Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Preparing For Trump Impeachment Trial In January; The Mistakes The Former FBI Director Admits Were Made In The Agency's Russia Investigation; New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy Reacts To Deadly Shooting In New Jersey. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired December 15, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone, thanks for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge, in for Fredricka Whitfield.

In just a few days, President Trump will likely become just the third President in the United States to be impeached. The full House expects to hold a vote on Wednesday if Congress passes the historic two Articles of Impeachment, then the Senate trial would take place in January.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is already calling for a quick trial to acquit the President with no witnesses being called. Democrats are now raising concerns about a possible rush to judge by some Republican senators.

Today, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff urged the Senate to not only call witnesses but to also introduce documents, which the White House blocked during the Impeachment Inquiry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think there are any number of witnesses that should be called in the Senate trial and many witnesses the American people would like to hear from that the administration has refused to make available; and perhaps of equal, if not greater importance are the thousands and thousands of documents that the administration refuses to turn over.

I would hope that every senator of both parties would like to see the documentary evidence. They'd like to hear from these witnesses that haven't testified and I would urge Mitch McConnell to start negotiating with Chuck Schumer to make sure that those senators have a full record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: CNN Senior Washington Correspondent, Jeff Zeleny joins us now and Jeff, good to see you. Both sides appear to be digging in, as this impeachment vote nears, but I guess that's really no surprise.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Martin. It is no surprise. Look, I mean, we've been building up to this really for several weeks and all sides are locked in their positions here.

But the question about the shape and scope of that Senate trial is still very much up in the air. The President is, you know, of course on Friday, he said he would be okay with a long or a short proceeding, but it really is a subject of a big discussion, who is going to represent him? You know if there are going to be witnesses? But there really is a lot of fire now being directed at Senate Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying he is working hand in glove with the President with the White House - that drew a sharp rebuke today from House Judiciary Chairman, Jerry Nadler.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): The Constitution prescribes a special oath to the senators when they sit at a trial and impeachment, they have to pledge to do impartial justice.

And here you have the majority of the Senate, in effect, the format of the jury saying he is going to work hand in glove with a defense attorney. And that's a violation of the oath that they're about to take, and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So certainly, this is going to be the subject of much discussion as we head toward that expected vote on Wednesday, but particularly as this moves toward a Senate trial in January here.

Republicans are saying that there is simply is not enough evidence, but there is a question for those Republicans in the middle, those one or two who are up for reelection next year, Susan Collins of Maine and Cory Gardner of Colorado; others Mitt Romney of Utah, of course has been very critical of this President and that Ukraine phone call.

So this is very much still an -- it's up in the air how this is going to resolve itself, but much criticism, of course, going into this very important week as the vote comes on Wednesday.

SAVIDGE: I want to ask you about this interesting development. There are some Democrats reportedly who are pushing for Michigan Congressman Justin Amash, the former Republican, now turned Independent representative to be a House manager for the Senate impeachment trial. What's the thinking behind that?

ZELENY: Well, this is very interesting, and if this would come to pass, this is still just in the wish phase, if you will. Some freshmen House Democrats are urging Speaker Pelosi to put Justin Amash as one of the impeachment managers and that would mean one of the most conservative members of the House.

He is one of the few House Republicans, he is now an Independent, but former House Republicans who have spoken out against this President. Imagine if you have a sharp firebrand conservative leading this Impeachment Inquiry in the Senate, it certainly would change the conversation about that.

But we do not know yet if Speaker Pelosi is actually going to sign on to this or not or if she wants to keep more control over this by having Democrats as impeachment managers.

But look what Justin Amash said yesterday to Senator Lindsey Graham about his, you know, the idea that there is, you know, essentially not an impartial proceeding here in the Senate.

He said this, "Senator Graham has chosen to violate his oath to support and defend the Constitution, his oath to impartial justice in an impeachment trial and his duty to represent all the people of his state, not just those who share his political views or desire a particular outcome."

So Justin Amash there going after Lindsey Graham, so if this would come to pass, if he would be one of the impeachment managers, it certainly would add, you know, some fireworks and perhaps some credibility to those Independent voters in the middle who will be watching all of this proceed in the Senate.

But we still aren't sure if Speaker Pelosi will sign off on this. So we'll certainly keep our eye on this -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Yes. Just when you thought you knew everything that was going to happen.

ZELENY: Right.

SAVIDGE: There's that.

ZELENY: We do not.

SAVIDGE: No, we don't. Jeff Zeleny. Thanks very much.

ZELEYN: Sure.

[15:05:05]

SAVIDGE: So what's the White House strategy going to be? Let's bring in CNN White House Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond and Jeremy, the President's special adviser on impeachment, Pam Bondi spoke about the impeachment this morning. What did she have to say about the White House strategy?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER : Well, Martin, with the House of Representatives, all but certain to impeach President Trump within a few days, the White House is really shifting its focus to the Senate, where of course the President will face a trial if indeed he is impeached by the House of Representatives and White House lawyers are busy preparing for that -- the potential of that trial in the Senate and the White House's messaging operation is also in full force, and that is where we find Pam Bondi, a special adviser at the White House over this impeachment matter.

And she said that the White House and the President himself see the Senate trial as an opportunity for a fair process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, IMPEACHMENT ADVISER TO DONALD TRUMP: We weren't given a fair trial in the House at all. Now, it goes to the Senate and these senators -- the President deserves to be heard. We should be working hand in hand with them. The rules of evidence will apply.

These are the senators who will decide if our President is impeached, which will not happen, we should and will work hand in hand with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And those comments, of course, come despite the fact that Democrats have been extremely critical of both the White House and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for talking about that coordination that is already taking place between the White House and Senate Republicans over the trial that the President would face in the Senate, and they are not backing down because essentially, both Senate Republicans and the President see this Senate trial as an opportunity for the President to be vindicated, despite the allegations that he has faced, including from members of his own administration.

And despite Pam Bondi there suggesting that the President wants to be heard, there is no indication that the President or any of his advisers, frankly, will take the stand in a trial in the Senate. Instead, the President seems much more content to continue flinging allegations on Twitter.

This morning already, he was coming tending to attack this impeachment process as a hoax, and I think, we'll be continuing to see more of the same as this process moves forward -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: All right, Jeremy Diamond. Thanks very much. And we have New Jersey's democratic Governor on later in this hour. He'll be talking about the case of Jeff Van Drew. He is the Democratic congressman who is now upset about the impeachment process and he says, so much so he may change parties. We want to find out about what is going on there.

With me now, though, is Shan Wu. He is a former Federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst. And Shan, always good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you, Martin.

SAVIDGE: How can Senators McConnell and Graham honor their oath to do impartial justice when they both appear to have basically decided what the outcome of this case is going to be already?

WU: Well, they certainly don't seem to be very impartial, Martin. I think for them, the legal escape hatch here is that unlike the oath that jurors take in a courtroom, this one is a little different.

In the courtroom, there's a lot of scrutiny. The judges asked the jurors, lawyers asked the jurors, have you already made up your mind before you hear the evidence? This oath is very different because the emphasis is on impartially do justice.

So the legal minds that can advise McConnell and Graham can tell them well, that's a question of what does the word justice mean? You think you are being impartial. I'm sure they would say it's the Democrats who are being partisan about the justice aspect of it. So they're interpreting it that way.

Does it violate the spirit of that oath? Probably yes. But legally, that's the way that you would parse it. And that, again, is one of the crucial differences between having a trial in a courtroom versus having this very historical trial in the Senate.

SAVIDGE: I want to get your take on, you know, the President is saying that he would prefer a longer trial. He would love a number of witnesses to be called. But of course, we already know rank and file Republicans such as Lindsey Graham want a short trial with no witnesses, basically going on what was testified to in the House. What legal strategies do you think the Republicans and Democrats are trying to pursue here?

WU: Well, there are quite different ones. The Republican legal strategy has got to be to go short on this. They don't want witnesses. There's no witness testimony that will be helpful to them. All witness testimony is harmful to them.

The President is not known for his legal strategy. He may be rather good at media strategies. But his idea of prolonging and having more witnesses would just be a catastrophe for the Republicans.

The Democrats, on the other hand, they want to go long and deep. The more evidence, the more witnesses they can put on, the better it is. And also they have an advantage, which is again, because it's not in the courtroom, they are not constrained by typical rules of evidence. There's also usually a lot of rulings by the judge to make sure that it's a narrow band and evidence only relevant to the charges.

They have a lot of wiggle room here. They can try to bring in a lot of misconduct that is not actually "charged," quote-unquote, so that they can portray the full amount of the misconduct.

[15:10:10]

WU: And that may really go towards their real jury, the real audience.

SAVIDGE: Well, who wins the real jury in an impeachment trial? I mean, we know it's the senators. But how much of a factor is the public?

WU: I think the public in this instance is the real jury. I think, the Senate has a foregone conclusion which way they're going to come out barring something really unforeseen. So for the Democrats here, besides doing their constitutional duty of prosecuting the impeachment, they need to get the word out to the American public to show the full problem with this President. And in so doing, they probably won't affect the diehard cadre of Trump

devotees, but they could whittle down the edges, Independents and maybe if they do a really good job, some of the more moderate Republicans may begin to feel a little bit ambivalent and maybe stay at home and thus voting with their feet -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Right and it could be just a narrow margin that makes all the difference in the outcome of the next election.

WU: Oh, absolutely.

SAVIDGE: Shan Wu. Good to see you. Thank you very much for being here.

WU: Good to see you.

SAVIDGE: Coming up, James Comey says he was overconfident and wrong. The mistakes the former FBI Director admits were made in the agency's Russia investigation, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:00]

SAVIDGE: Former FBI Director James Comey is owning up to his mistakes. In an interview today on Fox News, Comey said that he was wrong after the Inspector General's report found that the FBI mishandled a FISA warrant under Comey's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: He is right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years.

I'm responsible for it, that's why I'm telling you I was wrong. I was overconfident as Director in our procedures. And it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent.

If I were still director, I'd be saying exactly the same thing that Chris Wray is saying, which is we are going to get to the bottom of this, because the most important question is, is it systemic? Are there problems in other cases?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Regardless of the admission, Comey goes on to say that he still claims vindication from the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: The I.G. says you should feel no vindication.

COMEY: Well, maybe it depends upon how we understand the word. What I mean is that the FBI was accused treason, of illegal spying, of tapping Mr. Trump's wires illegally, of opening an investigation without justification of being a criminal conspiracy to unseat defeat and then unseat a President.

All of that was nonsense. I think it's really important that the Inspector General looked at that, and that the American people, your viewers, and all viewers understand that's true.

But he also found things that we were never accused of, which is real sloppiness, and that's concerning. As I've said all along, it has to be focused on, if I were Director, I'd be very concerned about it and diving into it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: There was a lot that came out of that interview. Joining me now to talk about it is CNN political commentator Andrew Gillum, a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida, and Mayor of Tallahassee, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Alice Stewart, and it's good to see you both. Thank you for being here.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Martin.

ANDREW GILLUM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thanks for having us.

SAVIDGE: Andrew, do you think it's still fair for Comey to claim complete vindication here or is he really trying to have it both ways?

GILLUM: Well, Martin, I should say that I'm probably one of those long standing remaining Democrats who is still pretty upset at Mr. Comey in his late breaking press conference as it relates to Secretary Clinton and her e-mails.

SAVIDGE: Of course.

GILLUM: That being said, I do appreciate the fact that he owned up and took some level of responsibility today for where errors and mistakes were made.

We should however, make no comparison between what he admitted to and took responsibility for today to what we saw coming out of the President's mouth this week, where he quite frankly ignored, wholesaled this report and leveled, I thought, pretty ridiculous charges against the FBI as an organization, and quite frankly, I think added to the demoralization of yet another agency charged with the protection and the safety of this country.

SAVIDGE: As Andrew brings out, Alice here, Comey continues to be probably one of the most polarizing figures in politics, at least in the current times, putting the President on one side. What did you make of the admission today and what do you think it does to Comey's overall credibility here?

STEWART: Look, I think this was quite the mea culpa on his part tonight trying to put this mask behind him, but his credibility still remains to be seen. His legacy still remains to be seen. He has been really on both sides of the story, and I actually share

Mayor Gillum's frustration with his last minute statements about Hillary Clinton. I think that was inappropriate. And I think it was ill-timed and certainly, it was not the right position to take.

But with regard to this interview, look, he clearly was trying to play both sides of the fence here and trying to distance himself from what happened with the original FISA, the origination of that, but he can't have it both ways. He was the head of the FBI at the time.

And while he said one year ago, to this day, virtually, he said he had complete confidence in the FISA process, and now he is saying, he was wrong. Well, I guess he is trying to get away with people thinking and understanding that incompetence is much better than being part of what many see as a conspiracy involved in this process.

But either way, it is good that he finally did admit some wrongdoing there, and the most important point is to make sure there are not systemic problems with the FBI FISA process, and if there are, they need to be corrected.

SAVIDGE: Of course. Yes. Andrew, I want to sort of move us along to the impeachment issue at hand, and we're learning that a group of freshmen Democrats is pushing for Republican, I guess, defector is how you put it, now, Independent Congressman Justin Amash to be an impeachment manager in the Senate trial in an apparent effort to appeal to voters with a more diverse and conservative voice. Do you think he is the right person for this kind of a job?

GILLUM: Well, I can certainly see why there are Democrats who would be interested in quite frankly, bringing him more centerfold into this story.

[15:20:00]

GILLUM: The truth is that there are not a lot of Republicans, and quite frankly, none that we can count to date, who are still holding office that are willing to stand up and to hold this President accountable.

I've got to tell you, whether the President was a Democrat, Republican, Independent, there has got to be accountability for what we have seen right now in this country.

Donald Trump decided to put his own personal and political interests above that of the safety and the security of this country. I believe, he abdicated some of his responsibility to the country and to the Constitution and that it is really, really important that Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike stand up.

They are making a judgment, a decision for the ages and not just for this moment of politics because without a doubt, one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and you certainly want to be in a position where you can claim that regardless of party affiliation, that you stood on the side of the country and on the side of the Constitution. SAVIDGE: Well, Alice, I'd like to get your thoughts on just what

would Republicans think of Justin Amash being a kind of manager here in the Senate trial?

STEWART: Well, they wouldn't really have any feelings on that, because he has really distanced himself from the Republican Party, and certainly, President Trump and at the end of the day, Republicans are united because they have not seen in their mind and in my mind, a clear cut case of high crimes and misdemeanors that are worthy of impeachment.

Look, I think, I am with many Republicans that look at what he did as inappropriate, but does not rise to the level of impeachment and Republicans are going to stand together, because it's the right thing to do.

The real question is what is going to happen with the 31 Democrats in Trump won districts and how is this going to play out for them when they go to their voters in 2020 if they vote for impeachment? It's one thing to vote for Articles of Impeachment Inquiry, but it's completely different to vote for an impeachment and Andrew raised the point of what about some type of accountability?

Look, we all knew that Democrats were going to seek impeachment. We all know that the Senate will more than likely not convict. And if there is some accountability, leave that to the voters to decide in 2020. Let the voters decide. If they have a problem with that, let them decide; and if they want, then vote him out of office.

SAVIDGE: For all the reasons, you both bring us --

GILLUM: Well, I'll just say that Alice went further than what I've heard, frankly, any elected Republican in the Congress or in the Senate has done with the exception of maybe Mitt Romney, some acknowledgement that what the President did was wrong.

So far, what we have heard is process, Kangaroo Court, partisan, you know witch hunt attack.

SAVIDGE: Andrew, I don't mean to be rude, but I've got to interrupt you because we're out of time.

GILLUM: Yes, please.

SAVIDGE: We have been over on the side of this before. Andrew Gillum, Alice Stewart, thank you both. It's going to be a fascinating week to watch, not to mention history. Thank you.

STEWART: Thanks, Martin.

GILLUM: Indeed.

SAVIDGE: Up next, the investigation expands into a deadly shootout at a kosher market in New Jersey. How a note lead to an arrest and an illegal arsenal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:07]

SAVIDGE: New details are emerging following that shootout on Tuesday at a kosher market in New Jersey that left six people dead including the two shooters. A handwritten note in the back pocket of one of them led to the arrest of a convicted felon with ties to the gunman.

A search of the man's home in a pawn shop uncovered an arsenal. Tuesday's shooting comes amid what can only be described as an alarming number of hate crimes in the United States.

The FBI reporting in 2018, seven thousand one hundred twenty hate crimes that was down just slightly from the year before which was an all-time high, and of the hate crimes motivated by religion, more than 57 percent were against Jews.

Jonathan Greenblatt is the CEO and National Director of the Anti- Defamation League, and he joins me now. Thank you, sir, for being here.

JONATHAN GREENBLATT, CEO AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: Thank you for having me.

SAVIDGE: First, state and Federal officials have called Tuesday's shooting a targeted hate crime against the Jewish community, your reaction when you heard about it?

GREENBLATT: Well, unfortunately in America in 2019, I wasn't surprised, Martin. We have seen a series of hate crimes and specifically anti-Semitic incidences that stretch back from Charlottesville to Pittsburgh, to Poway, and now to Jersey City.

And in addition to these acts of murder, we've seen almost an unending stream of acts of harassment and vandalism and assault, sometimes high profile cases like this. But every single day in places like Brooklyn, Jewish people are being terrorized and it's a problem that needs to stop.

SAVIDGE: I'm wondering from your expert vantage point, what is behind this alarming number of attacks?

GREENBLATT: Well, I think one of the things that we see in terms of trying to understand the sources of this is that it comes from all sides.

I think the charged political environment has something to do with it. People now have permission to spout prejudice in the public in the public conversation. That didn't used to happen. Leaders used to interject and interrupt intolerance when they heard it. Now, from the left and the right, from all sides, you hear it, so that's number one.

Number two, social media has become almost a breeding ground for bigotry. So, it wasn't like there weren't white nationalists, Black Hebrew Israelites, other violence sects with hateful ideas around Jews, Martin, but previously, they couldn't get their op-eds published in the mainstream news. They couldn't get their videos on television.

But now, with Facebook and YouTube, with Twitter and all the other services, that pace and the velocity of this kind of poison is literally unlike anything we've ever seen before.

SAVIDGE: And it is one of the struggles of an open and democratic society especially one that so appreciate freedom of speech.

I know that you have called on Congress to pass hate crime legislation. What specifically do you want to see from lawmakers?

GREENBLATT: That's a great question. So the good news is that we do have hate crimes laws on the book. We just celebrated the 10-Year Anniversary of the Matthew Shepard James Byrd Hate Crimes Act.

[15:30:10]

GREENBLATT: But we do need Congress to act in a few ways. Number one, we need to see that the No Hate Act passed that would ensure that law enforcement is trained up and reporting on hate crimes, because the vast majority of police departments don't actually report the data, Martin. And if we can't measure it, we can't manage it.

SAVIDGE: Right, yes.

GREENBLATT: This is important. Number two, we need now cyber hate laws passed to make sure that the perpetrators of the kind of harassment and terror that's happening online, that they are held to account, and to be frank, we want Silicon Valley to step up and do more themselves. And if they don't, I think we've got to look at the government to step in because it just isn't okay.

The freedom of expression isn't the freedom to incite violence against Jews or the minorities, and that has got to stop now.

SAVIDGE: Yes, free speech does not include hate speech. Jonathan Greenblatt --

GREENBLATT: Well, you could say hateful -- you can say tough things, Martin, you could say even hateful things, but you can't bring harm to communities. Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to slander. Right? And that's what we've got to interrupt once and for all.

SAVIDGE: Jonathan Greenblatt, thank you. I do appreciate you.

GREENBLATT: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Up next, one on one with New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy. We get his reaction to that shooting in New Jersey or Jersey City.

Plus also, we will ask him about a Jersey congressman who is calling it quits from the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Governor isn't too keen on that. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:35:41]

SAVIDGE: With the House set to vote on impeachment in just a few days, a freshman Democrat who strongly opposes the impeachment of President Trump is expected to switch to the Republican Party.

According to sources, Congressman Jeff Van Drew is telling colleagues, he is considering swapping political parties as he struggles in New Jersey politics.

"The Washington Post" is reporting that Drew made the decision after meeting with President Trump. With me now is New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy. He is a Democrat serving his first term. And Governor, it is nice to have you with us.

GOV. PHIL MURPHY (D-NJ): Nice to be with you, Martin. Thanks for having me.

SAVIDGE: You're welcome. Let me start with the obvious, which is what's your reaction to the news about Jeff Van Drew and what do you think is really his motivation here for switching if that is what he does?

MURPHY: Listen, I think assuming he does what everyone is signaling, he is putting politics over the Constitution. I think it's that simple. He is putting sort of cuteness over courage.

This is a guy who is reading some set of tea leaves that where he thinks if he is going to have to take the positions he is taking, he can't find his way toward reelection. I think it's ridiculous.

And the fact of the matter is, we have a proud, well-functioning strongly progressive -- they call us pro-growth progressives in New Jersey, the Democrats, we're going to field a candidate or a field of candidates and win that seat back.

SAVIDGE: If he does switch, do you think that the Democrats can win in 2020 in that particular seat? Or do you think that the Republicans could have an edge -- or Democrats?

MURPHY: Listen, like any election, it'll be a tough fight, but I absolutely believe we can win that seat. Last year, in the midterm elections, we won four of the five Republican seats at that point, including the one Jeff Van Drew occupies, and I am very optimistic with the right candidate and the right emphasis and force behind that candidate, we can win it in 2020, and we will.

SAVIDGE: How do you think that the voters who put him in office are going to feel about this potential move?

MURPHY: I don't think they're going to feel terribly good. I was asked last week before I heard this news what my reaction was, and I said, boy, he has got a lot to answer to his constituents and to the county chairs in his district.

I think they're going to be extremely upset, and I think they're going to rise up and say, wait a minute, this isn't what we bargained for. And it takes courage to deal with a constitutional crisis like the one before us and it doesn't take somebody who cuts and runs.

And I think voters will be very tough on him for that, and I think on the other hand, they'll stand up on behalf of a true Democrat in that race next year.

SAVIDGE: Yes, it's going to be an interesting race to follow. Now, I want to switch gears and ask you about the latest in the arrest in the shooting at the New Jersey kosher market. Are you confident that investigators are getting to the bottom of who is behind this tragedy and the reasons behind it?

MURPHY: I am -- I am confident, Martin. The team which is led both by the Federal side, the FBI and A.T.F. and others, U.S. Attorney and by our Attorney General are doing an outstanding job under extremely difficult circumstances, unspeakable tragedy, hatred directed at the Jewish community, against law enforcement, against Jersey City. Four extraordinary lives lost.

I am completely confident they will turn over every stone, and I want to echo something. John Greenblatt was on a moment ago and I heard him say something that we believe strongly and that is, social media is the sort of gasoline on the fire, and it's allowing some of these extraordinarily, extreme hateful posts, videos, rants, to become mainstream, and we've got to nip that at the bud both at the state level, but more importantly, federally and we are all in on that.

SAVIDGE: And how would you do that though? I mean, I think many people would have agree that social media is very much a problem here. But what do you do in a society where we really want free speech?

[15:40:08]

MURPHY: Yes, so you've got to get the balance right. But I think, as Jonathan said, and I completely endorse it, you could say tough things without being incendiary and spreading deliberate hate toward particular communities, in this case toward the Jewish community.

We have got one of the biggest and proudest Jewish communities of any American state, and it isn't just the Jewish community, by the way. We've got one of the biggest Muslim communities and they're attacked regularly.

I think you need Federal law. I think you need to extend that hate crime law to be much more forward linking and embracing the reality of social media.

I think you've got to get the players themselves, the social media and private sector giants to play ball much more aggressively. And I think we need everyone who has got a bully pulpit to speak out and speak responsibly about what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable.

SAVIDGE: Yes, I think we all have a hand in this. Governor Phil Murphy, we do appreciate seeing you today.

MURPHY: Amen. SAVIDGE: Thank you. Still ahead, a disturbing video from a North

Carolina Middle School. A student slammed to the ground repeatedly by someone in charge of protecting children.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:18]

SAVIDGE: A resource officer in North Carolina could end up behind bars after roughing up a middle school student. I have to warn you that this next video contains very disturbing images.

The resource officer who was a Sheriff's Deputy caught on camera violently slamming a boy to the ground, not once, but twice. CNN's Natasha Chen joins me now with more on the, not only the shocking video, but also understanding more about this case. What are the potential charges this officer could face?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Martin were told that one crucial factor for determining the charges is the fact that this child is under the age of 12. An official with knowledge of the investigation tells me that if the school resource officer is charged and then convicted, he is facing3 potentially at minimum a Class A1 misdemeanor and because he has never had any prior incidents of concern, he could face up to 60 days in jail.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHEN (voice over): In this surveillance video inside a middle school hallway in Vance County, North Carolina, you can see a child in a red sweatshirt walking down the hallway with the school resource officer.

The next part can be very hard to watch. The school resource officer is seen grabbing and slamming the child to the ground. Then he picks up the child and does it again before yanking the student up and continuing down the hall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURTIS BRAME, SHERIFF, VANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: I was stunned. I was shocked. 3

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN (voice over): Sheriff Curtis Brame told CNN affiliate, WRAL, the school resource officer was put on paid leave pending an investigation.

He said the officer had worked for the Department for two years and had no prior incidents causing concern.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAME: Seeing the child that small, it may have been one of my grandchildren.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN (voice over): The Sheriff says this child is under 12. The District Attorney in the area told CNN it does not appear from the video that was an appropriate tactic or police use of force considering the child's age and the school environment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL WATERS, VANCE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This is a use of force case and the sheriff appropriately has called in an outside agency to investigate, and I can just assure, I've been able to assure the family that this is being conducted appropriately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN (voice over): The School District released a statement saying in part, "We are deeply concerned by the actions that took place. School and district officials are working closely and in full cooperation with the local authorities to address this matter consistent with School Board policy and state laws. The safety of our students has been and continues to be of the utmost importance to our district."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHEN: And we are trying to reach the school resource officer seen in the video to see if he has representation -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Can I ask you, Natasha, how is the child?

CHEN: Yes. So far, the Sheriff has told our local affiliate that the mother says the child has a bump to the head. We don't know much more than that. But an official with knowledge of the investigation tells me the child is supposed to follow up with a doctor tomorrow, so we may know more information then.

SAVIDGE: Just, just really awful video to watch there.

CHEN: And was not hospitalized, I should clarify that. That's good news.

SAVIDGE: It is. It is good news in what is otherwise not. Thank you, Natasha Chen.

Up next, the Trump administration expected to announce a troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. How would the move impact national security?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:51:49]

SAVIDGE: A senior administration official is confirming to CNN, the Trump administration is preparing to announce a long anticipated drawdown of about 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The announcement could come as early as this week and it would bring the number of U.S. troops down to about 8,000 or 9,000 in that country. A drawdown would also come as the Trump administration restarts peace talks with the Taliban.

CNN Pentagon Reporter, Ryan Browne is with me now. And Ryan, the Taliban leaders say that, you know, today's drawdown would be a good step, I guess I'm not surprised that they liked the idea. But what happens next?

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Well, that's the big question, Martin. You know, the Taliban have restarted negotiations with the U.S. about a way to possibly end that long simmering war there.

But again, the Taliban had actually caused the peace talks to be broken off temporarily earlier this week after they attacked a U.S. military base in Bagram, killing several civilians, the chief U.S. negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad said that they were going to take a temporary pause in the talks to see if the Taliban really were interested in peace.

And it's not clear that the Taliban have given anything up and that this is actually, it could be perceived as a major gift to the Taliban, this reduction of troops. The Taliban has not agreed to a ceasefire or reduction of violence.

So again, it seems like a little bit of a kind of one-sided gift from the United States to the Taliban if this in fact happens. You know, President Trump first broached this idea of going down to about 8,600 U.S. troops back in August and an interview with Fox. It is yet to take place. They were kind of waiting on how the negotiations proceeded.

So again, while we're told that this may happen soon, it could be put off again for some time. So that's something we'll definitely keep an eye on.

We're told if the drawdown does in fact happen, the U.S. forces that will remain will be focused on counterterrorism operations against groups like al Qaeda and ISIS and less so on training local Afghan forces, kind of that train and advise and assist mission that's been going on for some time as they battle the Taliban.

So again, there'll be a bit of a shift to that mission, if it in fact happens, but a lot of questions still remaining as to what exactly the U.S. future in Afghanistan will look like? Will it be tied to the peace talks with the Taliban? Or will the U.S. make a unilateral concessions and withdraw?

SAVIDGE: Ryan, I've got to ask you about this. We saw reports today that Turkey's President is saying that he would consider closing the Incirlik Air Base if he would deem that would be necessary. I mean, that would have serious repercussions for the U.S., right?

BROWNE: It is. It would. It's a strategic base. It's been in use by the U.S. military since the earliest days of the Cold War going back to the 1950s. The U.S. uses it for a lot of different operations in Syria and elsewhere.

But you know, Turkey has threatened this before, and this comes as the U.S. Congress has passed a series of bills that Turkey finds unacceptable. One, commemorating the Armenian genocide of 1950 and Turkey had long protested that. Both the U.S. House and Senate recently passed that.

And another, with the sanctions with regard to Turkey's incursion into Northern Syria targeting America's one-time Kurdish partners in the fight against ISIS. That's really mobilized Republicans and Democrats in Congress against Turkey and they've passed some bills against Turkey there.

So Turkey threatening this is a response to that congressional action. Turkey has threatened it before. It's a base, it's an important base, but we'll see if they actually carry through with that threat.

[15:55:05]

SAVIDGE: Right, and yes, we'll find out if that's really just a threat or whether it becomes reality. Ryan Browne. Thank you very much.

BROWNE: You bet.

SAVIDGE: Coming up, rare photos of history unfolding on Capitol Hill, but go behind the scenes as lawmakers prepare for an impeachment vote in the House.

And don't forget, two best friends, one epic night ring in the New Year with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen. New Year's Eve live. It begins on CNN at 8:00 p.m.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Hello, thanks for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge, in for Fredricka Whitfield.

We are on the cusp of a historic moment, one the President is not looking forward to. In just a few days, the full House is set to vote on the impeachment of President Trump, which would make him just the third U.S. President to be impeached.

If members passed the two Articles of Impeachment, the Senate trial would take place in January. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is already calling for a quick trial to acquit the President with no witnesses being called.

Democrats are now raising concerns about a possible rush to judgment by some Republican senators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[16:00:10]