Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Page breaks her Silence; Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) is Interviewed on Impeachment; China Bans U.S. Warships; China Trade Deal Stalls. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired December 02, 2019 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:31:55]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: After years of silence, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is opening up about being a constant target of the president. Page became a talking point for the president after those text messages between her and former FBI Agent Peter Strzok were revealed showing they did not support then candidate Donald Trump. Page says, though, it is when the president said this just a few weeks ago at one of his rallies that she finally decided to speak out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I love you, Peter. I love you, too, Lisa. Lisa, I love you. Lisa. Lisa. Oh, God, I love you, Lisa. And if she doesn't win, Lisa, we've got an insurance policy, Lisa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: CNN national correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is with me now.

It's quite an interview that she gave to "The Daily Beast" and she really opens up.

SUSAN MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And this comes just one week, next week on Monday is when the Justice Department inspector general is going to issue its report saying there was no evidence that the FBI spied on Trump's 2016 campaign.

And Lisa Page is coming forward because she believes of course that she will be exonerated, that she did not behave is an improper way or a biased way. But as you can imagine, she has gone through quite a bit. She reopens her Twitter account saying she's no longer going to be silent and she gives this very lengthy interview to "The Daily Beast."

She takes us back there where she and Peter Strzok, a former FBI employee, they had this affair. There were text messages despairing the president. They were both involved in the email investigation of Hillary Clinton, as well as the Mueller probe. Peter Strzok, he was fired. She had resigned.

And she thought her life potentially, you know, would go on, but it has gone on in a manner in which she has been really the target of vicious, vicious attacks from the president, as well as his allies. She says, I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse. It had been to hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.

Now, it was back in July of 2018 that Lisa Page was here on Capitol Hill, Poppy. She testified before lawmakers about those text messages and she was called a credible witness. And even Republicans were defending her saying that she was somebody who had honor and integrity.

But that did not stop the president from going forward and attacking her again. And this is how she experiences it. She says, my heart drops to the stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He's demeaning me and my career. It's sickening. And, Poppy, she goes on to say, look, she's got the support of her husband. She has two young children. And now she has her voice back.

Poppy.

HARLOW: It's notable, too, that she says she does not believe in any way she was in violation of the Hatch Act with those text messages and that she, you know, believes -- she can't comment on that inspector general report but it's clear that she believes that it will exonerate her.

[09:35:04]

Again, as you said, we'll get that Monday.

Suzanne, thanks very much.

MALVEAUX: Thank you.

HARLOW: Democrats pushing this probe forward but without key witness testimony. Is this a rush and is that a mistake? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:06]

HARLOW: This morning, House Democrats are in a pretty much all out dash for a vote on impeachment by Christmas. The Judiciary Committee's first public hearing is this Wednesday. They are not waiting to see if the courts compel potentially key witnesses, like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney to talk. But is it a little too fast? Could it backfire?

Let's talk about that and a lot more with Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle.

Good morning, Congressman. Thank you very much for being with me.

You saw, I'm sure, the letter from White House Attorney Pat Cipollone to Jerry Nadler, who says, quote, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are not yet named. More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the president with any semblance of a fair process.

If the tables were turned here and this was a Democratic president being impeached in this way on this timeline, would you be comfortable with it?

REP. BRENDAN BOYLE (D-PA): Yes, I certainly would.

Let's be clear, this has stretched for months now. And, you know, it's funny to me because all along the way all the White House has wanted to talk about and complain about is process because they don't want to discuss the facts.

Now, if they are concerned that they think there's something that would exonerate them in any way, they can free up John Bolton, for example, to testify, and he can come forward and say whether or not the 11 witnesses so far that have come forward and testified and given evidence about a quid pro quo, he can tell us whether or not that is accurate or inaccurate. Certainly any other White House official. But this White House has blocked us every step of the way and then wants to cry that the process is unfair.

So we have more than enough evidence to move forward with impeachment. I think that it is the right thing to do. In fact, I think it's our obligation to do so.

HARLOW: Public hearings 48 hours away in the Judiciary Committee. Have you made up your mind after the Intelligence Committee hearings on whether you will vote yes or no on impeachment at this point? Do you have any remaining questions?

BOYLE: No, I really don't. You know, this has been -- so, first, let me jump to the conclusion first. Yes, I will vote for impeachment. There's simply no doubt in this case.

And for me it really began as kind of like that old detective show "Columbo" where you know the result at the very beginning of the show and then the rest of the show was just filling in the details. That's the case right here because the White House summary of the phone call with Zelensky was the smoking gun and then all of the hearings and depositions have been about what led up to that and the months and months of the shakedown that was going on and how many people were involved in it.

Now we have Ambassador Sondland even testifying and using the term quid pro quo. So, yes, there is more than enough evidence that this was bribery, it was a shakedown, it is explicitly impeachable to our Constitution.

HARLOW: Two -- two points here. Two points here.

BOYLE: Yes.

HARLOW: One, the president is tweeting about a series of interviews that the president of Ukraine, President Zelensky, just gave. Let me quote from one of the interviews from Zelensky. Quote, "I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo." He did go on to say, though, and this is important, quote, "If you're a strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us."

But it sounds like you're saying, Congressman, that whatever happens in the Judiciary Committee doesn't matter at all to your vote.

BOYLE: No, I -- so for me, personally, I mean, I just have one vote. I have seen enough evidence. If something came along that in some way contradicted the evidence and testimony that's been given by 11 witnesses, then I'm certainly open-minded. But, frankly, at this point, I would be shocked if that were to happen.

Just to come back to one previous question, though, that you had that I do want to explain something that I haven't heard in the public domain.

HARLOW: Yes.

BOYLE: To this question that could we possibly be making a mistake and not waiting for John Bolton, for example, to be compelled to testify, there is nothing stopping the Senate, once we go to the trial phase, I would like to see John Bolton called to testify. I would like to see others in the White House called to testify.

HARLOW: Well, it's a possibility. It's a real possibility that --

BOYLE: Yes, and then just to be --

HARLOW: That Jake Tapper talked about with Adam Schiff about a week ago that John Roberts, the chief justice, could do that, could compel John Bolton.

BOYLE: Yes.

HARLOW: So I hear you on that.

I wonder what you think about how narrowly focused or not the articles of impeachment against the president should be because you've got some of your fellow Democrats in the House who say, you know, you've got to just focus on Ukraine.

You've got members like Veronica Escobar of Texas on Judiciary who said recently, I believe being as focused as possible as well. I think the broader we go that may pose challenges for the American people.

And then you've got the other camp that says, no, you have to include things about obstruction, tying back to the Mueller report. What do you think?

[09:45:00]

BOYLE: Yes. I -- so you are right, there is a diversity of opinion on that within the House Democratic caucus. I come down on the side that frankly it should be contained to the matters that are in the report that the Intelligence Committee is writing up as I speak and what the hearings were about over the last couple months.

That doesn't mean that there isn't further evidence that could potentially be explored, but I really think that making sure that this is narrow and tailored specifically to this series of events, the bribery scheme with respect to Ukraine, that for me, is what this is about.

I think that including other things on top of that would be a mistake and then we could possibly run the risk of losing sight of the incredible seriousness of this matter in front of us.

HARLOW: Congressman Brendan Boyle, I appreciate your time this morning. It's a busy week as everyone gets back to work.

BOYLE: All right, thank you.

HARLOW: Thank you.

As the impeachment hearings move this week to the Judiciary Committee, you can watch it all live here on CNN. This begins Wednesday morning starting at 10:00 a.m.

China retaliating after the U.S. backs pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. The latest on the rising tension and the potential impact on trade talks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:51:01]

HARLOW: So, this morning, China is lashing out saying it will ban all U.S. war ships and aircraft from stopping in Hong Kong. The new measures are in response to a pair of bills signed by President Trump last week backing pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Over the weekend, demonstrators there, clearly thankful for the support, carried American flags and Trump banners to celebrate the move.

Let's go to Ivan Watson. He joins me live from Hong Kong.

Ivan, what is the reaction on the ground there? Because there was a lot of speculation over the president -- whether he was actually going to sign this thing.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, I mean, Poppy, I'd say that a very good barometer of where relations are between Beijing and Washington are whether or not Beijing will allow U.S. Navy ships to dock here in Hong Kong, this former British colony. And they've done this before. They've blocked U.S. Navy ships from making these port visits. But as recently as April of this year, they did allow the flagship of the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet, the USS Blue Ridge, to come into Hong Kong.

But, more recently, in August, as the protests were flaring all across this city against the government, China said no to several other U.S. Navy ships. And now, once again, there's a suspension. This, of course, the Chinese foreign ministry is in retaliation to this piece of legislation which Beijing and the Hong Kong administration, they argued is meddling in China's internal affairs. That's the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which the Trump administration signed just last week.

In addition, the foreign ministry says it is applying sanctions against five, western, non-governmental organizations, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, IRI and the NDI. We don't know what these sanctions exactly will be. Human Rights Watch just issued a response saying it wishes that China would respect the rights of people in Hong Kong rather than targeting organization that try to defend those rights.

Poppy.

HARLOW: Yes. It's a notable move because the White House, the president, have been so careful what they say about China and these protesters. So we'll see if the rhetoric changes more in support of them after the signing of this legislation.

Ivan, great to have you in Hong Kong. Thank you very much.

So, this could all weigh on, of course, trying to get to a trade deal with China.

Our chief business correspondent, Christine Romans, is here.

So these new tariffs kick in on more goods December 15th.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

HARLOW: China clearly doesn't like this bill at all.

ROMANS: Yes.

HARLOW: What does it mean for trade talks?

ROMANS: Well, look, I mean trade talks appear to have stalled, quite frankly. You're 13 days away from what is a really important deadline. And the Chinese -- the state run media over the weekend made it very clear not only do they want those December 15th new tariffs to be frozen, not to happen, but they want to roll back existing tariffs. And this does not look like something that the White House has been eager to do. The president called himself tariff man, even today putting more tariffs -- saying he's going to put more tariffs back on imported steel and aluminum. He thinks that tariffs work for him. And Beijing wants to roll those back. The Hong Kong wrinkle adds a new layer of complication.

You know, it's been three steps forward and two steps back all the way along.

HARLOW: Yes.

ROMANS: And we're in the two steps back phase again.

HARLOW: Although China, I mean, the fact is the U.S. has had more power, more ammunition.

ROMANS: Yes.

HARLOW: China's economy has been shrinking. The manufacturing numbers have been bad until this morning. Is this going to embolden China?

ROMANS: So there was a decent round of manufacturing numbers, factory numbers, and that caught a lot of people by surprise. And certainly global markets like that.

HARLOW: Yes.

ROMANS: You know, is it permanent? There's no way to know. I mean this has been a year now of what's been a crushing tariff regime for both the Chinese and for the Americans. I saw another survey that showed from multinational companies, they hadn't gambled that this would last more than a year. So they're not really prepared for tariffs to persist into next year.

HARLOW: Right.

ROMANS: That could be a problem.

However, the economy overall is strong. The president tweeting this morning about how it's the Trump economy. You know, stock market up 25 percent. Jobs numbers are good. The American consumers did very well over the weekend.

HARLOW: Very well.

[09:55:00]

ROMANS: So the consumer is clearly emboldened. That could embolden the White House and the president --

HARLOW: Sure.

ROMANS: To stick to his guns on tariffs.

HARLOW: Romans, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

All right, so coming up, just days before the House Judiciary Committee is set to hold its first hearing on the impeachment inquiry, the president's legal team says, we're not coming.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:59:59]

HARLOW: All right, protesters, you see them there, gathering this morning outside of the Supreme Court where for the first time in nearly a decade the justices will consider a major