Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Freshman Dems Push for Justice Amash as Impeachment Manager; Senate Preparing for Trump Impeachment Trial in January; James Comey Admits to FBI's Mishandling of FISA in Wake of IG Report; Chinese Officials Secretly Expelled from the U.S. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired December 15, 2019 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Democrats are now raising concerns about a possible rush to judgement by some Republican senators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-BY): The Constitution prescribes a special oath for the senators when they sit as a trial on impeachment. They have to pledge to do impartial justice, and here you have the majority leader of the Senate, in effect the foreman of the jury, saying he's going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney. Now that's a violation of the oath they're about to take and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And I think we see clearly what's going on here with the comments of Lindsey Graham and others, and that is, they don't want the American people to see the facts. They realize what's been presented in the House is already overwhelming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Independent congressman Justin Amash is also blasting one key Republican senator, accusing him of violating an oath to do impartial justice in the impeachment trial. Some Democrats now want the former Republican to now help manage the Senate impeachment trial.

We have a team of correspondents and analysts covering all of this for us. Jeremy Diamond is at the White House but we're going to begin with Jeff Zeleny who is out here and joining us on Democrats, and how they're gearing up for the possible hearing in the Senate.

And, Jeff, first I want you to start you off by asking you tell us about this move by some Democrats to add this conservative Congressman Amash as a House manager for the Senate trial. First of all, what is it in this position and will he likely get what they want? JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good

afternoon, Marty. Well, there were a group of House Democrats who were urging Speaker Pelosi to put Justin Amash in the position as one of the impeachment managers. Of course he is a former Republican now an independent congressman from Michigan. He's been a -- you know, he's been speaking out against the president more than most any other Republican member of Congress and they thought it would sort of add some credibility to this, to have him being one of the impeachment managers.

That's essentially one of the prosecutors if you will from the House side when this goes into a trial in the Senate. But I am told just a few moments ago by someone who's close to the process here in the House that this is very unlikely to happen. I'm told that Speaker Pelosi is unlikely to name him largely because there are so many Democrats -- Democratic members of Congress who are clamoring for this position on their own, who she can certainly have more control of the process. So even though some House freshmen Democrats are urging her to put Justin Amash in that position, I would not look for that to happen any time soon -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: And Jeff, what are the House Democrats saying about Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's plans for this short trial and no witnesses?

ZELENY: Well, that really is the question here, how -- you know, the size and scope of this trial in the Senate when it begins next month right after the holidays. Is it going to be a short proceeding? A long proceeding? Are there going to be a lot of witnesses? Are there not? The president, of course, he said he's fine with whatever. He would do a short or a long trial but we do know that he is, you know, consumed by this and how he determines this over the holidays is certainly going to be a big part of this.

Mitch McConnell has said that he is working hand in glove with the president and that has caused a lot of angst on the Democratic side. Listen to House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff, what he said he wants to see in the Senate trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: I think there are any number of witnesses that should be called on the Senate trial and many witnesses the American people would like to hear from that the administration has refused to make available and perhaps if not of equal or greater performance 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)

ZELENY: So, Marty, we are about to get here after this House vote on Wednesday, you know, the rules of this impeachment proceeding are going to change dramatically. Democrats of course control the House of Representatives. Republicans control the rules in the Senate so the trial in the Senate is going to be far different, you know, than the proceedings in the House and the president is going to have a big hand and say in how this proceeds and unfolds here, so over the next few weeks, this is going to be a major focus of discussion. Just what the size and scope of the proceeding is.

So we do not know how this is going to be ultimately be decided or end. It's highly, highly unlikely that he would be convicted after he, you know, was voted to be likely impeached this week, but a lot of twists and turns between now and that Senate trial next month.

SAVIDGE: Right. Let me bring in Jeremy now. And the president we know is watching the drama unfold from the White House as he plots his response in the Senate trial. He's been tweeting and sending out people to talk on his behalf. What are they saying?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, as Jeff is saying now, you know, the White House and the president himself are really very much focused on the Senate aspect of this. The House is going to vote to impeach the president we expect in a few days, likely Wednesday. But the White House's attention has already shifted to the Senate where of course that Republican majority will determine how the trial that the president faces is actually conducted.

[16:05:10]

White House lawyers have already been working the craft the president's legal defense. The White House has been working on its messaging, continuing to attack the process that we're seeing in the House, while also touting the process that they believe will be a fair one in the Senate.

Here's Pam Bondi, one of the White House advisers, talking about just that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, IMPEACHMENT ADVISER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: So 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 of course, as you can hear there, what Pam Bondi is talking about when she talks about a fair trial in the Senate is not necessarily an impartial one, but it is one instead that would favor the president because of the fact that Republicans would have control over a lot of the proceedings and the way that it goes down including whether or not there are any witnesses that are brought forward.

And you heard Pam Bondi there say that they want the president, that the president will be heard as the -- as this moves into a Senate trial. That does not mean that the president will be getting on the stand to testify in his own defense. In fact that seems very unlikely at this point. Instead it seems that the president is content to continue tweeting out his own defense using his social media mechanisms as well as of course the White House messaging operation, continuing to attack this process as a hoax. That is what we saw from the president at least as recently as this morning.

SAVIDGE: Jeremy Diamond and Jeff Zeleny, good to have you both on. Thank you very much.

Now from the correspondents to the analysts, with me now is Molly Ball. She's a national correspondent for "TIME" and a CNN political analyst. And Ross Garber is an impeachment law professor at Tulane Law School and CNN legal analyst.

Thank you both for being here.

Molly, I'm going to start with you, with this apparent divide amongst Democrats having independent Congressman Justin Amash serve as a House manager during the Senate trial. As Jeff just reported, a source tells CNN that Nancy Pelosi is highly unlikely to sort of go along with this. Why do you think she's opposed?

MOLLY BALL, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, she has been managing this process very carefully and she's someone who likes to be in control of all aspect of the process. So I think that someone who hasn't been a part of her caucus would not be someone she necessarily has a level of trust with. Not be someone that she's necessarily comfortable coordinating with.

That being said, I don't know for sure what she's thinking and what she plans to do in this regard and, you know, the moderate and freshman Democrats who are interested in this is largely as a matter of symbolism. They like the idea of trying to put a bipartisan veneer on this process that heretofore has been only Democrats pushing impeachment and that has, they feel, given the Republicans a big opening to argue that this process is primarily political. The Democrats obviously don't see that as their motivation.

SAVIDGE: Ross, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wants a short trial. No witnesses. We've been reporting on this. House Democrats of course pushing for a more thorough trial with witnesses being called and even documents that were blocked during the House inquiry being introduced.

Do the Republicans have any legal or even ethical obligation to do that?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so the Constitution says that the Senate shall try impeachments, but that's basically all. The Constitution doesn't define what a trial is. And the Supreme Court has said that the Senate can decide whatever rules they want to apply. And let's keep in mind, this has happened only twice before in all of U.S. history. In the Johnson situation, right after the civil war, and in the Clinton trial. And in the Clinton trial, the Senate adopted rules that actually

didn't provide for any live witness testimony. They considered oral arguments, 24 hours of arguments by the lawyers, each side, and then a motion to dismiss, and then some depositions and then final arguments. That was the Clinton trial. But it's important to remember the Senate has brought authority to kind of set up the trial however it wants to set it up.

SAVIDGE: There is a lot of intrigue going into this week. I kind of expected it was going to be rather cut and dry, but now we've got this new development. You have a New Jersey congressman, who is of course opposed to the whole idea of impeaching the president. He's a Democrat and now he says he's considering switching to the Republican Party. And I'm -- then you take a look at an event in California where you had Adam Schiff and he was confronted by protesters here. Listen to that.

[16:10:13]

Both parties have to be concerned with the potential political blowback here. And especially for moderates, and I'm wondering just, Molly, what do you think the fallout could be?

BALL: You know, I've been looking really closely at the politics of impeachment as it's sort of evolved. And what I'm hearing from the best sort of Republican and Democratic pollsters and analysts on this stuff is that it's most likely to be awash, it's mostly likely not going to matter. The election is a year away. There is going to be candidates on the ballot who are going to be talking about the issues.

They're not primarily going to be litigating impeachment. If, as we assumed, it has happened and been over and done with quite a while ago. You know, for a Congressman Van Drew, his primary worry wasn't that the anti-impeachment Trump base in his district would overthrow him, it was that he was going to lose a Democratic primary. He had a Democratic opponent who was angry at him for being opposed to impeachment.

So you know what we've seen since the start of this process, there was a very big move of public opinion in favor of impeachment and then it sort of stalled out kind of where Trump's approval rating is.

SAVIDGE: Right.

BALL: And it's just become yet another metric of do you or don't you like Trump. Trump is upside down on that as he is on most things. Impeachment is favored by a slim plurality of Americans. But it's pretty much a tie and most people expect that it's not going to affect the election one way or the other.

SAVIDGE: Ross, you're the law professor, the legal expert here in the room, I'm wondering about the issue of fairness here. An impartiality, which is of course senators are supposed to take an oath and say that they will be impartial and consider the evidence. I know it's not a trial in the class sense, but should the public be worried that many senators, especially those on the Republican side and the leadership side, seem to have already made a judgment call here?

GARBER: I think it's one of the concerns with an impeachment process in general. And I've represented clients now in four impeachment proceedings and that's always a concern. On the one hand, it's a -- it is a political process. On the other hand, the public has to have confidence in both the process and the results. And the more they see partisanship come into play, the more concern they have about that fairness.

And, you know, I think it was a problem. There was an issue in the House process. I think we're going to see some of that issue in the Senate process, but as I said before, the Senate is going to do what it wants in order to advance, you know, its own institutional interests and I think right now, you know, it appears that that's coordinating at least to some extent with the White House.

SAVIDGE: Yes. It's going to be interesting to see where the fallout goes. Where it goes against the president or whether it goes against the members of Congress, depending on where the public's frustration lies.

Molly Ball and Ross Garber, thank you both. It's good to have you on.

BALL: Thank you.

GARBER: Good to be with you, Martin.

SAVIDGE: And still ahead, former FBI director, James Comey, admits that, what do you know, he got it wrong. The mistakes he says he made in the Russia investigation. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:03]

SAVIDGE: A mea culpa today from former FBI director James Comey. Comey says that he was wrong after the inspector general's report found there were a multitude of mistakes made by the FBI and its use of a FISA warrant which allowed the agency to monitor Trump's former campaign adviser Carter Page.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: He's right. I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I'm responsible 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 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: Joining me now to discuss is contributing editor for the Atlantic and CNN political commentator, Peter Beinart.

And Peter, I got to say, I thought this was a really good interview, although not for James Comey. And I'm wondering if you could put it in perspective for us, how big a deal is it in the grand scheme of things?

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it shows that Comey is a flawed but honorable man. I mean, look, he didn't have to go out there. He's retired. He went out there and admitted that he had been wrong, and that things that had happened on his watch were really problem. I mean, it's a really stark contrast, isn't it, to president of the United States who never takes responsibility for anything that he's done.

I think one of the things that this inspector general report did which was important is should be a bipartisan understanding is that we need more oversight of institutions like the FBI. Historically after all it was the left pretending to be more concerned about the FBI's abuse. It's only in the Trump era that somehow things have become reversed. And I think Comey deserves credit for going on and taking responsibility.

SAVIDGE: Comey claims that, although he was the FBI director, he wasn't able to oversee everything. And so sloppy mistakes were made. But do you think that's really a good enough excuse, especially given, you know, how thorough Comey was in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server?

BEINART: Well, I'm not exactly sure what we want more him to say. I mean, he said that basically he's not disputing, unlike, you know, Attorney General Barr who will not accept the idea that as the inspector report -- general report says that this was not motivated by political bias and insists that it was despite the fact that the inspector general said no.

SAVIDGE: Yes. And you know, I will say this.

BEINART: Comey --

(CROSSTALK)

SAVIDGE: I watched the whole interview.

BEINART: Yes.

SAVIDGE: And then I watched the interview that of course when he was previously on with CNN and Anderson Cooper, and the day the report came out, Comey seems to say that you know, I'm exonerated. This clearly shows that we did the right thing. Yes, there were some problems, but overall we did the right thing. And he changes his tune today, especially when Chris Wallace begins to presses him on, saying the IG doesn't say you're exonerated here. And the IG didn't.

BEINART: No. But I do think given the context, it's extremely important that the IG did not accuse this investigation of political bias which has been the central claim the Trump administration has made again and again, and continues to make.

[16:20:13]

Was -- I think it's important that people across the aisle recognize that the FBI is a flawed institution and that power like that should not go unchecked, but what do we want from former officials who screwed up if not to be willing to get on TV, which no one is making them do and basically say yes, I screwed up?

SAVIDGE: I don't think, though, the public feels comfortable hearing that a pre-imminent law enforcement agency is flawed. I mean, even though it may be truthful, it's not an image when we see that as the top law enforcement of the nation.

BEINART: Right. But how else do we begin to fix these problems, right, if not for people taking responsibility for them? Again, what a contrast with this administration which never takes responsibility for anything and therefore never cleans up any of its mess.

SAVIDGE: But he took responsibility after he's out of office.

BEINART: Sure, but we didn't have this -- we didn't have this report until he was out of office, right? So he didn't know some of this stuff.

SAVIDGE: All right. I just feel sometimes he's getting a bit of a pass, but all right.

Peter Beinart, thank you very much. I appreciate your insight.

Still ahead, as one Democrat plans to abandon his party over impeaching President Trump, some lawmakers in battleground districts are still undecided on the issue, coming up. What voters are telling Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:25:27]

SAVIDGE: The "New York Times" is reporting that two Chinese officials were secretly expelled by the U.S. earlier this year after making their way on to a sensitive military base near Norfolk, Virginia. The "Times" also cites a half dozen people with knowledge of the incident who said at least one of the Chinese officials was an intelligence officer operating under diplomatic cover.

The incident took place in September and ended with a car chase that also involved fire trucks blocking their escape.

With me now is Juliette Kayyem. She is a former assistant secretary of Homeland Security and a CNN national security analyst.

Juliette, good to see you. Officials say that they suspect that this was I guess a kind of test of the security facility.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. SAVIDGE: And I'm wondering does that make sense to you, that

scenario?

KAYYEM: Absolutely, so what we know at least from "The New York Times" reporting is that the -- so the Chinese delegation approaches the gate, they are not authorized of course to enter this military facility. They're told to go through the gate, turn around and leave and they continue to go on, eventually have to stop after a car chase that involves fire engines to stop them.

The Chinese excuse is that they didn't understand the English, which seems suspect at best given that they were diplomats and likely to understand English. But I think that there's a larger issue here which is the testing of the system by the Chinese that's likely what this was. You had people under diplomatic cover. One that may have been an intelligence officer and you just see a boldness by the Chinese now.

We tend to talk about China-U.S. relations as economic. They are still military and geopolitical. Whether it's the building of military installations in the Reed or whether it's the sort of tension between China and the U.S. in terms of spheres of influence and so their entrance into a military facility likely a test of how bold they could be and how quick our responses were.

SAVIDGE: And then my next question is, why were -- why would you expel these officials in secret which is the way that it supposedly happened?

KAYYEM: So there might be a couple of reasons. So generally, you would expel publicly to sort of make a point as we did with the Russians right after the election. In this case, there may actually be some factual dispute surrounding what in fact happened and the second is, we don't know who one or both of these diplomats were and whether they were intelligence officers. If they were able to breach our facility, that doesn't look so good for us. And so we therefore would probably want to keep it quiet as well. I'm surprised, you know, September is a long time ago in news time that this was kept secret for that long.

SAVIDGE: Right and it comes out at the time of course when the announcement of at least phase one of the new trade deal is coming forward between the U.S. and China.

KAYYEM: Right.

SAVIDGE: Juliette Kayyem, always great to talk to you. Thank you.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:30]

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: In New Jersey, Democrat has been outspoken in his opposition to impeaching the president is expected to leave his party just days before historic house vote -- full house vote, I should say, on impeachment.

CNN has learned that the Congressman Jeff Van Drew is planning to join the GOP as he struggles with democratic voters in his district. This as President Trump warns the 31 house democrats from districts he won in 2016, that their votes could get them voted out of office next election.

Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin is one of those vulnerable lawmakers facing a very tough decision. She says she's still undecided, but won't be swayed by the possibility of losing her seat in 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN, (D) MICHIGAN: This is going to be one of the most serious things I probably ever vote on. So, I'm going to take it seriously. Sometimes, you have to make calls that aren't based on a poll or on some political consultant. And if this is the end of my political career, at least I'm doing what I think is right and I'm basing my decisions on integrity. That's the most I can do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: CNN's Jason Carroll joins me now from Rochester, Michigan where Slotkin will hold a town hall tomorrow I believe. And Jason, what are voters saying to you as you talk to them about her and their feelings?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martin, let me put it to you this way, literally, half of the people that we spoke to in the sampling that we had, half of them said the president should not be impeach. The other half said he should be impeached.

That pretty much falls in step with how this district is made up. It's a swing district and a swing state. And half the people here in the eighth say they support the president. The other half say they do not support the president.

And so, that puts Congresswoman Slotkin in a pretty difficult situation ahead of this vote. As you say, she's going to be having this town hall and lot of people here in the eighth district are -- have a lot of very strong opinions about what she should do, what she should say, how she should vote. Here's a sampling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a conservative. I'm not a Republican but I'm a conservative. For her to make a decision to impeach the president would be a big mistake at this point this time. I don't think the evidence is there. I think the whole system is flawed.

CARROLL: Where do you stand? What do you --

UNIDENTFIED FEMALE: Where do i stand?

CARROLL: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think everybody has to be held accountable. That's where I stand.

CARROLL: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not going to say one way or other. But I do think people know what's right and wrong. Everybody does.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody has their opinion.

CARROLL: What would your advice to her be?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To give it a lot of thought and look everything over and do what she believes.

CARROLL: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And what the people would want.

[16:35:05]

CARROLL: And what you believe is what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To impeach.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're making a big deal out of something that wasn't right, but it wasn't as bad as they're saying it is. And they've been planning on impeaching him since he got into office.

CARROLL: They meaning -- you mean the Democrats.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Democrats.

CARROLL: What would your advice to her be?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vote no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARROLL: A lot of advice going around out here, Martin. I spoke to a representative from Slotkin's office earlier this afternoon. She says that the congresswoman is using these final hours on this weekend to mull everything over. Again, she's going to be having that town hall tomorrow. But as one constituent out here put it, no matter what the congresswoman ends up deciding to do, it's going to make a lot of people in her district very unhappy, Martin.

SAVIDGE: I bet she is going to get an earful at that town mall. Jason Carroll, good to see you. Thank you.

Up next, with Washington divided over Wednesday's impeachment vote, there is one key question for Republicans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:08] SAVIDGE: It would be pretty difficult to overplay the significance of the week ahead. The Democratic held House expected to impeach President Trump potentially without any Republican support. But there is a fundamental question facing Republicans. And here's Jake Tapper.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: There has been a glut of information for Americans to consume over the past few months and not all of it is bad for President Trump. There's Hunter Biden's legal but swampy Burisma contract, serious and potentially criminal FBI misconduct.

But make no mistake, the primary question facing the House of Representatives and indeed the nation this week is whether it's acceptable for a U.S. president to use the power of his office to get a foreign government to launch an investigation into a domestic, political rival. That's really it. That's the fundamental decision. House Republicans have taken many approaches to try to change the subject from that question. Some just plain deny reality.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is it ever OK for an American president to ask foreign power to investigate a political rival? Why do you think that's OK?

REP. DEBBIE LESKO, (R) ARIZON: He didn't -- he didn't do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: He didn't do that? He sure did. He's never denied what he wanted from Ukraine. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. DONALD TRUMP, U.S.A.: If they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The other frequent attempt to change the subject is to complain about process and procedure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS, (R) GEORGIA: Mr. Chairman, what will live from this day if your ruling and the majority's ruling of minority rights are dead in this Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's unlikely. The thing is, if you read about the moves to impeach President's Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, history does not spend any serious time on the partisan squabbles over procedure.

The focus is always on what the president did and how the members of congress voted. And no one should belittle how difficult it is to vote to condemn a president from one's own party.

In 1974, Republican Congressman Robert McClory of Illinois, he initially supported President Nixon, but it got to be too much.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MCCLORY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I've heard it said by some that they cannot understand how a Republican could vote to impeach a Republican president. It would infer that no matter what high crimes and misdemeanors might have been committed that if attributable to a Republican president, then I, as a Republican, am foreclosed from judging the merits of the case. I cannot and do not envision my role in that dim light.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In that dim light, judging a president's misconduct through a partisan lens or any lens other than right or wrong.

When Congressman McClory died at age 80 in 1988, his obituary in "The New York Times" did not mention procedural gripes. It focused right in the headline on how McClory voted on the charges against President Nixon, abuse of power, aye; contempt of Congress, aye.

The McClory test is vital. Would your representative vote differently on impeachment had a Democratic president asked Ukraine to investigate a Republican politician? After all, President Trump will eventually leave Washington, D.C. But this vote and the standard being set will live forever.

If members of congress are looking only to November 2020, and not to their eventual obituary, well then they're viewing not just this vote, but the U.S. presidency through a light that is not just dim, but pitch-black, which is what it looks like I suppose when you close your eyes.

SAVIDGE: Jake Tapper, thank you very much. Tensions remain high as the House prepares to impeach the president this week. But if you thought what you saw live on television was hectic, wait until you see more of these behind the scenes photos.

Next, I talk to the photographer and editor of the "Mood" when the TV cameras aren't rolling. But first, in this season of giving, we want to show you how you can help our 2019 top ten CNN "Heroes" continue their important work and have your donations match dollar for dollar. Here's CNN's Anderson Cooper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Anderson Cooper. Each of this year's top ten CNN "Heroes" proves that one person really can make a difference. And again this year, we're making it easy for you to support their great work. Just go to cnnheroes.com and click donate beneath any 2019 top 10 CNN hero to make a direct contribution to that hero's fundraiser. You'll receive an e-mail confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the United States. No matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work. And right now, through January 2nd, your donations will be matched dollar for dollar up to a total of $50,000 for each of this year's honorees.

CNN is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all these everyday people changing the world. You can donate from your laptop, your tablet or your phone. Just go to cnnheroes.com. Your donation in any amount will help them help others. Thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:49:19]

SAVIDGE: President Trump's expected to become the third president ever to be formally impeached that will happen in just days. We're now getting an incredible behind-the-scenes look at how the historic political process unfolded on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers on both sides of the fight granting "The New York Times" special permission to document private moments leading up to the upcoming full House vote. Joining me now is Erin Schaff, the staff photograph for "The New York Times" who snapped the pictures and Marisa Taylor, the Washington Bureau photo editor for "The New York Times". Thank you both for being with us today.

MARISA TAYLOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU PHOTO EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you for having us.

ERIN SCHAFF, STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Erin, let me start with you, what was it like to sort of have this front row seat of course to history and capture what a really fascinating images?

[16:50:04]

SCHAFF: It was an incredible experience. We're really grateful to the lawmakers for opening up this process to us and letting us see, you know, the long hours, the deliberations, and a lot of -- a lot of hard work and serious work on both sides.

SAVIDGE: And Marisa, let's talk about transparency here. How important is it for the American public to be able to see these images?

TAYLOR: It's extremely important. Normally, when you look at pictures of Capitol Hill and the impeachment process or anything going on in Washington, you're seeing pictures that are pretty carefully choreographed and things that the lawmakers want you to see. So, at the time, it's extremely important for us to really double down on our visual journalism and be able to show people what's happening behind closed doors and give them that insider view that Erin worked so hard to get access for.

SAVIDGE: Yes. I mean, that's exactly what I was thinking. That on television, it looks so, for lack of a better kind of phrase, politically choreographed; whereas, these photos are not. I mean, you really get a sense that you are in there and that they're capturing a debate, they're capturing the atmosphere. And so, let me ask you Erin, what were the feelings in the room? What was the atmosphere like?

SCHAFF: It was really serious, you know. There were a lot of long hours. And it was -- you definitely felt on both sides the weight of this moment in time. And that everyone knew that this is historic regardless of your feelings on impeachment.

SAVIDGE: Each image tells its own story in a unique way. But it's a very powerful one, the lawmakers stopping for a moment of prayer. And that really sort of drives home that, you know, this is -- this is not just, you know, political expediency here. There is -- there is a strong measure of history and that there is a challenge on all of these lawmakers. I'm wondering, Marisa, is there a photo that stands out for you?

TAYLOR: One of the ones that really stands out for me is the image of Jerrold Nadler signing the articles of impeachment. For me, I had been looking at the images for a while and noticing interesting compositions or lighting or special moments that were captured.

But when I started showing the images to editors and reporters in our office, they were really struck by that image because everyone had been working off of these PDF copies of the articles of impeachment. And they all commented on how large Nadler's signature was at the top. And they were just shocked that Erin was actually there the moment he signed the original document.

SAVIDGE: Two quick questions for you. And maybe, I don't know, whether Marisa or Erin are better suited, but first of all, were there specific ground rules and things you were not allowed to photograph. And was it hard to negotiate or even get the two sides to agree to let you in?

TAYLOR: Yes. I mean, one of the really great things about the access that Erin was able to get was that she is on Capitol Hill every single day. She's been building these relationships for months and years building up to this. And for this behind-the-scenes impeachment photo, I'd say it wasn't just that they granted the access because they thought it was "The New York Times". It was because Erin herself was there working on this every single day and making requests and building relationships with different people and that's what ultimately gave us the access.

SCHAFF: I think also there's just an understanding that this is history and these photos need to be there for the historical record. And looking back at the impeachments of Clinton and Nixon, those photos aren't there from the judiciary committee drafting the articles of impeachment. And we really wanted to have them this time around. And I think the committee is really understood that. SAVIDGE: Well, we wouldn't have any of these photographs without your work, Erin Schaff, especially in helping to sort of get your way into -- earning the trust of the lawmakers. So, we thank you for that. And Marisa Taylor, thank you as well. We appreciate it greatly.

SCHAFF: Thank you.

TAYLOR: Thank you for having us.

SAVIDGE: And still ahead, backlash, after the "Hallmark" channel removes a commercial showing this married couple kissing. "Hallmark" explains, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:57:56]

SAVIDGE: This just in, a search underway in Texas for a mom and her two-week-old baby girl. Both went missing last week and were last seen Thursday morning dropping off another child at an elementary school in Austin. Police believe Heidi Broussard and her baby returned home before they disappeared.

Backlash pouring in after "Hallmark", "The Hallmark Channel", pulls TV commercial featuring a newly-wed or a newly-married lesbian couple kissing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think (Zola) could have made planning your perfect wedding easier?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: "Hallmark" pulled the ad a after a conservative group complained. Now, other groups are calling for a boycott of the channel. Hash tag boycott "Hallmark" is now trending on Twitter with celebrities like Ellen Degeneres asking what "Hallmark" was thinking.

In a statement from "Hallmark's" parent company, Crown Media Family Networks, explained their decision this way, quote, "The debate surrounding these commercials on all sides was distracting from the purpose of our network, which is to provide entertainment value," unquote.

For its part, the wedding planning company behind the ad, "Zola", decided to pull all of its ads from "Hallmark" even those with a man and a woman releasing this, quote, "All kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love and we will no longer be advertising on "Hallmark," unquote.

And 2020 democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, seems to be in good health after suffering a recent heart attack. In fact, the senator was spotted today in Iowa brushing up on his baseball swing. Here he is in Burlington where Sanders began his day at a batting practice while there is Senator Sanders met with minor league baseball players in a show of support after the MLB announced its plans to cut 42 teams across the country.

A quick programming note, the final presidential debate of the year is coming to CNN. It is a critical night for the candidates still trying to break through. The "PBS NewsHour/POLITICO Democratic Presidential Debate", live from Los Angeles. Watch it on CNN and your local "PBS" station. Coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern Thursday night.

Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge. We have much more just ahead in the "Newsroom" with Ana Cabrera. It all starts right now.