mattingly is going to go over and get Doug Collins, the ranking member. And if any members of the Congress, the members of the judiciary committee come to the cameras, we'll get them as well.
Kaitlan, let's start with John Dean as a matter of fact. John, what came out of this marathon day here? The articles of impeachment was supposed to be voted on. They're going to be voted on tomorrow. This surprise. Did anything like this happen during Watergate? Do you know what's going on what this surprise tonight?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I can't say that this is the normal procedure. Typically, these debates go on, let the members speak. The amendments are always expected. They are voted down typically by a partisan vote. But then they come to a head and vote.
All I can think of is that Nadler became exasperated with the, really these shenanigans by the Republicans of just pushing this beyond the limits. And for that reason, decided let's just wrap it up tonight and we'll take a vote tomorrow.
Because they still may have some parliamentary games they want to play and make it even more protracted. So, he may have said let's just do this tomorrow. They're certainly not telling him of their strategy. So, there's no reason he needed to tell them of his.
LEMON: Kaitlan, you're not hearing anything from your sources, are you? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, we're asking. But
this seems pretty unexpected from what we have been hearing from the White House throughout the day. Which is, they knew that there was going to be this long drawn out fight but they said it wasn't really going to change anything in the end.
But the president did enjoy watching these Republicans come to his defense today, really going to the mat and fighting for him. Something he's made pretty clear as he's been tweeting non-stop throughout the day about the developments in this.
But the White House is not expecting them to recess and not take these votes tonight. And you could see the shock on the Republican's faces there in the room as Phil just laid out. And it could have something to do with the timing.
The fact that it's nearly 11.30 at night and they would like for these votes to go through when people are actually watching or paying attention more than they would be after 13 hours of this hearing going back and forth between the two of them.
But the White House we should say was not expecting this based on the conversations we had with them earlier.
LEMON: Frank, I would imagine -- listen, we have been sitting here all day. They have been sitting there and doing this since 9 o'clock. I would imagine it has more to do with the hour than anything else. Correct?
FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, that's my supposition. They're certainly not going home or taking this break because they all need to mull further the vote they're going to take. They know how they're going to vote at this point.
I mean, I assume it's so late at night. This is a historic moment. Why not kick it into the next day when actually more people might be able to tune in. That's just a supposition but I think it might be the right -- the right one.
LEMON: Yes. As you were watching this go on, Douglas Brinkley, and the seriousness of it all. When I tuned in this morning and watching it. Taking it in. You know, it's a long day. And I want to talk about, you know, your -- you know, what you gathered from watching this all day.
But just from listening to the woman this morning, the clerk reading the resolution and reading the articles of impeachment you could not help but be moved by the seriousness of the nature of the articles of impeachment against a sitting president of the United States.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: There's no question about it. There was a lot of sparring today. A lot of grand standing. We remind ourselves that we're a nation of lawyers. Some of them were very good today.
I did get tedious and it is late in the day. But don't underestimate just how important a moment we have been witnessing all these last few hours. I mean, this is a gold star day in the history calendar.
I think the reason that here late, you know, I think the Republicans want to kind of use the amendments all day as a filibuster device and be able to say they stayed until the wee hours. It was supposed to be a vote on December 12 but it became December 13. And I think Chairman Nadler didn't want the clock to hit that midnight hour.
So, it would have ended up being two days and so he kind of abruptly ended it there. We're going to hear a lot of complaints from the GOP about this on the morning TV shows. But tomorrow is going to be another important day and next week is really historic when the actual vote takes place.
LEMON: Frank Bruni, having said that, did the Republicans actually mount a defense of the president in this process today? Or was it really all about distraction?
BRUNI: It was all about distraction. That wasn't a defense. You know, it's -- listen. Both sides Democrats and Republicans are capable in general, you know, of whitewashing facts of ignoring evidence.
[23:24:58]
But in the context of this proceeding Democrats have basically been saying let's look at the facts. And Republicans are saying look over there. Look over there. There's Fusion GPS. There's Adam Schiff. There's Hunter Biden doing drugs, which I thought was a completely new low.
They are trying to just kind of create so much noise that hopefully voters won't hear the signal.
LEMON: You know, it was interesting that now that you mentioned that. That was -- that particular moment when I watched it today considering that the issue that this country has with drugs with the opioid crisis, Frank, with the heroin crisis, with the addiction issue that we have in this country, with how Republicans are losing the suburbs, especially suburban women. And the issue with kids and addiction in this country.
I don't think that Americans would -- I don't think American took lightly to that. And I think that they might take issue with bringing that up. Am I wrong with that?
BRUNI: I thought the callousness of it was breathtaking. I thought the Democratic response was a good one and effective. One pointing out that the congressman who is doing that himself had a history -- had a DUI in his past but that didn't shame him into not doing it.
You know, I mean, listen. Our politics the political discourse in this country is ruinous at this point. And I think that is going to be a moment that's going to live on because it's so emblematic of how far we've sunk in general but how far, in particular Republicans have sunk during this impeachment inquiry.
LEMON: Yes. You can argue policy but I don't know if people's personal lives should be brought into these proceedings.
John, listen, there's been so much theater in these hearings. It's important to focus on the two articles of impeachment. Trump is facing abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Lay this out for us. Does the evidence support these articles?
DEAN: Very much so. In fact, that's what appears the House had in mind when they drafted them. They literally have articles that if they had to put a case on the floor of the Senate and during a trial, they have primary witnesses who can testify to all this and they have admissible evidence. They even have the conversation that the president himself has put in evidence that can be recognized.
So, they can prove this case. And they can prove obstruction of Congress in spades far more than what happened with Nixon. Far -- and this -- you know, the whole thing, Don, as I have said before is so much more serious than Watergate which was the cover up of a bungled burglary and a bungled White House operation earlier with the same guys that resulted in Nixon's dirty tricks being revealed. Things of that nature.
This we're talking about a foreign country being asked to create a bogus case in the 2020 campaign against the president's leading contender and holding up appropriated money which I don't -- I haven't read the memo from the Office of Management and Budget yet to say that justified it because there is no justification for it.
It's something Nixon tried. And that's when they passed the law in '74 preventing that kind of activity.
LEMON: Katie --
DEAN: But anyway, the seriousness of this has just by 10 over Watergate.
LEMON: Kaitlan, I want to talk about let's move to the when this goes to the Senate trial. Right? Pretty much the articles of impeachment are going to be approved, drawn up and approved.
We're hearing that there may be a shorter Senate trial. Right? The president shorter than the president originally wanted. And that he may be coming around to this. Is that true, why is that?
COLLINS: Well, it really depends on who gets their way here and who has enough influence on the president. Because essentially, there's a divide. The president wants this big spectacle. He wants these witnesses testifying in person. And that is something you're not hearing from Republican senators.
They essentially don't think that's necessary. They tend to think that it has a chance of getting out of control. It could be high reward for the president. But it also could be high risk when you've got these live witnesses in person.
And of course, that would in addition drag the trial out longer. So that is not something we've heard from Republican senators. They want and essentially what they're doing now is trying to convince the president that's not what he should do either.
Now, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader of course has been working with the White House counsel on this. He said tonight in an interview they are going to be coordinating closely and he's going to be taking his queues from the White House counsel. Essentially signaling that there's not going to be daylight between them.
As CNN had reported, Mitch McConnell was also not in favor of those live witnesses. But something that McConnell said that was really interesting, Don, tonight was talking about, essentially trying to make the argument to the president that he thinks once they get in the Senate trial underway, and of course the House managers are going to make their case against the president, the president's attorneys are going to make their case defending it.
[23:30:05]
And then he says they will get to the decision about whether or not they are going to have witnesses. And he says he thinks by then the case will seem so weak and so thin that it won't seem necessary.
That is essentially him trying to appeal to the president that they're not going to need it by then, but that's got to be squared with the fact that the president has been sitting back, watching things like he did today, and he wants this aggressive, combative Senate trial. The question now is whether he is going to get that.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: He likes a show, doesn't he? All right, everyone. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. What a day. We weren't sure we were going to get on the air because they put out a -- they said earlier -- what are they saying? Dems are not considering punting this session to the morning. Yeah. They are prepared to go through the night. We could have been sitting here all night. Thank you all. I appreciate it.
I want to bring in now Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. We are happy that you didn't go through the night, congressman. Thank you so much for joining us. So, what happened there --
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thank you, Don.
LEMON: -- at the end? Why didn't you guys vote? Do you know?
RASKIN: Well, yeah. We had a 14-hour day. We started at 9:00 a.m. and I think we went to 11 or a little past that. You know, we suspect there was some strategy to try to drag us into the middle of the night so they could say, oh, you know, the Judiciary Committee did this in the middle of the night, in the thick of night and so on. And so we want to do it in broad daylight, first thing in the morning, so everyone can see exactly what's going on.
LEMON: What is going to happen tomorrow? Are you just going to vote on those two articles tomorrow? RASKIN: Yeah, we'll come back together and we vote on them sequentially, so people could vote for one or both of them or one or the other or neither of them.
LEMON: What time is it, 10:00 a.m.? What time?
RASKIN: At 10:00 a.m. We are reconvening. We have been borrowing the Ways and Means Committee room.
LEMON: Do you think you made your case?
RASKIN: I think it was absolutely overwhelming. It was staggering, the amount of factual evidence that was assembled over several months by more than a dozen witnesses. All of whom had testimony pointing to the guilt of the president.
The president organized essentially -- the way I was thinking of it towards the end of the evening, Don, was that Richard Nixon was charged with abuse of power for organizing a break in of a political party headquarters to get dirt on his opponent. And Donald Trump is accused of organizing a break in of American democracy itself in order to plant dirt on his opponent.
There are similar crimes although this one is much vaster in scale and even a more severe threat to democratic sovereignty and the voting rights of the people.
LEMON: Listen. Say what you want. You can say that they weren't -- you know, they were not arguing substance. They were not talking about the evidence. But they are on message. They are -- Republicans are arguing there was no crime. There is no victim. Do you think that that is persuasive to the public?
RASKIN: Well, you think -- look at the Nixon Watergate burglary. That was a crime against democracy and this is very much a crime against democracy and the right of the people to govern without the intervention of foreign powers that have been recruited by the president to come and alter the course of our electoral events.
So it's quite analogous to that. Of course, you can compare it also to the Bill Clinton impeachment. That makes the republican position look all the more ridiculous because they defend the impeachment of Bill Clinton for telling one lie about a private act of sex. But they think it is absolutely no problem. It is not an abuse of power for the president to stage this --
LEMON: He did lie under oath, though.
RASKIN: He lied under oath, buy you basically -- what they were saying tonight was it is worse to have one lie under oath about an act of sex than is to have thousands of lies, an infinite number of lies about public events that go to the character of our democracy and our elections. That is just not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
The framers believe that the most serious crime for purposes of impeachment was attacking the integrity of our elections by selling us out to foreign powers, in essence, elevating the private interests of the president over the national security and over the rule of law. It's precisely what Donald Trump did. The whole crime was staging an attack on our democracy in order to promote the political ambition of the president.
LEMON: OK. Congressman Raskin, thank you. It's been a long day. I'll let you go. Thank you for your time.
RASKIN: Thank you so much.
LEMON: I appreciate it. Thank you. We got a lot more to come on this dramatic day and night. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is declaring a surprise recess and postponing votes on articles of impeachment until tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Here's our breaking news. It is a dramatic end to a day full of surprises on Capitol Hill. The House Judiciary Committee in a surprise recess until tomorrow morning when votes will be taken on articles of impeachment.
Joining me now are Chris Cillizza, Harry Litman, Ron Brownstein, and Matthew Rosenberg. We did make it on the air this evening. And boy, wow. What a dramatic and long day. Good evening, everyone. Chris, marathon debate and a surprise at the end for people watching at home. Do you think today changed any minds?
CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER AND EDITOR-AT-LARGE: No, but I don't really think that was the point of it, Don. I actually do think some of this is at this point for the history books, probably most of it. You heard a lot of references. One thing that they both agree on, how will this go down in history? How will people remember this?
Doug Collins, the ranking member, said a couple times, you know, this one is for the history books. I think we know how this story ends. That doesn't mean that the chapters aren't interesting. I'll admit I was on my way out of the bureau when I saw Jerry Nadler recessing them because we didn't expect that.
[23:40:00]
CILLIZZA: So, there are still twists and turns here. But I do think tomorrow morning, you will see what we expected at some point today, which is the articles of impeachment. I just want to note one thing. The interview with Jamie Raskin was fascinating in that it shows how much the political calculation matters.
The real reason they wanted to do this, to not do it, let it go over, at least I think Jamie Raskin said it, you don't want to say, they passed the articles of impeachment in the middle of the night because that is readymade --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Rather (ph) Republicans.
CILLIZZA: Yup.
LEMON: Listen. Chris, they are complaining -- the Republicans are complaining literally about the process, right?
CILLIZZA: Yes.
LEMON: That's another process question, another process talking point, and the delay of the vote. Is that a legitimate complaint?
CILLIZZA: Well, I mean, it's a fine complaint but it literally is a complaint by every minority party in the House ever in the history of the American government, right? The majority rules, especially in the House. You have very little control over your schedule, timing. And what we saw tonight, sort of when things happen. So, it's a fine complaint. It's not illegitimate. It's a complaint that you could make 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Being in the minority in the House is not very fun.
LEMON: Were they doing it on purpose or purposely doing that, Ron, to try to, you know, get them to do it in the middle of the night just to have that talking point?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah.
LEMON: You think so?
BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely. I mean, I think that -- they want to delay it as long as possible, you know, and really just to kind of give people the sense that this is just a partisan exercise. I mean, that is what they are seeking to do. Delegitimize it by kind of emphasizing the partisan conflict.
I think one thing -- mostly today, we saw the same arguments kind of more deeply engraved. One thing really, really struck me, which is that, you know, we have reached the point where there is no Republican willing to say that this behavior was in any way questionable or objectionable.
And you compare that to the national security professionals, who worked in both parties, who went to the lawyers in the White House immediately after hearing this call or who have raised concerns at other points.
It is just a striking moment and one in which, you know, really kind of strains the idea that the two parties can reason around a common set of facts. If literally every Republican in both chambers are going to say there's nothing to sanction here, I think the odds are pretty high that Donald Trump is going to take that as a license to push even further, if and when the Senate acquits him. LEMON: Mr. Litman, Republicans say Democrats are setting a precedent here that a future president is subject to impeachment if they don't hand over documents to Congress even before going to the court suppress their case. Is that true?
HARRY LITMAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, it's bogus. I mean, the president here is really being set by the Republicans today, had this odd quality of being serious and landmark on the one hand but being kind of a charade on the other. The Republicans were almost like, I had in mind sort of the studio wrestling charade with maybe Matt Gaetz as Vince McMahon or something.
The argument here that they could have gone to the court, it doesn't fly because firt, you had Trump say on the White House lawn, we're stonewalling everything. Second, you had his counsel say this is constitutionally illegitimate. So, the record is clear that it's not about having judicial process. It's about calling a total halt to things before they even start.
LEMON: Yes. Mr. Rosenberg, so Democrats have tried to make the case that the president engaged in abuse of power, that it continues to hurt the American people, and that it's an ongoing crime. Had they successfully argued that point?
MATTHEW ROSENBERG, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Look, they have successfully argued it to the people who already believe it. I think, as we all have noted here today, you know, no minds were changed here. No minds have been changed probably in a few weeks at this point. You have to wonder the kind of dangerous moment we're at.
The Republicans won't even agree that this behavior was maybe not great, never mind whether he should be impeached or not. They're not giving an inch on this. The Democrats, meanwhile, are getting ready to set up a party line impeachment over national security issue.
National security was one of those rare kinds of points of bipartisan agreement that Congress should oversee and deal with in non-partisan politics ways. That's wholly gone now after these three years. That really makes you wonder where we'll go next. What is going to happen next? There are real issues here.
LEMON: Yeah. Is it -- I am wondering, Chris, is it fair to blame the Democrats for how partisan this is? Because the president tweeting or retweeting over 120 times --
CILLIZZA: Last time I checked my e-mail from your super producers, it was 123 tweets in a row.
LEMON: OK. So, that is a signal to the folks there that they need to go hard, to the Republicans.
[23:44:59]
LEMON: So he is signalling them, this is important. So, I' wondering -- and so you better go hard. Don't crack. Is it fair to say that this is partisan because of Democrats?
CILLIZZA: No, I don't think it's just because of Democrats. Probably Matt was saying that either. I mean, I think it is a function of where we are in this moment. We were polarized before Donald Trump became president. Donald Trump simply weaponized polarization, and he weaponized race and the number of other things to work to his advantage.
LEMON: I just wonder -- I mean, listen, taking that aside, there's always a divide.
CILLIZZA: Yeah.
LEMON: But come on. I mean --
CILLIZZA: Yeah.
LEMON: Come on. To look at the transcripts and all of the evidence and to say that this is partisan because of Democrats, come on.
CILLIZZA: What I don't understand about it, Don, is this. It seems to me -- just read the July 25th transcript. There's obviously a lot more. But just read the July 25th transcript. If I am a Republican, what you I think intellectually honestly based on just reading that transcript, you would say this is not the behavior we want out of a president.
If you don't want to go, you say, I don't think he should be impeached over it, but this is not -- we need to say this is not acceptable. We don't want him to do it again. We don't think he should be impeached or removed from office because -- I don't see how you conclude.
And this weird thing when he said, we could use a favor -- he was talking about the United States in general. Why did he talk about two things, Biden and Crowd Strike? They're total conspiracy theories. Why didn't he talk more broadly --
LEMON: And Burisma.
CILLIZZA: -- about corruption? I mean, it is just -- that piece of it to me is totally --
LEMON: I got to run.
CILLIZZA: -- 100 percent indefensible.
LEMON: Gentlemen, thank you. Short time, as you know, because they were doing their thing. So, we have shortened show. Thank you all.
CILLIZZA: Thanks, Don.
LEMON: I appreciate it. Lots more to come in our breaking news. The Judiciary Committee postponing its votes on articles of impeachment until tomorrow morning. That after a marathon session of debate all today well into the night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: What a day of drama on Capitol Hill. The Judiciary Committee in a heated debate all day and well into the night. Just when we thought they were about to vote on articles of impeachment against the president, Chairman Jerry Nadler suddenly called a recess until 10:00 a.m.
Let's discuss now. Wajahat Ali and Amanda Carpenter are here. Boy, hello. Good evening. Almost good morning, right?
AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Almost.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: Wajahat, a twist at the end of the night with Jerry Nadler. What did you think of this day?
WAJAHAT ALI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: More of the same. Look, everyone knows what's going to happen. The Dems are going to make a push for impeachment. Republicans are going to stonewall. They're going to go all in for Trump. It's shameful. But this is the hill they decided to die on. I think it is smart politics. Everyone is going to be awake in the morning. Let's watch history being made live. It'll dominate the deadlines.
If Republicans like Mark Meadows just now on Twitter are complaining about his, guess what? Republican would have done the same. And Kevin McCarthy admitted that he did the Benghazi hearings just to hurt Clinton.
Over here, you got President Trump, as you said in the last segment, reading the transcript, openly asking an ally to do a favor, abusing his power to interfere in U.S. elections. And you got, according to the CNN poll, 51 percent of Americans want him impeached and removed, 61 percent of women, Don. So, let's do this.
LEMON: So, here we go. This is what -- I'm just getting this in, OK, Amanda, just getting it in, breaking news. Democrats were furious at Republicans for what they believe was a blatant effort to drag out today's proceedings and delay a final vote until the dead of night. It was widely believed that Republicans would be through offering amendments by 5:00 p.m.
But as the evening wore on, Democrats came to believe the GOP was simply trying to bury the votes in the news cycles. So a decision was made to hold the final two votes Friday morning to ensure more people would be able to witness the historic votes even though it enraged the GOP.
Anyway, you get the gist of it. What do you think of that?
CARPENTER: Yeah, I mean, watching the hearings all day, it began to take the feel of a grudge match, didn't it? LEMON: Yeah.
CARPENTER: I mean, people were repeating the arguments. They were offering amendments that weren't going to go anywhere. So, yeah, I mean, I think this is the impeachment hearing we all deserved in this time of hyperpartisan politics. Nobody's minds were changed. Everything was on a party line vote.
And yeah, it would have been in the Republicans' interest to drive this final vote to the middle of the night so they could turn around and accuse the Democrats of hiding the vote in the middle of the night.
So, it was smart politics for Nadler to gavel it down. But we're going to start this right back up in the morning. And nothing is going to change. Everyone is just more stonewalled in their positions getting angrier at each other.
ALI: At least Nadler saved us from Louie Gohmert and Jim Jordan. So I think he deserves --
CARPENTER: It could have been entertaining at 2:00 a.m.
ALI: Someone send Nadler a pizza.
CARPENTER: I am not staying up to watch it.
ALI: Someone send Nadler a pizza for saving America from Louie Gohmert. I think he deserves it.
LEMON: It is good like late, late night TV, right, with some popcorn and, you know, little soda, a diet soda --
CARPENTER: I will say -- you could see -- I did feel like the Democrats were losing their momentum because the Republicans were just relishing the spotlight.
ALI: That's right.
CARPENTER: I mean, going at them over and over again. And so Republicans are primed to do this. I think they would have gone for 48 hours straight if they could.
LEMON: Listen, I do have a good sense about this, right? I had a good sense about the 2016 election. You remember that, Amanda. I said, listen, he could win. And, you know, I have a good sense about how women in the suburbs, black women, they're not digging this.
I think white women, white suburban women and black women aren't digging this. And they have -- they are going to be very big in deciding this election.
[23:55:03]
LEMON: They're watching this. They're watching the antics especially on the Republican side and they're going -- I've got about 15 seconds left, Wajahat. They are not liking this at all.
ALI: Yeah. And look, what does Donald Trump do today? Attacks Greta.
LEMON: Yeah.
ALI: A 16-year-old kid. And we talk about this all the time.
LEMON: Yeah.
ALI: Keep at it. Go after the women.
CARPENTER: You've got to remember --
ALI: Sixty-one percent want him impeached or removed, 61 percent.
LEMON: Five seconds. What do you say?
CARPENTER: That is the goal. The Republicans want people to tune out.
LEMON: Yeah.
CARPENTER: That's the goal.
LEMON: Thank you both.
CARPENTER: Thanks.
ALI: Thank you.
LEMON: See you next time. And thanks for watching. Our live coverage continues with Chris Cuomo. Good night, everybody.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
