Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Democrats Hold Closed-Door Meeting Ahead Of Impeachment Debate; Sources Say, Impeachment Not Discussed During Democrats' Closed-Door Meeting. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 11, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: A very good Wednesday morning to you. There is news this hour. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: A lot of it. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.

A very busy morning once again on Capitol Hill. Democrats just wrapped up a closed-door meeting after announcing two articles of impeachment against President Trump. We are waiting for details on what was discussed in that meeting.

SCIUTTO: The other breaking news this hour, the Justice Department's inspector general is set to testify in just moments to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This follows his report that found no political bias by the FBI when it took up the Russia investigation in 2016. Despite that clear conclusion, the president and his allies are still pushing the same conspiracy theory.

Let's begin with the latest, however, on impeachment. CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, he is live on Capitol Hill.

Manu, you spoke with Congressman Adam Schiff, of course, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, central role to all this before the meeting. What did he say?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. He was -- I was asking him about the decision to come down with two articles of impeachment that they announced yesterday, abuse of power, also obstruction of Congress while focused on the issue of Ukraine, the president's handling of relationship with that country, the allegations he abused his office and pushing that country to open up investigations into the president's political rivals and not go forward with a separate article of impeachment on obstruction of justice, as detailed in the Mueller report, allegations the president sought to undercut that investigation into his campaign and into the White House.

But according to Adam Schiff, he believes that he made the right decision by focusing on those two matters because he contended they were the most urgent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Mr. Schiff, why no obstruction of justice in the articles of impeachment?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We moved forward with the most urgent articles, those that reflect the danger to the next election, and that is the president's continuing effort to get Ukraine to interfere and help him cheat in the next election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So the first time we're hearing Adam Schiff defend that decision to focus on the two articles of impeachment. Of course, he was being involved heavily in those discussions to ultimately come to that conclusion internally among the House Democratic caucus and the leadership itself.

And also there are some questions now going forward how many Democrats about who many Democrats will ultimately vote for the articles of impeachment when it comes to the House floor next week and whether they will lose freshmen Democratic moderates, particularly moderates from swing district, some who came to the support of an impeachment inquiry late, people like Elissa Slotkin who represents a swing district from Michigan.

But I asked her just moments ago if she's ready to vote for the articles of impeachment. She said she's not there yet but she's hearing a lot from both side from her district.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Are you hearing a lot from your constituents back home? People --

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Absolutely. The phones are ringing off the hook. We literally can't pick up the phone fast enough, and it's people on both sides of it, some people who are strongly against and people who are strongly for. And I assume that will persist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So just moments ago, this meeting did wrap where Pelosi talked to her caucus. But, interestingly, I'm told from multiple members, impeachment did not come up in this meeting. In fact, it was a discussion about the wide range of legislative issues that the Congress has to deal with. They wrap up action before Christmas.

So it's also a sign, I'm told, from multiple members they are eager to move on the domestic agenda after the impeachment is absolutely dominated what the Congress has done, and particularly in the fall session. They're ready to move onto the next phase of issues and deal with the final outstanding legislative items. But at the moment, the party realizes where they're going that the president will be impeached here in just a matter of days. Guys? HARLOW: Manu, thank you very much. That sound from Congresswoman Slotkin of Michigan is really, really telling as House Democrats strategize on impeachment.

Any moment, the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee will begin questioning the Justice Department's inspector general, his name, Michael Horowitz. You know him from the report released this week, his report that found no political bias in the early stages of the FBI's Russia probe.

SCIUTTO: CNN's Lauren Fox, she's on Capitol Hill.

[10:05:00]

Lauren, we know the strategy will be for Republicans to challenge Horowitz's claim that FBI officials were not motivated by politics here. Meanwhile, you have the president just claiming the report didn't find that. But tell us what the strategy is going to be from Republicans and Democrats.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, certainly, the Republicans are going to be zeroing in on defending the president here. Remember, the president is talking about things that are very inconsistent with what is actually in this report. Expect Democrats to be constantly referring to what is actually in the report.

That's going to be their strategy, basically laying out the fact. It's actually a very similar strategy to what you've seen them do in the House Intelligence Committee when it came to that impeachment inquiry, essentially, trying to nail down what was actually written in the report and ask about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): If the House continues down the destructive road and sends us articles of impeachment, the Senate will take them up in the New Year and proceed to a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: Of course, that was Majority Leader Mitch McConnell talking about the next stages in this impeachment inquiry over in the Senate. For a long time, what we know is Republicans have been trying to ignore the fact that this is coming their way now that the House of Representatives is expected to vote next week on impeachment. It's getting harder to ignore. We do know that the Senate will take up their trial when they get back in January.

Of course, there is a little bit of a difference of opinion between McConnell and President Trump about what that strategy should look like. Majority Leader McConnell wants to keep things pretty tight locked. He doesn't want to have these wide ranging debates about what witnesses should be coming to the floor. He wants to keep it short.

Meanwhile, the president really sees this as an opportunity to defend himself. He is really pushing to have live witnesses on the Senate floor, which some Republicans in leadership say could lead to a circus-like environment.

SCIUTTO: We've seen some circuses. I can see that happening. Lauren Fox on the Hill, thanks very much.

HARLOW: All right. So joining us now to talk about all of this is Congressman Tom Reed, a Republican of New York. Congressman, thank you very much for being with us. It's a busy week and a busy morning. I appreciate it.

REP. TOM REED (R-NY): It's good to be with you. Thanks so much, Poppy.

HARLOW: Of course. Do you believe that the president abused his power and his dealings with Ukraine?

REED: I don't see this article of impeachment. I don't support it. I don't see the evidence there for that high crime. And I will be voting against it. And I know a lot of my colleagues are voting against it and I know a lot of Democratic members are looking at voting against it.

HARLOW: Who? Other than Congressman Collins of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who else?

REED: So you named two there, I'll let them speak for themselves. But there is a lot of concern, I think, where people are recognizing the historic nature of impeachment. And they're going to have to go on record whether or not they support that historic vote.

HARLOW: Yes, they will. That's their job, one of the parts of it.

Let's go through a few things here. So you just said you don't believe the president abused his power and his dealings with Ukraine because the evidence isn't there. You would agree, sir, that much of the evidence has been blocked by this president and this White House, all the documents from the State Department, even ones Gordon Sondland said he wanted out there, and witnesses, potentially critical like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, right? You'd agree with that at least?

REED: I would agree with the fact that they wanted to share that evidence but they didn't because it wasn't a whole fair shake. The whole proceeding was blocked from Adam Schiff from the get-go.

HARLOW: So, Congressman, just to the facts at hand, you would agree that it is this White House and this president that has blocked those documents and those witnesses from testifying. Correct?

REED: I believe if they would have set up a bipartisan procedure, like they did with Clinton, like they did with Nixon in regards to a process that was reminiscent of due process type of protections, I think there would have been participation. But it just wasn't set up that way.

HARLOW: Except you know they were different. You had the Starr report, whereas the House Intelligence Committee here was essentially doing that investigation and presenting it in the White House and the president were invited. I don't want to waste our time arguing about this, but the fact is they were invited to participate in the Judiciary Committee's processes through the House and they have not done so thus far.

When it comes to the obstruction issue, the other articles of impeachment, Congressman, given that these witnesses and these documents have been blocked and your body, Congress, has the -- not only the authority but the constitutionally mandated duty to oversee the executive branch, if that's being blocked by this White House, how does one then vote down on an article of impeachment on obstruction of Congress?

REED: Well, first, poppy, I really appreciate that, because if you really believe in the checks and balance of the three branches of government, you have a judicial branch that usually resolves these issues of dispute between the executive and the legislative body, because the executive rightly has executive privilege rights that need to be adjudicated by the courts. That's the appropriate way.

And your point about Starr, the lesson learned here, if we go down the path of impeachment in the future, I think relying on the Department of Justice and law enforcement doing that report before members of Congress become de facto prosecutors is something that maybe is a wise course to learn from.

[10:10:09]

HARLOW: You made an interesting argument last month on MSNBC that only capital crimes are worthy of impeachment. Why impose a standard that is not, congressman, in the Constitution?

REED: So I didn't say only. What I was trying to articulate, Poppy was high crimes.

HARLOW: I have the quote here. You said, quote, you were asked, okay, what's the threshold for impeachment, and you said crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. That's what you said.

REED: Yes, because I was trying to articulate and describe as the American people should know that when we are talking about impeachment, that's why treason is in the Constitution. These are significant crisis. I've had people come up say misdemeanors are like misdemeanors of excessive speeding and things of that nature, because misdemeanor is in the Constitution. That's not what the founding fathers meant by misdemeanor. So there is a lot of confusion as to what is that bar for a high crime.

And my point is simply this. They put treason as our founding fathers in the Constitution to say this is for those things such as those crimes that are Subject to the penalty of death. That is a high standard. That is a high crime.

HARLOW: Let's move on to some other really important issues, one being Ukraine. I find it notable, Congressman, and important that you have not joined some other members of your party in saying that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election and equivocating it with Russia, which is an important point of fact here that they did not. Do you believe that that assertion by some of your fellow Republicans in the House and in the Senate is harmful?

REED: I disagree with their assessment that Ukraine officially meddled with the election. And as I have come to the personal conclusion, I would encourage them to reach that same conclusion. But I'll let them speak it as to whether it's harmful to the operation. I will leave that up to the American people.

HARLOW: Well, do you think it's harmful to have this spread about another country that is trying to defend itself against Russia?

REED: I tend to highlight that where we agree and I think both sides agree even those that are raising the Ukraine issue recognize that Russia meddled in the election. And I think that's where the heart of this message should go that both sides agree on this issue that Russia meddled in our election And they should be held accountable and rightfully so.

HARLOW: Let me talk about the trade deal. We've talked about it a lot with you, sir. And I know you're glad to see USMCA finally coming through here. You've also said though yesterday after the news was announced that Speaker Pelosi was dragging her feet for a year on USMCA, and in your belief, she is only now bowing to pressure from the American people. Congressmen, are you then saying that the deal announced yesterday was exactly the same as the deal on the table a year ago?

REED: That's not what I indicated yesterday. We could have resolved these differences much sooner than having to wait 12 months since the signature. But the point is I'm not going to dwell on that going forward. What I'm going to dwell on is that we are finally addressing the needs of American farmers, American workers and we have now had a deal that we brought bipartisan support to. That is a good thing and we should be celebrating that.

HARLOW: Okay. One final number that is important this morning is how many of your fellow Republicans are retiring. A quick political report points out that when the president was inaugurated, 241 Republicans were in the House. 104 have either retired, been defeated or not running in 2020. That's 43 percent. re you troubled by that number and do you think that the president is damaging the Republican Party or remaking the party?

REED: Well, I think that the president, obviously, is influencing the Republican Party and for some areas such as holding China accountable on the trade front. I think that is a good reform of the Republican Party that I have been a part of a wing for many years here in Washington, D.C. So there are many good things coming forward.

But, obviously, the retirements are concerning because we are losing that institutional knowledge and that wisdom of these members that potentially are leaving us because they want to go on to other things in their life.

HARLOW: Congressman Tom Reed, again, thank you for your time. Happy Holidays.

REED: It's good to be with you, Poppy. You too, Merry Christmas.

HARLOW: You got it.

SCIUTTO: Notable for him there to call out his Republican colleagues for perpetuating the Ukraine myth.

HARLOW: Yes, absolutely.

SCIUTTO: And that's a rare voice in the Republican caucus.

Still to come this hour, House Democrats from districts President Trump won in 2016 have reportedly discussed an alternative to impeachment, censure. We're going to tell you the latest.

HARLOW: And President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr continue to attack the FBI and its leadership all the way to the top even after the Department of Justice's own inspector general said the department acted with no political bias when it began its Russia probe. That I.G. is on Capitol Hill facing lawmakers today. You will hear him right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

HARLOW: Just moments ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus wrapped up closed-door meeting. Several lawmakers tells CNN impeachment did not come up in that meeting, if you can believe it, even though House Dems just announced two articles of impeachment against the president yesterday.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Some Democrats, well, Republicans as well want to move on from this. That said, there was some nervousness as this impeachment vote comes up among Democrats and it will mean politically.

[10:20:04]

We're joined now by Susan Hennessey, she's a former NSA attorney, and Bloomberg Political Reporter Sahil Kapur. Thanks to both of you.

Sahil, you have nervousness among some Democrats particularly in swing districts. I've spoken to Republican lawmakers who claim that their internal polling shows that impeachment is working for them in these districts. What is the truth here on what the numbers show so far? I know the election is 11 months off here? But is there evidence in the polling that impeachment is hurting Democrats in swing states and swing districts?

SAHILE KAPUR, BLOOMBERG POLITICAL REPORTER: Jim, I think Democrats are doing what Democrats tend to do, which is looking at the polls, getting a little jittery at the fact that support for impeachment hasn't really moved in the last month or month-and-a-half. There were certain Democrats, especially those in swing districts in the House that expected support for impeachment to go up.

Now, nationally, there is still a little more support for impeachment than there is opposition. But the way some of these districts are drawn, there is some cause for nervousness among Democrats. But, look, the country is very divided. Democrats are strongly, overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment.

Republicans have not moved. They have bought the president's counter- narrative that this is simply a political partisan exercise to go after him. They're going to have to make a decision. Only two Democrats voted against opening this impeachment inquiry and Speaker Pelosi can lose more than a dozen Democrats in the final vote and still get the president impeached.

SCIUTTO: You can imagine they're making a calculation though better to protect them in their districts for 2020 than have those votes. It's --

HARLOW: Sure, and not see the results of the Republicans felt after the Clinton impeachment.

SCIUTTO: Exactly.

HARLOW: To you, Susan, on censure versus impeachment. Play this out. If the president is acquitted by the Senate, which unless something changes big time, that looks more likely than not at this point, then what is the effective difference between a censure vote of the president and an impeachment vote here? Meaning, sort of what are -- as Democrats are looking at this, and some had this meeting yesterday talking about this, what are they grappling with?

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So Speaker Pelosi has actually said that she is not interested in pursuing a censure. For her, it was impeachment or essentially moving on. So I think it's very unlikely that we will see this censure pass.

That said, impeachment has an entirely different communicative function. It has a different function in sort of setting boundaries around the office of the presidency, saying, this is things you cannot do rather than just saying we condemn these acts as a censure motion would.

And keep in mind, the history of impeachment in the United States is impeachment without removal. So the idea that impeaching the president only for him to not be convicted in the Senate somehow represents a failed impeachment, that's not true, historically . Actually, historically, that's precisely what has happened thus far. And so I do think that we will see Democrats continue to walk along the path of impeachment at this point.

SCIUTTO: Yes, it's an interesting historical point with Johnson, Clinton and presumably with the numbers hold with Trump, you have impeachment in the House but no removal. Although, of course, Nixon left when it was clear to him that there were going to be votes there.

Sahil Kapur, let's look at the Senate. You have President Trump and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell normally in lock step on issues with a different view. The president wants it long and drawn out. McConnell wants it shorter. The president wants some witnesses but the Senate is saying, no, including Joe Biden. What's it going to look like and who is going to win out in that -- I don't know if you want to call it a battle but that disagreement?

KAPUR: There is certainly a tactical divide right now between the Senate Republican leadership and the White House. The White House wants this to be a drawn out affair, as you pointed out. They want Senate Republicans to haul in witnesses, like, potentially, Hunter Biden, maybe use this as a vehicle to try to weaken Joe Biden, the Democratic frontrunner ahead of the election and Senate Republicans don't really want to do that.

And the reason is there are a number of them. They have a narrow majority, 53 members, and there are a number of Republican Senators who are not particularly comfortable with the idea of making an emphatic defense of the president on this. They are likely to remain loyal to him but this is a tough issue for someone like Susan Collins of Maine or Cory Gardner in Colorado, even Martha McSally in Arizona. These are not Republicans who are looking forward to casting a vote here.

So the fact that Senate Republicans will need their support to bring in these witnesses to move in the direction of a potential, kind of a circus-like atmosphere is the reason that this is unlikely to happen at this point, at least.

HARLOW: Susan, I have been asking pretty much every lawyer we've had on this show when we have time about this question, and I wonder what you think about it. And that is whether or not Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over a Senate trial can compel testimony from people like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney? What are the rules? What does history tell us? What is his power there?

HENNESSEY: Yes. So we don't know how it might play out in terms of an enforcement function. We do know that the chief justice will provide and he will actually issue rulings. And so the question is whether or not those witnesses will be inclined to simply comply with the chief justice's ruling or somehow attempt litigate it.

[10:25:03]

That said, I do think that people are overwhelmingly likely to comply. I think it's really unlikely, especially if you think about people like John Bolton, sort of traditional Republicans, even people like Mick Mulvaney. The idea that that when the chief justice of Supreme Court rules, that they do, in fact, have to appear that they wouldn't do so.

And also think of the political optics of this. One of the articles of impeachment is obstruction of Congress. And so, right now, to the extent the Republicans are saying, well, this really needs to be litigated in the courts. And we should note that, actually, the president has not asserted any former privilege or immunity over the individuals named in the impeached, but instead just refused to comply.

Really, that sort of has been the Republican argument. This is about going through the process, seeing the courts. For those witnesses to then essentially just defy the chief justice, I do think that would alter the political optics in a way that might make it very, very difficult for Senate Republicans to acquit on that count.

HARLOW: It's going to be fascinating. Susan, thank you. Sahil, we appreciate it as always.

So, happening right now on Capitol Hill, the Department of Justice's inspector general is about to take questions from lawmakers after he makes his opening statement about his in-depth report on the origins of the Russia probe and no bias being found there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]