Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Schumer Sends Letter to McConnell Outlining Democrats' Impeachment Trial Requests; Comey Admits Errors in FISA Process: "I Was Wrong"; Trump Administration to Announce Drawdown of 4,000 Troops from Afghanistan. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired December 15, 2019 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:22]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello on this Sunday. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

Breaking news right now here on CNN, a first look at the road map being drawn by Democrats in the Senate as they anticipate the possible impeachment trial of President Trump.

Today, a letter sent from the top Democratic senator to the top Republican senator proposing some rules, laying out some housekeeping details -- and this is going to be a sticking point -- naming some people they want subpoenaed, people they want to see testifying under oath.

Straight to the White House now and CNN's Jeremy Diamond. Jeremy, you've seen this letter sent today from Senator Chuck Schumer to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. What and who is he asking for?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, much of the conversation in Washington around impeachment in recent days has been about Senate Republicans coalescing around this idea of a shorter trial with no witnesses to -- as they move forward with impeachment.

But now, we're searing -- hearing from the top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, and he is offering his pitch for how the Senate trial should be run. And it runs counter to everything that Senate Republicans have been coalescing around, particularly on this issue of witnesses and additional documents.

Senate Majority -- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would like witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed. The four witnesses that he says Democrats would like to see come forward in an eventual impeachment trial are the White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, his senior advisor Robert Blair, the former National Security advisor John Bolton, and Michael Duffey, who was the associate director for National Security Programs who actually signed off on several of those documents for that security aid freeze.

He also -- Chuck Schumer would also like to see documents from the White House, from the Office of Management and Budget, and from the State Department that House investigators were not able to obtain. He would like to see those documents subpoenaed.

Now, Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, is counting on all of this in terms of fairness, in a bipartisan process that he would like to play out. Here's what he says in part of his letter.

He writes, the trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly, it must also pass the fairness test with the American people. That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.

Now, we should note, of course, this is a request from the top Democrat in the Senate. In order for any of this to move forward, he would need Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to sign-off or at least 51 senators in order to move forward with any of these requests.

And this is likely to be the first of an opening volley between the two sides that we will see play out in the coming days and weeks as the House moves forward with impeachment and the matter moves over to the Senate.

And, of course, we know that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has made very clear that any issues having to do with the process and the procedures of this Senate trial, he is going to run those by the White House, specifically the White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone.

Now, we have reached out to the White House for comment. This letter just breaking now, of course, but we'll let you know if they do have any response to these requests from the Democrats -- Ana.

CABRERA: OK. Jeremy Diamond, we will check back with you if there is an update. Thanks.

I want to bring in former presidential adviser to four U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican, David Gergen; and director of Defending Democracy Together, Bill Kristol. Bill also served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

Gentlemen, always good to have you both here. I want to start with you, Bill, and I want to talk about how likely it is that we'll hear from Mulvaney and Bolton and some of those others Jeremy just listed.

We know it would take 20 Republican senators voting with every Democrat to convict and remove the President. But you say if just, just, three Republican senators take a stand, that could at least ensure a fair process in the Senate. Explain.

BILL KRISTOL, DIRECTOR, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: Right. So a majority of the Senate sets the rules for the trial. Once the trial begins, the senators sit as a jury.

I think that's important to understand. They take a fresh oath. They're not supposed to be whipped, you know, the way you normally do on legislation. They're supposed to sit and listen and act as jurors.

Before the trial, the majority and minority have to agree or typically have agreed on a set of rules and procedures. That was unanimous in 1998 when Bill Clinton was tried in the Senate.

I think Chuck Schumer's request is very sensible and intelligent (ph). It's very hard to say that those four people don't have anything to contribute in terms of facts, in terms of evidence to the trial.

Schumer's not specified -- it wouldn't be, you know, a terrible show. It wouldn't be a circus if they testified solemnly or maybe even could be deposed on video. That was done in the Clinton trial.

So I think it puts the ball in the Republicans' court. And McConnell, of course, doesn't want any of it.

CABRERA: Right.

KRISTOL: Lindsey Graham doesn't want any of that.

CABRERA: Right.

KRISTOL: But it's not so clear that Mitt Romney and Cory Gardener and Lamar Alexander and some of the institutionalists in the Senate, the older Republicans, don't think, you know, we can't just sort of say, hey, we're Republicans, we're shutting this thing down before anyone hears any evidence.

[19:05:06]

So I think there is more fluidity in the question of how the senators work out the rules of the trial. A little -- McConnell has a little less control over his caucus than people kind of assume.

CABRERA: I also want to bring in some new polling that we have today. This is from Fox News.

It finds a majority of Americans believe this president should be impeached and removed. In fact, you can see, 50 percent there to 46 percent. But this poll also finds more Americans than not believe the President abused his power, obstructed Congress, and committed bribery.

David, we talk a lot about what Democrats are risking by moving ahead with impeachment. But when you see this polling, should we be asking what Republicans are risking by their seemingly blind loyalty to the President?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they may. They may face that. We'll have to wait and see. But I'm -- first of all, I'm glad to be on with you and with Bill Kristol.

Listen, I want to come back to what Schumer has just done with the letter. I see this as more of a pre-emptive move on his part.

The Republicans -- some of the Republicans have been arguing they ought to have witnesses like Hunter Biden, which sounds ridiculous on its face. But they ought to have several witnesses, maybe Rudy Giuliani in a favored (ph) position, whatever. And I think what -- and the Democrats don't really want that to

happen, obviously. And what Schumer has done and said -- in effect, said to McConnell, if you go with your witnesses, you're -- well, you're going to have to give us Mulvaney, you're going to have to give us Bolton, you know, and -- otherwise, we're going to -- we're going to go after you again, lack of fairness, something.

And they'll have a good case, so I think this was a smart move on Schumer's part in advance of the -- with the coming weeks. As to the Republicans being in trouble, I don't think we know right now how this is all going to play out.

Democrats left the impeachment a little disappointed and disappointed, I think, a lot inside that they -- they hadn't rallied the country the way they hoped. They hadn't built a big -- you know, a big 55, 65 percent approval. They're down, you know, into 50, and that's not where they wanted to be.

But, you know, the Republicans may get disappointment here, too. They want to come out of this with a big victory to say that the President has been exonerated, this has all been nonsense, extremely so. Half the country doesn't believe that.

CABRERA: Yes.

GERGEN: And the Republicans may find out, just like the Democrats, they didn't change very many opinions in their favor.

CABRERA: What do you think, Bill? I mean, do Republicans risk anything politically in this impeachment process?

KRISTOL: Yes, of course, they do. I mean, there's -- I mean, I think, A, they should do what is right for the country.

GERGEN: Right.

KRISTOL: Honestly, in this case, they really are supposed to act as jurors in the Senate, so -- I mean, we've probably talked too much about the politics.

Having said that, what was the Republican strategy in the House? What is Trump's strategy, Giuliani's strategy, been for the last month or two? Turn it into a circus. Make it ridiculous. Make the whole thing just a kind of a ridiculous show and the average American says, ugh, it just looks kind of insane to me, let's just move on to legislation

I think, ultimately, they get -- they did -- they did their best. They had some days where they sort of did better than other days. I think, ultimately, they failed.

I think the Fox News poll shows that. I think Trump's desperation in his tweets show that. Giuliani flailing around. The Democrats seem to be holding firm. Democrats in swing districts seem comfortable with where they are. So I think once you say, hey, this is a serious matter, then what

comes next? Well, how do we judge it? And then, you have to start talking about the evidence.

So I think the big Republican strategy has been to throw everything up there's so much dust in the air that no one thinks about the evidence, but I don't think that's worked.

GERGEN: I agree, that is --

CABRERA: David, Nicholas Kristof writes this for the "New York Times" -- the essential difference between Nixon and Trump lies not in their misconduct or in their unsuitability for office but in the grim refusal of today's Republican Party to notice wrongdoing and its determination to stand by Trump come what may.

You worked under Nixon. Do you agree with this?

GERGEN: I agree with that. I think we face a very different Republican Party. And during the Nixon period, you know, were there strong conservatives in that party? Of course, there were, like Barry Goldwater and many others, but there was also a middle. So there was -- there was a center-right aspect to that party, and you've got very fine patriots like Howard Baker.

Had it not been for Howard Baker in those hearings, we never would have about the taping system. You know, that came, you know, through the kind of pressure that -- to have hearings and to get everybody up there. Nixon sent the -- you know, all the witnesses up. He sent a lot of documents up, he held back the tapes, eventually turned those over, which did him in.

But I just think we are in a different age. And Bill Kristol's through this. He knows, at least as well as I do. He served with those conservatives, you know, in the -- better than I do.

And I think he would be, you know, the first to say there are a number of conservatives who rallied with Bill to say, we don't like what's going on with this Trump administration, but they're not -- they're vastly outnumbered by the people on the hill who are steadfastly, almost like lapdogs, sticking with the President.

[19:10:01]

CABRERA: Bill, I want to ask you about something the President tweeted earlier this evening. He said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's teeth were, quote, falling out of her mouth during a press conference last week. There's no evidence that happened. He's also calling her Crazy Nancy. Your reaction to this?

KRISTOL: You know, he doesn't seem like a guy who's confident and thinks everything is going great for him. I do think, you know -- I mean, who knows Trump, so --

GERGEN: Yes. KRISTOL: The tweets are so random. In a way, you don't want to

overinterpret them. But I -- he does not seem like a happy camper right now.

And I do think that reflects. He's not foolish on this stuff. His political people are doing polling. I think they know that their basic gambit, as I said, which was to just really derail this, really just going to blow this up into kind of a farce, that hasn't worked.

It doesn't mean that he's going to -- they're going to -- Republicans are going to defect in the Senate. It doesn't mean the polls are going to move, as David said, that much more than they have now. But they have not discredited the notion that this is a serious case, that there's real evidence that the President has done things that a president shouldn't do.

GERGEN: Yes, let me make one --

CABRERA: David, the President tweeting about Nancy Pelosi's looks --

GERGEN: Right.

CABRERA: -- the Speaker of the House?

GERGEN: Oh, look, I just -- you know, it's totally inappropriate. It is so sexist. It is -- you know, it's -- of a piece. I think the President's going to come out of this whole exercise embittered toward the Democrats and emboldened about what he plans to do as president. And it's going to -- we're in for an interesting, interesting ride.

Let me just say one other thing about the polls. The President has been going around telling everybody that his poll numbers are going through the roof. Going through the roof, he uses that phrase frequently.

Some roof. The Fox poll, they -- one of the things that was most interesting about the Fox poll today was that all the major Democratic candidates are still running ahead of Trump. Joe Biden, Steady Joe, still seven points ahead of Trump in a head-to-head. Fascinating.

CABRERA: Very much so. Both of you are back with us in the next block, so David Gergen, Bill Kristol, stay right there.

James Comey says he was overconfident and wrong. Coming up, the former FBI Director makes a stunning admission on the Russia investigation, live in the CNN NEWSROOM when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:15:39]

CABRERA: A stunning admission from former FBI Director James Comey. He is now saying he was wrong to defend the process agents used to apply for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant against a former Trump campaign aide. Those new comments follow the release of a report from the Justice

Department's independent inspector general which found 17 significant errors and omissions in the FISA warrant applications against Carter Page.

That same report, however, did not reveal any evidence to support President Trump's claims that his campaign was illegally spied on and wiretapped or that the investigation was driven by political bias, a point Comey drove home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Look, the FBI was accused of 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.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Significant errors in the FISA process, and you say that it was handled in a thoughtful and appropriate way?

COMEY: Yes, he is right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough.

It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those because he's right there was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable. And so, he's right, I was wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: David Gergen and Bill Kristol are back with us.

Now, Bill, this has been on Trump's mind a lot today. He's been tweeting about it several times. He seems kind of gleeful about Comey's interview and him admitting he was wrong. Do you think this is now the last word, or will Trump continue to use Comey and the FBI as a siren call of sorts for votes in the 2020 election?

KRISTOL: Yes. I mean, Trump, of course, has been doing this before and will continue to do it, I suppose.

And what strikes me is, I mean, A, nothing has been done to delegitimize at all the actual investigation. The FISA warrant for Page was after the investigation had begun, and it had some procedural irregularities. The sloppiness doesn't seem like -- it seems like they might still have gotten that warrant anyway, and it's -- it wouldn't fundamentally have changed anything.

I give Comey credit for saying that they messed up at the FBI and for sort of taking responsibility for it. You know, if Trump really wants to -- but, again, if you look at the -- actually what the report and what's wrong, it's stuff they shouldn't do, but it's a play -- it's the kind of stuff that happens in a country where the rule of law is very strong, and there are very complicated judicial and legal procedures and agents take a little bit of shortcuts and get a little impatient and mess up.

I mean, it's a tribute to the FBI's general, I'd say, commitment to the rule of law that these are considered big errors compared to most countries, and Trump has no appreciation of any of that. And he just wants the FBI to serve him and not to investigate things that he doesn't want investigated.

CABRERA: I don't think anybody is arguing that these mistakes, if they were mistakes, or this omission and sloppiness and that it was acceptable to some extent, and, you know, the President was leery. He was upset that Comey was going to be going on Fox. Chris Wallace, I have to say, really challenged Comey.

David, do you think Comey's interview helped or hurt the credibility of the FBI today?

GERGEN: Well, I think it helped the credibility of Jim Comey, and I do think it helped the FBI.

I mean, this is really breaking news. Somebody in Washington has said they made a mistake. You know, we haven't heard anybody say that. And as long as I can remember, it's always somebody else who's making mistakes, it's always somebody else who's screwed up. So I join Bill in saying I think he did the right thing.

It's -- and there is -- so if this happened on such a sensitive issue, it really raises questions about the competence of some of these people in the FBI on other issues, on other FISA requests, and I think that has to be -- that has to be thoroughly explored on part of that by the Justice Department and in a way which is just not intended to throw dirt on Comey or anybody else.

[19:19:55]

But I think the critical thing to still remember to come back to is the -- what they found after a thorough investigation was it was not politically motivated. It was not a witch-hunt. It was not a coup against the President. It was an honest effort to figure out what's going on here and is there a threat to the national security of the United States. And on that, they were pretty plainspoken.

The intelligence bureaus of this -- institutions of this government, unlike the White House, still insist that we face major, major threats from the Russians and from others on these -- on these various forms of hacking. And we are still not acting like we -- there's any urgency to it. This is where presidents lead. They have to light up the fire in order to get something like this done before 2020 of next -- of next November.

CABRERA: And now, President Trump isn't happy with his current FBI Director, tweeting this --

GERGEN: Right.

CABRERA: -- I don't know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn't the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men and women working there.

Bill, this came after Wray agreed with the I.G.'s assessment that the Russian investigation was predicated on facts, not political bias. And the President handpicked Christopher Wray!

KRISTOL: And Wray accepted the I.G.'s criticisms of the institution that he runs, so I -- you know, one has to give him credit for that. Now, it's terrible. I mean, look, I actually think there are reforms in the FISA process, reforms in the FBI, reforms in law enforcement that we've all seen some necessity of over the last several years.

Those reforms are harder to make when you have the insanity of the President just attacking the whole investigation, pretending that, you know, it's dozens, I suppose, hundreds, of FBI agents and Justice Department employees are going to after -- engage in witch-hunts, lie systematically, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, just, you know, release the private texts of FBI agents and so forth.

I mean, so I really think there is a reformage under here. With Trump just attacking the FBI, they probably have some tendency to hunker down. But it's not healthy, and we need to have a constructive reform agenda, not this kind of, you know, just denunciation and, really, you know, demagoguery from the President.

CABRERA: Quick final thought, David?

GERGEN: Yes. I think it's -- what this thing has jumped out at me from the President's tweet today, when he called Christopher Wray the current FBI Director, that suggests that the President may be after him when the dust settles.

CABRERA: That will be interesting to see in the Trump administration. Guys, thank you both. Before I move on, thank you. I really appreciate you joining us, David Gergen and Bill Kristol.

Let's talk about the Trump administration and Afghanistan now, expected to announce a troop withdrawal in that country. Still ahead, how that move could impact national security.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:26:38] CABRERA: It is America's longest war, 18 years and counting in

Afghanistan. But according to a senior official, the Trump administration is now preparing to announce the long-anticipated drawdown of about 4,000 troops from Afghanistan.

CNN's Ryan Browne is here to explain what exactly this drawdown could mean for the region. Ryan?

RYAN BROWNE, CNN REPORTER: Well, Ana, a senior administration official telling our Jeremy Diamond that the administration is moving to announce withdrawal from Afghanistan of about 4,000 troops.

Now, there are currently about 12,000 to 13,000 troops -- U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan performing a variety of missions, primarily training and advising the Afghan forces as they battle the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS. And we're being told that this decision to withdraw the troops could be announced soon.

But President Trump has long said he wants to do this. In fact, back in August, he told Fox News that he wanted to draw down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to about 8,600 in line with the number that we're being told now.

Now, again, that would have an impact, you know. We're being told that the mission that would be primarily affected will be the training and advising of Afghan forces, that the remaining U.S. troops would shift to a counterterrorism mission focused mainly batting terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS and that the Afghans will not be as supported as they continue to battle the Taliban and other terror groups and insurgent groups.

Now, again, whether this decision is actually announced remains to be seen. The Trump administration has been weighing this for some time. And this all comes as these talks with the Taliban are ongoing. The Taliban spokesman welcomed the news that the U.S. could be withdrawing to an extent.

However, the Taliban have also recently attacked a major U.S. military base, something that put the talks with the Taliban on a temporary hold according to the chief U.S. negotiator.

And again, it's interesting to see whether or not this deal, this decision to potentially withdraw U.S. troops, will be seen as a unilateral concession to the Taliban unless they make a similar move to help bring about peace in that war-torn country. Back to you.

CABRERA: Ryan Browne, thank you.

As the full House prepares to vote to impeach President Trump this week, we are taking your questions about what happens next. "Cross- exam with Elie Honig" is up after this.

[19:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CABRERA: With impeachment very likely now as the full House votes this week, senators are prepping for an impeachment trial to follow. And some are making their thoughts well-known even before this trial begins including South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham who said this weekend quote "I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here."

Back with us now CNN legal analyst Elie Honig who is here to answer all of your questions tonight about impeachment.

Segment number three, we got the questions rolling here, Elie. One viewer seems to have heard what Lindsey Graham said because this person asks, is there any way to prevent senators who have shown bias from serving as jurors in an impeachment trial?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Ana, it's so important that people understand the difference between what we know to be a typical criminal trial and what we are about to see in a Senate trial.

In a criminal jury you have 12 every day men and women, and the number one most important requirement is that they be impartial and unbiased. If they are biased they are thrown off the jury. In the Senate we are about to see 100 senators serve as the jury and there is no requirement that would be unbiased. And practically there's no way to throw them out if they show bias.

Now that being said, boy, is Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham really pushing the envelope here. I mean, Mitch McConnell came out this week and openly announced that he will be working in total coordination with the White House.

Now look, I don't think senators should be announcing anything about where they stand. And we have seen it from both sides. Lindsey Graham being the extreme example announcing that he is already -- he is even not going to pretend to be impartial.

CABRERA: They are being transparent, I guess.

HONIG: Yes. I mean, I give them credit for that. But Mitch McConnell is the most important powerful person in the Senate right now. For him to come out and say he would be thrown out of a criminal case immediately.

But let's just remember, in a couple of weeks every senator is going to have to raise his or her hand and take an oath to do impartial justice. I don't know how some of them are going to be able to do that.

CABRERA: In the senate, impeachment trial one viewer wants to know, who serves as defense lawyers and prosecutors?

HONIG: So the president gets to choose his defense team. Bill Clinton in 1999 chose a combination of White House counsel and private attorneys. It looks like Donald Trump is going to same route. It's been reported Pat Cipollini, White House counsel, will lead the effort for Trump and there are other rumors out there about which attorneys Trump will be picking. Now the prosecution essentially, will be a team of House managers.

And that is members of the House of Representatives who will be chosen by House Democrats. And as with many things speaker Pelosi will have the biggest say.

Now there's already speculation out there about who these people could be. I think it's a very safe bet Adam Schiff will be a House manager. I have a couple of recommendations.

I think Val Demings has shown herself to be a very good questioner. She is a former police chief.

I think representative Pramila Jayapal, asked some very sharp questions.

Eric Swalwell, former federal prosecutor.

Hakeem Jeffreys, a lawyer also asked some very sharp questions.

So we will see where they come outs on that. There were 13 House managers versus in the case with Bill Clinton. One of them Lindsey Graham, the same Lindsey Graham will now be in the Senate as a juror in this case.

[19:35:51] HONIG: That's an interesting twist.

OK. Another question from a viewer right now is, is there protection against double jeopardy in an impeachment trial? And can the same person be impeached twice by the House?

HONIG: Legally, yes. It has never happened that the same person has been impeached twice. Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases, not to impeachment. Now, of course, there are political considerations. I mean, realistically, it would be very difficult to impeach the same person twice especially on the same charges. If there's new conduct then theoretically, you could see a trial.

It's also important to keep in mind. A person can be impeached and then later criminally prosecuted. Whether or not a Senate acquits or convicts a person can be prosecuted after being impeached. There's no double jeopardy problem there.

CABRERA: All right. Elie Honig, we will see you back next hour for more of our viewer questions.

HONIG: All right.

CABRERA: You can of course submit your own if you have questions for Elie at CNN.com/opinion and of course find his cross exam column there.

We have some breaking news I want to get to right now. Sources telling CNN that representative Jeff Van Drew's staff is quitting en masse. Now this comes as the freshman New Jersey congressman is expected to switch parties from Democrat to Republican. Van Drew has been strongly opposed to House Democrats impeachment of President Trump.

Let's get to Manu Raju joining us on the phone, our senior congressional correspondent.

Manu, what is going on behind the scenes right now among Van Drew's staff?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on the phone): Yes. We have obtained a letter that says that five of Van Drew's staff will resign if protests over the congressman's decision then he indicated privately that he plans to switch parties, become a Republican in the aftermath of his opposition to impeaching the President.

Now, in this letter that we have obtained, five of these members including senior member, the deputy chief of staff, his legislative staff and others are saying that they plan to resign because they are disappointed by a decision. They talk about in this letter how they write to formally resign from the office. They said they joined this office in the hope that they would fight back against what the Republicans have been doing -- criticizing the Republicans for siding with special interests and the like. And they ultimately they criticize Trump and they criticize the Republicans and end by saying we greatly respect congressman Van Drew and are deeply saddened disappointed by his decision. As such we can no longer in good conscience continue our service in the congressman's employ.

Now this is significant because there are -- for a freshman member like Jeff Van Drew, they don't have a particularly big staff. In fact, it's a relatively small staff. And it seems five members abruptly quit en masse like this and leave the congressional office hampered. And this will create a big dent in his office if he tries to figure out how to move forward.

Now, a bit about Van Drew's decision, of course, he is one of two Democrats who said he would vote on moving forward with an impeachment inquiry. He has also indicated he plan to vote against those two articles of impeachment to be voted on Wednesday. He has gotten much backlash from his swing district in New Jersey in the aftermath of his opposition to move forward on impeachment and his outspoken opposition. Democrats in particular have been critical of him. And there are concern that he may not survive the democratic primary in 2020.

So privately President Trump met with Jeff Van Drew last week, urged him and they talked about switching parties. That's what Jeff Van Drew have been talking about with a number of his Democratic colleagues indicating he does in fact plan to switch parties in the coming days. He has talked to his staff members about this. And you can see the backlash has been swift and intense.

Now you are seeing five members of his staff saying they are going to quit. You have also seen significant criticism from top Democrats including the Democrats from New Jersey -- the governor from New Jersey Phil Murphy who said that he is acting out of his phone political interests. So Jeff Van Drew here is in a very difficult spot. Switching parties,

Ana, is not easy. You get criticized from both sides, particularly your former party. So we will see how he ultimately weathers this storm. Because that's what he is in right now a political storm largely of his own making -- Ana.

[19:40:19] CABRERA: Again Jeff Van Drew, Democrat form new Jersey, saying he is going to switch parties. And now his staff resigning en masse, at least five staff members saying they are planning on leave him.

Manu Raju, thank you for that reporting.

The White House is adding more limits on who is listening to the president's phone calls with foreign leaders. Coming up why these restrictions could come up with some real risks. That's next in your weekend presidential brief.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:44:39] CABRERA: As the House gets ready to vote on articles of impeachment this week, President Trump's senior aides have further restricted the number of calls -- the number of officials allowed to listen to his phone calls with foreign leaders. This of course after his July 25th call with Ukraine's president became the center piece of this impeachment inquiry.

That brings us to your weekend presidential brief with CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd. Segment we bring to you every weekend with the most pressing national security issues President will face tomorrow.

So Sam, not only are they limiting the number of people who are going to be listening to these calls, we' ae also learning they plan to limit the number of people who will read the road out following these calls. Do you see a security risks here? What is going on?

[19:45:18] SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Certainly.

And Ana, I used to work on determining these lists. They are typically determined based on upon which U.S. officials need to know what transpired on a call. Now, a list of people who are actually listen to a call is typically smaller because historically authorized officials felt confident they would get an accurate read out of whatever transpired on a call. Now, the issue of course now is the fewer people that are listening to a call, the fewer first-hand accounts there are.

Remember the whistleblower complaint included concerns raised by people with direct knowledge of the call related to what President Trump told president Zelensky. So President Trump may be trying to limit potential witnesses to potential future crimes by not allowing more people to actually listen to the call.

The read out itself is so important for U.S. policy makers. They typically incorporate it into strategy going forward. Even if President Trump limits the amount of U.S. officials that know what happened, remember foreign officials don't have those same limitations. That means that foreign governments know more about what transpired on a call than U.S. officials, and that gives them a leg up.

CABRERA: Let's talk more about those foreign adversaries of the U.S. North Korea, recently issuing some cryptic threats that have sort set the wall scrambling to disciple what this all means.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Right. And now we have, you know, them threatening the so- called Christmas gift to the U.S., sending out some tests, saying there are crucial tests and successful. How serious is this?

VINOGRAD: Well, the North Koreans are really testing two things here, their weapons and President Trump. North Korea resumed missile tests back in May. And in just under a week they claimed to have conducted two tests from a satellite launch facility. Analysts are still determining exactly what was tested, but it does appear that North Korea may be gearing up for a satellite launch. The last one was in 2012.

Now the United States and other world leaders think that these satellite launches are really just a front for North Korea's missile program. And they are illegal under international law. So while Kim Jong-un is testing these weapons, he is also trying to test how far he can push Donald Trump's patience. He is really trying to see I assess whether President Trump is trying to stomach more provocations or whether President Trump is going to turn a new leaf in the new year and actually consider imposing some costs on North Korea for the illegal behavior.

My new year's advice to President Trump would be to try to incorporate some sticks into the bag of carrots that he has been offering Kim Jong-un thus far.

CABRERA: And so as he wave what to do or his next move with North Korea, there's also reporting that he is planning a swift draw down of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. What's the impact there?

VINOGRAD: Well, to be clear Trump has already drawn down 2,000 troops in Afghanistan this year. The reporting is there would be a further cut of 4,000 troops.

Two impacts that I see here, Ana. One is on negotiations with the Taliban. Our troops are leverage in these negotiations because the Taliban is trying to get us to leave. If we announce withdrawal without concessions from the Taliban we are diminishing our negotiating posture. And of course there's a potential security impact. Our troops train the Afghan national security forces and conduct missions.

It is clear, Ana, that even with the missions violence on the ground is continuing but I hope that President Trump does something this time that he doesn't done with the Syria draw down decision which is consult with his actual home team about the cost calculation of drawing down.

CABRERA: Sam Vinograd, good to have you here. Thank you.

The Hallmark channel is facing backlash for removing a commercial showing this newly married couple kissing. Details next.

And as we head to break I want to remind you that your new year's eves plans should include Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen, two best friends. One epic night, new year's eve live, always entertaining, always feel good. It begins at 8:00 eastern here on CNN.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:52:52] CABRERA: The holiday season is primetime for advertising, but after the Hallmark channel held an ad of a same sex couple kissing at their wedding, the TV channel is facing swift backlash including growing calls for a boycott.

CNN's Polo Sandoval explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We do.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This TV ad marriage is leading to a real life breakup between Hallmark channel and Zola. The online wedding registry and planning website announced its vow to no longer advertise on the channel that promote itself as dedicated to celebrate life's special moments.

The tension started last week. Conservative group, One Million Moms, posted complaints on its Web site it complained were coming from viewers about certain Zola ads running on the Hallmark channel. They claimed a lesbian wedding ceremony complete with a kiss was not family friendly.

Shame on Hallmark for airing commercials with same-sex couples, write a statement on the group's site.

Zola says it was notified on Thursday that four of their six ads featuring a same-sex couple would be pulled from the channel. Hallmark representative said Hallmark was not allowed to accept controversial content. Crown Media is Hallmark Channel's parent company.

In a podcast with the Hollywood reporter last month Bill Abbott, the media group's CEO seemed open to including same sex content on their channel.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you thought about incorporating stories about same-sex couples at Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanza?

BILL ABBOTT, CEO, CROWN MEDIA: You know, we look at a variety of different things. So you know, we are always looking for the best stories that we think will resonate in the best way. And so we are open to really any type of movie of any type of relationship in any space.

SANDOVAL: But widely reported statement from Crown suggests there's no room for discussion about same-sex depictions on its air. The debates surrounding these commercials on all sides was distracting from the purpose of our network, which is to provide entertainment value.

Zola says other versions of their ads were allowed to air. In a statement the company wrote, the only difference between the commercials that were flagged and the ones that were approved was that the commercial that did not meet the standards included a lesbian couple kissing.

Hallmark approved a commercial where a heterosexual couple kissed. All kisses, couples, and marriages are equal celebrations of love. But we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark. Meaning, there will be one less advertiser on Hallmark as the channel continues its popular Christmas movie season.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[19:55:27] CABRERA: That was Polo Sandoval reporting.

And Some other companies are now joining in on this Hallmark backlash including this tweet from Netflix that suggested titles featuring lesbians joyfully existing. Adding also, it's Christmas. We just let people who love who they love.

I'm going to warn this next video contains troubling images. It shows a school resource officer at a North Carolina middle school violently slamming a student to the floor, not once but twice. The resource officer was a sheriff's deputy has been suspended. He is on paid leave while this incident has investigated. Police say, the student is under the age of 12. And according to his mother had a bum of on his head but was not hospitalized.

In just a few days President Trump will likely become just the third U.S. president to be impeached. Coming up, how the White House is preparing for this historic vote.

This is the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:01] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CABRERA: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We have this breaking news right now. Details of what Democratic --.