Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Interview with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA); Rudy Giuliani in White House Meeting Today; Judiciary Chair and Ranking Member Weigh in After Vote. Aired 10:30-11a ET
Aired December 13, 2019 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:31:07]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: A truly major moment in American history right now. The president of the United States has just had to realize that the House Judiciary Committee voted, 23 in favor, 17 opposed, two articles of impeachment against him: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Both of those articles now go for a full vote in the -- in the House of Representatives, which clearly has a Democratic majority, as you know.
Manu Raju is up on Capitol Hill. Manu, you're getting lots of reaction including from a guest?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. From Pramila Jayapal over here, speaking with her, the House -- member of the House Judiciary Committee, Democrat from Washington. Thanks for chatting with us.
So of course, these two articles of impeachment now just advanced to the House floor on a party-line vote. Are you worried at all about the ramifications of doing something so historic, so significant, so rare in American history, but being done along party lines.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): Well, there's no question I wish that wasn't the case. I think we laid out an incredibly clear set of facts. We contested every lie or mistruth that the Republicans put out there, with a set of facts that were delivered by patriots, by the way, some of whom were appointed by Donald Trump, the witnesses that came before the Intel Committee.
And so I had hoped that there might be a couple of Republicans that would vote their conscience, that would vote the Constitution, that would vote for their oath of office. And that didn't happen. I don't think that necessarily means we won't see that on the -- you know, we'll see that on the House floor. I hope that some Republicans in the House are willing to put country over party, and then ,you know, we'll send it on.
But I think the importance of this moment, when a president of the United States invites a foreign government to interfere in our elections and uses the office of the president, a White House meeting and taxpayer military aid that was approved by Congress? If that is not impeachable, I do not know what is.
And to hear John Ratcliffe say that the answer that I asked -- of all of my colleagues, forget about President Trump -- is it OK for a president to invite a foreign country to interfere in our elections? He said yes. Now, he said "involvement" instead of "interference," I understand that. But that is the same thing, to involve a foreign government, to request their assistance in our election, takes away the vote of the American people.
RAJU: So when this goes to the House floor, we do -- we don't expect any Republicans to vote for this. At the moment, they seem completely in line with the president on this. We do expect two Democrats to defect, and potentially a handful more. Does that worry you, that the perception will be -- could be that this was bipartisan opposition to these two articles of impeachment when the vote ultimately comes next week?
JAYAPAL: I think everybody is going to have to vote their conscience. And I think that if somebody votes no on these articles, I have a hard time understanding how they could look at the facts and do that. But we all have to wake up and go to bed with ourselves every night. And we will be remembered in history for this vote.
And so that's what I would ask all of my Republican colleagues and any Democrats who are looking at this, that aren't sure what they're going to do, to think about the effect on history. This is going to go down in the history books.
And this idea that democracy can be saved or preserved without any effort, without any courage from us, is an affront to the people who fought in the revolutions on the battlefields to create this democracy.
RAJU: Do you think that Democrats -- your case would have been even stronger, had you have fought this out in court to try to get those Mick Mulvaneys, John Boltons of the world to come and testify and provide what their direct interactions were with the president?
JAYAPAL: Well, of course, we would have loved them to come. But the president was obstructing us at every single step, this is what is unprecedented. And I hope that the American people understand this. In every other impeachment of a president, the president -- Nixon, Clinton -- they did not give a blanket denial of witnesses, of documents.
[10:35:05]
This president has obstructed us every step of the way. So, yes, we don't have those people. You know why? Because he would not let them come and testify. And so that is outrageous. This is not -- we are not accountable to the courts -- I think Madeleine Dean did a great job of explaining this yesterday -- the Constitution says the sole power of impeachment is given to the people's house. We are not just a coequal branch of government, we are actually Article I.
RAJU: Congresswoman, thank you so much for chatting with us. Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: All right, Manu. Thank you very much.
Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which just passed these two articles of impeachment, about to come to that microphone right there. We'll have live coverage, much more right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: You're looking at live pictures from Capitol Hill. You see the microphones right there, a bunch of reporters standing by. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presumably joined by other members of the committee, will be going to that microphone, making a statement and, we hope, answering reporters' questions.
We're also standing by for Doug Collins, the ranking member, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. We believe he'll be going to make a statement as well.
We're watching all of this unfold, but I want to go to the White House right now. Pamela Brown is on the scene for us over there. I may have to interrupt you, Pamela, if Jerry Nadler shows up. But first of all, any reaction yet from the president or his advisors?
PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No reaction from the president directly. Stephanie Grisham just tweeted, moments ago, pointing out the China trade deal, the first phase of that that the president and China have agreed to, saying -- asking Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, to take note of that. But didn't directly reference the vote this morning, sending those articles of impeachment to the House floor.
[10:35:05]
Now, even before that vote took place, Wolf, the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, arrived here at the White House, carrying what looked like folders as he walked in. We've reached out to the White House to ask what he's doing here, who is he meeting with.
Rudy Giuliani has said in press interviews that the president has asked for him to brief him on his findings --
BLITZER: All right, hold on, hold on for a moment --
BROWN: -- go ahead.
BLITZER: -- the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: OK. Today -- today is a solemn and sad day. For the third time in a little over a century and a half, the House Judiciary Committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House will act expeditiously. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: All right. Well, that was -- that was pretty fast, not much of a statement there and certainly didn't want to hang around and answer reporters' questions. But clearly, he understands the history. And as Jeffrey Toobin was pointing out, the solemn look on the faces of the Democrats and the Republicans who voted -- 23 in favor of these two articles of impeachment, 17 against -- it became very, very evident that everyone understands the nature, the historic nature of what is going on.
Pamela, I interrupted you. You were giving us the reaction from the White House.
BROWN: Yes. No, absolutely. We were talking about Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, arriving here this morning. He is in the White House. So far, officials here have not said what exactly he's doing here.
But we know Rudy has said in press interviews that the president wanted him to brief him on his findings from his recent overseas trip to Ukraine, where he apparently was trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens, meeting with Ukrainian lawmakers, former lawmakers, some of whom are pro-Russian.
And Giuliani has dangled that he has found all of this information, without saying explicitly what that is, what evidence there is to back it up. The president himself has spoken about it, saying he believes he's found some good information, he wants him to brief Congress and Barr.
But what is so interesting here, Wolf, is that Rudy Giuliani is the man who many here believe has brought the president to this point in the impeachment probe, running this sort of shadow foreign policy with Ukraine. He is also, as we know, as we previously reported, under federal investigation by prosecutors.
And so many here at the White House believe that Rudy is a liability to this president. Yet the president clearly still supports him, still has confidence in him and still treats him as his personal attorney. Sources say they still talk regularly, they talk on the phone quite often. And so none of this has deterred the president.
This is happening, Wolf, as this vote this morning took place there, in the committee, sending those articles of impeachment to the House floor -- Wolf.
BLITZER: I understand the president, at the top of the hour, has a scheduled meeting with the visiting (ph) -- I guess with the visiting president of Paraguay. Will there be open coverage, at least some sort of photo op at the top, where we might hear the president of the United States react to these two articles of impeachment?
BROWN: We certainly hope so. We certainly hope to be able to get some reaction from him. Because, so far, since the vote has happened, the president hasn't weighed in on it. He's only been tweeting about phase one of the China trade deal being reached. And so he's clearly not been reacting directly to it, so we hope to get some more reaction from him.
I can tell you, in talking to White House officials, there's been a lot of discussion behind the scenes here, of what the president should do on big days like today and of course next week, when this goes to the House floor and they vote on these two articles of impeachment. What will the president be doing that day.
And I'm told, there are some serious discussions that there will be a direct response, at least next week, form the president, and perhaps today. Beyond tweets, beyond talking at a rally, which he's expected to have next Wednesday, they are trying to plan for the president to do something to directly respond to what is transpiring here -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Certainly. We'll stand by for all of that, Pamela. We'll get back to you.
We just got a statement, couple paragraphs, from Doug Collins, the ranking Republican, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. Let me read it to you in full.
"Today's vote highlights the pettiness of last night's delay and the folly of articles of impeachment that allege no crime and establish no case. While it's already clear that Democrats broke their own promises to rig this outcome, what will become more obvious in the coming days and years is that Democrats gravely abused their power."
The statement continues: "This abuse of power doesn't just undermine the integrity of our chamber or the independence of future presidencies. Democrats have sacrificed core American tenets of due process, fairness, and the presumption of innocence on the altar of a 2016 election that they lost three years ago.
[10:45:12]
Finally, it says this: "Rather than help Americans move into the future with confidence, Democrats are attempting to knee-cap our democracy. They're telling millions of voters that Democrats will work to overturn the will of the people whenever it conflicts with the will of liberal elites." That statement, from Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Pamela, I understand you just, a few seconds ago, got a statement from the White House as well?
BROWN: That's right. The press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, releasing this statement, saying, "The desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end. The president looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process, which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House."
So Stephanie Grisham, there, reiterating many of the talking points we've been hearing from this White House throughout the House process. As you know, Wolf, the White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, has
rejected offers to participate on any level during these recent hearings. The White House has continually said that it believes this is partisan, it's a sham process and that it's looking forward to the Senate trial.
And we know that Pat Cipollone and Senate majority leader are (inaudible) in the Senate, in the Senate trial, met yesterday. They agreed to continue to coordinate on what a potential Senate trial might look like.
While no agreement was reached, they're trying to reconcile what the president wants, this theatrical defense with live witnesses, with what Republican senators seem to want, which is a very quick trial with no live witnesses. So all of those details are still being worked out.
But the president is looking forward to being able to tout that he's been exonerated in the Senate. Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he doesn't believe the president will be removed, but at the same time, this is certainly weighing on the president, what is transpiring.
This vote this morning, the fact that this will now go down as part of his legacy is something that has also bothered the president for sure -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes. I'm sure he's not very happy that he's now being included in this group of presidents who have had to deal with this issue: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and now all of a sudden, Donald J. Trump is also in that very, very small group of American presidents.
All right. We're standing by, we're getting a lot more reaction on this historic day. We'll take a quick break, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:52:15]
BLITZER: Well, we're getting reaction, lots of reaction to this historic moment right now, the president of the United States just faced the fact that the House Judiciary Committee has approved -- along strict party lines, 23 to 17, Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed -- two articles of impeachment: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress.
And Jim Sciutto, the White House statement -- let me read it once again from Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary -- "This desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end. The president looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process, which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House."
He was offered lots of opportunities to participate, him personally as well as the White House Counsel, in the House procedures. JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, one
thing we learn here is that talking points don't die in the face of facts, right? I mean, that one has stuck and it will continue to stick. You know, the whole thing about, like, the secret Stalinesque process in the basement, even though there were equal representation from Republicans there, or even the essential facts of the charge here.
For instance, you know, the Ukrainians never knew about the delay of aid. I heard half a dozen Republican congressmen say that yesterday, even though those same congressmen were in the room when they heard sworn testimony from a Defense Department official, Laura Cooper, say in fact they were asking way back in July.
So facts don't penetrate the talking points or apparently the positions here. And that's -- you know, that's the kind of process we saw, at the end of the day.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: There is one aspect of this that I do think needs probably more scrutiny beyond this moment, which is the stonewalling on the part of the White House, the denial of subpoenas, of document requests. They have tried to create that precedent, that the White House and that the administration does not need to respond to Congress at all. And the president was just impeached over it.
But I do think that it remains somewhat unsettled as a matter of principle. What do we do, going forward? Can the White House just say, hey, you know what, we're being impeached but we're not going to respond at all.
And I think that's the lesson that the president's taking away. And I suspect that future presidents might very well take a page out of that book as well.
BLITZER: And that's the basis of the obstruction of Congress --
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right.
BLITZER: -- article of impeachment.
BASH: Right. And I would love to hear what the lawyers over here think of this. But one of the questions that I asked the chairman, Jerry Nadler, last Sunday, is, why they didn't take away the time -- which I guess maybe is the bulk of it, but -- why they didn't take the White House to court.
Because there is some theory that they didn't take the White House to court not because the courts are slow, but because they didn't want to precedent set because there isn't a real precedent about how much executive power or privilege can be asked for, can be granted in situations like this.
Because historically, they've just worked it out among themselves, Congress and the White House, because they know that the shoe will be on the other foot in a matter of years. [10:55:07]
BLITZER: We'll get the legal perspective in a few moments.
There is much more we're covering on this historic day, here in the nation's capital. We're also standing by, we'll be seeing the president of the United States, we'll get his reaction presumably. Much more, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
