Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Inspector General Testifies on Trump-Russia Probe Report; Examining Attorney General Bill Barr's Loyalties; House Begins Debate on Trump Impeachment Articles. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 11, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:18]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: We continue on, top of the hour. I'm Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN.

In a little over a week, the House will leave Capitol Hill behind and head home for the holiday break. But, before they do, lawmakers will go to the floor and cast their votes for or against the impeachment of President Trump.

It will be just the fourth time in U.S. history that a president is staring down a possible impeachment. And, in Trump's case, it will be for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.

Now, at least one congresswoman, Michigan's Elissa Slotkin, says that while voters have been very vocal on this topic, she has still not made up her mind.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you hearing a lot from your constituents back home, people...

(CROSSTALK)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Constantly. 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.

It's people who are strongly against and people who are strongly for. And I assume that will persist.

RAJU: Are you ready to vote for them?

SLOTKIN: No, what I'm going to do right now is do what I was always trained to do as a CIA officer, which is sit by myself with the full body of information, the articles, the reports on both sides, right, both Democratic and Republican, the rebuttal.

I'm going to sit with the House rules. I'm going to sit with the articles of impeachment from prior impeachments.

I think it was a responsible way to go to limit it to two articles. And I'm going to look seriously at the two that were put in front of me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CNN's Phil Mattingly is all over this on Capitol Hill.

And, Phil, I mean, 7:00 tonight, right? We're counting down to 7:00, when is the next big event for the House Judiciary Committee. That's when debate actually begins on these articles of impeachment. Tell us what to expect.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, hydrating, carb-loading, all of the above over the course of the next two days.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTINGLY: Look, so there's two things you need to watch right now, right?

There's going to be what you're going to see in public, which will start tonight at 7:00 p.m. We're expecting probably about three-and- a-half, four hours. And this is all going to be opening statements from the 41 members of the House Judiciary Committee.

The Republicans, the Democrats, Brooke, we know where they stand on this. Everybody on each side is pretty set on whether they're for or against impeachment. But they're really going to kind of lay out their final version of events, based upon what we have heard, both in the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee over the course of the last several weeks.

So that's tonight. But it'll be just opening statements. Tomorrow, we will start the actual legislative activity related to the articles of impeachment. Now, look, there's no expectation that there's going to be changes to the two articles of impeachment, that nine-page resolution you have seen.

But that doesn't mean Republicans aren't going to try. The expectation is Republicans are going to draft a number of amendments trying to strip or change or shift the articles of impeachment, continually trying to make the point that they don't believe they're merited.

That will be something to keep an eye on as well, but with the caveat that Republicans (sic) hold the majority on the committee, and Republicans win -- can't win any vote they want.

At some point on Thursday, they will clear the articles of impeachment for a House floor vote consideration. Before we get the House floor vote, the other thing I want to pay attention to is what you just saw from Manu and Congresswoman Slotkin there.

When you talk to freshman members, freshman members from districts that they often flipped from President Trump in 2016 in 2018, the freshmen that made the House Democratic majority a House Democratic majority, they are not all there yet. It doesn't mean they're not going to get there. It doesn't mean that

the votes are in question as to whether or not they can actually pass the articles of impeachment,but folks are working through their process right now. And I think that's one of the key things I'm keeping an eye on behind the scenes.

How are people going through this, knowing how seismic a vote this is going to be, how careers may hinge on this vote, the importance historically of this vote? Those are really the two things to watch. I think the other bottom line here -- and you nailed it at the top -- is this.

Next week, by the time the House of Representatives leaves Capitol Hill for the Christmas holiday, President Trump will be impeached on both articles of impeachment. That's almost a certainty at this point. It's just a matter of how many votes go one way or the other.

Republicans are very clear they're at almost -- they are unanimously opposed. We will see where the Democrats land. But the president's going to be impeached. I think there's no question about that at this point.

BALDWIN: No, but, to your point, it's refreshing to hear from and, understandably, why Congressman Slotkin is in this position, but that she is stopping and going to sit by yourself quietly in a room and look at both sides and come to that conclusion herself. So many of them have to do that.

Phil Mattingly, thank you. Good luck with the hydration and carbs for the next week-and-a-half.

Meantime, far away from Washington, in the friendly confines of a Pennsylvania arena filled with supporters, President Trump had this response to those House Democrats:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You saw their so-called articles of impeachment today?

People are saying they're not even a crime. What happened? All of these horrible things, remember, bribery, and this and that, where are they?

They send these two things. They're not even a crime. This is the lightest, weakest impeachment. Our country's had actually many impeachments. You call judges and lots of others, many impeachments.

[15:05:08]

But it was on today. Everybody said, this is impeachment-lite.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Impeachment-lite, he says.

Kaitlan Collins is the CNN White House correspondent. Dana Bash is CNN's chief political analyst.

And we can spend forever trying to figure out what that even means.

But, Kaitlan, let me go to you, because the president, you watch him last night at that rally sounding, looking pretty confident in front of the cameras. But you're learning, back at the White House, behind closed doors, it is a different story. Tell me more.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, his stance is still very much what it always has been. Impeachment-lite or impeachment-heavy, it's still impeachment, and this president does not want to be impeached.

That's something he's made very clear. He's someone who often talked about Bill Clinton, saying that he's only remembered by being impeached. And that is not something President Trump wants. And he's made that pretty clear privately.

So while you see him at rallies, like he was in Pennsylvania, downplaying it, minimizing it, saying it's not real impeachment that's happening, the president is still saying privately he doesn't want this to happen, because he does think it's going to affect the legacy of his presidency.

But, of course, as Phil just laid out, the clock starts ticking tonight. It doesn't really seem like the president has much option on that front. And that's why you're seeing the White House turn, focus on that Senate trial, because that's where they think they can make their best, strongest defense.

BALDWIN: Reading your reporting, Kaitlan, it's not just that the president doesn't want this as this mark on his legacy, but it's also that he doesn't want to be part of the club of impeached presidents or nearly impeach presidents, Dana.

I mean, that he doesn't seem to be fixated on potential crimes or abuse of power, like shame? No. He just doesn't want to be part of that club.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It's all -- and it's all part of the same.

I mean, if you think about it, take a step back. What Donald Trump was known for, when he was a businessman, is caring so much about legacy and name. He had his name -- still has -- plastered on every building in the biggest letters that he could.

That is Donald Trump. So he has that in his head about sort of image and also legacy, how he is remembered, how he is thought of. And so, yes, while his aides have been sort of pounding away at him, particularly his political advisers, saying, I know this is really hard for you because of that legacy, and it isn't ideal, but it will help you politically.

And he, I'm told by people who talk to him about this, has come to at least on the surface accept that. What Kaitlan is talking about, I'm hearing too. Of course that is part of his core. And of course that is part of a very big frustration, because that legacy that he's worked so hard, again, to have up in lights is now going to have in smaller lights impeached president.

BALDWIN: And as he -- Kaitlan's right. Impeachment-lite, impeachment-heavy, it's still impeachment, right?

So, Dana, just staying with you.

Even though he's trying to play this down publicly, he is pressuring the Senate to turn this into a spectacle, complete with appearances from Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff. Is there any appetite in the Senate, especially among those Republicans, to give the president what he wants?

BASH: Not really, no.

There are some who might want to do that, but no. I mean, again, this is who Donald Trump is. He loves a show. And it's not just the kind of the theater of it. It's also he wants to be vindicated. He -- the White House has not allowed anybody who could potentially vindicate, if there is such a thing to be done, anyone to come forward.

And so what he wants is -- are other witnesses who can say, no, what the what the president was asking the Ukrainian leader to do was legit.

First of all, just the notion of senators agreeing in any way to call a former vice president who is this president's potential political rival to testify is unimaginable. That's just on the logistics of it.

And so that will probably just negate any argument between these two sides and make it so that there's not a whole lot more to do, but that -- but make it as quick as possible.

BALDWIN: Back to the rally, Kaitlan, last night, with the president, key battleground state of Pennsylvania.

I mean, it was really something to watch, right, the language he used, calling FBI human scum, calling Adam Schiff a bastard, I mean, going off on completely unfounded claims.

As this process continues, was this foreshadowing, do you think, for the president, a sign of things to come? Play it forward to January

COLLINS: Well, the president lashing out the way he did?

Yes, this is kind of how you're seeing the president spin this, even going off the inspector general's report. You saw the way the president portrayed that last night, very differently than how you're seeing the inspector general himself testify before Congress today, where he's saying no one is vindicated here by the time this report came out, judging by the what the claims both sides were making when it came to this.

[15:10:10] But I do think, seeing that rally last night, seeing the way the president lashed out at Democrats, saying at times that they didn't go far enough in these articles of impeachment against him, because he's been hearing bribery, bribery, bribery so often, and it's not included in this, but then also going after Pelosi, saying that she only struck this trade deal because he claims she's embarrassed by it, and that is why she's agreeing to make some movement on USMCA.

I think that could be what we see from the president as he's on the campaign trail next year, especially if he's acquitted. People have said that's going to really empower the president to move forward as he's moving forward trying to get reelected.

So it could just be a sign of what else is to come in these moments where the president really has a chance to air his grievances on full in a room of 10,000 supporters.

BALDWIN: Yes.

Kaitlan and Dana, ladies, thank you very much.

BASH: Thank you.

BALDWIN: We are also watching this continuous hearing still under way up on Capitol Hill, as senators are grilling the Justice Department watchdog here, who just released this report finding that the start of the FBI's Russia investigation was justified.

We will take you there live for the key moments.

Also ahead, the president's dangerous assault on the truth being enabled by his favorite network, his party, and now the attorney general.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:15]

BALDWIN: It is a set of facts the Republicans view completely differently than the Democrats. And I'm not even talking about Ukraine and impeachment. I'm talking about the Russia investigation and how the whole thing started.

Today, the inspector general of the Justice Department right there is testifying on Capitol Hill. His name is Michael Horowitz. He said under oath that he found no political bias when the FBI launched that investigation looking into any Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): So your report states that you didn't find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation played a role?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL: That's correct.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

And you didn't find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or President Trump?

HOROWITZ: As to the opening, we found no -- no bias, no testimonial documentary evidence on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: But as Democrats emphasize the overall finding, Republicans really dug into the major issues that the I.G. pointed out in his just-released report.

Horowitz said FBI investigators on the case referred to as Crossfire Hurricane made -- and I'm quoting -- "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in surveillance warrants.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOROWITZ: Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of the errors or omissions we identified.

We found, and as we outlined here, are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Well, today, the inspector general also testified that he found the FBI placed no confidential human sources or undercover employees within the Trump campaign.

In other words, Michael Horowitz contradicted the comments of Attorney General Bill Barr.

Now, Barr insists that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign back in 2016. And he says it's still unclear if political bias was at play.

Just think about that for a second, his words. The attorney general is coming out to oppose the inspector general of his own department, which is even more proof that Bill Barr's true colors may lean more toward the president than to the job as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Here is CNN's senior political analyst, John Avlon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: When President Trump tapped Bill Barr to replace the much abused Jeff Sessions as attorney general, there were sighs of relief in some quarters. He was seen as a safe pick, a mild-mannered conservative, an

institutionalist who served George H.W. Bush as attorney general before.

But 10 months into his tenure, it is clear that Bill Barr is one of the most radical and partisan attorney generals in American history.

In statement after statement, Barr has shown that he seems to believe that the attorney general should function as the president's personal defense lawyer.

When the Mueller report was completed, for example, Barr beat it to the punch with his own principal conclusions, even cutting a critical sentence-and-a-half, hiding the first part that said Russia worked to secure a Trump presidency, and the campaign expected it would benefit from their interference.

On Monday, after Barr's own inspector general concluded there was no spying on the Trump campaign, Barr slammed the report on the president's behalf.

WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, it was clearly spied upon. I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is.

AVLON: Which led a cadre of conservative lawyers to say that he had grossly mischaracterized and subverted the I.G. report.

But Barr went further, telling NBC that the Obama administration was the real villain here, even more than the Russians.

BARR: The greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government used the apparatus of the state both to spy on political opponents, but also to use them in a way that could affect the outcome of the election.

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time in history that this has been done to a presidential campaign.

[15:20:03]

AVLON: But this is much more than simply doing the boss' bidding.

A recent speech to the Federalist Society showed Barr to be less a people's lawyer than a hard-core partisan.

BARR: In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law.

AVLON: Deflect and project.

Now, given Barr's belief in a unitary chief executive, you'd expect that his position would be consistent, right? Not so much.

In 1994, on CNN's "CROSSFIRE," Barr argued that Bill Clinton needed to be held accountable by any means necessary. BARR: These cases are difficult. One has to blow through some

roadblocks, maybe challenge privileges, maybe ask the president to come before a grand jury.

AVLON: And during the Clinton impeachment, Barr blasted the idea that the president could cite attorney-client privilege to block his White House counsels from testifying, but then turned around to approve that same move for President Trump.

Look, morals, principles and ethics are either applied consistently or they are counterfeit.

But Barr definitely considers himself a moralist, giving a stunning culture war speech at Notre Dame.

BARR: This is not decay. This is organized destruction.

Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

AVLON: This demonization of secular Americans could have been written by a televangelist, rather than a chief law enforcement officer in a constitutional republic founded on separation of church and state.

But there was another line in the speech that jumped out too.

BARR: Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community.

AVLON: That's true. It's why we have laws and a Constitution that constrains the power of the executive, who, after all, the founders were primarily concerned could turn into a new kind of tyrant.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: John Avlon, thank you for that.

By the way, we will be listening in live to that hearing about the FBI Russia investigation in just a bit.

Also, a look back at the powerful opening speech in the impeachment hearing of Richard Nixon -- this woman's words and their impact on American history.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:03] BALDWIN: All right, let's take you back to Capitol Hill.

Let's listen back in to, about to be Senator Kamala Harris questioning the inspector general of the Justice Department about the Russia investigation.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): ... to investigate the Trump campaign. Is that correct?

HOROWITZ: That's right. There was sufficient predication.

HARRIS: And, in addition, your office found no evidence that the FBI launched a politically motivated investigation. Is that correct?

HOROWITZ: That's correct.

HARRIS: And another key finding was that the FBI committed several errors in his applications -- and in their applications to surveil Carter Page?

HOROWITZ: Or maybe more than several.

HARRIS: And as the FBI director, Wray, himself has acknowledged, your investigation found serious FBI misconduct that needs to be addressed. And Director Wray also said that the FBI fully accepts your investigation's findings. Is that correct?

HOROWITZ: That's correct.

HARRIS: On the other hand, Attorney General Barr has been highly critical of your findings.

During the final stages of your investigation, he even embarked on his own personal investigation by meeting with foreign leaders in foreign lands, apparently in search of evidence that contradicts the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election to benefit Trump.

Clearly, Barr's investigation, which was launched to do the bidding of President Trump, has two objectives, one, to undermine the integrity of our intelligence community, the goal, to cast doubt on the finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in order to benefit the Trump campaign, and, two, to intimidate the men and women of our intelligence community by suggesting that our national security professionals will face serious consequences if they investigate wrongdoing on the part of this president or his operatives.

So, General Horowitz, I appreciate your extensive work and the work that your office has devoted to this investigation. But, in addition, you have the power and the duty to investigate misconduct committed by the attorney general of the United States, who is doing the bidding of the president to undermine our intelligence community.

And I trust you take that duty seriously. HOROWITZ: I do.

And I would just like to add that, under the law, under the Inspector General Act, it carves out from my authority the ability to look at misconduct by department lawyers from the line lawyer all the way to the top and the attorney general.

HARRIS: But history has also shown us that the inspector general can participate in an investigation of the attorney general.

And that, in fact happened with General Gonzales. Do you recall that?

HOROWITZ: That happened.

And it's worth noting that happened after the attorney general said our office was not going to get the case, that it was going to go to the Office of Professional Responsibility. And the choice for our office was whether to join that investigation or not.

But that wasn't initiated through us.

HARRIS: So, then who...

HOROWITZ: And that's the important point.

The law has to change, Senator. And it should change.

HARRIS: So, are you recommending the law...

HOROWITZ: Absolutely.

HARRIS: If I propose -- if I propose legislation that would change the law...

HOROWITZ: Absolutely.

HARRIS: ... would you support that?

HOROWITZ: Yes, absolutely.

In fact, there's legislation Senator Lee has sponsored, several members have co-sponsored.

HARRIS: Mm-hmm.

HOROWITZ: The House has passed this unanimously.

HARRIS: And you would support it?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely

[15:30:00]