Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Judiciary Votes On Articles Of Impeachment. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired December 13, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- discussing the same issues, going over the same pieces of information and saying very different things about them.

[10:00:05]

And so it has been a little bit kind of disconcerting if you're kind of focused on what happened and what didn't happen to see that there's almost no clarity being revealed in some of this talking that's been happening on the Hill, but I think it's a symptom of the larger problem in this process and I think we'll only see more of that as we go forward.

But, interestingly, to Jim's point about Giuliani, I do think that all of this seems to indicate the president is watching all of this happening. He's happy with the way the Republicans are defending him in the House, but he still wants a fight. He still wants to be vindicated in some way and have some kind of case being made for his point of view.

So I would be very interested to see how this proceeds given that the president seems very much interested in presenting whatever it is that Giuliani has found and putting it out there into the universe in his own defense.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I just add one thing to that? There was a bit of a shift rhetorically in the very long proceedings yesterday, particularly in the morning, when you had some of the president's biggest defenders start to talk about the substance of the call, explain the call, say, it's not really that bad. He was trying to get an investigation for us, for the American people, not for -- not for his political viability. And that is in keeping with what Jim and Abby were just talking about, with Giuliani continuing to do this.

And they're starting to -- a lot of the Republicans are starting to move towards the Mick Mulvaney defense. Okay, he did it. So what? Get over it.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, Jim Jordan, one of the more outspoken Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I just want to, you know, try to make the point that, you know, there are not two versions of the facts. There are only facts. And, you know, the overwhelming majority of the case -- of the time yesterday, you had Democrats talking about the actual facts of this investigation and you had Republicans essentially making things up.

You know, we have this sort of two sides, and I fall victim to it and -- but the fact is, the Republicans --

BLITZER: Here comes the chairman, by the way, Jerry Nadler. He's going to be seated momentarily. But go ahead.

TOOBIN: Making up facts about when the Ukrainians knew that the aid was cut off. And to the extent we can, I think we should try to police that in our journalistic function of trying to talk about --

BASH: One set of facts, but two different worlds.

PHILLIP: That's an interpretation of the same events. I mean, Republicans are basically saying, we see what he did and we don't think there's anything wrong with it, which is a completely different way of looking at --

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: But they also lied, because Ukraine did know about the aid delay in July. It's in sworn testimony from Laura Cooper. It's in emails, and yet they kept repeating Ukrainians didn't even know despite the facts.

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There's also the Constitution. And the Constitution sets forth the process here, but it also sets forth the grounds for impeachment. And there was no response whatsoever last night on the grounds for impeachment. And so the Constitution is going to really channel the discussion, it's going to give us the framework. And that's the thing to watch, I think, as this debate unfolds.

BLITZER: Jerry Nadler is about to begin this historic session. Two articles of impeachment will be voted on after that lengthy, lengthy 14-hour debate yesterday. They debated and rejected four amendments, maybe five amendments, four or five amendments that were introduced by Republicans, but here's Jerry Nadler.

(HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The Judiciary Committee will come to order. A quorum being present. Having agreed yesterday to the amendment and the nature of substance in articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, the pending business is reporting the resolution favorably to the House.

BLITZER: All right. Well, there you have history unfolding at the House Judiciary Committee, major history, two articles of impeachment, abuse of power, obstruction of congress approved along strict party lines, 23 Democrats in favor of those two articles of impeachment, 17 Republicans opposed. One Democrat, Ted Lieu of California, he is ill. He could not vote. Otherwise, it would have been 24-17.

Jeffrey Toobin, this is history unfolding and now it sets the stage for a full vote on the House floor presumably next Wednesday.

TOOBIN: You could see it on the faces of the members of Congress as they voted. They do a lot of voting and it's usually a fairly routine task. But I think you saw on the faces of people on both sides the gravity of the situation, the fact that this is a rare event in American history. And they all know that their obituaries, whenever they depart the world, it will be noted how they voted here and the fact that they served on this committee at this time. And I think they recognized that and they -- they were appropriately sobered.

BASH: It really was striking. I totally agree, Jeff, to see after all of the sort of vitriol of the past several months, particularly over the past 24 hours, in their chairs, somber faces, Martha Roby, who's -- she's retiring, she's a Republican, even had her son in the seat with her to mark the moment of history, even though she obviously doesn't support it. In less than ten minutes, they did this. Just, you know, flat -- right along party line votes, they made history.

But the fact that we are here, that we are looking at this, is really remarkable given the fact that it doesn't happen very often. I mean, you always say, Wolf Blitzer, that you like this job because you have a front row seat to history. Sometimes history is fascinating and fun and sometimes history is somber and momentous, and this one was the latter.

BLITZER: There's only four times. Andrew Johnson, 1868, there was a vote in the House of Representatives. He was impeached, eventually acquitted in the Senate, where you needed two-thirds majority. Richard Nixon, he was -- the articles of impeachment against him were approved in the Judiciary Committee in 1974. When he realized that he was going to be impeached in the House and probably convicted in the senate, he simply resigned. So he was not formally impeached by the House of Representatives. Bill Clinton, 1998. He was impeached in the House of Representatives after the Judiciary Committee recommended articles of impeachment. He was acquitted in the Senate as well. Now Donald J. Trump, 2019.

They could have had this vote last night, Abby. It was only, as Dana says, ten minutes or so, but the Democrats clearly wanted it in daylight.

PHILLIP: Exactly. Because they knew what would happen if they did vote at 1:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the morning on articles of impeachment, that immediately the talking point would be almost like a Washington cliche, in the dark of the night, you're voting on to impeach this president to overturn will of the people. And so by pushing it into the daylight, it really disarms that talking point.

But it also, I think, is important to do that, because the American people should know that this is what's going on. They should be wide awake for it. Because as you pointed out, only four other times in history has this happened and this is not something that we ought to take lightly.

And you know, the president himself is aware of that. He doesn't like, obviously, the idea that now this is -- will be on his gravestone, in his obituary. And even though I think Republicans feel confident that this isn't going anywhere in the Senate, it is something that I think does hang over the party.

[10:15:00]

Our colleague, Jim Acosta, reported a couple of days ago that people close to the president were surprised that it was Ukraine that did this, that after all of the stuff that has gone on, it would be Ukraine. And I think a lot of people in Washington, frankly, are a little bit stunned that even after everything with Mueller, this was the thing. The president, after Robert Mueller testified, the next day, calling up the president of Ukraine and doing this, I think that's what has really -- it's a little bit stunning for everybody in this country right now, that this is where we are.

SCIUTTO: And let's remember where this started. Three months ago, it started with a whistleblower, a member of government who raised their hand through a set and protected process to say something is wrong here with that call. And it expanded beyond that, because we learned it wasn't just a call to the Ukrainian president. It was weeks and months of meetings and really a shadow foreign policy being developed with political intent here.

And we should note, it wasn't just the whistleblower who raised questions about this. Because we know internally, even Republican lawmakers were saying, what's happening with this Ukrainian military assistance, why isn't our ally getting this aid in the middle of a war? The questions about this behavior, frankly, were bipartisan. Now, the result is not, but Democrats and Republicans who said, what's going on? Why?

And remember the words of, say, Lindsey Graham early on in this process. Well, if you were to establish a quid pro quo, that would then be a problem. The president's E.U. ambassador said this was a quid pro quo and everybody was aware of it, everybody was in on it, Pompeo, et cetera. But you heard all of that, and it's become a part line vote here.

But it is remarkable that three months ago, we didn't expect this to happen. A whistleblower complaint raises this shall to the public consciousness, and that's where we are today.

BLITZER: Michael Gerhardt, you're a professor of law and you understand the impeachment process well. I've brought my little Constitution with me. It says, the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats in arguing for these two articles of impeachment, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, they cite high crimes and misdemeanor, they don't cite treason or bribery.

GERHARDT: That's right. And so it's again a very good reminder that what we're seeing here -- it's not always pretty -- is the Constitution in action. This is a constitutional process. And so a big part of that has to do with what has to do with what's an impeachable offense. And other high crimes and misdemeanor basically is defined as of abuse of power. It's not defined as a violation of the criminal statute. Abuse of power was very much on the minds of the framers. They wanted to find a way to check a president, they didn't want a king. So impeachment of a king, the process for checking the president for misconduct that, in many instances, would be abuse of power.

BLITZER: Tim Naftali, the presidential historian, is with us as well. This is a historic moment, by all accounts. Give us your perspective.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, impeachment is the last best defense against those who would abuse their power. In our history, four times, the Congress has turned to that tool to deal with a president that, for one reason or another, they felt was a challenge to the constitutional order. It's history ultimately that provides the legacy as to whether the use of impeachment was proper or improper.

One of the things that is most dismaying about what we are seeing occurring now, and I agree with Professor Gerhardt, we are watching the Constitution in action, is that not everybody who's participating in this process is treating it with the solemnity that it deserves. This is a discussion about our country, our Constitution and about what we expect our president to do with the powers, those enormous powers, that he and some day she is given.

The debate that we witnessed was not a debate about first principles. It was though in 1974, it was to a less extent, a lesser extent in 1998, but this time, it wasn't. Let's hope that in the House and in the Senate, should it go there, that we see a debate about first principles, because that's what the founders expected of us, that's why this is a solemn moment. This is not about Democrats versus Donald Trump. This is about who we are as a nation and our respect for the Constitution.

TOOBIN: You know, I couldn't actually disagree more with what you said. I think the Democrats have talked about first principles constantly here. Nancy Pelosi didn't even want to get involved in this impeachment process. And the fact is this was such an egregious abuse of power that she felt, and ultimately, the Democrats on the impeachment -- on the Judiciary Committee felt that this was something they were compelled to do by the Constitution, that going to a foreign power and saying, the only thing I want from you is political dirt on my opponents and I'm going to withhold government aid in return, that is too far under our Constitution.

[10:20:06]

And then, to completely stop any sort of effort at oversight by the congressional committees, a coordinative branch of government, I think that is a profound and serious thing. And I don't know what you were watching, but I think it was profoundly and clearly described as this --

BLITZER: Tim Naftali, go ahead.

NAFTALI: I wasn't talking about the Democrats, Jeffrey. What I said -- no, but wait. The difference here -- there's a huge difference. Yes, I heard that, and that was about first principles. I am talking about an impeachment where there's a real debate, where the defenders of the president talk about first principles. And they talk about issues of why something is not impeachable.

Jeffrey, we're not disagreeing here. I'm sorry if I made it sound like no one was talking about first principles. But this moment requires everybody to talk about it, not just one party. And that's what's dismaying to me.

In 1974, even Nixon's toughest loyalists were at least talking about why they felt Nixon's crimes fell below the standard of impeachment. They at least took seriously the process. What I'm saying is that Republicans, in the debate, didn't take it seriously. So I don't think we're disagreeing here. I just want everyone to be talking about first principles.

BLITZER: It's interesting, Dana, that the 23-17 vote in the House Judiciary Committee strictly, along party lines, the Democrats all voting for these two articles of impeachment, the Republicans all opposing these two articles of impeachment, I suspect next Wednesday, assuming there's a vote in the full House of Representatives and all of the members are there, basically, it will be, once again, almost completely -- there'll be a few Democrats, maybe two or three or four who will vote against these articles of impeachment, but it doesn't look, at least right now, as if any of the Republicans are going to support these articles.

BASH: It doesn't. And at the beginning of this process, it was a big open question about whether or not some would particularly about 20 or so Republicans in the House who are retiring and have nothing to lose politically. Some of them are young and they want a future in politics, so they do potential have something to lose.

But the key is to remember that, since we're talking about history, it was largely along party lines the last time this happened in the House, but there was crossover on both sides. Some Democrats, depending on the article of impeachment, voted against their fellow Democrat in the White House or to impeach him.

BLITZER: You're referring to Bill Clinton.

BASH: Bill Clinton. And so that is going to be probably a different dynamic now than it was before.

And it does speak to a lot of quotes that we have seen from Democrats. Jerry Nadler, for example, who said back in '98, you shouldn't impeach along party lines, you have to have everybody come together. And now, his answer to the fact that this is going to be partisan, is that the Republicans are putting party over country.

And so there's always an answer for everything, but it is an important --

TOOBIN: I'm sorry, please. PHILLIP: I wonder if a lot of Americans are probably asking themselves, is there something wrong with the system that in such a short period of time, relative to the scope of American history, that we have had so many impeachments and that these impeachments have become increasingly partisan in nature. I think that kind of is a little bit what's hanging over this. Is this a symptom of the Trump era or is it a symptom of something not working in the system that we are at this point? And perhaps this is something for our historian friends.

But I just -- I think that is a deep question that goes beyond this moment. It is about whether or not there will be a time after this in which something is really wrong and people of the opposite party are able to say, that's wrong and I'm willing to stand up and say that. I'm really not sure at this point. I'm not sure anybody has the answers to it.

SCIUTTO: You had Republicans note that yesterday, in effect, saying, hey, next time you have a president, Democrats, you know, brace yourself for something similar here.

Now, one caveat, look at the history. Impeachment came up as a possibility though it was not pursued going back to Reagan with Iran- Contra. There were other times but, of course, didn't reach this point. But, yes, and particularly when you look at the way, for instance, Mitch McConnell is planning for the Senate trial here, right? I mean, he says on Fox News last night, he's coordinating directly with the White House, which is something that Democrats in the Clinton impeachment purposefully did not do. They said that that would impinge upon my impartiality as a juror, which, in fact, I'm sitting at. That's another sign of how far the partisan divide has moved on.

[10:25:01]

BASH: I have a theory about what you said, but I'm curious what the historian would say.

NAFTALI: Well, I appreciate that. But I'll think of something fast.

Well, one thing that strikes me is that there's so much discussion, particularly in the present as we're looking at this happening, a discussion about politics. And everybody is consumed with the politics. But fundamentally, this is not ultimately about politics. Fundamentally, it's about the Constitution. So I would say I don't think it's broken.

What we actually are seeing in this particular instance is an effort by some members of Congress, granted they're mostly different, Democrats but not all Democrats, are actually claiming the Constitution is their basis for proceeding. And the response so far from the Republicans has been long on politics and short on law. And I think that describes it.

BLITZER: All right. Everybody, hold your breath for a moment. I know this is a historic moment right now. We're watching history unfold here in the nation's capital in Washington, D.C. The president of the United States has just lost hot House Judiciary Committee. Two articles of impeachment have been passed. It now goes to a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

Much more of our special coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]