Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Gears Up For Historic Impeachment Vote Tomorrow; Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Speaks After Democrat Demand For Senate Trial Witnesses. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 17, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: Top of the hour. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

Just one hour from now, a final committee showdown on impeachment, the House Rules Committee setting the debate rules ahead of tomorrow's impeachment vote in the full House. The big question, did the president use political pressure for personal gain?

HARLOW: And today, we are seeing signs that the pressure campaign may not be over yet. The president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, accusing former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch of obstructing justice.

Yovanovitch testified that she was removed from her post after she pushed back on attempts by the president and his allies to get dirt on Democrats from Ukraine.

So let's begin though on impeachment, what happens in the House now before the full vote tomorrow. Our Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju is on the Hill.

And, Manu, before we get to sort of the process of today, you just caught up with House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff. What does he have to say about Rudy Giuliani?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He was sharply critical. He said this is just another example how the administration, how through Rudy Giuliani and the like are continuing, in his view, trying to push a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. elections.

And I also asked him about whether or not he wants Rudy Giuliani to come forward and testify in the Senate trial for President Trump, but he did say he would rather see other witnesses come forward, and he demanded documents be produced by the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, it just goes to show that the plot continues. The effort to secure foreign interference in our election hasn't stopped. That was clear when the president took the White House lawn a month-and-a-half ago. But what I found most striking about Giuliani's comments was the admission, the confession that they needed to push Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So I asked him did he want Rudy Giuliani to come forward in a Senate trial. He said that he would rather see Mick Mulvaney come forward, John Bolton come forward as well. Of course, that's been part of the Senate Democrat demand. But, first, the House, of course, needs to move and have those impeachment votes, those historic votes on the floor tomorrow both on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Today, the House Rules Committee, in just about an hour, is going to take up the formal rules setting, the procedures and the parameters for the floor debate, and that's going to be a contentious back and forth. And, ultimately, Democrats will approve that rule in what is expected to be a lengthy and contentious session before the final step when the House takes those historic votes. And all those signs are they do have a majority vote, which is all they need to impeach the president. Guys?

HARLOW: Okay, yes. Manu, thank you very much for that.

SCIUTTO: Let's speak more about this now with CNN's Michael Warren. He has done extensive reporting on the president's personal, Rudy Giuliani.

Michael, Rudy Giuliani, he was a U.S. attorney. He knows that you have a Department of Justice that the U.S. could use to conduct a reasonable investigation if there is substance there. When we see him now tweeting about this and continuing these trips to Ukraine, I mean, is he basically conducting ask and admitting to soliciting foreign election interference?

MICHAEL WARREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's not how he would characterize it. He's, again, argued extensively for the past several months talking with me and other reporters that he's doing this on behalf of his personal client, President Donald Trump. And, of course, he's talked about his -- both publicly and privately -- that he did push for Yovanovitch to be removed. He thought she was bad. That's what he's been saying for months.

What we now know is that Rudy Giuliani is sort of admitting here that his push to remove Yovanovitch was really tied to the fact that she, he claims, was interfering in his work on behalf of the president. So what we're really seeing here is a sort of mixing of official business, him talking with the president, him talking with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with the personal and, really, political business that he claims he was doing on behalf of the president.

HARLOW: Despite the damage that this could cause to the president or maybe it will help him, I don't know, but the president isn't really giving any indication here that he has an issue with what Giuliani's doing. He said most recently, I think, he doesn't know a lot about what Giuliani found on his trip yet, but he understands there might be a lot there.

Would Giuliani do this without the full support of the president?

WARREN: That's a good question. Giuliani spoke with our colleague, Dana Bash, just a few minutes ago earlier this morning. He wouldn't say whether he's sort of gotten the okay from the president. But, look, these are two really close men. They've known each other for years. The president sort of trusts Rudy, you know, implicitly, and they have conversations all the time.

So we can sort of draw conclusions from that that Rudy Giuliani's continued, you know, going over to Ukraine just a couple of weeks ago, that he claims this is something the president is certainly aware of.

[10:05:08]

SCIUTTO: Tomorrow, the full House is going to vote on allegations against the president. The core of which basically what Giuliani was up to, shadow foreign policy, pressuring a foreign ally to get political dirt, Giuliani appears to be continuing the same search for political dirt on a potential opponent for the president. I just wonder, you've known him for a number of years. You've covered him for a number of years. Has he taken the message from Mueller, impeachment, that this is acceptable, that there are no real consequences for this kind of thing?

WARREN: Look, Giuliani really claims here that what he's doing is on behalf -- is on behalf of the president and for the good of the country. He, again, talks with no evidence that Yovanovitch was corrupt, and this is a part of his work to sort of help the president.

He claims he's working for the president pro bono. So he really is here, I think, does not see any problem with the work he's doing. I think the development, this impeachment, and also we should remember the Southern District of New York investigating some of Rudy Giuliani's business ties, I think it's clear he did not expect it to go this far.

But He's maintaining and I think we can see from the words he's been saying to CNN and to The New York Times and others that he maintains this is proper work that he should have been doing and that the improprieties on the part of Democrats in Congress pushing this impeachment.

HARLOW: Michael Warren, thank you. We really appreciate it.

Joining us now to talk about all of that and all that's ahead, David Gergen, former presidential adviser to four presidents, Shan Wu, former federal prosecutor. Good morning to you.

Shan, let me begin with you and ask you what the American people should expect out of today because most people aren't familiar with the work of the Rules Committee. It's usually not broadcast across, you know, most television stations.

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. This is a real moment in the limelight for the Rules Committee. What's important for us to remember and for our viewers to remember is this is going to determine the rules for the House vote. It's not determining the rules for the trial.

HARLOW: Right.

WU: And so they will be considering issues such as the length of the debate and even what kind of amendments might or might not be allowed to the articles. And there's also going to be an opportunity for Republicans to basically criticize, and their first opportunity to criticize the Judiciary Committee's report. So it's likely going to be a fairly contentious hearing, won't be any live witnesses in terms of fact witnesses or testimony, and that may actually contribute a little bit to fatigue on the part of the audience.

SCIUTTO: All Right, David Gergen, let's talk about fatigue. Because the trend line on public support for impeachment is not a good one for Democrats. CNN's latest polling just out this morning shows nationally now just 45 percent of Americans believe that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office. That's down from 50 percent. But look at the breakdown among Democrats, Republicans and in independents because the biggest decline there in support, Democrats from 90 to 77 percent. That is not statistically insignificant.

In effect, did Democrats fail to make the case convincingly?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the polls are all over the place. You have to look more at averages. There's another poll out today which has among Democrats 85 percent support.

SCIUTTO: True. But if you look nationally, and CNN, there's a poll of polls, I believe the average is 46 percent support, so not above 50 percent. We did have Democrats come on this broadcast and others say, listen, wait until we have the public hearings. When Americans see the evidence, that will change minds.

HARLOW: And it didn't.

GERGEN: And I think it's really important to acknowledge that the country has not been aroused in the way the Democrats hoped. And I think they're disappointed they didn't get more support and they're still looking for ways to strengthen it. They would argue in response, hey, wait a minute, we've got a lot more support for this than it was for President Nixon at a similar moment. He was down (INAUDIBLE) being removed from office. So I think we have to let each one play out its own way.

I think the critical issue right now for Democrats is what happens to the moderates, the centrists who allowed them to get the House back. Are they now in sufficient jeopardy that Democrats actually could lose the House? We don't know that yet. But I don't think so.

SCIUTTO: That's remarkable.

GERGEN: There are a number of these people whom I think are taking very principled stands. I'm particularly interested in looking at the freshmen who are veterans who have come back. This is a new group of people in the House representing the middle, and there's some of them like Max Rose here on Long Island, and Abby Spanberger in Virginia. They're very tough districts and they are now voting to impeach and they're putting their whole careers on the line.

But that's what they came to do. That's what they swore they would do, that, as veterans, they would stand up for what's right, it's not just about party.

HARLOW: That's a good point. All right, so let's just circle back, if we could, to the issue of Rudy Giuliani and what he is doing on these trips and at the direction of whom, or is this just all freelancing.

[10:10:08]

Jim just spoke to Republican Congressman Francis Rooney, and here is his take on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what Rudy Giuliani is doing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. FRANCIS ROONEY (R-FL): What was in the article about Giuliani today is extremely disturbing and I think one of the -- it argues, again, for slowing down, putting these guys under the threat of perjury under oath and testify and find out what's all the things he was doing over there. Why was he so interested in getting Ambassador Yovanovitch anyway?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: I mean, that is a really telling remark, Shan, especially from a fairly conservative Republican member of Congress, albeit he's retiring. Where is the line, I mean, between this being just okay, work for his client, the president, and foreign election interference?

WU: It seems pretty clearly that it's foreign election interference because Giuliani very helpfully keeps telling us that he's doing this for his client. I assume he must do it at the direction of his client. And so Giuliani is really creating a huge problem, a whole sided (ph) problems for himself. But for his client and Republicans, he's basically engaging in ongoing wrongdoing of the same kind, so he's really daily producing more evidence potentially for the impeachment.

And in addition to that, he seems so fixated on the idea that he's doing this pro bono. Well, Pro bono is still something of value, particularly on hourly rates (ph), and that's going to be something of value for campaign finance issues. So he's just creating more and more difficulties, it seems perhaps, really just because of his own ego. SCIUTTO: David, is he really creating problems for his client? I mean, what are the consequences? I mean, Yes, there's an impeachment vote but it seems the president is emboldened rather than chasing (ph).

GERGEN: I think that's right. I think the president is going to come out of this altogether embittered towards the Democrats and emboldened about the way he conducts the presidency. And we're going so see more instances when they're going to push up against the line and over the line.

There's one scene in the past few days which I think tells it all, and that is when Giuliani was flying home. As his plane touched down on the tarmac, he got a call from the president. Did you get anything?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERGEN: And Giuliani says more than you can imagine. What does that tell us? That tells us the president is directly running this show, and also he's intensely interested.

SCIUTTO: Yes. It makes this story line that no one has proved a connection between the president Giuliani and the shadow foreign policy efforts somewhat, you know, difficult to believe, you might say.

HARLOW: Gentlemen, thank you both very, very much. We'll follow this closely.

So how will tomorrow's debate on impeachment play out, tomorrow's vote in the full House? In minutes a key House panel will lay out the game plan and a member of that committee will join us.

Also, we will soon know the sentencing of a former Trump campaign aide and top witness in the Mueller probe, Rick Gates. Prosecutors say he cooperated extensively. Could we learn about any more involvement in the investigation?

SCIUTTO: And the very future of the Boeing 737 Max jet is now doubt. Production has been suspended, no date on recertifying the plane to fly.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, his response to Senator Schumer, let's listen.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It appears that the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and that a slap dash work product will be dumped on us over here in the Senate.

I'll have much more to say to our colleagues and to the American people if and when the House does move ahead. But as we speak today, House Democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent.

The House can turn back from the cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome.

This morning, Madame President, I just want to speak to one very specific part of this. Over the weekend, the Democratic leader decided to short circuit the customary and collegial process by laying basic groundwork in advance of a potential impeachment trial. The preferable path would have been an in-person conversation which nonetheless I still hope to pursue. Instead, he chose to begin by writing me an 11-paragraph letter on Sunday evening, deliver it by way of the news media and begin a cable television campaign a few hours later.

The Democratic leader's letter is an interesting document from the very beginning. For example, in the second of its 11 paragraphs, our colleague literally misquotes the Constitution. That error actually aligns with our colleague's apparent confusion about some of the deeper questions. I'll come back to that in a moment.

At first, our colleague's letter appears to request that a potential impeachment trial adopt similar procedures to the Clinton impeachment trial back in 1999. Now, I happen to think that's a good idea. The basic procedural framework of the Clinton impeachment trial served the Senate and the nation well, in my view. But the problem is while the Democratic leader (INAUDIBLE), he says he wants a potential 2020 trial to look like 1999. He goes on to demand things that would break with the 1999 model.

In President Clinton's trial, we handled procedural issues in two, two separate Senate resolutions that passed at different times.

[10:20:01]

The first resolution passed unanimously before the trial. It sketched out basic things, like scheduling, opening arguments and the timing of a motion to dismiss.

Other more detailed questions about the middle and the end of the trial including whether any witnesses would be called were reserved for a second resolution that was passed in the middle of the trial itself. As a matter of fact, we passed it only after a number of Democrats, including Senator Schumer himself voted to dismiss the case. They got a motion to dismiss before the Senate had even decided whether to depose a single witness.

Instead of a tried and true 1999 model, start the trial and then see how senators wish to proceed, the Democratic leader wants to write a completely new set of rules for President Trump. He wants one single resolution up front instead of two, however many are needed. He wants to guarantee up front that the Senate hear from very specific witnesses instead of letting the body evaluate the witness issue after opening arguments and senators' questions, like back in 1999.

Very tellingly, Madame President, our colleague from New York completely omits any motions to dismiss the case like the one he was happy to vote for himself as a new senator back in 1999. Almost exactly 20 years ago today prior to the Senate trial, Senator Schumer said this on television, direct quote. This is what he said. Certainly any senator according to the rules could move to dismiss, which is done every day in criminal and civil courts throughout America, motions to dismiss are made. And if a majority vote for that motion to dismiss, the procedure could be truncated.

That was Senator Schumer in January of 1999. But now, the same process that Senator Schumer thought was good enough for President Clinton, he doesn't want to afford President Trump. Go figure.

Look, most people understand what the Democratic leader is really after. He is simply trying to lock in live witnesses. That is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. But one thing, the 1999 version of Senator Schumer vocally opposed having witnesses even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers, hours of questions from senators and a failed motion to dismiss.

I can't even pre-judge that he favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the Senate. He even has articles in hand. Moreover, presumably, it will be the House prosecutor's job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case.

So why does the Democratic leader here in the Senate want to predetermine the House impeachment manage its witness request for them before the House has even impeached the president? Might he just might he be coordinating these questions with people outside the Senate?

Here's one possible explanation, maybe the House's public proceedings have left the Democratic leader with the same impression they've left many of us, that from everything we can tell, House Democrats slap dash impeachment inquiry has failed to come anywhere near, anywhere near the bar for impeaching a duly elected president let alone removing him for the first time in American history. And so those who have been eagerly hoping for impeachment are starting to scramble.

Chairman Adam Schiff and House Democrats actively decided not to go to court and pursue potentially useful witnesses because they didn't want to wait for due process. Indeed they threatened to impeach the president if they had to go to court at all.

[10:25:00]

That intentional political decision is the reason why the House is poised, poised to send the Senate the thinnest, least thorough presidential impeachment in our nation's history. By any ordinary legal standard, what House Democrats have assembled appears to be woefully, woefully inadequate to prove what they want to allege.

So now, the Senate Democratic leader would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats' homework for them. He wants to volunteer the Senate's time and energy on a fishing expedition to see whether his own ideas could make Chairman Schiff's sloppy work more persuasive than Chairman Schiff himself bothered to make it.

So, Madame President, this concept is dead wrong. The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it. The trajectory that the Democratic leader apparently wants to take us down or before he's even heard opening arguments could set a nightmarish precedent for our institution. If the Senate volunteers ourselves to do House Democrats' homework for them, we will only incentivize an endless strain of dubious partisan impeachments in the future, and we will invite future Houses to paralyze future Senates with frivolous impeachments at will.

This misunderstanding about constitutional roles brings me back to something I raised earlier. The Democratic leader's letter to me by way of the press literally misquoted the Constitution. Senator Schumer wrote that we should exercise, quote, the Senate's sole power of impeachment under the Constitution with integrity and dignity. He attributed to the Senate, quote, the sole power of impeachment.

Well, there's his problem, Mr. President, that's the role the Constitution gives actually to the House, not to the Senate. They give it to the House. Article I, Section II says the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't sound ambiguous to me.

If my colleague wants to read about our responsibilities here in the Senate, he needs to turn to the next page. Article I, Section III says the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. We don't create impeachments over here, Mr. President. We judge them. The House chose this road. It's their duty to investigate. It's their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election.

As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House's obligation to, quote, build an ironclad case to act. That's Speaker Pelosi. It's the House's obligation to build an ironclad case to act, end quote. If they fail, they fail. It's not the Senate's job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice.

The fact that my colleague is already desperate to sign up the Senate for new fact-finding, which House Democrats themselves were too impatient to see through, well, that suggests something to me. It suggests that even Democrats who do not like this president are beginning to realize how dramatically insufficient the House's rushed process has been.

Well, look, I hope the House of Representatives sees that too. If House Democrats' case is this deficient, this thin, the answer is not for the judge and jury to cure it over here in the Senate. The answer is the House should not impeach on this basis in the first place. But if the House plows ahead, if this ends up here in the Senate, we certainly do not need jurors to start brainstorming witness lists for the prosecution and demanding to lock them in before we've even heard opening arguments.

[10:30:00] I still believe the Senate should try to follow the 1999 model two resolution, two. First --