Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on Possible Impeachment of President Trump Compared to Impeachment of President Clinton; Saudi National Opens Fire at Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida; Possible Twitter Account Avowing Anti-American Views Linked to Saudi Shooter in Florida Naval Base; American Freed from Iranian Captivity in Prisoner Exchange; White House Counsel Declines to Participate in House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Hearings; Analysts Examine Possible Political Effect of Senate Impeachment Trial. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired December 07, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:01]

JEREMY HERB, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes, do this report that was released today is laying the groundwork for this committee, this Judiciary Committee, to take up impeachment proceedings. The report really is an historical document. It's actually an update of a report that was written in 1974 for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. And what it does is it lays out the arguments for why Congress has the right and the ability to impeach the president. It includes some arguments pushing back on some of the criticisms that we've heard from the president and from his allies into why the Democrats should not be going forward with impeachment.

The report does not actually say that the president committed impeachable offenses, but it makes clear that's where Democrats are headed, as well as a statement from Jerry Nadler, which was introducing that report. Chairman Nadler said that the framers' worst nightmare is what we are facing at this very moment. He said President Trump abused his power, betrayed our national security, and corrupted our elections, all for personal gain. Now, it concluded that the Constitution details only one remedy for this misconduct, and that's impeachment.

Right behind me, as we speak, Nadler and the other Democrats, they are prepping for a hearing on Monday where we will get evidence from the committees detailing the offenses against the president. They're going to be here both today and tomorrow practicing getting all of those details exactly right, rehearsing the hearings so that things go as they expect and they want to get kicked off.

Following that, we could see next week articles of impeachment introduced and a vote in the Judiciary Committee on those articles. The key question right now is what will those articles contain, specifically whether they will include allegations that were detailed in the Mueller report with relation to obstruction of justice. Some of the members on this committee want to see that in the impeachment articles arguing the president's conduct should not be excused. But there are moderates Democrats who are wary about having such articles, because they only got onboard with this impeachment inquiry after it was focused narrowly on Ukraine. So that's a key question we're going to watch in the coming hours and days, Fred.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Jeremy Herb, thank you so much, on Capitol Hill.

This impeachment process is not unfamiliar to our next guest. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is the only member of Congress to work on all three modern era impeachments, Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and now Trump. She is a 13-term representative from California and also a member of the House Judiciary Committee. And on Wednesday she questioned four legal experts who testified about the legal and historic merits of this impeachment. Welcome, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Thank you.

WHITFIELD: So let me start with this report just released and delivered, outlining the constitutional grounds for impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee, your committee, is now involved in. Are you confident the House will have strong evidence to send articles of impeachment to the Senate?

LOFGREN: We are going to get a full report from the Intel Committee on the direct evidence about the president's misconduct, but we have a pretty good idea from the 300-page report that has been issued as well as the testimony that was given, that he did abuse his power to gain a personal advantage in the election, and that's a pretty serious matter.

WHITFIELD: It's a very serious matter. Walk us through what may happen on Monday. What should people expect?

LOFGREN: We will get, I believe, a presentation from the Intel Committee of their findings, and we'll get an opportunity to ask questions and to make sure that we've got a full picture of what they have found.

WHITFIELD: Are you using previous impeachment proceedings as kind of a guidepost for you --

LOFGREN: Yes.

WHITFIELD: -- since you've been through it before and your roles have varied in these occasions, but can you help but use your previous experience as reference points?

LOFGREN: Well, the most important experience, even though I was just a law student and not in charge of anything, but the Nixon impeachment really is something that I have been reflecting on.

WHITFIELD: That was in 73, you were a law student, we're looking at pictures now.

LOFGREN: The ravages of age.

(LAUGHTER) LOFGREN: He engaged in misconduct that had to do with rigging the election, he abused his power. The committee voted to impeach him. He resigned, of course, before the House took a vote. Here we have a president who abused his power pretty clearly to gain an advantage in the election, but it's even worse because he involved a foreign government in that.

And I've been thinking also about what he did with the appropriated funds for Ukraine. People that go, where is Ukraine? It was really to allow Ukraine to protect themselves against Russia, who had invaded them. So that's a big concern, because there's --

[14:05:09]

WHITFIELD: That's why it was congressionally approved military aid.

LOFGREN: That's right. That's right. And it was bipartisan, we don't want Russia to sweep through Ukraine. Russia is trying to reconstitute itself as a Soviet Union. They are a serious adversary of the United States. This action certainly benefited Russia.

WHITFIELD: So when you hear the arguments, or one of the arguments, because there have been many, one of the arguments that the president wanted to get to the bottom of corruption, wanted to employ or recruit or involve someone who had already been established, or at least western leaders had already said was a corrupt figure, to actually lead an investigation that would involve the Bidens, what is your reaction to one of -- that being one of the arguments as to why the president was in his right to do this?

LOFGREN: Well, it doesn't look like -- the first piece of evidence, in a way the most serious piece of evidence, was the notes of the phone call he had with the president of Ukraine, where he said -- the president is asking about the aid, and then President Trump, he doesn't talk about corruption. He talks about the Bidens. That's the investigation he wants.

So at the same time he was doing that, the Department of Defense and the Department of State had been asked by the Congress to investigate whether the aid should be released because of corruption issues. That was part of the legislation that became law. And they had both said, no, you can release this. The corruption issues have abated and the aid should be released. He never mentioned corruption. He mentioned the Bidens. I don't think any fair-minded person could look at the evidence we've got and reach a different conclusion.

And the thing that is a mystery to me is if there were exculpatory information, if there was a different explanation, why didn't the president come forward? He refused to let people testify. If they had something to say that would lead us to a different conclusion, I would have been happy as all get out, because no one wants to be in this situation of impeachment.

WHITFIELD: What's your interpretation -- sorry to interrupt, but what's your interpretation now, then, of the White House counsel saying it doesn't want to take you all up on the invitation by being a part of the process because, and according to the letter, the statement coming from White House counsel, Cipollone, that it is completely baseless, this whole inquiry, and that it has violated basic principles of due process, and that it really is a charade, and for those reason it won't participate?

LOFGREN: That's demonstrably false. The president obviously is not required to participate, but the president's lawyers' statement is demonstrably false. We have given more procedural protections to President Trump than were given to President Nixon and to President Clinton. He's declined to take advantage of some of those opportunities, but that's his choice. I think the president appears to think he can just blow off the Constitution, and I don't think so.

WHITFIELD: And then before I let you go, because as we are looking forward, we're also going down memory lane with you, because you have been involved in three of the modern era impeachments. In 1998, you were a congresswoman as opposed to be being a law student in 73. And at the time you did not believe the allegations against President Clinton rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

LOFGREN: Correct.

WHITFIELD: Was there anything that changed your mind about that? Or --

LOFGREN: No, because the high crime and misdemeanor is abuse of presidential power. President Clinton engaged in an affair, which was not admirable, and he lied about that affair, which, again, was not admirable. But that was not presidential power. That wasn't abuse of presidential power. That was a tawdry affair.

WHITFIELD: So in contrast, why do you see this with more clarity?

LOFGREN: Well, if we thought lying about an affair was an impeachable offense, we'd have the two affairs that the president covered up and his lawyer is in prison as a consequence. But that's not impeachable. That's just disappointing. What's impeachable is the use of presidential power to subvert the Constitution. And that's why we're engaged in this.

WHITFIELD: OK, except there were others who argued that Clinton's abuse of power was conducted, was carried out, perhaps the circumstances very different, but that there are parallels?

[14:10:12]

LOFGREN: I just don't think there are. He lied about a personal indiscretion. He didn't use the full force of the presidency to subvert the government to his own personal needs. He lied about sex, not a good thing. President Trump has also lied about sex. Not a good thing, but not impeachable.

WHITFIELD: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, thank you so much. Appreciate you being with us.

LOFGREN: Thank you. You bet. WHITFIELD: Coming up, a heartbreaking tribute after yesterday's

deadly shooting at a Naval Airbase in Florida. Why one of the victims is being hailed as a hero.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: We're following breaking news for you. CNN has confirmed that a number of Saudi nationals were detained for questioning following Friday's deadly shooting at the Naval airbase in Pensacola, Florida. That's according to a U.S. official who did not provide any information on their current status.

We're also learning the identity of one of the victims in the shooting. He is Joshua Kaleb Watson, who was a sailor in the Navy, and in this interview from January he talks about his plans for the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSHUA KALEB WATSON: So I was selected for Navy pilot, hopefully heading down to Pensacola at this point. Right now I'm slated for November. And get through flight school and maybe get to fly jets. That would be pretty cool.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:15:09]

WHITFIELD: His brother also releasing a statement today saying Watson died a hero.

CNN's Natasha Chen is in Pensacola. So Natasha, what else is Joshua Watson's brother saying?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Adam Watson posted on Facebook saying that his youngest brother gave his life in this senseless tragedy. He just spoke about how heartbroken he and his family are. He said this was the worst day of his life, just to lose this important family member. And he said that he died a hero, although there is a hole in their hearts that can never be filled again. So a lot of families really impacted by this, and this entire community really shaken.

We know now also that one of the two deputies who was injured in this incident has been released. I want to refer to some notes here about those two deputies. One of them was shot in the arm, the other in the knee. One of them had surgery on Friday. The one who was shot in the arm was treated and released yesterday already. So both of them it seems are going to be OK.

And there were six other people besides those two deputies among the injured. And of course, those who were killed, there are three people who were killed in addition to the shooter. That shooter had actually exchanged gunfire with those two deputies, and that's when they were hit themselves. So a lot of people, again, still checking on how those injured are doing. And we're still waiting to learn more about the other victims as the FBI and Navy want to be really careful about waiting an appropriate time after next of kin have been notified themselves about the victims, Fred.

WHITFIELD: So Natasha, CNN also has exclusive new details on this shooter who has been identified as a Saudi national. His uncle telling CNN that the gunman showed nothing suspicion before he moved to the U.S. in 2017 to begin training at the base.

CHEN: That's right. So he came here in August of 2017 as part of a U.S. Air Force military training case. It's funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That training was supposed to end in August of 2020. So at this point he had been here more than a couple of years. His uncle spoke to CNN, saying that his nephew was 21-years-old. He described his nephew as being a likeable, exceptionally smart person, and that he did not see any indication that his nephew would commit such an attack. He said the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia needs to get to the truth of what happened, and that if his nephew is guilty, he would be accountable to God.

Within the last hour or so we also learned from a U.S. official telling our producer David Shortell that several additional Saudi nationals were detained and questioned following the shooting yesterday. And as is natural for any case of this nature, officials are going to talk to those who are connected to the suspected gunman, and that includes his friend circles, and his friend circle includes Saudi nationals. And that official did not have additional information about the status of those detained nationals, Saudi nationals, so say whether they are still detained or still being questioned, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Natasha Chen, thank you so much.

Former Pentagon press secretary, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby is back with me. So Admiral, what does it tell you Saudi nationals were detained, but we don't necessarily know if they were in any way complicit. It could have been that they were simply questioned.

JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Right. I think, and I'm not a law enforcement expert, but that seems to make eminent sense to me, that the FBI would want to talk to some of the colleagues from Saudi Arabia of this individual, just to see what they might know about whatever motivation he might have had and whatever planning he might have executed in getting ready for this horrific attack. So it makes eminent sense to me, and we'll have to wait to see, obviously, how much they are willing to disclose about what they learn from those discussions.

And John, Natasha explained earlier that folks coming from Saudi Arabia aren't the only folks who may come to U.S. military bases for training, but people come from other parts of the world as well. Talk to me about how vital this is, particularly when there is U.S. military arsenal assistance perhaps to other countries, and whether what just happened will in any way impact or change the programs moving forward.

KIRBY: Yes, great points, Fred. First of all, there are literally thousands of foreign nationals that are undergoing military training of all sorts inside the United States because so many of these countries purchase arms and ammunition, weapons, platforms and systems from the United States to operate in their home territories. And so many of them pay for this training, as the Saudis were paying for this. It's not something that the U.S. taxpayer is fronting.

[14:20:03]

But it is in our national security interest to have these programs in place so that these individuals can go home and not only defend their countries better with these systems, ours systems and platforms, but they can actually participate in coalition operations more effectively and efficiently with the United States and our allies and partners. So it's very much in our interest that we conduct this kind of training going forward.

Now whether or not that program is going to change, I think Secretary of Defense Esper yesterday indicated that he's willing to take a look at this program going forward and doing a review about the vetting procedures in particular. I would not be surprised if you see some sort of announcement or indication from the Pentagon that they are going to take a broader look at this program. But I don't think it will change in terms of the purpose of it. And I would hate to see the program get thrown away all together. I really don't see that happening. It's too important to us and our interests. But I wouldn't be surprised if they announced some sort of review just to get their hands around it and see if anything went wrong that maybe could be avoided in the future.

WHITFIELD: Rear Admiral John Kirby in Washington, thank you so much.

KIRBY: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Still ahead, he was held prisoner in Iran for three years, now this Princeton graduate student is finally heading home as part of a prisoner swap.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:25]

WHITFIELD: New today, the Trump administration says it is hopeful a prisoner swap with Iran will lead to better relations with Tehran. The exchange freed a Princeton graduate student arrested on charges of espionage while doing research in Iran back in 2016. Xiyue Wang spent three years in a Tehran prison but is now undergoing a medical check at a U.S. Army hospital in Germany before returning to the States.

Kylie Atwood joins us now from Washington. So Kylie, what is President Trump saying about this prisoner swap? What were the circumstances?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: President Trump has just recently put out a tweet on this, and I want to read that to you before we delve into the details here. President Trump has tweeted, quote, "Taken during the Obama administration despite $150 billion gift, returned during the Trump administration. Thank you to Iran on a very fair negotiation. See, we can make a deal together."

So there he is referring to some Iranian assets that were freed up because they had originally been sanctioned, they were freed up when the Obama administration struck the Iran deal. But the bottom-line here is that President Trump is casting this as potentially positive momentum, as a launching ground for potential better U.S./Iranian relations. And that could be twofold.

So a senior administration official spoke with reporters today and said on the condition that this could potentially be positive momentum for the other U.S. prisoners who are in Iran, that could be a good thing. We don't have any proof that that is to be the case. Obviously, the U.S. also released an Iranian who had been detained here in the U.S. as a part of this deal with Xiyue Wang.

But the other element to consider is that just generally U.S.-Iranian relations under the Trump administration have not been good. And a senior administration official reiterated today that President Trump remains open to sitting down with them with no preconditions. That's something that has been a little bit up in the air recently, but they are moving back to that position and really trying to seize upon this positive momentum. It's a really great day for the Xiyue Wang family.

WHITFIELD: Kylie Atwood, thank you so much.

Up next, it's a working weekend on Capitol Hill as House Democrats consider articles of impeachment against President Trump. What we're learning from a new report just released from the House Judiciary Committee.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:32:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

WHITFIELD: All right, welcome back. This breaking news on the deadly Naval base shooting in Pensacola, Florida. According to the intelligence group SITE, which stand for Search for International Terrorist Entities, the gunman held extreme anti-American views and posted on Twitter hatred towards Americans for what he perceives as a pro-Israel stance. CNN senior diplomatic editor Nic Robertson joining me right now with more on this. So Nic, can you tell us more about what was found and this group, SITE?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, what appears to be, you might interpret it as a will, if you will, an online will, minutes before -- posted online minutes before the shooting began. There are quotes in there quoting Usama bin Laden, that you'll never be safe while there are Americans on our soil, also quoting Anwar al Awlaki, the Yemeni born Al Qaeda cleric who, like bin Laden, was killed in drone strikes -- well, he was killed in a drone strike in 2011, bin Laden of course killed in a Seal Force Six takedown of him back in the same year.

But these quotes are striking because it seems to show that he is using, if it does prove to be him, if this extremist monitoring website is correct, it does seem to be using the language that was used by Al Qaeda 10 years or so ago to, against Saudi Arabia, against Americans. So this is quite striking.

The king, of course, has called this an outrage. He said this is not -- this is not Saudi Arabia. The tribe of this young man involved in the shooting, the killer, his tribe has said this is not Saudi Arabia. They say that they have their faith and put their trust in the kingdom and the king. But of course, these new details that possibly indicate his mindset going into the shooting -- and I say possibly, because these have all yet to be confirmed by CNN -- possibly going into the shooting, some Al Qaeda type content, anti-American, anti-Israeli, and quoting former Al Qaeda leaders and figureheads.

WHITFIELD: So then, Nic, is there any clarity on whether these sentiments associated with this gunman, was this posted while he was in training at this U.S. facility, or was this prior to? And I ask because it would seem if there was a track record even prior to coming to the U.S., that any kind of vetting to make sure that this candidate is -- everything is known about this candidate before coming to a U.S. military insulation for any training?

[14:35:00]

ROBERTSON: Sure. This monitoring, this extremist monitoring website says that this was posted, this Twitter account posted this about 15 minutes before the shooting began. So immediately prior. So that's why we might think of it as a will, if it was him, if it was his. The name seems to indicate that it might be, the Twitter account was created in 2012. And yes, he would have been very thoroughly vetted, thoroughly vetted to get into the Saudi military, thoroughly vetted to be picked by the Saudi military to come on a training program in the United States, and thoroughly vetted by the United States to be allowed in to get on that training program.

One would also expect, but this may now come under more scrutiny, that in his time, the over two years that he was in the United States, that attention would have been paid to any sort of changes in his character or behavior. Now, whether that would have been a responsibility of the Saudis or whether that would have been something that the United States would have taken on, remembering there are over 850 Saudis going through some sort of military training in the United States as of yesterday, so that would be a big job for either of Saudis or the United States to do.

But this does appear to be something that was sent out in his name, appears -- again, we have yet to verify all of this -- appears to have been sent out in his name minutes before the attack and would therefore seem to indicate his state of mind and some of his rationale if it was him behind this Twitter.

WHITFIELD: OK. And then, Nic, what's your view on the level of cooperation, the exchange of information from the Saudi authorities to the U.S. on this particular matter? Because we know the president said that the king called him. They had a conversation. The president of the United States read a statement, or conveyed the sentiments of the king. But with this kind of added information here from this SITE group, what kind of communication do you believe would transpire now?

ROBERTSON: So the Saudis are in the same situation as the United States it would appear, at least as of the time of the shooting yesterday. They're starting from scratch. They've got to go through all the social media accounts, go talk to people he was talking to in the last few weeks, find out his state of mind.

And what we saw yesterday was really an indication of the strength of the relationship between the king of Saudi Arabia and President Trump, also between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and a real effort by the king of Saudi Arabia to get involved, get engaged, get ahead of this and try to knock down any of the negative repercussions that come up.

But now it seems to be going to a new place, a darker place, a more complicated place. And this undoubtedly is going to be problematic for Saudi Arabia, because this is not what they want. Listen, there is a world heavyweight boxing match taking place in a few hours here in Riyadh. The Saudis want that as the identifier as the new Saudi Arabia, the new vision for Saudi Arabia, international sporting events, the world's biggest IPO a few days ago. This is how they want Saudi Arabia to be seen. So these new details emerging are going to have a real negative impact. So I think it's going to take a little while to see how the Saudis calibrate themselves to this.

The king has been very clear, however, he has said Saudi authorities must fully cooperate with U.S. investigators. And I don't think you're going to find anyone on the Saudi official side that's going to start covering up tracks at this stage. However, you can expect the Saudi authorities to be very fully engaged with the shooter's family at the moment to get every scrap of detail they can learn about him, his inclinations, and what the family can tell him.

WHITFIELD: But Nic, the Saudis would have to be pressed on what they knew, what they know about this gunman, right? Because you just mentioned a moment ago the scrutiny that is placed on any candidate who would be coming stateside for this kind of training, the scrutiny that would be involved for any Saudi to be a part of the military. So how, and who will hold the Saudis to account to express what they know about this person, what they knew prior to his dispatch, and what they learned aside from what you just mentioned, which was 15 minutes of possible Twitter activity prior to this shooting?

ROBERTSON: Well, clearly the military are going to -- the U.S. military are going to examine their procedures, protocols, operational practices, the level of oversight they have, or whether or not they even want to continue at this time to engage in this sort of training.

[14:40:05]

It's in the mutual interest of both countries. Just the beginning of last year I was flying on a Saudi Black Hawk helicopter with Saudi pilots. At the air base where we took off from, it was parked next to U.S. Black Hawk helicopters flown by U.S. pilots. It's effectively interchangeable. I've flown on plenty of U.S. military Black Hawks, and flying on this Saudi one was no different. The interoperability of the two forces is important for the United States to be able to project its power through allies in this region, and it's important for the Saudis to be able to project their power in the region and hold off the threat of their enemies in the region. So the relationship is important.

But having said that, who is going to hold who to account? Well, we can expect politicians, particularly Congress in the United States, I think, to again double down on what they've been saying to the president, their displeasure. The weapons systems being sold to Saudi are killing Yemen civilians because Saudi Arabia is backing the internationally recognized government of Yemen in a civil war there, and there are collateral civilian casualties. So it's going to bring pressure there.

You would expect that the way the relationship is conducted right now between the Saudi king and President Trump, that President Trump is going to be -- is going to have words with the Saudi king about this. But the real systems and procedures, one would imagine, that is going to come from within the military. But what laws may come into effect because of what's transpired -- and again, we don't know the details of it yet. We're beginning to get the first clues that there's real potential overtones to this. And this is something we know the FBI is investigating. It isn't confirmed. It's an avenue they are looking at. But of course anyone going into this situation, any investigator, is not going to overlook that particular issue. I think this has a long way to travel yet, Fred.

WHITFIELD: That's right. These new details, right, not being confirmed by U.S. authorities, but instead coming from this SITE intelligence group, an independent group, that has compiled this information. Nic Robertson, thank you so much in Saudi Arabia.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:46:27]

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. Just hours ago, the House Judiciary Committee released a new report laying out the historical arguments for impeachment, in one section arguing that abuse of power is impeachable, this report says, I'm quoting now, "The powers of the president are immense, but they are not absolute. That principle applies to the current president just as it applied to his predecessors. President Nixon erred in asserting that "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." And President Trump was equally mistaken when he declared he had "the right to do whatever I want as president," end quote. This in that report.

Joining me right now, our legal expert, Liz Wiehl, she is a former federal prosecutor. So Liz, it's a working weekend for these committee members who are trying to draft these articles of impeachment. They've laid out this multiple-page report in preparation for Monday's hearing. So what does it sound like to you, that abuse of power is near definitely going to be an article of impeachment?

LIZ WIEHL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. We've got abuse of presidential power, obstruction of justice, then right at the top, Fred, we get to treason or bribery. And the way they get to treason is betrayal of national interests through foreign entanglements. That's very interesting. That's right up at the top. And you see how you can get through that with President Trump's, basically the bribery of the Ukrainian president, that's right up at the top. That's treason. That's what the founding fathers said was the number one reason for impeachment, then corruption of office or election. That's right up there as well.

Note very particularly that this, if we count this as really a 50-page roadmap as opposed to the 300-page report that came from the intel committee, we'll be hearing about that, of course, on Monday, but we take this as a 50-page roadmap, much easier for these congressmen and women to follow, then they don't have anything mentioned here about the Mueller report, no offenses or counts related to that. My guess would tell me that the staff members, at least, are arguing very vehemently behind the scenes to keep out any evidence from the Mueller report or any offenses listed here.

WHITFIELD: And you agree with that?

WIEHL: I do.

WHITFIELD: You think that's wise?

WIEHL: I do. As a prosecutor you want to throw in everything. You want to be able to bring everything in, you want to be able to have the jurors to hear everything. But this is not just a basic prosecution. This is a political act, this is a political prosecution. And these senators who are going to be hearing, these senators who are jurors, have heard the Mueller report, of course. Everyone has. That's old news at this point.

WHITFIELD: So you feel like it's fresher to deal with --

WIEHL: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: -- some 17 witnesses, depositions?

WIEHL: Absolutely. Yes, yes.

WHITFIELD: And these articles of impeachment, you mentioned, whether abuse of power, obstruction, treason, bribery --

WIEHL: All of that.

WHITFIELD: -- most of it supported, in your view, by the testimony already collected?

WIEHL: Yes. And here's the thing. If President Trump comes in and brings in through his lawyers, because they will be represented at the Senate trial, now brings in Giuliani, and he's over there in Ukraine, and he's bringing in all of this defense, may we call it that, that he's bringing in now, and that then brings in the Russians and the 2016 election and all that, then he opens the door.

[14:50:07]

WHITFIELD: And you don't see him doing that --

WIEHL: -- to potentially.

WHITFIELD: Question mark.

WIEHL: Question mark. To potentially bringing in the Mueller report, I would argue, at the Senate trial for the Democrats. I don't think you'd wanted want to do that, but it could happen. The Democrats could be holding that back. Would President Trump want to open that door? I wouldn't think so, but it could happen.

WHITFIELD: So you see a greater willingness for the White House attorneys to be very engaged in the U.S. Senate trial, if indeed the House votes to impeach the president, and all roads seem like they're heading that way, however it's the White House counsel who just said through a statement dated yesterday that, no, no interest in being a part of this process --

WIEHL: Not this process.

WHITFIELD: -- in the House. So why is it advantageous for the Senate and not necessarily in the House?

WIEHL: I think at that point that I think they will engage at the Senate. I think there will be some defense at the Senate. I don't think the president is going to sit mute at the Senate because I think he sees the Senate as more favorable, which it is of course, to him. I think there will be some -- I don't know how that exactly will play now, but I think the president sees that as a much more favorable forum to him.

WHITFIELD: OK, Liz Wiehl, all fascinating. Thank you so much for being with us.

WIEHL: You got it.

WHITFIELD: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:55:13]

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. On Monday Democrats will present evidence at the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees against President Trump. White House attorneys say they will not participate in the impeachment process in the House, describing the inquiry as, quote, baseless, saying that in a letter.

With me now is Ron Brownstein, a senior editor for "The Atlantic" and a CNN senior political analyst, Francesca Chambers is a White House correspondent for McClatchy. Good to see you both. Ron, you first. So moderate Democrats are feeling rather frustrated as party leaders start writing articles of impeachment, saying they don't want the Mueller report to be part of it. So how important will it be that it is a streamlined report that lays out articles of impeachment that really pertain to Ukraine?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's a big decision. But I think the first point is, there are 31 House Democrats in districts that Trump carried in 2016, and it appears that the vast majority of them are going to be comfortable voting for at least some articles of impeachment. We saw in 1998 with Bill Clinton that some articles of impeachment came out of Judiciary Committee and were not approved on the House floor. So I don't think we know what party leaders are going to do about whether to include the Mueller report or not, but certainly if they, you would think that they members would have the opportunity to vote yea or nay on whether to include that. I think the big story is that there does seem to be a solidified Democratic majority to move this on to the Senate.

WHITFIELD: And Francesca, what's the message that the White House is sending by saying, no, you are not going to involve our counsel because, in a letter, saying they believe it's a charade?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, MCCLATCHY, D.C.: Well, the White House has long said that they believe that, and to participate at this point, they believe that it would make the entire process look legitimized. And they've argued it has not been fair to them thus far.

But the White House is also starting to find its footing in its messaging. You saw this week the president's impeachment messengers coming out more aggressively, more zealously, and fighting on his behalf, speaking to the media a little bit more. And the argument that they're now making to those Democrats that we were just talking about is that they could lose their seats if they vote for impeachment. And they're also claiming that Democrats to lose the House if they vote for impeachment on the grounds that they've laid out. They're also pushing back very aggressively against what Democrats are laying out as the grounds for bribery as part of the expected articles of impeachment.

WHITFIELD: And so Ron, is it of great risk that the White House would really put all of its stock in the U.S. Senate proceedings, in that trial, and that's where its counsel would be engaged because there's this level of comfort that this Republican-led Senate is really going to err on the side of the White House?

BROWNSTEIN: A couple things to keep in mind. First, support for impeachment is around 50 percent of the public, much higher than it was during Bill Clinton's impeachment where it never reached really more above a third. And despite that, Fred, there were 90 House Republicans in districts that Bill Clinton carried in 1996. Almost all of them voted for impeachment. Only seven of them lost their seats over the last two elections. So the idea that, I think, voting for impeachment at a moment when half the country supports is a great threat just isn't really supported by history.

I think putting their eggs in the Senate basket for the White House is consistent with their messaging approach not only on this but on virtually all issues. As we're saying, their goal is to delegitimize the process, and talk to their base and say this is just fundamentally unfair, therefore Republicans should stick with me. What they're not doing is putting forward a substantive argument that is designed to counter the evidence that has been accumulated and to reach out to, I think, voters beyond their base.

Don't forget, one of the key elements in public opinion in all of this is the share of Americans who think that the president did something wrong is higher, has been consistently higher than the share who say he should be removed from office. That's the challenge for the Democrats. They've got to get more of those people who think that this was wrong to cross the threshold into saying it was a high crime and misdemeanor that justifies his removal from office.

WHITFIELD: Francesca, what are you hearing about how the White House is poising itself to count on the Senate to come to the rescue?

CHAMBERS: The White House is waiting to hear from Mitch McConnell to see who procedures and rules --

WHITFIELD: Who has been quiet.

CHAMBERS: -- that he will put forward, because the thing is the president says that he would like to see live witnesses like Hunter Biden, but he might not get the chance to have any live witnesses, let alone the Bidens depending on what those rules and those procedures say. So in some ways the White House has to wait for Mitch McConnell to make a decision or make some sort of agreement with Chuck Schumer or take a vote in order for them to figure out what their next steps are.

WHITFIELD: Francesca Chamber, Ron Brownstein, always good to see you both. Thank you so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: We've got so much more straight ahead in the Newsroom. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. See you back here tomorrow. Ana Cabrera is up next.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thank you so much for being with us on this Saturday.