Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Chuck Schumer Wants Mulvaney, Bolton to Testify in Senate Trial; New Jersey Democrat Opposed to Impeachment Expected to Switch Parties; Democrats Rip McConnell and Graham; Chuck Schumer's Letter Kicks Off Negotiations for Senate Trial; Democrats Rip McConnell for White House Coordination in Senate Trial; Constituents Clash Over Impeachment at Adam Schiff Town Hall. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired December 16, 2019 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

HILL: They're probably not open yet because it's in New Mexico but in a couple of hours if you want to give it a shot, let me know how it works out.

BERMAN: It's like Santa's workshop in New Mexico. That is awesome.

All right. This is the beginning of an historic week in Washington and the country. "NEWSROOM" with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto starts right now.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Very good morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

HARLOW: And I'm Poppy Harlow. So we're very, very awake this Monday morning, a week for the history books. That is what this is. We are just days away from a full House vote on impeachment, and this morning, the Judiciary Committee released its report explaining their decision to charge President Trump with two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Also today, a preview of the coming showdown that is headed for the Senate. Minority leader Chuck Schumer just laying out Democrats' requests for the upcoming trial.

SCIUTTO: Well, part of his proposal is calling for White House officials at the center of this. Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security John Bolton, to testify. Of course you'll remember the White House blocked their testimony.

It is the first step in negotiations with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on what this trial will actually look like, but don't expect these talks go smoothly. McConnell has made it clear he wants a quick trial and has said he is working, in his words, in total coordination with the White House.

Remember, senators in an impeachment trial, they do take an oath. It's laid out in the Constitution to be impartial jurors. We'll see if that plays out.

Let's get started with CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

So, Manu, it's a very busy week. You have Senator Schumer laying out his proposal for this. Do we have any sense whether Mitch McConnell will accept that proposal?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's highly unlikely that he will. This is going to be the start of negotiations. But of course as you mentioned, a momentous week in the House beginning with that Wednesday vote, but there will be steps that will be needed to be taken before we reach that historic vote on Wednesday in which the president is going to be the third president in history to get impeached by the House.

There are some procedural steps that have already taken place last night. The House Judiciary Committee released its report detailing its findings wrapping up everything that occurred through the course of this more than two-month investigations and the reasons why the Democrats believe the president should be impeached and then ultimately removed from office. And then tomorrow the House Rules Committee will meet to discuss the procedures for the floor debate on Wednesday.

In that Rules Committee hearing both the top -- the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, and the top Republican on that committee, Doug Collins, expected to field sharp questions from fellow members on that committee. And then that historic vote on Wednesday in which the president is going to be set to be impeached.

Ultimately the question in the House is how many Democrats ultimately vote for impeaching the president on two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, relating to his handling with relations to Ukraine and whether he leveraged his office in order to push for an investigation by that country into his political rivals.

This morning Elissa Slotkin, who's a Michigan Democratic from -- a freshman from a swing district, announced her support for those two counts of obstruction -- those two counts of impeachment and we expect more of those vulnerable Democrats also to come out and support, so ultimately Democrats may lose a handful of votes on the floor but it will still be more than enough to impeach the president which is what we'll all be looking for on that historic vote on Wednesday -- guys.

HARLOW: All right. Also, Manu, before you go, it looks like, according to sources, CNN's reporting, is that New Jersey congressman, Democrat, this morning, Jeff Van Drew, will switch his party affiliation, will become a Republican, talk to the president about this over the weekend, six people who work for him resigning because of it. What can you tell us?

RAJU: Yes. This has a lot to do with his own personal politics. The question had been whether or not he could even win a Democratic primary given the positions that he has taken including initially coming out in opposition to the impeachment inquiry. He was one of just two Democrats to vote against moving forward on the impeachment inquiry. He has made very clear he planned to vote against both counts on impeachment on the floor of the House and he made -- privately all weekend he's been on the phone, I'm told, talking to fellow New Jersey Democrats about his decision to switch parties.

Also the president of course urging him to switch parties and that's what we expect him to do, and as you mentioned, Poppy, those six staffers now resigning, really leaving be a hole in this office.

HARLOW: Yes.

RAJU: This freshman's office. But he did -- these staffers put out a letter saying that sadly, Congressman Van Drew's decision to join the ranks of the Republican Party led by Donald Trump does not align with the values we brought to this job when we joined his office. So we'll see what he has to say when he returns to Washington either today or tomorrow -- guys.

SCIUTTO: Manu Raju on the Hill, thanks very much.

Let's go to CNN national correspondent Suzanne Malveaux with more on the impeachment trial negotiations going on in the Senate now.

So Schumer has put out his opening position in effect in these negotiations, but we do know that there are Republican senators who might bristle at the idea of denying all these witnesses.

[09:05:06]

So where do those negotiations stand now?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim and Poppy, already there's controversy around this. Although, we're about a couple weeks away from the Senate trial, Schumer putting out this letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and others saying essentially that warning against this becoming a show or a circus, but also calling for more witnesses as well as new documents, really going bigger, if you will, against McConnell's wishes.

On that wish list of witnesses, he is calling for bringing forth acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security adviser John Bolton, their aides, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey of OMB, clearly following the money and where that money went, the delay and how it was released.

And then also just lining out a timeline for us after the new year. You're talking about January 6th, the pretrial measures to be established and adopted, as well as the following day, the swearing in of Chief Justice John Roberts and senators, and then two days after that, the House managers making their presentations. The president's counsel, also its rebuttal.

And then some restrictions when it comes to these presentations. 24 hours for the opening presentations and the rebuttal, 16 hours for the questioning of the Democrats -- the Republicans and then the Democrats, all of this Schumer making the case that he thinks this is a process that will be fair to both sides.

SCIUTTO: Yes. A lot of them based on how it played out in 1999 with the Clinton impeachment.

Tell us about Mitch McConnell. He has said very openly that he's coordinating with the White House. Now if you look at precedent, there was some coordination between Democrats and the Clinton White House in 1999, but not the majority leader. What are you hearing on the Hill here? How much further is McConnell going here in effect?

MALVEAUX: Well, Jim, I covered the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings and it was really nothing like this. What we have seen just kind of the open and blatant statements that both Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is making as well as Senator Lindsey Graham.

I want you to listen very quickly to what Graham said over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wasn't in any doubt at this point.

GRAHAM: I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So really setting this up for a partisan food fight, divide if you will. You have Schumer saying that this is demeaning to Graham and that history will treat him poorly, also saying it was totally out of line for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to say that he'll do anything the president wants.

But, Jim and Poppy, as you know this is something that they're going to look to history, they're going to look to previous precedent, and how they behaved before. We expect that it's going to be just as ugly this go round -- Jim, Poppy.

HARLOW: OK. Suzanne, thank you very much for all of that.

Let's talk about it with our legal analysts, Asha Rangappa and Ross Garber.

Good morning to you both. Let's listen to Senator Schumer. He was on with "NEW DAY" just moments ago. And this is one thing that struck me from why he thinks that his demand for these fact witnesses to appear before the Senate may actually get some Republican support. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I expect some of my Republican colleagues when they see this letter will say that's fair. They don't want to be part of a cover-up. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Ross, he needs -- McConnell needs 51 senators to do anything. So when you think about a Lisa Murkowski or you think about a Susan Collins and the makeup of their state, and the actions which they took in the Kavanaugh proceedings, right, saying let's pause, let's consider more evidence here, is he right? Do you think it's out of the question that any Republican senator would agree that hearing from a John Bolton or a Mick Mulvaney is important to their decision-making as impartial jurors in this process?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: See, I think it's very, very unlikely, and let's keep in mind. I mean, this is only the third time in the United States history this has happened. So there's not that much in the way of precedent, but I think one of the things the Republicans will cite is the Clinton precedent where there were no witnesses who actually testified before the Senate.

HARLOW: Yes.

GARBER: You know, there were motions to dismiss and then a few depositions and then they went right to closing arguments. And I think Republicans will cite that as precedent.

HARLOW: Yes.

GARBER: You know, it's -- I think as Americans, it's not how we would probably like to see the process go, but, you know, that's likely how it's going to go this time. I'd be very surprised if any Republicans sign on to the witnesses.

SCIUTTO: Let's acknowledges the differences, though, Asha Rangappa, you did not have a concerted effort to block all witnesses in the House portion of the Clinton impeachment investigation and after all the president himself testified of course testified and that's something that this president has refused to do.

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's right. The factual scenario in Clinton was very different than it is now. You also had a very lengthy investigation by Kenneth Starr where there were underlying interviews and depositions and a lot of fact gathering that could be relied upon whereas, as you mentioned, Jim, here, very basic fact witnesses who were relevant to key issues in the case have not been allowed to testify.

[09:10:12]

And I would argue that precisely because one of the articles of impeachment is abuse of power, the use of the office of the presidency, that what the president did, any direct orders that came from him, that affected whether or not aid was released, for example, really matters here and I think for some senators, maybe important, and even if they want to acquit to say we heard the evidence and we have weighed it. Whether or not they want to take that oath seriously I think remains to be seen given the reporting that we just heard from Graham and Mitch McConnell. HARLOW: Overnight, the House Judiciary Committee put out a 600 plus

page report on the articles of impeachment. It basically accompanies them throughout this process. And let me read part of it, quote, "President Trump's abuse of power encompassed both the constitutional offense of bribery and multiple federal crimes. He has betrayed the national interests, the people of the nation, and should not be permitted to be above the law. It is therefore all the more vital that he be removed from office."

What was striking, Ross, is the fact that in the articles themselves they did not include words like bribery. They did not lay out bribery, extortion, et cetera as crimes. They went with the broader abuse of power. Why do that in this report and what effect does it have?

GARBER: Yes. I mean, talk about burying the lede. The constitutional standard for impeachment includes specifically the word bribery.

HARLOW: Right.

GARBER: You know, as you know, it wasn't included in the articles, it was included in the report. And I think it's sort of an effort by the Judiciary Committee, Democrats, to kind of have it both ways and I understand why because if they put bribery in the articles of impeachment, then they'll be held to the standard of bribery and the Republicans will say well, you know, you haven't met all of the elements of criminal bribery, and so now what the Democrats can say is bribery is encompassed by the very serious offense of abuse of the public trust and it's included, but they need not prove all of the elements of bribery or these other criminal offenses.

SCIUTTO: I remember, though, Asha, and you're both lawyers so you know this far better than me, specific lines of questioning from Adam Schiff during the public hearing, attempting at least to establish what is required to establish bribery, talking about using public office for personal gain. Right? I mean, from your perspective, do they have the evidence to make that case for bribery specifically as a lawyer?

RANGAPPA: I think they do and I think that's why they mentioned the constitutional crime of bribery, not the statutory crime of bribery. But I do think that they wanted to avoid getting into the legal weeds of the distinctions even though the constitutional definition would be the prevailing one, given that that was what was in effect when the Constitution was written.

I will say that it's not necessarily unusual for, say, in the criminal process for prosecutors to charge a crime that they can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt even when the underlying conduct may constitute other offenses. So for example, when you look at the charges against Michael Flynn for making false statements, the underlying behavior that he lied about his registering as a foreign agent, that he was talking to members of the foreign government, which, you know, could theoretically be violations of other laws which they chose not to charge but chose something that was much broader. I think that's what you see here and the articles of impeachment do

describe the conduct.

SCIUTTO: Right.

RANGAPPA: Of bribery as we generally understand it, colloquially.

SCIUTTO: Asha Rangappa, Ross Garber, great to have you as always.

Senate Democrats and Republicans, very different takes of course on what this upcoming trial will look like, should look like. But will either side budge? Is there room for negotiation? It may not be clear that Republicans have the votes to push through what they want here. We're going to speak to a sitting senator next.

Plus, a top Mexican trade negotiator has rushed to Washington for talks after the USMCA trade deal hits a snag. We're on top of that.

HARLOW: Also, it has been months since the 737 MAX Boeing jets were grounded after those two fatal crashes. But now Boeing may curb its production of the jet altogether.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:00]

SCIUTTO: This morning, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer has been laying out his request ahead of a likely impeachment trial in the Senate. Remember, Republicans hold the majority there, and therefore the power, although their margin is thin. It does mean that Republican leader Mitch McConnell could lead his party to strike any and all requests from the Democrats down.

Schumer and McConnell expected to hold a meeting this week to discuss. Joining me now, Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, senator, thanks so much for taking the time this morning.

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): Jim, it's good to be with you. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, let's begin there with Senator Schumer's request there, specifically for four witnesses with presumably direct knowledge of the president's decision-making on Ukraine.

[09:20:00]

The assistance investigating the Bidens, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, National Security adviser John Bolton, White House Chief of Staff Robert Blair -- or rather senior adviser to the Chief of Staff and the OMB official Michael Duffey. Have you spoken to Republican colleagues who support calling these witnesses as well?

CARDIN: I have not had conversations directly with Republicans on this. But I would think that members of the Senate acting as a jury would like to hear directly from those who had the information as to why the president did what he did. The motivation here is important, as the president points out over and

over again in his tweets, so to hear directly from the parties involved, I would think is a requirement in the United States Senate to have a fair trial. So, I think what Senator Schumer is suggesting is a limited number of witnesses that have direct information about the specific facts of the president's conversations with the Ukrainians.

SCIUTTO: Let me play you a sound from Mitch McConnell speaking about his discussions with the White House regarding the Senate trial, have a listen, I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: In your view, has the Senate Majority leader prejudiced the process by being in close coordination with the White House?

CARDIN: I think he has. We take a separate oath once the impeachment trial begins to be impartial jurors. So, that gives the clear impression that the majority leader is working on behalf of the White House, rather than as an impartial juror. He himself is a juror. I would have hoped that the Majority leader Mitch McConnell would have said let's sit down with the Democratic leader, and let's sit down with the president's lawyers and the house managers and figure out a fair process for how the Senate should conduct its trial.

That would have been totally appropriate to include all stakeholders in those discussions, and try to reach an agreement as to how an orderly way the Senate should proceed with the trial. But instead, Mitch McConnell says he's only going to work with one party, that is the White House itself.

SCIUTTO: In fairness, some of your Democratic colleagues, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, they have already stated publicly in weeks past that they're ready to vote to remove the president from office. To Senator Schumer's credit, I should note, he said this morning that he still is reserving judgment on that.

But to your colleagues who have already said publicly, you know what? I know how I'm going to vote, is that also prejudicing the process?

CARDIN: I think it's very clear that members of the Senate need to be impartial going into the trial. That's what the oath that we take requires us to do. We also didn't know until -- won't know until later this week, the specific articles that are passed by the house. There was some question at least earlier in the process as to whether it was going to be limited to the two, whether it's going to be additional articles, we have to work on the specific articles presented by the house and the evidence that's presented by the managers and listening to the president's defense. So, I think it's inappropriate for any member of the Senate, whether they'd be a Democratic or Republican, to reach a conclusion before the trial.

SCIUTTO: I was listening to presidential candidate Andrew Yang this morning, and he made the point that in hundreds and hundreds of conversations with voters as he's been out on the campaign trail, he can barely recall instances where voters have brought up impeachment.

They're bringing up health care, they're bringing up their jobs, they're bringing up trade agreements, et cetera. I just wonder, as a Democrat, you have an election coming up in 2020 with enormous consequences for the country here, if you're concerned that by pursuing this so aggressively and so far, that the Democrats are just out of step with what voters want to focus on.

CARDIN: Jim, there is no -- we have no choice in this. This is our constitutional responsibility. The president's conduct is extremely serious. The allegations is that he asked a foreign power to get involved in our domestic elections for the benefit of the president. And then that he obstructed that the congressional investigation into those charges.

They're very serious matters. We have no choice. The politics of it will have to play out, but it can't be controlled by the politics, the house and the Senate need to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

SCIUTTO: But as you know, impeachment is also a political process. It's also likely to have political consequences. You do have Democrats and particularly in swing districts who are worried, and you know the math in the Senate that a vote to remove is extremely unlikely to get two-thirds, particularly 20-some odd Republican senators.

Are you concerned that acquittal in the Senate for the president would actually strengthen him in 2020?

[09:25:00]

CARDIN: I don't know how the politics are going to play out. I really don't know. But I do know this, and from following the Mueller investigation, that the only way to hold a president accountable so that he's not above the law is through the impeachment process. So the impeachment process is the only choice we have in regards to the president's conduct.

So again, I don't think we have any choice. We have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the constitution of the United States, the separation of branches, holding accountable the president of the United States from misconduct.

So, I think we had no choice how the politics will play out, we'll see. There's going to be -- it's a long time between now and next November, and my guess is that we're going to see an ebb and flow of what's on the minds of the voters before next November. SCIUTTO: Yes, I think that's a fairly fair prediction. Senator

Cardin, thanks so much for joining the program, and we hope you get something of a Christmas vacation between now and a likely Senate trial.

CARDIN: Yes, thanks, Jim, good to be with you.

POPPY HARLOW, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: I think everyone could use that.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: All right, still ahead, things got physical at a town hall for Congressman Adam Schiff over the weekend, constituents trading words and shoves over impeachment next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END