Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Fifty-Million-Plus Under Winter Weather Alerts From Oregon To Maine; White House Announcing It Will Not Participate In This Week's First Impeachment Hearing Under The House Judiciary Committee. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired December 01, 2019 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:11]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Alex Marquardt, in this evening for Ana Cabrera. Thanks so much for joining me.

Moments ago, the President returned from his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at his Florida estate. And as he heads back to the White House, it's not yet clear if he met a major deadline in the impeachment inquiry.

The White House had until 6:00 p.m. Eastern, so an hour ago, to let House Democrats know whether or not the President is going to be sending a legal team to Wednesday's impeachment hearing. That is the first one under the House Judiciary Committee.

Let's get straight to the White House to CNN's Sarah Westwood. Sarah, any word now from officials there on what will happen on Wednesday?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN REPORTER: Well, Alex, White House officials are being tight-lipped about whether a response went to the House Judiciary Committee about whether the White House plans to send a lawyer to this hearing on Wednesday, the first in the Judiciary Committee as the impeachment proceedings move into a new phase.

But White House officials speaking to CNN did say that they were not happy that Chairman Nadler had scheduled this hearing for Wednesday when the President will be in London for the NATO summit. But of course, this offer from Nadler to allow a counsel from the White House to be present at that hearing put the White House in a bit of a tough position.

Because, on the one hand, we have heard complaints from Trump officials, from Trump allies, all throughout this process about the lack of legal representation, about the fact that President Trump didn't feel he had been given due process in the earlier part of this inquiry. But sending a counsel to that hearing could lend an air of legitimacy to proceedings that Trump and his allies have slammed as a sham. So that's, of course, a tough decision for the White House.

No word yet on what they will do about that. Also, the White House is facing another deadline on Friday. That one as to whether the White House wants to mount a public defense in future proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee where the vote will be for the articles of impeachment if the House Democrats move in that direction.

But we don't know yet, Alex, whether the White House does want to begin its public defense of the President on Friday or whether they're going to save that for when this moves to a trial in the Senate if they get that far after Christmas day -- Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right, Sarah Westwood. That first deadline passed an hour and two minutes ago. Thanks so much for joining me.

So let's take a deeper dive on what is ahead this week and in the coming weeks with CNN senior political analyst David Gergen. He joins me now. He's been an advisor to four presidents.

Also here with me is CNN Counterterrorism Analyst, Phil Mudd. He was a CIA counterterrorism official and a senior advisor to the FBI.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me this evening.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: David, I want to start with you. We've been talking about this deadline all weekend long, this first one, whether or not the President would be sending a legal team to attend the first hearing on Wednesday.

That deadline passed an hour ago. We still not have heard anything from the White House or from Capitol Hill, as a matter of fact. David, what does the President gain or lose by not participating?

GERGEN: Well, I think this is a no-brainer. I'm puzzled why the White House seems to be divided on whether he should send counsel or not. All along, in the earlier part of these proceedings, you know, the White House has complained along with Republicans that they couldn't have counsel there, and, you know, they couldn't participate.

They couldn't be taking notes. They couldn't -- couldn't be coming back and tell their President or coaching -- you know, or talking to some of the witnesses, whatever they may want to do. That all of that was unfair.

And now, they've been given an opportunity to send counsel. I will assume they'll do it. And now, whether we'll hear tonight or not, you know, the President having just returned, I would think that -- in a normal White House, what you'd find tonight is the President would come in, get a little something to eat, call in his people tonight, and have an answer by 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.

MARQUARDT: Obviously, the Ukraine scandal is going to be at the center of these impeachment hearings going forward as they were in the Intelligence Committee.

We've heard a number of Republicans talking about how Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Senator John Kennedy is among those Republicans who are still pushing this conspiracy theory. Kennedy, in fact, at one point, apologized for it to our Chris Cuomo, but listen to what happened today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. The fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko --

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Yes.

KENNEDY: -- actively worked for Secretary Clinton. Now, if I'm wrong and if all these turn out to be wrong (ph) --

TODD: Actively worked for Secretary -- I mean, my goodness, wait a minute. Senator Kennedy, you now have the President of Ukraine saying he actively worked for the Democratic nominee for President? I mean, now, come on.

I mean, I got to put up -- you realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin. This is what he said on November 20th.

Thank God nobody is accusing us any more of interfering in U.S. elections. Now, they're accusing Ukraine. We'll let them sort this out among themselves.

[19:05:01]

You just accused the former President of Ukraine. You have done exactly what the Russian operation is trying to get American politicians to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, Phil Mudd, John Kennedy there going one step farther. And this, of course, is in addition to the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who, as we all know, is the former CIA Director, also saying that Ukraine should be investigated for their role in the 2016 election. How dangerous, Phil, is this?

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think this is a pretty straightforward question. Look, we looked to the -- to the White House and the American President to talk to the American people about stuff that the American people themselves don't have the capability to investigate.

There are two separate stories here that the White House is trying to confuse. Did Russia interfere with an American election in 2016? Yes. Did the American President try to withhold money from Ukraine so that the -- so that Ukraine would investigate the President's political opponent? Yes.

The White House is trying to confuse these because the real story that American taxpayer dollars were withheld to try to press the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden is ugly.

I think this is not about national security; this is about domestic politics. And actually, I think the Republicans are winning. They're confusing the American people by saying this is about Russia and Ukraine together, and the American people don't have the capability, nor should they, to figure out what the facts are.

MARQUARDT: And when it comes to domestic politics, it is clear that the President is drawing a line between us and them. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're winning. You're smarter. You're better looking. You're sharper.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And they call themselves elite. But if they're elite, then we're the super elite.

Can you imagine? They take this perfect call, and they want to impeach your President. The failed Washington establishment is trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and because we're winning. It's very simple.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, David, how do Democrats or the super elites, as the President just called them there, respond to that? Should they?

GERGEN: I don't think they ought to respond to the day-to-day. What they need to pull together is a massive indictment that I think ought to include not just the question of related inappropriate activity with Ukraine by the -- by our President and his -- and his men.

But, also, they ought to take on the other additional issues, which speak to his fitness for office. And that is the variety of -- pieces of evidence that Mueller came up with and he should -- on obstruction that he purposely decided he should not resolve whether there was -- was obstruction or not. That's up to the Congress.

And now, the moment has come for the Democrats to stand up and say, this is part of the problem, too. And it's generally a problem, that is, is he, in fact, fit for the office? That's a worthy debate to have.

You know, the President, frankly, is -- I think he's right, that he's doing better than one would have expected. But I think it's -- I think it's really, really foolish to write off professional people in this country, people who have -- you know, have advanced degrees, people who have made some money who can see this for what it is. And it's a sham that's being erected to confuse them.

MARQUARDT: I'm sorry, he was actually calling the Republicans the super elites. But, Phil, to you, when we look ahead --

GERGEN: Yes. The super elites, yes. Yes. No, Donald Trump, he's -- you know, he's going after the elites. And I think the elites in this country, you know, there are a lot of flaws, but, by and large, the elites have served the country well. MARQUARDT: Looking ahead to this week, it's going to be very

impactful and consequential on a number of different fronts. We have the President who, as we've just said, has to respond to this first deadline about his legal team participating in that first hearing.

So we've got the hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, but the President is also heading to London to attend a NATO anniversary. Phil, do you think that the impeachment process is going to be something that's going to be weighing on him as he is dealing with, essentially, a very crucial moment in U.S.-NATO ties?

MUDD: I think it is, but I think in a subtle way. Look, we watched him do everything from go to baseball and football games to try to be more statesman-like overseas. He's talked about trying not to participate in the sort of difficult political questions in the U.K. about exiting from the European Union.

I think the President realizes he's in trouble, and he's going to try, based on his advisers' advice, to step out of some of the difficult things he's said on Twitter to NATO. The question is whether he, himself, personally, can step out and not say something on Twitter that people like me say that's ridiculous.

I'm not sure he can. Clearly, he's trying to do so. I question whether he can, but he knows he's in trouble and I think he's trying to be the statesman. Can he do it? Alex, I doubt it. We'll see.

[19:10:05]

MARQUARDT: And that's one piece of advice that he reportedly got from Mark Penn, the pollster, was to travel more --

MUDD: Yes.

MARQUARDT: -- and do things that look more Presidential so that people aren't focused as much on impeachment.

Gents, I want to talk about the 2020 race and about its most recent entrant, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. And we're seeing a clip from September, so before he got in the race but not too long ago, that I think is very relevant and is going to come up in -- in his campaign and in questions that he is faced with.

It is surfacing again online. It's getting new scrutiny. Let's take a look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China, and they listen to the public. When the public says I can't breathe the air -- Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents, or he's not going to survive. And --

MARGARET HOOVER, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE HOST: He's not a dictator? BLOOMBERG: No, he has to -- he has a constituency to answer to.

HOOVER: He doesn't have a vote. He doesn't have a democracy. He doesn't -- he is not held accountable by voters.

BLOOMBERG: That doesn't mean he can survive if he's -- if his advisors gave everyone --

HOOVER: I mean, is the check on him just a revolution?

BLOOMBERG: You're not going to have a revolution. Nobody's --

HOOVER: Well, then --

BLOOMBERG: No government survives without the will of the majority of its people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Margaret Hoover pressing the former Mayor of New York there. Phil, what do you make of that, President Xi is not a dictator and he has constituents?

MUDD: Boy, this is going to be fascinating. I -- as a foreign policy, I'm fascinated. Look, Michael Bloomberg is a smart guy. I'm not sure an East Coast liberal sells to middle America that the Democratic Party has to win, but he's a thoughtful guy who recognizes that the Chinese Communist Party has evolved.

That's going to be played into the Twitter environment that President Trump lives in to say that Michael -- that Michael Bloomberg is sympathetic to the Chinese. That's not what Bloomberg says.

The question is going into an electoral cycle whether the President can portray Bloomberg as sympathetic to the Chinese. That's not what I heard here. I'm not sure that wins an electoral cycle. That'll be fascinating, Alex, fascinating.

MARQUARDT: David, obviously, there are lots of reports about all the Muslims, the Uyghurs, who are in concentration camps in China. Here we have Mayor Bloomberg saying that President Xi is not a dictator. Your thoughts?

GERGEN: Well, first of all, I'm probably prejudiced here, but I think Mayor Bloomberg was a first-class mayor of New York and that counts a lot.

MUDD: Yes.

GERGEN: He's got other issues. On this particular issue, you know, I think the point he was making was he's not a dictator, he's an authoritarian. An authoritarian often does listen to people. Those guys cram things down their throats. It's hard to do that in China today.

And I do think that authoritarian governments are not democratic governments. There's much about them to be reviled. But they do -- you know, people who last a long time, the authoritarians, generally do pay attention to what the public thinks.

And people in China are much happier. They are much more satisfied with their lot. They think a lot of this -- a lot of progress has been made, and they're very loyal to the regime. Many are very loyal to the regime because of that.

MARQUARDT: All right, gentlemen, thank you for bearing with me as we hit on all those different subjects.

MUDD: Thank you.

GERGEN: OK.

MARQUARDT: Phil Mudd, David Gergen, thanks so much.

GERGEN: Thank you, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right, we're also covering some severe weather that has left more than 50 million people under winter weather alerts from Oregon all the way to Maine and snarl the busiest travel day of the year. We have the latest forecast. That's next.

[19:13:39]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: Today is supposed to be the busiest travel day of the year right after Thanksgiving with some 3 million people heading home after the holidays, but severe weather is causing big headaches for many travelers.

Nationwide, more than 50 million people are under some sort of winter weather alert. Thousands have flights who have been -- that have been canceled or delayed so far with more trouble expected as the storm moves eastwards.

Wet roads and foggy conditions triggering a 25-car pileup that snarled traffic on I-65 in Maryland for five hours this afternoon. Luckily, no one was seriously injured.

CNN Meteorologist Karen Maginnis joins us now. Karen, where is that storm system right now, and where is it going?

KAREN MAGINNIS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, it is still encompassing a good portion of the Midwest and the Great Lakes, although it does begin to exit more towards the northeast. But even then, we don't have a very clear forecast for a lot of folks. Can't say it's going to be all rain, it's going to be all snow. It's going to be some of everything. That, in addition, to the wind.

All right. The center of this storm is still located across the lower Great Lakes tracking towards the east. There's a secondary area of low pressure. Here's the cold front. We've got that warm air coming up from the south. What does that mean? That is the problem. That is the reason why we're seeing some of that

rain and temperatures that are above the freezing mark but still have that cold air sweeping in on the northern edge of that.

So as the system makes its way a little bit further towards the east, we start to see areas around New York City that see a rain-snow mix changing over to snow, changing back to rain. So still the -- that little component there keeps this kind of a fluid forecast over the next 24 to 48 hours.

Boston, I see where you've got a rain-snow mix. It is a miserable night. Those temperatures hovering right around the freezing mark. Those roads are going to be dangerous.

If you are traveling outside of New York City going in into interior sections of New York, it is going to be awful. Those roads around Albany have been terrible because these bursts of snow have materialized over the last few hours, and those roads are going to be treacherous.

Speaking of treacherous, let's show you what's happened in Rapid City, South Dakota. Now, portions of the Midwest did see up to two feet of snowfall. It has been miserable.

But in Rapid City, South Dakota, cars were stranded, the roads were terrible to travel on. We saw near blizzard conditions. It was a mess. But not just on the roads. In the air.

We've seen thousands of delays. About 6,000 delays into and out of the United States. Almost 800 reports of cancellations. Those numbers have just escalated throughout the evening hours. So as people head back from their Thanksgiving holidays, it has been a real quagmire.

[19:20:03]

And, Alex, going into tomorrow, people in those metropolitan areas, New York, Boston, Philly, are still going to have some problems going into Tuesday.

MARQUARDT: What a mess. Stay safe, everyone out there. Karen Maginnis, thank you very much.

Now, some breaking news next. The White House responding this hour to that request from the House Judiciary Committee.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: Breaking news, we have just heard from the White House regarding tonight's 6:00 p.m. deadline to participate in the Judiciary Committee's first impeachment hearing on Wednesday.

Let's right -- get right to Sarah Westwood at the White House. Sarah, what did they say?

WESTWOOD: Well, Alex, we have here this letter from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel, to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler.

Now, Nadler had offered the White House an opportunity to have a counsel present at their first hearing which will take place on Wednesday. The White House responded -- they had a 6:00 p.m. deadline to do so -- saying they will not have a lawyer present at this hearing on Wednesday.

[19:24:55]

I want to read you a key part of this letter, again, from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Nadler. In it, he writes, as for the hearing scheduled for December 4th -- that's Wednesday -- we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings.

And they go on to say, additionally, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing. Now, throughout this letter, Cipollone is attacking the process that Democrats have pursued throughout this inquiry. They said, it is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry.

Now, interestingly, Cipollone does say in this letter that in future proceedings, perhaps the White House will consider sending a lawyer. Remember that Trump allies, White House officials, they have been complaining throughout this process that the President has not been afforded his due process rights.

They have been complaining that administration witnesses have not been allowed to have administration lawyers accompany them to these depositions or these hearings so far. So Cipollone does write, we may consider participating in future Judiciary Committee proceedings if you afford the administration the ability to do so meaningfully.

Now, remember that the White House has another deadline coming up on Friday at which they can say whether they want to have administration officials or the President's personal lawyers mount a public defense of the President in future Judiciary Committee proceedings.

So that's something we could see on Friday. Cipollone leaving the door open for that, Alex, while saying there will be no White House lawyer present at the Wednesday Judiciary Committee hearing.

MARQUARDT: All right, the White House still entertaining that invitation from Jerry Nadler. Sarah Westwood at the White House, thank you very much.

Now, nine people are dead in South Dakota after their plane crashed trying to take off in a snowstorm. We'll have details on the survivors. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:30:49] MARQUARDT: All right, more on this breaking news. We have just heard

from the White House regarding the deadline that passed an hour and a half ago responding to the Judiciary Committee's invitation for the White House and its lawyers to participate in the first hearing in that committee on Wednesday.

Let's get right back to CNN's Sarah Westwood at the White House.

So, Sarah, let's make this clear for our viewers. There are two deadlines that the White House had to respond to. The first one was tonight. The second one was Friday night. Both of them similar in that they are inviting the White House, the president himself, as well as a legal team to participate in the proceedings, the first of which is a hearing on Wednesday. What have they responded tonight?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right, Alex. And the White House is saying they are not willing to send a lawyer to that hearing on Wednesday. It'll be the first in the house Judiciary Committee.

Now, interestingly Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel who sent this letter to chairman Nadler this evening, they had a 6:00 p.m. deadline to do so spends much of the five page letter complaining about the process of the impeachment inquiry so far.

For example, citing the fact President Trump, that White House lawyers, Republicans were not able to call their own witnesses, that the White House counsel didn't have access to transcripts from depositions that took place behind closed doors weeks ago. And yet now the House Judiciary Committee and House Democrats have given the White House an opportunity to participate in its first hearing in its next phase of the impeachment inquiry and the White House is turning it down.

Pat Cipollone in this letter citing the fact they were not provided enough information about what this hearing will entail. Cipollone has said that he has read in media reports it will involve legal scholars who will sort of play out for the president when historical significance of this major move but not a lot of major information about who will be there. So Cipollone cites that as one of the reasons why the White House won't be sending a counsel to that hearing on Wednesday.

Pat Cipollone though did leave the door open for the White House by that Friday deadline to separate forth to perhaps participate in future House judiciary proceedings. Nadler giving the White House the option to mount a public defense at this phase of the impeachment inquiry if they so choose. Cipollone says the White House is still weighing whether to do that. But they want more information what those House judiciary proceedings beyond just Wednesday will look like, for example. What witnesses Nadler wants to call. What the procedures will look like.

So that door is still open. But Wednesday when President Trump will be in London for the NATO summit, the White House not taking this opportunity to have a lawyer present despite all their complaints about due process so far, Alex.

MARQUARDT: But, Sarah, if we are parsing this language, if you look at it on its surface, there's no reason to be optimistic or expecting at least that the White House will be involved in that next hearing. But it really is important to note they have not closed the door on that. They are still entertaining that invitation to participate in the hearing, in the broader hearings because this first hearing is expected to be a more academic hearing with scholars, with legal experts about the importance and the history of impeachment.

So the White House despite criticizing quite significantly the process in this first letter, they are still very much going to take, it seems, the next few days to at least entertain that next deadline, that invitation which they have to respond to by Friday, right?

WESTWOOD: That's right, Alex. And the White House had really sort of painted themselves into a corner in this situation because on the one hand they spent this entire inquiry criticizing the process, complaining that they haven't had legal representation. But on the other hand, sending a lawyer to this impeachment hearing on Wednesday would lend an air of legitimacy to these hearings that President Trump has spent a lot of time criticizing as a sham.

So really this was going to be a tough call for the White House either way. But it does undermine the White House's argument they have had all along that these impeachment proceedings aren't fair, that they haven't had the chance to have representation when they are passing on the first real serious opportunity that they've had to participate in the public phase of the hearings, Alex.

[19:35:09]

MARQUARDT: Sarah, is the biggest question that the White House is grappling with the prospect of legitimizing this process by sending a legal team. I mean, they are not going to send the President but sending lawyers to these proceedings?

WESTWOOD: Well, one of the biggest things that they are grappling with at this stage is how and when they are going to mount a robust public defense. That's been a complaint from house Republicans, from Senate Republicans and allies, that so far the White House really hasn't been coordinating well with allies on an impeachment strategy. And even the President himself has really been all over the place.

So when the White House will start a concerted public push, whether they take this opportunity with this Friday deadline to do so at this stage of the impeachment proceedings when they are still in the House of judiciary committee before the vote on the articles of impeachment, which House Democrats say they want to get done by Christmas day, or they could wait until this moves over, if it does, to a Senate trial where there will be more of a structure for the White House to be able to mount that public defense. And they could have more influence over the process because it just takes a simple majority to set the rules for the Senate trial.

So that will be really up to Senate leader Mitch McConnell who is close to President Trump. So really, the White House's biggest issue right now is grappling when to start that offensive push to try to push back on this narrative that Democrats have spent weeks crafting in public, and that's what we will see with that Friday deadline there, passing on an opportunity to have representation on Wednesday in this largely academic hearing as you said, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right. Sarah Westwood, stay right there. We are going to take a quick break. We will have much or on our breaking news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:40:42]

MARQUARDT: We have more on our breaking news this hour. The White House has just responded announcing that it will not participate in this week's impeachment hearings with the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The White House counsel responding to Judiciary Committee chairman Nadler's letter tonight just now as the deadline expired.

We have a senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju on the phone.

Manu, what more do we know?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on the phone): Yes, this was not a surprise because the White House had been signaling for some time that it would not participate in the upcoming proceedings because it contends that the process has not been fair.

What the White House is arguing in this letter the House Judiciary Committee chairman is that the President did not have a right to interview fact witness, firsthand witnesses that testified before the house intelligence committee. Those witnesses, of course, laid out a pretty serious concerns of the President's conduct with respect to Ukraine, with respect to the President listing Rudy Giuliani his personal attorney to push forward and effort to push for investigations into the President's political rivals. The President has asked for those investigations of aid to Ukraine to withheld.

The President's team is arguing (INAUDIBLE) in those yard (ph). And they say now that the Wednesday hearing before the house Judiciary Committee is different because that's going to be more an academic discussion with legal experts and the like discussing what has been found in the House intelligence committees investigation so far. And they say they don't even know who the witnesses are yet at Wednesday's hearing so they can't participate.

Now they have not yet responded to a second request for a later deadline to discuss whether they are participating due to proceedings but they are not eager in large part because they want to continue to make the argument the process has been unfair to them, something the Democrats have rejected.

Now a bit about that process, Alex, tomorrow will be a big day because that's when the House intelligence committee will reveal behind closed doors that reports to finally investigation that has been since late September. The members of that committee will go behind closed doors.

They review those findings. Then on Tuesday, that is when before that committee, the House intelligence committee will vote to adopt that report. They will send it to the House Judiciary Committee which will begin its proceedings starting with that Wednesday hearing about impeachment, whether or not the threshold meet high crimes and misdemeanors and follow quick action after that where the House Judiciary Committee will vote on articles of impeachment most likely the following week, most likely the end of next week.

That's what we expect at the moment. And then afterwards the full House is expected to vote to impeach President Trump. That would be the third time in American history that that would happen.

But tonight's news, Alex, the White House trying to make clear that they will not participate, they view the process unfair. They are not engaging right now on the subject other than to state that the President did nothing wrong. We will see if they will try to participate in the future proceedings or eve on the senate trial assuming the House does in fact impeach this president -- Alex.

MARQUARDT: And that is the next step, that next deadline on Friday for the White House to respond whether they will be participating in the broader process after Wednesday's hearing.

Manu Raju, senior congressional correspondent, thank you very much.

All right, our breaking news, the White House will not participate in this Wednesday's impeachment hearing. We will be -- we will have much more on this breaking news after a short break. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:47:36]

MARQUARDT: And we are back with our breaking news that the White House will not be participating in this Wednesday's impeachment hearing, which is the first under the House Judiciary Committee.

I want to bring back our CNN Legal Analyst, Paul Callan by phone.

Paul, this is now just under two hours since this deadline passed. There was a response from the White House. They said they will not be attending Wednesday's hearing. Are you surprised?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (on the phone): No, I'm not at all surprised. This is entirely consistent with a strategy that's been pursued by the President's lawyers through the Mueller investigation, which is promising enormous levels of cooperation, promising that the President would be involved and palling back the last minute. Remember there was a lot of talk about this when the president was talking about testifying under oath for Mueller. And eventually a compromise was made with only limited written questions being asked.

And I think here we've heard throughout the hearings that the President wanted to participate, that he was being given no due process and treated unfairly because the Democrats wouldn't allow participation. And now when they offer it, he's saying he doesn't really want to be involved. So it's consistent with that strategy.

MARQUARDT: But it's important to note that the White House has not ruled out that participation. They have this second invitation. In a letter from Jerry Nadler the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to participate in the hearings after -- the proceedings after that Wednesday first hearing, which we understand will be more academic and historical and be talking to experts rather than witnesses.

So there's the next deadline on Friday night. Do you have any expectation that the response will be different? Because we just heard from the White House counsel and he did seem the leave the door open.

CALLAN: Well, it's always possible that they will change their approach, but I really doubt it. Because, Alex, when you look at the situation, you have Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, many of them are lawyers, and they can communicate back to the White House what's happening. And they can also confirm with White House lawyers and use those questions on witnesses who may be called in the hearing. So the President really gets to participate through his Republican allies on the committee.

And I think if he sends his own lawyers in and they become more active, he will forfeit the argument that this is an illegitimate procedure. And remember that's what he's been saying all along, this is just -- it's all political, it's a witch hunt, it's the Democrats out to get him. By allowing his own attorneys to participate in the proceedings, he gives the proceedings legitimacy.

So my bet is that he is going to continue with his pretending that he wants to participate but then pulling back at the last minute. I think that's the strategy you will likely see later in the week.

[19:50:31]

MARQUARDT: All right, well, the week's about to start in just a few hours time. We'll see what the response is from the White House to that second deadline.

We are going to take another quick break. We will be right back with more of this breaking news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:54:16]

MARQUARDT: Priests abusing children. It is a story you have likely heard before but there is something you may not know. Powerful institutions within the catholic church are free to self-police. And a yearlong CNN investigation reveals that one of the institutions the second biggest catholic religious order in the world has repeatedly failed to protect children from pedophile priests. CNN Senior International Correspondent, Nima Elbagir traveled to

Europe, Africa and the United States for her disturbing CNN Special Report tonight, "abuse and scandal in the catholic church: the case of the predator priest." We have a warning. Parts of this report maybe distressing to some viewers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[19:55:00]

NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We spoke to the prosecutor in Belgium (INAUDIBLE) about breaking the terms of your sentence. We also spoke to some children (INAUDIBLE). Who had disturbing storying to share with us. And of course, we want to hear what you have to say about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing.

ELBAGIR: What do you mean nothing? You are a priest. You are a man of God. These children are accusing of abusing them you have nothing to say for yourself?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

ELBAGIR: Do you know Alba? Do you remember Alba? He said he was 13 when you abused him. Do you remember him? Alba in (INAUDIBLE) At the compound. He and his father spoke to us. He was crying. He said that you told him you loved him. And then you hurt him. You have nothing to say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

ELBAGIR: It doesn't disturb you to hear children said this about you? Do you want to say anything? We will of course be speaking to the managers about our findings. Thank you for whatever this was.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: Nima Elbagir joins me now from London.

Nima, that was powerful reporting that we just saw there. What kind of ramifications have you seen so far from this reporting?

ELBAGIR: Well, the Belgium federal authorities have started an investigation based off our findings. The United Nations has also suspended its work (INAUDIBLE). The government there has launched an investigation and the father who you saw in the clip has finally been recalled back to Belgium.

But in a move that I think illustrates everything that is wrong with ultimately the churches' handling of abuse, the Salesians, the catholic order that father (INAUDIBLE) is from, after they withdrew him from the Central African Republic. And it actually took four weeks of us repeatedly going to them to ask why is he still in the country. After they withdrew him, they moved him to a campus in which they also held summer camps for children. And I think, Alex, that speaks to the lack of understanding and the lack of follow through that the church has illustrated in every reaction it's had to the abuse scandal.

MARQUARDT: We saw there you door-stepping the priest. Clearly they didn't want you in there and tried to get you out from the looks of it. You went all over the place for this story. Central African Republic to Belgium to the Vatican. What were the kind of hurdles and challenges you faced?

ELBAGIR: That moment that you showed, that was probably one of the toughest things we and I and the team we had ever done. Everything that we had built around with regards to speaking to these victims who would alleged new incidents of abuse by him. It all really hinged on actually tracking him down. And tracking him down in a country that is still essentially a war zone where the government only controls 20 percent of the territory. I think that was really hard for us.

And then just peeling back the layers of the obfuscation and the arcane rules and the rules of the catholic church throws up, this year supposed have been the year in which the holy father announced that they are going to tackle not just abusers but tackle the culture, as he puts it, of cover up in the church. And what we found really is very little has actually been done. And trying to navigate that was incredible hard.

But given what the victims that you will hear from later tonight -- given what they entrusted us with I think we all felt very strongly all the way through CNN that this was a story we had to find a way to tell.

MARQUARDT: And tell it you did. Strong and profoundly important reporting.

Nima Elbagir in London. Thank you so much.

ELBAGIR: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: And that is coming up next. Join us as she travels across three continents for the CNN Special Report, "Abuse and Scandal in the Catholic Church: The Case of the Predator Priest."

And for more on tonight's breaking news we have all those breaking details on CNN.com. A reminder, the White House announcing it will not participate in this weeks first impeachment hearing under the House Judiciary Committee. Although they have not yet ruled out participating in future hearings. There's another deadline on Friday for the White House to respond to that.

And that will do it for me. I'm Alex Marquardt. Thank you so much for being with me this evening.

Good night.