Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Swing District Michigan Democrat Says She Is Voting For Impeachment; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Discusses Impeachment Trial Requests, Path Forward. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 16, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Two of them are women: Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar. Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: M.J., thank you so much for that report. We will check out your story online and be sure to tune into that final presidential debate of the year M.J. was talking about live from Los Angeles, Thursday night starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN. That's that it for me. NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

[14:00:24]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Dana, thank you so much. Hi, there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN on this Monday afternoon. Thanks for being with me.

I know for many of us, the race to the end of the year is a hectic one, and when we cross off those final items on our to-do lists and look ahead to the next 12 months, and the same is true for lawmakers as Congress enters its final work week of 2019.

But not all about last minute wheeling and dealing is focused on the Impeachment Inquiry into President Trump. Remember the vote is set to take place this Wednesday, but before that, the House has to approve a deal that would keep the government funded and open for business, that is tomorrow.

And the day after the big impeach with vote is an expected vote on the recently announced trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

But back to the issue at hand here of impeachment, the Washington rumor mill, it is in overdrive and a key group of Democrats is under the microscope. They represent these districts that backed President Trump in 2016 and have been fairly quiet on how they will vote.

That all change this weekend for one of them. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan says she is now a yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): And 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 is the most I can do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CNN's Phil Mattingly is on Capitol Hill and Phil, this will all shift to the Senate after the holidays. Chuck Schumer has already laid out his request for an impeachment trial. What are they?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think this is important because I think when you watch what's going on in the House right now, Brooke, there's kind of a process which everybody knows how it's going to move forward, and there are rules in the United States Senate, too.

But there are also negotiations that are going to take place between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to really put some detail into the rules on the road, if they can reach an agreement.

And now we have Schumer's opening offer and crucial in that opening offer is Schumer is requesting four witnesses -- for the United States Senate to subpoena four witnesses.

Those four witnesses are four people who were asked to testify during the House Impeachment Inquiry, but never showed up largely because the administration has told them not to. Those four witnesses being Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; former National Security adviser, John Bolton; Robert Blair, who is a senior adviser to the Acting Chief of Staff, and also Michael Duffy who is a key political appointee at the O.M.B.

Now, why Schumer wants to hear from these individuals is very similar to why House Democrats wanted to hear from these individuals? They can help kind of close the loop on one of the key missing pieces of this investigation up to this point. Really, the what and the why when it came to the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine.

There are still some gaps in that story right now, these individuals can help fill those gaps. Now, here's the thing. Just because Schumer wants these four witnesses does not mean he is going to get these four witnesses.

As I noted, he and McConnell still need to meet, see if they can hammer out a bipartisan agreement on the road forward in the Senate. And I will tell you, Brooke, behind the scenes, several people have told me McConnell has made clear he does not want witnesses. He thinks it's a bad idea for the White House to even ask for witnesses. So a lot to come forward here in the next couple of weeks.

But you talked about the moderates in the House. The Democrats like Elissa Slotkin that are very important as this process moves forward.

When we get over to the chamber back that way, it's going to be the moderates in the Senate. Those are the individuals who will dictate how this trial actually moves forward. Those will be the individuals that will dictate whether or not there'll be witnesses to the degree that somebody like Charles Schumer wants, so keep an eye on those as well. Still a lot to come in the Senate -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: All right. Phil, thank you so much. Let me just stay on the Senate here. CNN has learned that the Senate Republicans are expected to push back on Chuck Schumer's witness request, saying that if he wants Mick Mulvaney and others to testify, that Schumer should have pushed House Democrats to go to court to make that happen.

That is coming as high profile senators suggest the Senate trial is pretty much all over except for the voting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST: I wasn't in any doubt at this point.

GRAHAM: I am not trying to pretend to be a fair juror.

ANDERSON: But you are along with the rest of your Senate fellows are jurors. Is it appropriate to be voicing your opinion even before it gets to the Senate as a trial?

GRAHAM: Well, I must think so, because I'm doing it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Abby Phillip is a CNN political correspondent. John Dean is a CNN contributor and was the White House counsel for President Nixon and Jeffrey Tulis is a Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin and also the co-author of "Legacies of Losing in American Politics."

[14:05:02]

BALDWIN: And so, Jeffrey, let me start with you because I know that you recently wrote that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, this are your words, " ... in literal violation of the oath he will have to take at the start of the Senate trial." Can you tell me why?

JEFFREY TULIS, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: Well, there's a new oath that you take -- all senators have to take, including McConnell that the Constitution requires that's different from the oath that they take to be senators, and it's very important because it indicates that the Senate operating as a trial is actually a different institution.

It recomposes itself into an institution in which the senators are no longer the senators as they used to be, but are a kind of combination of judges and jurors.

The other important thing about this is that they're all equal. He is no longer Majority Leader. There's no President pro tem and so forth. They're all equal.

We're in a process now in which they're trying to negotiate the parameters of what will happen after the Senate changes its character, but when it does, it's a very different institution.

And in the previous two, and we've only had two instances in which impeachment has gone to the Senate for a trial that the Senate has operated extremely well, extremely fairly. It's not doing it now, and the comments that you just played by Senator Lindsey Graham in particular, and McConnell a rank among the most contemptible by senators in American political history.

BALDWIN: Wow. Let me -- to your point about judge and juror, Senator Ted Cruz would push back on you. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Senators are not required, like jurors in a criminal trial to be sequestered not to talk to anyone, not to coordinate. There's no prohibition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So just you know, Professor, back over to you, you know, what about Senator Cruz who says this is political and not criminal, therefore, the rules don't apply.

TULIS: Well, he is absolutely right that the Senate is the locus of the trial, and the Senate has the sole power under the Constitution over the trial, so they actually set the rules and they could determine whether or not to sequester themselves.

They've decided in the past because senators are so much more honorable than the ones you've just played that they didn't have to do that sort of thing.

But if in fact, they keep behaving this way, the Chief Justice is going to have a tough decision to make on whether he admonishes some of these senators.

BALDWIN: As we wait to see if that potentially does happen come January, John Dean, to you sir, you know, you threw out this idea. You say that the House shouldn't even send these Articles to the Senate, that they should continue to investigate because to quote you, "The Senate is rigged." Can you explain that?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: We just heard it explained by the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee.

As the professor mentioned, there is an oath these men have to take and women in the Senate and it's to be impartial and do justice. That isn't a high standard. That is to not prejudge until you hear the evidence.

This is exactly the opposite of what is happening here. They're prejudging and they're going to say, this President is not going to be impeached, or he's not going to be found guilty and removed.

So I think there's a lot of leverage in the House with the Speaker. What happens is after they vote on the Articles of Impeachment, then there are more articles or resolutions they vote on to send managers over to the Senate.

Well, at that point, and digging through the rules, I can find nothing that would prohibit or stop Nancy Pelosi from saying, I'm not sending these Articles of Impeachment over to a Kangaroo Court. I want a fair trial for the House and the American people. And I think she'd have a lot of pressure if she -- and she could have some say in this.

BALDWIN: But would Speaker Pelosi actually go for that? I mean, don't you think that that would be a bit unrealistic?

DEAN: Well, you know, I don't know if she would go for it or not. It's something I've been talking about for a couple of weeks now. And I hear from more and more people, Laurence Tribe, for example, last night, tweeted that if -- Schumer's very, very minimal conditions are not accepted, then the article should not be sent over.

So I think other people are realizing there is no reason they have to be sent over and it only will be done in a fair form. That's better, but if not, they're just going to make fools out of the House. They're going to make fools out of the American people. The Senate may want to put a resolution out of exoneration and give him a prize for breaking the rules of his oath of office and violating the Constitution.

[14:10:11]

BALDWIN: Well --

TULIS: Brooke, there's another solution to this.

BALDWIN: Sure.

TULIS: The other solution to this is what's being called a constitutional caucus. It only takes three upstanding, responsible G.O.P. senators to join with like-minded Democrats to actually structure a fair trial, whatever McConnell and others think. This is a new ball game and it only takes 51 to set the rules. And so it could be done well, and it could be done efficiently.

BALDWIN: That's right. The number is 51. And, you know, Abby, I want to hear your voice in all of this because, you know, Republicans are the majority party in the Senate. They can set trial rules without Democrats if they to his point, though, unanimously. Will Schumer --

Hang on just a second, let's listen to Chuck Schumer. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The potential Senate impeachment trial and

rules for them. But let's not forget that there are many other things the Senate should be working on right now.

This month, we recognized the seventh anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. In the seven years since that unthinkable tragedy, America has experienced countless incidents of gun violence, ranging from horrific mass shootings to the thousands of shootings that devastate communities every day. The Senate has not even debated background check legislation.

The Senate hasn't debated legislation to reduce the cost of healthcare, college education or prescription drugs. Republican leadership has even refused to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to secure our elections and to deter foreign adversaries from interfering in our elections.

All the productive activity in the Congress is coming out of the House. The Senate remains a legislative graveyard for so many different issues.

Now on impeachment, as you know, the House is expected to vote on the Articles of Impeachment this week. Assuming the Articles are adopted by the House, the Senate will serve as a court of impeachment.

Conducting an impeachment trial in the Senate is enormously weighty and solemn responsibility. It's one of the most important things that the Founding Fathers abrogated to the Senate.

Senate Democrats believe strongly that the trial must be fair, and it's very important that the American people judge it to be fair. A fair trial is one where senators get all the facts and one that allows them to adjudicate the case impartially.

Two weeks ago now, I told Leader McConnell I was ready to discuss trial rules. Instead of talking to me, he spoke publicly about what a trial may look like and said he was taking his cues from the White House. It was very partisan, very slanted, very unfair.

So to get things back on track, I sent a letter to Leader McConnell last night, outlining a very reasonable structure that would result in a fair trial.

This morning, I sent the letter to every United States Senator -- Democrat and Republican -- I hope that all of my colleagues will look at this proposed structure and make up their own minds.

The four witnesses we propose, have direct knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed. We don't know what kind of evidence they will present. They might present exculpatory evidence that helps President Trump. It may be incriminating against the President, but they should be heard.

But by virtue of the senior administration positions they occupy, each of them will have information to share about the charges made by the House, information that no one has heard at this point. In fact, in the case of Mr. Bolton, his attorney stated publicly that

he has additional relevant information to share, information that has not yet become public. How on such a weighty matter could we avoid hearing this? Could we go forward without hearing it?

And that is why I sent the letter in part to Leader McConnell.

[14:15:10]

SCHUMER: We also propose that subpoenas for documents that are directly related to the charges brought by the House come forward. There's always a lot of attention on the question of witnesses. But these documents are also of great importance when it comes to making sure senators have what they need to make a fully informed decision.

Right now, I think the House has amassed a great deal of evidence, much of it in the form of testimony from the President's own appointees that the President committed impeachable offenses.

But a good number of my Republican colleagues have said they believe the charges are serious, but there isn't enough evidence yet for them to make a decision.

We believe these witnesses and documents would provide the evidence they're looking for without being dilatory or letting the trial drag on for too long.

I haven't seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn't testify or these documents be produced unless the President has something to hide and his supporters want that information hidden.

The trial structure I outlined in my letter to Leader McConnell will ensure that all the relevant facts come out without dilatory action. You know, there is a grand American tradition of a speedy and fair trial. That's just what we've proposed here. And I expect Republicans would be sympathetic to our proposal for that reason.

The President and House Republicans have resisted letting all the evidence and facts come out. The President hasn't offered a single exculpatory bit of evidence that refutes what's in the House impeachment charges. They have not refuted them.

Our document could be summed up by Joe Friday on "Dragnet," just the facts, ma'am. That's what we're interested in. Not diversions, not conspiracy theories that are irrelevant to the case. Just the facts, ma'am.

As I said, the President has offered nothing exculpatory to disprove the evidence that has been put forward. Instead, he's orchestrated a cover up. It's left many in the Senate and millions across the country asking what is the President hiding? Why doesn't he want the facts to come out?

In their investigation, the House compiled and presented enormous amount of evidence in support of the Articles of Impeachment. But as I said, some of my Republican colleagues are saying there isn't enough evidence.

The trial structure I outlined in my letter to Leader McConnell will ensure all the facts come out. So in the coming week, Senators, particularly Republican Senators will have a choice. Do they want a fair, honest trial that examines all the facts? Or do they want a trial that doesn't let the facts come out?

Trials have witnesses. That's what trials are all about and documents. It's not just the prosecutors in this case, the House attorneys make their side. The President's lawyers make their side. We know that all ready. We've heard that. We need to know the facts from those who are in a position to know and from documents that accurately reflect them.

So, to engage a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a cover up. To conduct a trial without the facts is saying we're afraid. We have something to hide. To conduct a trial without relevant witnesses who haven't been heard from to just rehash the evidence presented in the House just doesn't make any sense.

If Leader McConnell doesn't hold a full and fair trial, the American people will rightly ask, what are you Leader McConnell, and what is President Trump hiding? Ready for questions? One at a time.

QUESTION: Back in 1999, you did not support hearing from new witnesses in the Senate trial. Why do you feel that the need is (INAUDIBLE)?

[14:20:03]

SCHUMER: No, okay, here is what I said at the time. These are exactly my words. My view is we've heard from most of these witnesses over and over again, we've heard the same story. The witnesses in '99 had already been given, had already given grand jury testimony. We knew what they were to say.

The four witnesses we've called have not been heard from. That is the difference, and it's a difference that is totally overwhelming.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator, out of those four witnesses that you've called, some of the Republicans have suggested that it is not the Senate's job to get the witnesses that was supposed to be done by the House Democrats and the House Democrats decided not to go to court to get these witnesses. Should the Democrats in the House have pursued these witnesses in court?

SCHUMER: Well, look, I'm not going to second guess the House. There is virtually no argument. No good argument if you're interested in the facts and not having these witnesses come forward now.

And remember, the standard at a trial is different than the standard when a prosecutor, in this case the House impeachment authority puts together a case, a trial is a place for witnesses.

QUESTION: Senator Schumer, do you have now or are you confident that you will have the support of every one senator? SCHUMER: I expect to have the support from Democrats and Republicans

because the argument is so strong and many Republicans have voiced to me and many of my colleagues privately that they think what the President did is wrong, but they're just not sure enough facts have been presented to make an impeachable case, high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is the way to do it. The way we outlined.

QUESTION: Senator Schumer, this witness list of four witnesses, just four, you didn't call for Pompeo or Giuliani. I am wondering why you settled on these four and why not Pompeo or Giuliani?

SCHUMER: Right. These are the four who have the most direct contact of the facts that are in dispute. Most particularly, why was the aid to Ukraine delayed? These are the best four witnesses for that case.

And by the way, we don't want to be dilatory. We don't want to stress this out any longer than we have to. But these people are crucial and haven't been heard from. And again, that's the difference with 1999, and it's a total difference. Yes.

QUESTION: When you sat and taken deposition on these witnesses?

SCHUMER: I'm not going to get into that. I'll negotiate with McConnell. But let me tell you live testimony is the best way to go.

QUESTION: In 1999, the linchpin of the deal between Senator Lott and Daschle was the fact that they did not want live testimony. They had a little bit of video tape testimony that they thought would bring discredit on the Senate.

I spoke with Senator Lott a few days ago and he indicated he thought that the integrity of the Senate is at risk here if you have live witnesses on the floor. Two-part question, why is that not the case in this despite what you said about not hearing from these four and number two --

SCHUMER: And you said, despite -- I said that's the whole case. We've heard from them.

QUESTION: Okay, okay. So point number two, though, do you genuinely think you can get an agreement like 1999?

SCHUMER: In 1999, it was a different case. There were all the obvious reasons why they did not want a witness like Monica Lewinsky testifying in public. I was there. And it related to what the questions might be about, that the whole nation including children would be watching. It's totally different situation. There's no analogy.

QUESTION: If House Democrats feel that they have enough evidence to impeach without hearing from these four witnesses, why isn't that enough here in the Senate?

SCHUMER: The bottom line is that there are some who say, there are some who may think it's enough. We all have to wait and not prejudge the case. But there are many who have said these are serious charges, but I'm not sure there's enough factual evidence to merit impeachment.

These people know better than anybody else the facts. There is no reason on God's green earth, why they shouldn't be called and testify unless you're afraid of what they might say.

QUESTION: If you can't reach an agreement with McConnell on this, the Democrats will force a motion on the floor when it comes to --

SCHUMER: We'll cross that -- I am hopeful, Leader McConnell has finally said that he wants to sit down and talk. And I am very eager and willing to do that. As I said, we want to come up with a fair trial with the facts come out without dilatory actions, and without making this into a circus of unrelated conspiracy theories of either the right or the left. Last question.

QUESTION: Senator, on that last point, there are Republicans, including perhaps even the President of the United States who have some ideas for witnesses that they might want to call. Are you willing, if Senator McConnell were to say, sure, we'll do some your witnesses, but you have to be do some of ours. Are you willing to --

[14:25:04]

SCHUMER: Again, I think the trial should be focused on the fact that the House presented, not on conspiracy theories that some established liar puts forward and then someone says, let's hear if the conspiracy theory is correct, which has no relevance to the facts here. So we ought to stick to the facts.

And if there are other witnesses who might have witnessed what happened, who might have very strong evidence on the facts that the House presented, I certainly want to hear who they are. Thank you, everybody.

BALDWIN: All right, so here's the deal. You've been listening to Chuck Schumer. He's the Minority Leader over on the Senate side, and let me just play this out for everyone.

So on the House side, we know the Democrats have the majority. We know where the votes are going to go. The President of the United States will be impeached this Wednesday and we will take that full here live on CNN.

When you think ahead though to January and what exactly is going to happen, will this be a circus? Will there be live witnesses on the wish list, as you just heard from Senator Schumer on these four key witnesses who he believes have the most direct contact with the President of the United States who could actually answer the question as far as why did he withhold that that aid to Ukraine?

They being the Democrats want these four witnesses to testify? Mitch McConnell, who let's remember, you know, the Republicans get to call the balls and the strikes because they are the majority party on the Senate side, they get to say yes or no. So it's a matter of the stakes being so high and how this will go and

is anyone willing to work with one another as in the Republicans and the Democrats, and that is yet to be determined. Abby Philip and John Dean have been listening to this along with me and Abby, just for the Senate side, for Chuck Schumer, he wants these four witnesses, right, including John Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney.

He did this PR blitz this morning, you know, and he was asked, including by our own John Berman about hey, would you be -- would you consider this idea of allow, say a Hunter Biden to testify, right? He has been at the center of all of this. And if he has nothing to hide, then why not allow for a Hunter Biden testimony in exchange for, say, a John Bolton? Is that totally just a bananas concept?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I don't think it's a bananas concept. I do think that Chuck Schumer opens himself up to questions like that by putting witnesses so front and center to his strategy on this, but it is potentially something that Democrats have to be prepared for that if perhaps they want some really high value witnesses in a Bolton or Mulvaney, or perhaps others who are on you know, even a Mike Pompeo, who is a part of this whole thing, that maybe they might need to trade that for something of value to Republicans.

But I also think that there's risk for Republicans in calling Hunter Biden. I mean, there's a real question about how that actually reasonably advances their case that the President did nothing wrong. You know, are they going to be able to prove something about Hunter Biden than the setting of this Impeachment Inquiry? I'm not really sure.

But it's clear to me though that what Schumer is trying to do is put McConnell in a box here. He is trying to say, well, for weeks and months, Republicans have been arguing that all of this has been happening in secrecy or that that needs more information. But if you need more information, let's have more witnesses.

If you are concerned about secrecy, let's have these people testify in person. And I think it really does up the pressure because the Democrats know they only need to get four Republicans to come along with them to essentially control the rules, and there are at least three moderates or people who have expressed some kind of openness to this whole Impeachment Inquiry, and they perhaps only need to really bring along one Republican and there are several who are retiring.

So there's a lot of opportunity here for Democrats to maybe put some pressure on Republicans and get a little bit more of what they want.

BALDWIN: John Dean, what do you think of -- I mean, the headline there was having Chuck Schumer refer to the Republicans as calling this as a cover up, and Abby summed it up perfectly as to how he is putting them in this box.

But how do you see it from your perch? How do you see -- how do you see where this could go between a Mitch McConnell and a Chuck Schumer? DEAN: I think it was very wise of Schumer to issue the letter to lay

out the parameters of what really is a fair trial. The witnesses are probably somewhat debatable. They are fair witnesses. They're fact witnesses and they did mention in the letter or he did mention in the letter that they would entertain Republican heavy witnesses if they had relevant information to the issues in the Articles of Impeachment.

Hunter Biden doesn't have such information. Joe Biden doesn't have such information. So they really are trying to keep it very focused. I think it's fair and as I've said all along, I think the leverage is if the House says we're not going to send the Articles over if this isn't a fair trial.

PHILLIP: Well, I do -- can I just comment ...

BALDWIN: Yes, please, Abby, go ahead

[14:30:10]