Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Democrats Impeach on Two Articles; Interview with Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX); I.G. Report Finds No Improper Bias in Russia Probe. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 10, 2019 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- formerly worked for the KGB, digging up, it appears, dirt on a political opponent. I mean, this is central to the Democrats' case, as you heard them a little more than an hour ago, saying that the next election is at stake here.

I just want to ask you -- because you've been a skeptic of the Democrats' impeachment case from the beginning here -- should Americans at home believe that's legal, constitutional, acceptable? For -- particularly after all we learned from 2016, all the questions that were raised, that it's OK to go out to a foreign government, even knowing that your sources of information there may very well be influenced by a hostile foreign government in Russia. Is that legal, is that constitutional?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, look, putting aside the legal nuances, the constitutional nuances, Rudy Giuliani is the president's personal lawyer and it is not OK, the way he has comported himself in this. He has not made clear his role to Ukrainian officials, to American officials. And he's overstepped his bounds, including through tweets in the past week.

So, you know, that conduct is not OK. And it's part of why I've been critical of what the Democrats have tried to do here. This is -- I think we're seeing not a real effort to remove the president. You know, the Democrats, you know, are moving these articles through. They know it has little or no shot of going anywhere in the Senate.

And, you know, as you probably remember, you know, for weeks or months, I've been saying, look, take a look at the actual issues here, do a real investigation. And this notion by Schiff that he didn't have time to go to court, you know, I think is just nonsense.

You know, one of the reasons why the McGahn case has taken eight months to play out is that the House didn't go to court right away. They issued the subpoena, they waited a long time to try to enforce it, they waited a long time to try to go to court. And so instead, we do have this rushed impeachment process, which is looking like a, you know, fast train to acquittal in the Senate.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Elie, on that point about how long the court has or has not taken and McGahn, and what that means for, you know, going through the courts to try to compel Mulvaney and Bolton, et cetera to speak? Who's right? Adam Schiff or Ross Garber? ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sorry, Ross, I think Adam Schiff's right here. The fact of the matter is, Adam Schiff, even if he went to court on day one, would still be in court today. He would still be looking at Court of Appeals, he would still potentially be looking at the U.S. Supreme Court. This would drag into the spring and summer of 2020. That is simply not politically feasible.

Now, I think, as is, Adam Schiff has put together a compelling case. You have the July 25th call, you have Donald Trump's own words in those call. You have Donald Trump's own words outside the White House, things he said to the media. And you have the dozen or so -- 17 I think -- witnesses who Adam Schiff did get to testify.

And when you put it all together, I think the conclusion's clear. They were trying to get Ukraine to interfere in this election. That's not legal, that's not constitutional.

SCIUTTO: And the fact --

(CROSSTALK)

GARBER: But compelling to who, Elie?

SCIUTTO: Go ahead, Ross, quickly (ph).

GARBER: You know, that's the problem, is compelling to who. It hasn't been -- excuse me -- compelling to any Republicans in the House. It seems to have not been compelling enough to bring over independents, and it's not going to be compelling enough to win in the Senate.

So what is going on here? It's fine, great. You know, Pelosi and the House Dems are making a statement. But you -- and you're right, it would probably take a couple of months, a few months to get through the court system. But at least then you'd have some answers on some pretty key questions --

SCIUTTO: Right.

GARBER: -- and maybe some information.

SCIUTTO: But we should note that compelling in private to some Republican lawmakers that I and my colleagues have spoken to. In public, some have made a political calculation they can't express that criticism publicly --

GARBER: Indeed, yes.

SCIUTTO: -- that's the difference. Elie Honig, Ross Garber, David Gergen, thanks to all of you.

[10:33:52]

House Democrats pushing forward, introducing, we learned, two articles of impeachment against President Trump. We'll get reaction from one lawmaker on Capitol Hill, just ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Well, it has been an historic morning for sure as House Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against President Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Up next, a House Judiciary Committee vote on those articles expected this week. Then a full House vote could come next week.

I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman Vicente Gonzalez of Texas. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Appreciate your time this morning, Congressman. How will you vote on these articles?

REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ (D-TX): Well, more than likely, I think the House Democratic majority will overwhelmingly vote for impeachment. And we'll see what happens -- develops in the Senate. I think the story will be very different on the other side of the Capitol. But I think at the end of the day, the evidence was overwhelming that the president was holding Ukraine hostage for his own personal political gain.

HARLOW: So that sounds like a yes vote on both articles from you. Do I have that right?

GONZALEZ: I think so.

HARLOW: OK. So I wonder if you share any of the concern that your fellow Democrat in the House, Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson, has with this. He is leaning toward voting no on both articles, and he told my colleague Manu Raju yesterday, quote, "I'm certainly leaning that way. I just think it will be too divisive for the country. It doesn't accomplish anything." What does it mean not to have Democratic unity on this?

[10:40:01]

GONZALEZ: Well, I think we're probably 98 or 99 percent there. But I think -- I don't know if we're going to have 100 percent of the votes. But at the end of the day, I think what we're seeing is how ethics have evolved in this country. Because the evidence that we've seen is clear and convincing, it's just a matter of how we see it.

I think 30 or 40 years ago, this would have been much more appalling. And it seems to be much more tolerable to the American people, and certainly to members of Congress and I think in the Senate, than it would have been decades ago. And I think that's just -- I hope that this doesn't become the new standard for the presidency --

HARLOW: If the Senate acquits the president, what beneficial change do you think that this impeachment will have brought to the American people. One of your Democratic colleagues, a few weeks ago on this program, made the argument to me that this will curb the president's behavior, of calling on foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections. But even after this process started, we heard him on television, call for China to investigate the Bidens.

GONZALEZ: Yes, it's never-ending. We would hope that it would curb his behavior. I don't know that I can -- I can -- I don't think that we can have any guarantees on anything at this point, but I think it informed the American people of what went on, and what potentially can continue to happen and how our elections could be interfered with.

And I think we should be very concerned as Americans, and -- at foreign intrusion in our elections, coming up in 2020.

HARLOW: There was this moment that was striking over the weekend. One of the freshman Democrats, Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, in her district, holding a town hall and there was this exchange with some of her constituents over the issue of impeaching the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): No one has dispelled or attempted to dispel or provide evidence that would exonerate the president. That (ph) remains time to do that --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to prove you're innocent?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's been proven guilty!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you are going through this process --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Criminal finding! No crime! You don't investigate something without a crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: A little bit hard, I'm sure, Congressman, for you to hear if you couldn't see the subtitles there, but there were constituents yelling, you know, you have to prove that you're innocent? And no crime, no crime. Are Democrats prepared to possibly lose seats in those districts because of this?

GONZALEZ: I -- certainly we hope not. We hope to educate the American people of the facts of what happened in the White House, what this administration did. Certainly, the president has some staunch supporters that regardless of what he does and what violations of law he's committed, he's clearly forgiven in some sectors of our -- of our country.

But at the end of the day, we have to abide by the Constitution, or why would we have one in the first place. And the evidence is clear and overwhelming, I think, that we have no choice but to take this vote to the floor for the right of the American people.

HARLOW: OK. So you're not concerned about those seats.

Let me turn to just a final topic here. A huge morning again, the articles of impeachment for this president but also an historic trade deal between Democrats and this White House. USMCA, essentially NAFTA 2.0, the first time in two decades that the AFL-CIO, the big, you know, labor union is endorsing a trade deal at all, and they're fully behind this one. You wrote this letter on December 4th to Speaker Pelosi with some

concerns about it, specifically about the security agreement with Mexico. Were your concerns fully addressed in the final version of this deal?

GONZALEZ: They have not been addressed, and that continues to be a concern. I'm happy that we've reached an agreement on trade, but I'm disappointed that the insecurity in Mexico was not addressed with this trade agreement, and I'm going to continue to engage the government of Mexico to do more.

As you know, in the last three years, they've lost more lives to violence than we did in -- in Korea and Vietnam combined, and we can't continue to turn a blind eye to the insecurity in Mexico.

When we talk about taxes and tariffs and we don't talk about the extra security costs and extortion costs that many businesses end up paying when doing business in Mexico, I think it's a missed opportunity to have not addressed this in this agreement that we've -- that has -- everybody's come together on today.

HARLOW: Then finally, yes or no, will you vote for it?

GONZALEZ: I probably will vote for it. It's very important for our state and for our district, but I'm disappointed that insecurity has not been addressed and I'm going to continue to press Mexico to do more. We cannot continue having this violence across the border and act as if nothing's happening.

HARLOW: Understood. Congressman Vincente Gonzalez of Texas, I do appreciate your time on such a busy morning. Thank you.

GONZALEZ: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Important to hear all those voices as these decisions are made.

[10:44:40]

Meanwhile, a watchdog report is debunking a conspiracy theory peddled repeatedly by President Trump and his supporters -- and they continue to -- about the origins of the Russia probe. Now, this morning, the president lashing out at the director of the FBI that he appointed. Why?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: The inspector general's report on the origins of the Russia investigation is out, and its conclusions debunk many of the narratives pushed and continue to be pushed by the president and his allies.

TEXT: I.G. Report Conclusions: FBI properly opened its Russian probe, but there were "major errors" in conduct; Trump had political support among some FBI officials SCIUTTO: Two top takeaways: there was no spying on the Trump campaign. And to be clear, no improper political bias behind opening the Russia investigation. Remember how many times the president has alleged that?

And despite deep state conspiracy theories, this report showed that there were pro-Trump FBI agents, too, who were in fact cheering his election --

(CROSSTALK)

[10:50:04]

SCIUTTO: -- those text messages, not quoted by the president.

HARLOW: That's right. One calling it a Super Bowl turnaround. All right. This report also detailed errors in how the FBI conducted the Russia probe, which the president now says was a, quote, "attempt to overthrow the government."

Two important voices joining us now on all of this, CNN contributor Andrew McCabe, former acting director of the FBI, and CNN national security analyst James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence.

You're both -- you know, were working in those positions during the time that this is reviewing. Let me begin with you, Director Clapper. What does it mean when you contrast the head of the FBI now, Christopher Wray, saying this supports, this was done properly, the origins, et cetera, with the now-attorney general, Bill Barr, who says clearly that he disagrees with the findings, both men selected by the president. What does it mean for -- to you, and what does it mean for America?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I think it continues the -- you know, the mixed messages here, the -- I thought that the Horowitz report was exhaustive, meticulous detail and was very credible. And I was, you know, very gratified that a lot of people in the kind of the direct line of fire were exonerated, to include my colleague and friend Andy McCabe.

But this investigation business is going to continue, as we've seen with the Durham investigation. In fact, I would submit that I think investigations will continue for as long as the Trump administration is in power.

And it's a kind of, I think, sad for the country because we just can't seem to agree on the same set of facts.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Even when those facts are put out there with cold clarity, as the I.G. report said. There wasn't political bias --

CLAPPER: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: -- although it did find improper applications made for FISA warrants.

Andrew McCabe, Director Clapper there, as you know, mentioned the Durham probe. This is by John Durham, U.S. attorney appointed by Barr. And he also issued a statement yesterday, saying with respect, in effect, I disagree with the I.G. report's finding. And by the way, we have been able to take advantage of international sources of information and intelligence. So we're waiting to see what comes out of that investigation.

Are you concerned that that probe might include criminal referrals?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm not, Jim. I'm not concerned about Mr. Durham's investigation for the same reasons I was confident about what would come out of the I.G.'s investigation.

We all -- those of us who were involved in the investigation knew from the beginning that there was no political bias involved, we knew there was no coup, we knew we didn't start a hoax. So the findings yesterday were really a confirmation of what we've believed all along. And I carry that same confidence into whatever Mr. Durham will find.

I thought it was remarkable that he commented on the I.G.'s investigation in such a negative way, that's certainly not something --

HARLOW: Yes.

MCCABE: -- we've ever seen before. Any (ph) -- to kind of hint at the results of his own investigation, which, by his own admission, he's not even close to yet --

HARLOW: Right.

MCCABE: -- was really strange.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: Andy, that's a great point. I mean, how rare to comment on an ongoing investigation, especially someone like John Durham who even, you know, the Democratic senator from his state, Senator Blumenthal, has called him a fierce and fair prosecutor. That has been his reputation, and methodical.

Director Clapper, listen to this from former FBI director James Comey about his just overall concern as a result of this. He was on with Anderson last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Good people believe when a president says something, so they've heard treason, they've heard spying, they've heard informants in the campaign for two years. Are they going to pay attention now, is my great worry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Do you share that worry, the good people just don't know what to believe?

CLAPPER: I do. I think I've referred before to book written -- put out by the Rand Corporation, aptly and cleverly called "Truth Decay." And this constant untruthfulness, I think, has a negative impact on our democracy or any democracy. So this is of great concern to me, so I agree with what Jim said.

SCIUTTO: Andrew McCabe, this investigation, of course, it's about the origins of the investigation into the 2016 interference by Russia. But as we speak, the president's personal attorney, he's been back in Ukraine. He's meeting with pro-Russian politicians there, some with KGB backgrounds, digging up dirt again on a potential political opponent for the president.

[10:55:00]

Of course, we know the origins of the impeachment inquiry, about withholding aid and a presidential meeting to get that investigation under way. Has the 2020 election, in your view, already been compromised?

MCCABE: I think there is a substantial risk of that. I think all of the evidence that the impeachment inquiry has uncovered so far points in that direction.

And I think also, Jim, the thing we can remember here is, what we've seen is of paramount importance to the president and his administration, is the perpetuation of a politically beneficial narrative. He did that against my organization and my colleagues by calling us all treasonous, you know politically biased people. We now know that that's not true, and the president himself repeated the same allegations yesterday, the day the report came out dispelling them. The same could be said for Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine.

Look, everyone knows there's nothing to the myth that Ukraine meddled in the election in the same way that Russia did, but that is not going to stop Rudy Giuliani from trying to prove the story that the president prefers.

SCIUTTO: Yes, yes. Retroactively.

CLAPPER: Jim, if I could just add a point to what Andy --

SCIUTTO: Quickly, if you --

CLAPPER: -- if I could just add a point to what Andy just said, we should be very skeptical about whatever information that has been provided to Rudy Giuliani --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CLAPPER: -- because there's no way of knowing that hasn't been fed, either directly or indirectly, by the Russians who have an interest in --

HARLOW: Yes. CLAPPER: -- perpetuating that narrative.

SCIUTTO: That fits the Russia M.O.

HARLOW: Very, yes.

SCIUTTO: Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, thanks very much.

HARLOW: And thanks to all of you for joining us on what has been a very important day, an historic day in American history, articles of impeachment brought against the president of the United States and a major trade deal agreed upon between Democrats and the White House. Our coverage continues ahead of this. I'm Poppy Harlow.

[10:56:47]

SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto. "AT THIS HOUR" with Kate Bolduan starts right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]