Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
House Democrats Move Closer to Articles of Impeachment; Sources: GOP Senators Weigh Two-Week Impeachment Trial; House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Rejects Fiona Hill's Testimony, Says Ukraine Meddled in 2016 U.S. Election. Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired November 22, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
CAMEROTA: Thank you very much for joining us for all of our special coverage all week. Time for "CNN NEWSROOM" with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Good Friday morning, everyone. What a week it has been. I'm Poppy Harlow.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: No question. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
Let's take a moment to take stock. Two weeks. A dozen witnesses. A massive amount of very public evidence based, we should note, on sworn testimony, all pointing to the president demanding that an ally at war with Russia conduct what one witness called a domestic political errand, or risk losing key aid and access to the White House. Millions of dollars, hundreds of millions in U.S. military aid for the announcement of investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.
HARLOW: And now Democrats seem to be side stepping the core fight over witnesses and evidence blocked by the White House and the State Department, and going into the next stage of this impeachment fight with the ammunition that they already have. But is it enough? Drafting the specific Articles of Impeachment for the Judiciary Committee, that is what is next and staying on track for a potential House impeachment vote by Christmas.
SCIUTTO: Yes, it's all going to move very quickly here. Ahead of that possible trial in the Senate, the president has already met with GOP senators, bringing them to the White House. Senators, we should note, whose votes he needs to remain in office.
Joining us now from Capitol Hill, CNN national correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
So, Suzanne, let's start with the Democrats' strategy here. They're basically saying, we're moving forward on a very ambitious timeframe.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's all going to happen relatively quickly, we imagine, Jim. And as you know, it is pretty quiet here on Capitol Hill as most lawmakers have gone for the Thanksgiving recess. But it's going to those House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee and their staff who'll be writing up a report during the holiday, making their case that they have evidence for impeaching the president.
Now we heard from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, what would that entail? Possibly Articles of Impeachment including abuse of power, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress and bribery. After Thanksgiving that report will go to the House Judiciary Committee that is chaired by Jerry Nadler. There they could hold additional public hearings. They could even, if cleared by the courts, hear additional witnesses, former White House counsel Don McGahn, for instance, former National security adviser John Bolton.
They would write-up those Articles of Impeachment. And then the goal is by Christmas they would have a full vote on the House floor.
SCIUTTO: So tell us about the GOP strategy moving forward. We heard from Kevin McCarthy yesterday. He does not expect to lose a single vote -- Republican vote in the House on this.
MALVEAUX: You know, people we talked to on the House side, Republicans are extremely confident, Jim, that they have this. We heard from Representative Will Hurd yesterday, who was a former CIA operative, he is not even going to be running up for re-election, and he said look, while the president might have had an inappropriate phone call, he doesn't see the evidence for bribery or extortion there. That is what they are counting on when you have a member like that. That they are all going to huddle behind the president.
On the Senate side, however, you do see some preparations that are already being made for the inevitable trial in the Senate. There were some Senate Republicans who met with the White House top lawyer to talk about strategy and defense and what they're going to do. And as you know, it will be up to the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to set the rules in terms of just how long this will go, several weeks or maybe into the Democratic presidential nomination period.
SCIUTTO: Suzanne Malveaux, on the Hill, it's going to be busy there. Poppy?
MALVEAUX: It is.
HARLOW: Thank you, Suzanne.
All right. Let's talk with our experts about this. CNN national and legal analyst Susan Hennessey joins us this morning, along with CNN political analyst Jackie Kucinich.
Good morning, ladies. Jackie, you say that the week, this week especially, quote, "gave Democrats everything they could have hoped for." But given what we just heard Suzanne outlined from Will Hurd, an outgoing Republican, who is certainly no apologist for this president, and given the vote that we've seen at least thus far on the rules, what -- do Democrats truly believe much is going to change here? JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't know. So this wasn't
about changing the hardened minds of particularly their Republican colleagues because clearly it didn't seem like there were many minds to be changed.
HARLOW: Right.
KUCINICH: This is about what they projected to the public. This is about the evidence that was laid out. And when I say everything they could have hoped for, this is not hopes and dreams. This is how this went down. It was structured. They got their questions answered. There was new information that came out over the course of this week that we did not know. There are other members of the administration, the top upper echelons of the administration that have now been brought into this on the record under oath. That is -- there's something to be said for that. It was not guaranteed.
[09:05:07]
SCIUTTO: Susan Hennessey, let's be clear, all the witnesses testifying under oath made it clear that the direction for this quid pro quo was coming from the White House, but lacking are the White House officials that could have said I heard from the president, he told me X. Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton among them. And I wonder if a key takeaway here, just a sad reality, is that obstruction worked. The White House blocked the witnesses that could have drawn the line to the president.
SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: I think clearly the White House is making this argument that there's no direct tie to the president. That said, think about this moment, this exchange between Gordon Sondland and members of Congress in which Sondland talked about how he was making the interference that military aid was being tied to these White House meetings to the investigations of the Bidens.
But that was just an inference. And then he said but Mick Mulvaney, he's in the position to actually know firsthand. That caused Adam Schiff to remind everybody about Mick Mulvaney's public press conference in which he talked about these two things being tied to one another.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HENNESSEY: Told everybody to get over it. And so, you know, I actually think that there was quite a bit, a very clear evidence that showed that this was a policy being driven by the president personally to the extent the Republicans are now going to try and go all in on suggesting that somehow this is a bunch of people freelancing and this was not the president who would actually directing this, that this was not a direct conditionality.
They are going to have a hard time justifying why they're preventing people like Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
SCIUTTO: Yes. HENNESSEY: All these people who are in a position to give that
firsthand testimony about what the president did, you know, what are they so afraid of if they said that the story these people tell could exonerate the president?
HARLOW: So, Jackie, John Bolton is back on Twitter this morning.
KUCINICH: Certainly is.
HARLOW: Two months off. He's not going to testify at this time unless the court says he can. Or maybe this is indicating a change. Let me read you what he writes, "Glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months. For the backstory, stay tuned."
A few ways to read this, one, he's trying to sell books. He's coming out with a book before the 2020 election.
KUCINICH: Right.
HARLOW: Another way to read it, is he going to talk? And I guess, thirdly if he's making jest of all this, should he be? This is a pretty serious matter.
KUCINICH: It is. And you know, I'll go back to Fiona Hill's testimony that John Bolton was one of the administration officials that came out of this looking OK. I mean, he is someone who pushed back again -- who didn't like what the administration was doing and with this sidetrack policy with Ukraine. So his name has been out there. You know, what this means, it's hard to divine, Poppy, honestly. Maybe he's trying to sell books.
But he has hinted, his lawyer has hinted that he does have information that isn't out there yet. So that doesn't sound like someone who is --
HARLOW: Yes.
KUCINICH: You know, going to go slowly or quietly into the night. He also left that administration in not really good terms.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KUCINICH: So a lot of questions on what John Bolton knows and whether we're going to find out.
SCIUTTO: Let's be clear. John Bolton could have testified. Other officials --
HARLOW: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: They defied the White House on this. And he didn't do it. And that should be clear.
But, Susan, when we look at this legally, you've got a case, possible decision next week related to Don McGahn. Different case, but gets to the question of whether White House officials under this blanket of kind of executive privilege can be prevented from testifying. The case that relates specifically to the impeachment inquiry, that argument is not even going to be heard until December here.
I just wondered, you know, could the legal -- those legal decisions turn out in such a way that at least by the Senate trial that the John Boltons, Mulvaneys of this world will be compelled to testify or has that ship sailed legally?
HENNESSEY: I think it's possible that we will get some preliminary decisions and ultimately, you know, as you said, this is really about the individual's decision whether to testify or not. Executive privilege cannot prevent people from testifying. We've seen that over and over again. So the question is whether or not these people are going to get these, you know, lower court decisions and comply with them, if they are in fact telling them to comply, or if instead they're going to appeal them in an attempt to really drag out the process.
For at least sitting officials that is going to create the appearance again, you know, of the White House stonewalling. And keep it mind, you know, something that Adam Schiff said over the course of this week, that the White House's refusal to produce documents and individuals to testify, that actually could become the basis of independent Articles of Impeachment because that could become evidence of obstruction of Congress and failure to recognize that this is a co- equal branch undertaking an important constitutional function.
So that argument I think will become quite powerful as well especially if the lower courts weigh in and say no, these people do have to testify.
HARLOW: So Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff both reiterated this week that they went here reluctantly, you heard it very clearly in Schiff's closing statement.
[09:10:02]
But they're not waiting. Right? Jackie, in Pelosi's words, you know, we're not at the mercy of the courts. We're not going to wait here. We're going to move forward with this. They don't have a single document from the State Department on all of this or from the White House. And they are not hearing from Mulvaney, John Bolton, et cetera, who as Jim rightly says could come forward.
Is there a concern for the party and for the country that there is long-term damage done to not waiting and not utilizing the power that Congress has to compel and waiting for the courts to decide for these documents and witnesses to be compelled to testify and be turned over?
KUCINICH: Well, we don't know when that's going to happen. But Democrats certainly do have some political concerns here because there's a belief the closer we get to the 2020 election that this could become more problematic. Now that's assuming that public opinion kind of stays at 50-50. You know, we'll wait and see next week to see how the public is viewing this via polling. But certainly, particularly with the majority makers, the Democrats from Trump -- the districts President Trump won, they're looking at the process nervously and want to get it over with as fast as possible.
HARLOW: Ladies, thank you very, very much. We appreciate it. It's been quite a week.
Susan Hennessey, Jackie Kucinich, have a nice weekend and nice holiday.
KUCINICH: You too.
HARLOW: Still to come House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff contrast this impeachment investigation with Watergate. He says the difference is not between President Trump and Nixon, but between this Congress and that one. We'll speak with someone who was a member of Congress during Watergate. She joins us next.
SCIUTTO: Yes. It's going to be quite an interview.
Plus, testimony this week pulled back the curtain on how the Trump administration executes foreign policy around the globe. Is that doing damage to our relationships with our allies? And what do voters in the key state of Pennsylvania think of the impeachment hearings? That's important. That's a swing state. We're going to be there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a big show. And I think we're just wasting taxpayers' money.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just think you have to hold the president to a higher standard. And I think it doesn't look good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:15:00]
HARLOW: Welcome back. House Democrats are moving closer to filing articles of impeachment after two weeks of explosive testimony that President Trump sought to withhold foreign aid in exchange for a domestic political errand. Here's how House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff wrapped up the hearings this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The difference between then and now is not the difference between Nixon and Trump. It's the difference between that Congress and this one. And so, we are asking where is Howard Baker? Where is Howard Baker? Where are the people who are willing to go beyond their party to look to their duty?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: With me now, someone well-versed in the impeachment probe against President Nixon, former member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate Elizabeth Holtzman, she also wrote the book "The Case for Impeaching Trump". Good morning, thank you --
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING WATERGATE: Good morning --
HARLOW: For being here.
HOLTZMAN: Thank you.
HARLOW: Given what we just heard from Chairman Schiff, what do you think we have learned about this country and the state of politics today from everything we saw this week?
HOLTZMAN: Well, I saw most of the proceedings. I guess I was a little disappointed that every single Republican on the committee was kind of defending the president. That's really not their role. Congress is really there to protect the democracy, to keep a little bit of objectivity, a little bit of independence.
But on the other hand, it's not surprising that the Republicans are there supporting the president because during Watergate, during the Nixon impeachment process, Republicans didn't come out for impeachment until three --
HARLOW: Right --
HOLTZMAN: Days before we --
HARLOW: Well --
HOLTZMAN: Debated the articles of impeachment.
HARLOW: You're quoted earlier this week as saying, it is too soon to expect Republicans to come out and say, they're for impeachment. And I hear you on that. But I also hear people like Congressman Will Hurd, loud and clear, who yesterday after all of this -- and this is -- he's no apologist for the president, right? He disagrees publicly with the president a lot -- says, yes, this was misguided foreign policy, but that he has not heard evidence that the president is guilty of bribery or extortion. If he's not moving and he's retiring, who will?
HOLTZMAN: Well, part of the problem is you have to -- this was -- what we heard in the Intelligence Committee was primarily a fact- finding process. We heard the facts. What we haven't really heard is what these facts amount to in terms of an impeachable offence? Because I think that if we had that kind of debate, it may be the Congressman Hurd --
HARLOW: Do you --
HOLTZMAN: Would be affected, and me neither --
HARLOW: Do you mean outlining for the American people what an impeachable offense --
HOLTZMAN: Correct -- HARLOW: Is? Because you heard of a --
HOLTZMAN: Correct --
HARLOW: House Judiciary Committee on earlier with John Berman on "NEW DAY" talk about the fact that the Judiciary Committee, she says will hold hearings to help explain to the American people what is an impeachable offense.
HOLTZMAN: I think that, that's part of the process. We didn't have hearings on what is an impeachable offense? Of course, we had to learn what it was --
HARLOW: Right --
HOLTZMAN: Which wasn't easy. But there were a lot of facts that the American people had to absorb about Watergate, about all the rest of the Nixon's misdeeds, and the committee debated this and those debates really persuaded the American people.
[09:20:00]
Why they persuaded them? Because they were based on solid evidence, because the members of the committee weren't grand-standing, because they were sincere and we didn't have all the Republicans, but we had a number of them and we had some southern Democrats too.
HARLOW: So, then, should the Democrats slow down? Nancy Pelosi says we're moving ahead, we're not at the mercy of the courts, we're not waiting for Bolton. Would it be prudent to slow down?
HOLTZMAN: I -- that's a tough decision, and I respect her enormously. But I'm not sure we need a race to do it. I think we ought to take the right amount of time, I wouldn't wait for the courts either because we didn't -- in the Nixon impeachment process, we went ahead and had an article of impeachment saying that the president -- and it passed the House Judiciary Committee --
HARLOW: Yes --
HOLTZMAN: Saying the president obstructed the impeachment effort.
HARLOW: Well, but eventually, the court did rule -- the Supreme Court ruled on the tapes.
HOLTZMAN: Yes, but we didn't wait for that.
HARLOW: Right --
HOLTZMAN: And we had our vote before that.
HARLOW: House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy yesterday after all this was wrapped up was so confident not only that Republicans will not lose a single member in this vote, but he said quote, "I think we are going to gain Democrats." Given the fact that in the vote a few weeks ago laying out the rules of these proceedings in the house, two Democrats did not go with the party, Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Congressman Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. Could Kevin McCarthy be right?
HOLTZMAN: I hope he's not. I mean -- but people have to vote their conscience. In the end, members of the house are there not to be a tool of the president, or necessarily a tool against the president. They have to vote on the facts and on their conscience. But the important thing is, we have heard enormous amount of evidence of presidential involvement.
There's an abuse of power and effort to use the powers of the federal government on a personal, domestic, political errand.
HARLOW: The fact that some Democrats in Congress have previously called for impeachment of the president because of -- we have Representative Brad Sherman on next hour, he called in June, 2017 after Comey's testimony to impeach the president. Many called after the Mueller report came out to impeach the president. Do you think -- behind said it's 2020, they didn't know about this Ukraine issue then. Does it hurt them politically because now they're calling for it again for a different issue?
HOLTZMAN: Look, there was -- there was a case for impeachment last year. There were a lot of facts to fill in. You saw the outlines of a case for impeachment. That's what impeachment inquiry is supposed to be. Get the facts together. Put the facts against the law. What we have now is we have a lot of facts.
And we can draw adverse inferences from the fact that the president of the United States is covering up and forcing people in his administration not to appear and not to provide documents. We can draw an inference that he is guilty from those acts. So, we have a lot of evidence now. Now, we have to have the -- teach the American people what the case is about and what the constitution means. This is a really important step because we can't take it lightly.
We're overturning an election, it's not a coup, but it's something the framers put in the constitution to protect our democracy against a president who insists on putting himself above the rule of law.
HARLOW: Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, it's nice to have you.
HOLTZMAN: Thank you --
HARLOW: Thank you very much for being here, have a nice weekend --
HOLTZMAN: My pleasure.
HARLOW: Jim?
SCIUTTO: It's so good to have voices with wisdom and experience --
HARLOW: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Like that. The hearings are over as we've been talking about. Testimony is in. But how will all we learn on Capitol Hill these past couple of weeks impact America's standing in the world and future diplomacy. It has consequences. We're going to talk about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:25:00]
SCIUTTO: After two weeks of damning, televised testimony under oath, President Trump's former top Russia expert Fiona Hill closed out the impeachment hearings by drawing a clear line in the sand, testifying that U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland was correct to exclude her from his effort for Ukraine to announce investigations because Sondland's effort had separated from U.S. foreign policy directly into domestic U.S. politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FIONA HILL, TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: He was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in National Security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged. So, he was correct, and I had not put my finger on it at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn't fully coordinating. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up, and here we are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Here we are. I'm pleased to be joined now by Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former ambassador to NATO, knows something about Russia, and current foreign policy adviser to the Biden campaign. Ambassador, thanks very much for taking the time this morning. We saw lay bear in those hearings, and we should remind people by people who were appointed by this president and worked for this president in carrying out his policy.
We saw it laid bare that a domestic political errand as Fiona Hill describe it there subjugated the rest of U.S. foreign policy priorities there. What are the consequences? How do our allies look at this? How does Russia look at this?
NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Jim, I think this impeachment scandal over Ukraine has weakened American credibility in eastern Europe in two respects.
[09:30:00]
