Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Judiciary Holds Marathon Impeachment Debate; Democrats Move Quickly On Articles Of Impeachment; Inspector General: FBI Made Fundamental Errors; Inspector General: FBI Made Fundamental Errors; Polling States in U.K. Open Soon for Crucial Vote; At Least 8 Dead in New Zealand Volcano Eruption; Democrats Move Quickly on Articles of Impeachment. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired December 12, 2019 - 01:00   ET

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

[01:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm John Vause at the CNN Center. Thanks for being with us. And we begin this hour with Breaking News. A historic moment in Washington as the House Judiciary Committee debates the two articles of impeachment against the U.S. President Donald J. Trump, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

On Wednesday night, 41 committee members speaking for five minutes each arguing both for and against the impeachment articles.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The first article charges that the President use the powers of his public office to demand that a foreign government attack his political rivals. The second article charges that the President obstructed the Congressional investigation into his conduct. Other presidents have resisted Congressional oversight, but President Trump's stonewall was complete, absolute and without precedent in American history.

Taken together, the two articles charged President Trump with placing his private political interests above our national security, above our free and fair elections, and above our ability to hold public officials accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: But Republicans on the committee both of the Tea Party, and the Freedom Caucus came back with a fiery defense of the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS (D-GA): After a year of trashing this institution, a year of trying to trash this administration and this president, we come up with abuse of power and can't define it. We come up with obstruction of Congress after 72 days. I know they're desperate. You know how I know it? Adam Schiff's own words yesterday. We can't go to court. That would take too long. An election is coming.

Let me finish the last part of that sentence as he liked to put words into President Trump's mouth when he faked the call transcript. No Adam, what you need to continue to say is we can't beat him next year. The only thing we need is a 32nd commercial saying we impeach him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: This is just the opening act, opening statements. Real fireworks are expected on Thursday when Democrat and Republican lawmakers put forward the amendments to the articles and eventually vote to approve. Once that's done, the committee will send the articles to the House floor for a full vote expected some time next week.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is planning on not just holding a trial but also a vote to acquit the president. A lot to get to this with our guest. Joining us out is Michael Moore, former U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, Max Boot CNN Global Affairs Analyst, Lanhee Chen, Mitt Romney's a former Public Policy Director. Thank you all for being with us.

So Max, first to you. At this point, is it just to sort of incredible to you that the Democrats and the Republicans can look at the same set of facts, the same testimony, the same evidence, where Democrats see an open and shut case of a corrupt president who's a national security threat, Republican see a president hounded by, you know, lunatic Democrats who are intent on a political hit job?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I'm not really surprised at this point, because Republicans have pretty consistently shown during the Trump presidency, that they're able to suspend their critical faculties and basically just become a cult of Trump and repeat whatever Trump says. They don't pay attention to the facts. They don't pay attention to the evidence. They just pay attention to whatever Trump says.

And the striking thing to me in listening to the debate today in the House Judiciary Committee is that the Republicans kept saying that the Democrats had not made their case, but they didn't actually dispute the case that the Democrats made. They were not arguing on the merits. They were not really defending Donald Trump. They were mainly attacking the Democrats. They were attacking the process. They were saying, you know, the Democrats have been out to get Trump from day one. They hate Trump. They hate his voters. They want to distract from the great economy. They want to undo the last election.

All of these, you know, arguments that have nothing to do with the facts that the Democrats are putting out there, which is that Donald Trump did, in fact, attempt to extort Ukraine, that he held U.S. military aid hostage in order to get Ukraine to interfere in the U.S. election on his behalf. That basic fact cannot be disputed. It has been proven. And so Republicans were just basically trying to distract and deflect.

VAUSE: Michael, just to you -- on the -- on the point of the legal argument here, which the Democrats have put forward. You know, impeachment is whatever Congress decides the impeachment will be. But you know, when you look at the facts, you look at the cases, just from the legal point of view, I know you're Democrat, but you know, has the case been made here, and I guess, not just from a legal point of view, but it's also from a political point of view, too, right?

MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yes, I think so. And I think the case was well made. Remember that the House is really acting like a grand jury and the -- and the Senate will act like the trial jury. So here they're just sort of putting together the charging document. They'll move to the trial later. So they clearly put enough evidence in to support the charges.

It's pretty crafty move on their part to narrow these charges down and to use a very clean impeachment article. And that is that they're -- they've taken away the defense of all these technical elements that exist in today's criminal statutes, as opposed to what the founders had 400 years ago. So it's a good -- it's a good move on their part. And I think as they move forward, they're probably -- they're not going to convict him I don't think in the Senate, but at this point, I think the impeachment is pretty clear.

[01:05:37]

VAUSE: You know, if there's been one sort of consistency on the Republican side, it's been this sort of ever-increasing hyperbole in the defense of the President. He's an example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): I came in here, I did not want to get emotional. But -- and I've sat through trials that were hard to sit through, but nothing like sitting this week in this committee hearing. Indeed, like Jefferson, I tremble that God is just and His justice won't sleep forever. But the abuses, the obstruction of Congress have come from Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: You know, Lanhee, where do you go after you've trembled before God? Is there no line Republican lawmakers won't cross here defending Trump?

LANHEE CHEN, RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, look, the reality here is that Donald Trump is watching all of this as it unfolds. And what you see is an effort by Republicans to appear, in whatever way possible to not only defend the president, but in fact, fight back on behalf of the President. That is the era we live in.

We live in an incredibly polarized time in American politics. And what you see is that it's never enough. There is never enough of a defense. There is never enough going to the mat as it were for President Trump. And I think that is precisely what you've seen play out.

I think if anything, views have become even more entrenched amongst Republicans in the House and probably in the Senate as well, as this entire episode moves over there here in a few weeks. What --

VAUSE: I think we've got problems with Lanhee's sound. But we've got Max -- bring Max back in because just on this issue of the Republicans, because it was this talk that, you know, just a couple of months ago, that as this process went forward, the evidence would be heard.

There may be some of those wavering Republicans who might just do some cracks by the sound appearing in that sort of support that the President has, especially you know, in the Senate, but it's quite the opposite. You know, they've rallied around the president. It's becoming (INAUDIBLE). In some ways, it's sort of exposed that this entire impeachment process just doesn't work when a party is totally beholden to a president.

BOOT: Well, that's exactly right. And it's a little bit reminiscent to me of what happened in the fall of 2016, when the tape came out of Donald Trump making very crude comments about grabbing women by their private parts. And this was shocking to Republicans and, you know, for 48 hours or something like that, it looked like Republicans might actually abandon him, but basically, he's utterly shameless. He won't apologize. He won't back down. And as it became clear that he was going to proceed with this campaign, Republicans basically climb back aboard the Trump train.

I think you've seen something similar happened in the case of Ukraine. I think, initially, there was kind of a gasp and a shock on the part of Republicans that Trump had been caught so blatantly trying to blackmail a foreign country into interfering in our politics on his behalf. And there was a hope that, as the evidence was brought forward, that some Republicans would actually judge the case impartially and could even be brought forward to agree that Donald Trump deserved impeachment.

But it's become clear that in the last month or so that this has become an increasingly tribal and partisan affair where Republicans have managed to rally their base. Trump has managed to, you know, rally his base and to convince Republicans to stick with them. And so they're just ignoring the evidence and they're grandstanding for the cameras. And now it's, you know, the only -- the only real suspense is will there be a single Republican on either House who will actually abandon Trump at this point.

VAUSE: I just want to get Michael's view because you know, we were talking about, you know, the support that the Republicans have right now for Donald Trump. And obviously, they're not getting 20 Republicans in the Senate.

MOORE: Not a support.

VAUSE: What if three do? What if it get to that 51 plus point, and you have a simple majority? Trump still stays as President, but the Democrats have a win don't they? Sort of.

MOORE: They sort of have a win. I mean, the beauty of that is it sort of cuts back on the maneuver that McConnell may try to do but to put forward another motion. There's been some talk about whether or not he might try to put forward a motion to dismiss or an early motion for acquittal, that would take a simple majority as opposed to the verdict at the end of the time to have the removal vote.

If there were three votes out there that sort of shifted the power balance a little bit. That might change the nature of the trial. It also might change some of the rulemaking and things that go on about witnesses that might come forward, evidence that they may want to get into.

So I think that's the sort of the tight rope -- tight rope that they've got to walk right now. But this is unchartered territory for us all.

VAUSE: And Lanhee, just to bring you back into this, is the case for the Republicans that they all hang together, or they all hang separately. If there's a split in the party in any sort of way, is that sort of it for the republicans for a while as a cohesive force?

[01:10:08]

CHEN: Yes, I think that's the concern the White House has is, look, if you see any division within the Republican Party, any splitting of the ranks, particularly in the House, where we really have seen republicans hang together a lot more, that would be something that the White House would have to explain away, that would be very challenging. So I do think Republicans in the House, in particular, value the idea of all sticking together.

Now, when we get to the Senate, it might be a different story. But certainly, in the House, that cohesion amongst Republicans is something that President Trump in the White House very much would like to see.

VAUSE: And finally to Max. What we've seen is that support out there among the general you know, voters, among Americans is slipping. Everyone thought the opposite would happen, that as you know, at the prime time like tonight with these opening statements, that support would build but Americans are turning off. Why is that?

BOOT: Well, I don't know if they're turning off. I think the country is still very much split. I mean, the polls are basically showing that somewhere between 45 to 50 percent of the country supports President Trump's impeachment and removal. And, you know, those are numbers we have not seen since the summer of 1974 right before Nixon resigned.

But I think it is fair to say that there was -- some people thought that perhaps, as the evidence came forward as you had those 12 very compelling witnesses testify in the House Intelligence Committee, that perhaps the number favoring impeachment and removal will go above 50 percent, and it hasn't, it's maybe even gone down a point or two. And I think that goes to the very polarized nature of our political environment where, you know, people who watch Fox News think that Donald Trump has been exonerated. They think all the evidence is made up. They think that he's completely innocent. They don't pay attention to the facts and he has a very solid base of support which is just not going to be shaken no matter what a compelling case the Democrats are bringing forward.

And I think the democrats have brought forward a very compelling case, but Donald Trump supporters just don't care.

VAUSE: OK, Max, thank you, also Lanhee Chen, thank you for being with us. And Michael, I think you're sticking now because we'll talk a little more about legal stuff in a bit. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, House Democrats move ahead with the impeachment of Donald Trump. A keyboard could be held in the next day. We have more details on that in a moment. And it's no exoneration, the U.S. Department's Inspector General says there was no political bias in the Russia investigation, but there was serious problems with FBI surveillance techniques.

[01:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Just gone 16 minutes past 1:00 here on the East Coast. And the breaking news this hour, U.S. House Democrats are moving quickly to get articles of impeachment against Donald Trump through the Judiciary Committee. They held a rare evening session that ended just a few hours ago, but they'll be back for more in the coming hours. Here's how the impeachment process will unfold. After getting input from other committees and considering amendments on Thursday, the judiciary committee is expected to vote on whether to recommend the Articles of Impeachment to the Full House of Representatives. Then, if a majority of the Democratic controlled House votes next week in favor of any of those articles, the President is impeached.

Then, the Senate would hold a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States. If two-thirds or more of the Senate votes to convict, the President would be removed from office. However, Republicans control the Senate, and that seems almost impossible. Joining us now here in Atlanta, former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore once again is with us. And from Washington, former federal prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Zeldin. Michael, good to see you, as well. Michael Moore and Michael Zeldin. So, we'll see how we go. You know, there was this rare bipartisan moment, though, in Washington, which we should report on, because both sides Republicans and Democrats, seem to be agreeing on the -- you know, this should be a short trial.

MICHAEL MOORE, U.S. ATTORNEY: Sure.

VAUSE: So, actually, if you were doing this, if you were officer in charge of the prosecution, how would you go? Would you want a short trial? MOORE: There's probably a benefit to having a short trial, especially looking at the realities of what the votes might be in the Senate. And you recognize you get people campaigning for the presidency, so they don't want to be tied up sit in the Senate for six weeks something in a trial this thing will go on ad nauseam. If I were in charge, I mean, I might try to narrow down and talk about which evidence we want -- we want to come in, hear some facts, cut down on some of the posturing and get on to the issues that are at hand. So, I think it's likely McConnell will keep a tight rein on it. I think there's probably -- he's had some back and forth with the White House and probably a decision has been made (INAUDIBLE) House and he's going to control which way it goes. So, I think, by and large, you're probably talking about two-week trial, something like that.

VAUSE: And Michael Zeldin, this is, you know, shorter, longer trial, I guess the argument here, it's a lot more to do with politics than it is to do, what, the legal case?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's both because the House managers, those are the people who will come over to the Senate and present the evidence like the prosecutor would in a regular criminal trial. They have to make their case, they have to put it on the evidence. They've got to either up on live witnesses or put on the, you know, sort of recorded witness' testimony that we saw in the House Intelligence Committee. Then, the President has to respond to that as a defense attorney might in a regular criminal trial. Then, there is closing argument, and then there's a decision by the Senate.

So, all that takes time. And I think they really need to do this with great seriousness, you don't see this very frequently, thankfully, in our history, and you don't do this, you know, sort of flippantly. So, I think that there has to be a serious presentation of evidence, a serious, substantive defense to those accusations, and then a vote. There has not yet been a serious defense to the allegations. There were none made today in the House Judiciary Committee. And I'll be very interested to see what the defense on the merit of the case is when they get to a trial in the Senate.

VAUSE: You said -- I mean, we've heard from Republicans, you know, either the trial was going to be too short or too long. The -- you know, the impeachment investigation or inquiry, you know, it was behind closed doors, although, you know, it's -- whatever, you know, it seems like whatever the Democrats have done, they've posted every step of the way. We also heard from the Chairman Jerry Nadler, who's making the case about why this impeachment vote had to be held even though an election was just a year away. Here he is.

[01:20:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): If we do not respond to President Trump's abuses of power, the abuses will continue. We cannot rely in an election to solve our problems when the President threatens the very integrity of that election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: To Michael Moore. If you take a look at the conservative media after he said that, it's proof they want to overturn the election result.

MOORE: Sure.

VAUSE: Yet 63 million Americans were disenfranchised. That is such a ridiculous argument because, you know, let's say Trump is impeached and removed, Mike Pence becomes President, right?

MOORE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

VAUSE: Everyone stays who's been appointed by Trump.

MOORE: That's exactly right. I mean, there will be no change. And remember that these are the people who typically talk about the founding fathers and what they intended with the Constitution. The sanctity of the document. And the Constitution here says that Congress has this power and gives them the duty and requirement to look at this and to look at impeachment. So, I think their argument is nonsensical, but they did -- they made the same argument talking about, well, we should wait now until 2020, and let the voters decide. Because, essentially, you know, we've got coming up on election in a year. Let's let it go. That's the same argument they've made about Merrick Garland. Well, let's wait and let a new president decide.

What they've done is they've said, For the last year of a president's term, really can't do anything to him. And the frames of the Constitution never intended that. They intended the Congress to come in, help control the executive when you had an out-of-control executive or somebody who was had malfeasance in office, or misfeasance in office, and that's -- and that's what they've got here. So, the Congress took an oath. It is their oath to come and support, defend the constitution if in fact, the House believes that there are articles of impeachment, they should be issued, then they'll vote on it.

And hopefully, the Senate then is going to make a decision on whether or not that can be proven and whether or not there'll be a removal. We all know -- and this is not really trial --

VAUSE: Right.

MOORE: -- that is going to try to persuade other senators. This is a trial for the American people to watch.

VAUSE: And for the 2020 election.

MOORE: Absolutely.

VAUSE: But, Michael Zeldin, just up to you, what the founders also did not sort of consider or thought about or thought would be present are political parties, you know, within Congress. And when you have the situation that we have now with one party, which is sort of, I guess, one of the -- refusing to realize reality, everything breaks down.

ZELDIN: Well, that's right, because we are not talking about the merits of the case any longer, we are talking just about process. They are pounding the table over the unfairness that they see in the process. Of course, if the process was stretched out a long period of time, as you said, they would complain about the length of it. If it's too short, they get to complain about the shortness of it. So, when you have no defense on the merits, that's what you do. You just pound the table. And that's what we're seeing here. Hopefully, the Senate will be more sober in their deliberations and we'll get to the bottom of the facts that were, you know, presented in the House, and the American people will get to make a decision about whether this conduct or in their own mind, was a high crime and misdemeanor, was wrong and should be sanctioned irrespective of what the vote is in the Senate.

VAUSE: But Michael Zeldin, is it possible that, you know, McConnell could get out of holding a trial at all? Could they just sort of walk away from all this out of simple vote and move on?

ZELDIN: It doesn't seem to be. I mean, there's -- as Michael Moore said, there's a blank slate here. But it seems to me that there has to be, by the language of the Constitution, a trial in the Senate. And then, they have their own rules about what that trial shall consist of, but I don't think they can just have a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment vote to -- you know, to dismiss those articles and call it a day. I think they really do have to have a trial. I think that they run political risk if they don't.

VAUSE: I want you to put your own sort of Democrat hat on, Michael Moore, because, you know, Nancy Pelosi came kicking and screaming to this moment of holding (INAUDIBLE) impeachment.

MOORE: Sure.

VAUSE: And she did it not just when the facts were staring her in the face, they were punching her in the face. It was -- it was obvious that, you know, this was happening. Did they wait too long in the sense of getting to this point and that they seem to be waiting for the politics to resolve themselves rather than working out what the right thing was to do.

MOORE: There may have been a little bit of a delay. I understand why she did it. But you know, part of this is momentum and perception. And I think some of the momentum got lost. And I think there were some things that strategically they may have misplayed in how they moved forward. I'm not sure that I would have put my law professors up as opposed to some fact witnesses. I think you want to -- you know, when you're talking about murder.

VAUSE: Keep it real.

MOORE: When you talk about a murder case, I mean, you put up the people to tell about the murder. You don't put up the doctor to say whether or not it was an accident. And so, I think we lost some time there. I understand why, she's got a big caucus to control. And she's, you know, she's got to make sure that they're moving forward in a way that's represented with the caucus, and that is respectful of those different views. Nonetheless, I mean, at the end of the day, probably was a little bit -- probably was a little bit too long.

VAUSE: OK. Michael Moore, thank you so much for being with us. Michael Zeldin, as well. We'll take a short break. Still to come here, the FBI not off the hook yet. The Inspector General for the U.S. Justice Department sharpened his criticism of how parts of the Russia probe were handled.

[01:25:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody, to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Just coming to 1:30 on a Thursday morning here, I'm John Vause at the CNN Center. The U.S. Justice Department's internal watchdog offered a blistering assessment of the FBI's handling of surveillance in the Russia investigation. But Inspector General Michael Horowitz is standing by his conclusion, the FBI was justified in wanting the probe. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the report does not indicate anyone linked to the investigation. The report found the FBI made 17 errors or omissions when applying for court approval to wiretap a Trump campaign advisor.

[01:29:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of 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)

VAUSE: Joining us now political commentator Mo Kelly; Lonnie Chen, a lecturer on public policy and law at Stanford University; and also with us again, CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin.

And Mo -- since you just joined want to bring you in for the first question. What is more important here in terms of the ramifications that the FBI was cleared of any political bias in the origins of the Russia investigation or that they have seen 17 problems, possibly serious problems, in the way it went about getting these the warrant for the wiretaps?

MORRIS O'KELLY, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know if it's an either or proposition, I would say it's both in. I think you can be encouraged by the fact that it was found that there was a legal predicate for the investigation and you can also be discouraged in the management of that investigation that they're real serious procedural problems.

Now the people who support the President will take that wrong with it as you see Attorney General William Barr. And the people who do not like the President, do not support the President will find that hey, they've been validated in their own way.

But moving forward it is still troubling that once again we are not exactly sure how the FBI played a role in the larger examination of our justice system.

VAUSE: Michael Zeldin -- just to stay with the issues of the problems with the wiretaps and the applications for these FISA warrants, from what you've read and what you've, seen how serious where these breaches?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They were serious breaches. But let's be clear that there have been historically-documented cases, case after case, of missteps like this in the FISA process. And this FISA court needs to be reformed.

The best that could possibly happen out of this whole Horowitz investigation today that they meaningfully look at the FISA application process and the court that reviews these things in secret. There have been efforts for a long time to reform this process and we're seeing again abuse of the FISA court because no defense attorneys are allowed in there.

So these are serious mistakes for sure but they are not unique.

VAUSE: Lonnie -- we also have a situation with the Attorney General who's essentially questioning his own independent inspector general and his findings and very publicly questioning those findings. And you know, the accusation against Attorney General Barr is that he's acting more as a communication spokesperson for the President of the United States.

LONNIE CHEN, LECTURER IN PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Well, the Attorney General has been very forward-leaning on this. There's no question about it. And I think what he has tried to do essentially is to articulate the President's position on this and somewhat say look that's not appropriate for him to do.

But the reality is given his track record, given where he's been on a number of different issues, this being just one of them, it should not surprise us that he would emphasize the lapses in the FISA process that were uncovered by the inspector general's support as opposed to the other finding which a lot of people would consider the major finding which is that there was no overt political motivation for the start of the investigation.

So this, I think has become kind of par for the course for Attorney General Barr which is why his detractors have consistently criticized him for the degree to which he has defended the President.

VAUSE: Forward leaning. Mo -- you want to pick it up from there. Has the Attorney General been forward leaning from your view? Is this is something -- or is there something more going on?

KELLY: I wouldn't say forward leaning. I would say he has balance problem and he's leaning all the way to the right. Like him or loath him, I thought that he was supposed to be representing the United States and supposed to be the highest legal executive in the land.

But instead, at every turn at every opportunity, at every moment he has bucked his own Justice Department to be an advocate specifically, openly, brazenly, nakedly for this president. And there's really no other reason other than for partisan right-leaning reasons.

VAUSE: And Michael Zeldin -- as someone who knows how the Justice Department should be working and, you know, the role of the Attorney General in all this, how do you see it?

[01:34:39]

ZELDIN: So let me just respond to that last observation which is I don't believe necessarily that Attorney General Barr in this case is shilling for the President. I think these are his personally-held beliefs that there was inadequate probable cause to start, crossfire- hurricane (ph) the initial inquiry about the Russian meddling with the campaign and the collusion. And I think he thinks that there was improper predication in the Carter Page FISA warrants.

That said he should not have aired these views publicly as he did. He defends himself by saying he doesn't want to leave the record sort of misleading to the American public. But that's not the process.

The process is if he's got an observation to make about the inspector general's report, he makes it in writing to the inspector general and they discuss it and maybe it's incorporated in the report.

But what he did here in coming forward, and even worse Durham the guy he handpicked to do this follow-on investigation is just not acceptable. It's outside of the normal processes for the Justice Department. And that's the mistake that he's made.

VAUSE: And Lonnie -- just to finish up with you, you know, we see this dispute now between the FBI director Christopher Wray and the Attorney General Barr, you know, on issues like spying. Barr says the FBI, essentially, he believes spied on the Trump campaign. Christopher Wray says we don't use that term. And then the President's tweets about the current FBI director and essentially puts Wray on notice that he's about to be fired like Comey.

CHEN: Yes. I mean this is a tough one Chris Wray who I think is commenting exactly in the way he should be. And frankly, observing what he observed about the FBI's conduct during this investigation.

And, you know, I think Chris Wray is telling it like it is. It's a difficult position to put yourself in, knowing of course that the President wants absolute loyalty. Regardless of the position he wants to see someone who's going to go out there and defend him regardless of the circumstances.

That's just not what Chris Wray is doing. And whether it will cost him his job, you know, I think a lot of people think it will.

VAUSE: Ok. Lonnie you get the last word on that. Good to see you. Mo'Kelly -- nice to see you too. It's been awhile.

KELLY: Good to see you.

VAUSE: And Michael Zeldin -- gosh, getting the band back together.

ZELDIN: Yes.

VAUSE: Thank you -- guys. Appreciate it.

ZELDIN: Thank you.

VAUSE: We'll take a short break.

It's election day in the U.K. and when we come back voters are about to head to the polls in what could be the final word as Britain is on course for Brexit or perhaps yet another referendum.

[01:37:08]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: At the top of the hour, polls will open across the U.K. for an election which will pave the way for Brexit or see Britain on course for another referendum and possibly years of political turmoil.

This result once seemed like a foregone conclusion for Prime Minister Boris Johnson. When he called the election his conservatives were holding a significant lead in the opinion polls. But the latest polling suggests the final results could be much closer than originally thought with the very real possibility that no party gets a majority in parliament.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This could not be more critical. This could not be tighter. I just think everybody, the risk is very real that we could tomorrow be going into another hung parliament that is more (INAUDIBLE), more diverse, more delay, more paralysis for this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: CNN European affairs commentator Dominic Thomas joins us now from Berlin. Dominic -- I want you to watch part of the report from CNN's Matthew Chance, explaining why this election is upend the way politics is played out in Britain for generations. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What is happening in this constituency of Dudley (ph), is also taking place across the country. Brexit, disillusionment with politics and politicians, turning traditional party loyalties upside down. Making this British general election particularly tough to fight and hard to protect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: I guess one of the major things here is that, you know, Brexit is not split along party lines. They're more on the lines of some, you know, pro or anti immigration for example. And that is what is sort of causing a major headache especially for the Labour Party.

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes, it is. But I mean you could also argue that a lot of these changes have been afloat since really the post Thatcher era where the Blair government increasingly blurred the line around issues that were traditionally the ownership of the right and the left. And particularly as you rightly point out around questions of immigration and security and so on.

And you could argue here that really what Corbyn has been trying to do is to go back to that old model and his proposal of higher taxation, a fairer society, a redistribution of wealth and nationalization, and a greater government is a way of going back to those particular positions.

But yes when it comes down to Brexit what has been so complicated about Brexit is that it is not divided that neatly along party lines. This is essentially a system that privileges the two-party system and you have within the Conservative Party, yes, different views on Brexit that some kind consensus around leave that it's within the Labour Party that there are these significant issues around appealing to particular constituencies that want to leave the European Union versus an overwhelming majority that want to remain in it.

VAUSE: So with that in mind Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has pretty much talked about everything on his campaign trail -- a magic pudding (ph) approach to government everything except for Brexit in any detail really.

Here he was in Glasgow last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEREMY CORBYN, BRITISH LABOUR PARTY LEADER: This election is really about a choice. Tomorrow the people who are all across the U.K. will go to vote. And they have a choice.

They can elect a government that they can trust. They can elect a government that will eliminate child poverty across Britain. They can elect a government I will and the cruelty and the injustice of universal credit. They can elect a government that will give hope to the next generation by investing properly in education for the future all across the U.K. And they can elect the government that will deal with the great issues on the world stage of climate change.

(END VIDEO CLIP) VAUSE: It just seems that because of Brexit and they don't really have, you know, a sort of understandable position on Brexit or a clear position on Brexit. Those traditional Labour Party supporters are heading towards the Tories in some ways especially, you know, in sort of deep labor territory.

[01:45:04]

THOMAS: Yes. And we have seen some of these traditional labor voters throughout Europe go for different far-right parties, different right- wing parties and so on. Ultimately what this election will show, this is of course, you know, another opportunity for the British people to weigh in on this two years after Theresa May's gross miscalculation when she lost the Conservative Party majority.

But ultimately what we will find out later today and tomorrow is whether Jeremy Corbyn's calculation to be ambiguous around Brexit and to appeal to those Labour members that want to leave the European Union was itself a gross miscalculation or whether he will be rewarded at the ballot box but not only that position that he's arguing around issues in Britain -- the health service and so on and so forth, that the likelihood is that these voters will not go towards him.

They want Brexit and the one party that's been talking about that all along and the one leader has been Boris Johnson. And the likelihood is that he will be rewarded at the ballot box tonight.

VAUSE: Dominic -- thank you. Appreciate all your coverage.

THOMAS: Thanks -- John.

VAUSE: It might be third time's a charm in Israel with a third general election in less than a year. For the past few months, Israeli lawmakers have been unable to form a coalition government after the last election and that triggered this third vote now set for March. It all means Benjamin Netanyahu remains prime minister for a few more months.

The official death toll from the volcanic eruption in New Zealand now stands at eight. It is believed eight more victims are still on White Island but recovery operations remain on hold, at least until Friday over safety concerns.

CNN's Will Ripley live this hour in Whakatane (ph) in New Zealand. So Will -- has there been any progress right now on, you know, the retrieval of these remains? They have any clear idea of, you know, how they're going to actually get in there and get these bodies out?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John -- just a minutes ago there was a press conference here in Whakatane where the New Zealand Defense Force announced that they will be making an attempt in the early morning hours to retrieve what they believe are eight bodies currently lying right now on White Island.

It's going to be a dangerous operation because the geothermal activity continues at the volcano. All day we've been watching the smoke plume, at times very large. In some ways similar to the images that we saw from Monday's eruption.

It has not been an eruption, we should point out. But nonetheless, it is an active volcano as it always has been and the activity continues. But the Defense Force there plan to go in the morning. They know at least where six of the bodies are located. They don't know where the other two are. But the priority will be to get the bodies that they have the locations of first. They'll search for the other two if conditions are safe. And it certainly is very welcome new for family members who are here, who are waiting for the closure that will only come when their loved ones' remains are recovered.

In terms of how the operation is going to work, there is a frigate off the shores of Whakatane right now with the Defense Force personnel on board. We don't know yet if they're going to land a helicopter or if they're going to try to actually take both up to the island to get there.

We do know that the police and the scientists will actually be here on the mainland assisting in the operation from a safe location.

VAUSE: Yes. It's just a horrible story all right. But we're also hearing about the rescue operations for those who survived and some of the details here are pretty remarkable.

RIPLEY: It really is heroic. The efforts OF those who were not police, who were not military, but regular citizens and tour guides and helicopter pilots who took it upon themselves in those early moments after the eruption to rescue as many people as they could.

Two kind of cases that really stand out. One was there was a second tour boat that was on the island just before the eruption. They had actually steamed (ph) off. Had that tour boat waited just 15 minutes longer, there would have been double the number of people on the island and actually nobody in the immediate vicinity to help rescue survivors.

But because this tour boat was a safe distance away when the eruption happened, instead of just sailing back here to shore, they turned around and they pulled 23 people out of the water. And passengers who, you know, had maybe limited training as first responders retrieving these burn victims, pouring cold water on them, trying to talk to them and keep them awake, keep them alive to get them to shore, it's a 90-minute trip back to shore.

And then you had helicopter pilots who conduct tours of the island from here and in fact, we saw that image of one of the helicopters that had its rotors blown off, despite the dangerous conditions to fly back to the island with that huge ash bloom and the eruption still happening, they chose to land inside the crater, ignoring essentially the warnings from authorities here and they rescued 12 people who were still alive but very seriously injured.

And you're talking about people with burns, with their skin falling off. People who were hit at very high speed with rocks that were shot out from the volcano. And had these citizens not acted so bravely and so heroically, many more people would've undoubtedly died -- John. [01:49:57]

VAUSE: Wow. Yes. You know, it's a sad story. Will -- thank you. Will Ripley, live from New Zealand.

So after Wednesday's marathon debate, Democrats and Republicans gear up for another go around before voting on Thursday. What else we can expect in the impeachment process? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Recap now the breaking news this hour.

House Democrats are moving quickly towards a vote on articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. The Judiciary Committee held a rare evening session which ended just before midnight local time. And the committee will reconvene in the morning with a vote expected later in the day.

Republicans could try to slow the process with a series of amendments, but since Democrats controlled the majority, stalling tactics will only delay the inevitable.

Wednesday night's session was filled with vitriol and bluster but little in the way of new facts.

[01:54:54]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND (D), LOUISIANA: We have the evidence. The transcript of the call is a crystal clear confession. His chief of staff, co-conspirator admitted to it in the White House press briefing room.

We have hours of testimony from State Department witnesses, confessions, admissions, witnesses, videos -- we have everything but DNA. What else do you need?

REP. MATT GAETZ (R), FLORIDA: House Democrats aren't clarifying that no one is above the law, they're just clarifying that none of them are above partisanship and politics. This is the quickest, thinnest, weakest, most partisan impeachment in all of American presidential history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: A new Monmouth University poll finds 45 percent of Americans want to impeach President Trump, half do not. The same split as it was in November.

Thank you for joining us this hour. I'm John Vause at the CNN Center in Atlanta.

"CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON" is up for our viewers in the United States, that's next. For everyone else, stay with us. CNN NEWSROOM with Kristie Lu Stout.

[01:55:51]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END