Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sen. McConnell Argues Against Witnesses in Senate Impeachment; Rick Gates to Be Sentenced; Live Coverage as Chuck Schumer Argues for Witnesses. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 17, 2019 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00] SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I still believe the Senate should try to follow the 1999 model: two resolutions, two. First thing's first. The middle and the end of this process will come later. So I look forward to meeting with the Democratic leader very soon, and getting our important conversation back on the right foot.

And now, an entirely different matter. There remains a great deal of outstanding legislation the Senate must complete for the American people before we adjourn for the holidays.

I was glad to see yesterday's overwhelming bipartisan vote to advance the conference report to the 59th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act. We moved it here in the Senate, 76 to six.

For months, unprecedented partisan delays threatened a nearly six- decade tradition of expressing Congress' bipartisan commitment to our national defense. But with the Senate's final vote later today, we'll finally put this vital legislation on the president's desk. I look forward to voting to pass the NDAA today by another overwhelming bipartisan vote for our service members and the critical missions they carry out.

Of course, the Senate needs to follow up the Defense Authorization Bill with appropriation measures, and fund our national defense and domestic priorities. Ensuring the federal government makes careful use of tax dollars is an uphill battle by definition, so it's critical that we plan in advance and deliver clarity for the full year ahead rather than careen from one short-term stopgap to another.

This point is especially crucial for our armed forces. Underwriting the commitments we make to the security of American interests and our allies are the investments we make in a 21st century fighting force.

And our nation's top military commanders have (ph) --

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: So we're going to come out --

MCCONNELL: -- made (ph) crystal-clear, this requires stable and predictable annual funding. It's as simple as that.

SCIUTTO: The Senate majority leader there, delivering his response to the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's request for -- specifically for witnesses to testify, key witnesses, in the Senate trial. He did not explicitly say no, though his broader comments there seems to make it clear he's not going to allow that.

As you see quoted on your screen there, it's not the Senate's job in his view, to get to guilty --

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- saying that that work should have been done in the House, which is becoming the kind of go-to argument for Republican lawmakers now in response to those requests.

HARLOW: Absolutely. He said new fact-finding that the House was too impatient to do. It's pretty clear that he's not going to allow what Schumer's asking for.

SCIUTTO: True.

HARLOW: Manu Raju is here with us, David Gergen is here for some analysis as well.

Manu, to you first. He didn't explicitly say it, I suppose, but he all but said no thanks, Mr. Schumer.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's correct. He is not going for the Schumer proposal, which of course was to hear from four witnesses who had not come forward before the House impeachment inquiry because the White House had blocked their testimony: Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney's deputy Robert Blair, as well as John Bolton, the former national security advisor, and a current top official at the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, Michael Duffy.

Those are people who have not come -- some of them had got subpoenas, but the Democrats decided not to go to court in the House to force their testimony because the Democrats were concerned that it would just drag on for months and months in court, and it would ultimately be part of an effort in their view to obstruct Congress.

And they believe they had more than enough evidence to impeach the president on what they already had, so they made the calculation to move forward on impeachment.

Now, what the Republicans are trying to do is use that now against the Democrats, and saying because you didn't go that route, we're not going to do the job that you were supposed do, and that's what Mitch McConnell said on the floor just now. He said, we will not go forward and be a fact-finding body in the Senate trial. He claimed this would create a --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

RAJU: -- quote, "nightmarish" precedent in the Senate, although there have been very few Senate trials in the nation's history. So they're really making their own rules on how they can do this trial, they can decide how to do it however they so choose. That is really up to the senators to set the rules here. And the decision by the leader is very clear. The rules, he will not allow any of these witnesses to come forward. He wants a short trial, he wants this done quickly.

Ultimately, though, the question's going to be whether or not there are four senators -- Republican senators -- who do want to hear from some of these witnesses. If they break ranks, if they vote for the 47 Democrats on the floor to compel testimony, that's going to play out in the --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

RAJU: -- ahead when the trial actually takes place. So that's something to watch. But at the moment, the leadership is saying no witnesses.

SCIUTTO: I mean, McConnell quote -- hearkened back to the Clinton impeachment, saying, of course, there were no live witnesses called then. We should note that, you know, the House was not blocked from interviewing key witnesses during that investigation, as happened here by the White House.

[10:35:10]

I do, David Gergen, want to play a comment from a soon-to-retire Republican lawmaker who was on this broadcast, just in the last hour, about his view about whether McConnell should accept Senator Schumer's demands. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. FRANCIS ROONEY (R-FL): I think I've gone from being open and wanting to hear all the facts to being extremely frustrated and disappointed that the Democrat process didn't slow down, didn't get the primary sources, didn't fight executive privilege and do it like Congressman Rodino did Watergate and build the kind of national consensus it takes to succeed, if that's what they want to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I did ask him to be clear. I said, should Senator McConnell accept Senator Schumer's demand that these key witnesses -- Mulvaney, Bolton, et cetera -- testify? And he said, in his words, definitely, they should. But why is it only that a retiring congressman can state those words?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Because a retiring congressman doesn't have to face the backlash in the -- and, you know, back home. And maybe lose office. So it -- but it, nonetheless, is good to have alternative voices out there, we've been missing in the House proceedings.

I did think that what we've been hearing the last couple days is the opening salvos in what's going to be -- ultimately be a contentious fight --

HARLOW: Yes.

GERGEN: -- in the Senate over this. And that is, Schumer had his views and McConnell has pushed back on him. And McConnell is saying, look, hey, look, Schumer, you know, you said you wanted the model we used in the Clinton days. And now you're throwing that out and introducing new days of doing this.

HARLOW: Well, but the same is true for McConnell.

GERGEN: Yes.

HARLOW: Yes, Schumer, you know, said no new evidence, no new witnesses in the Clinton impeachment, and now he wants them.

GERGEN: Right.

HARLOW: But to quote Mitch McConnell on this network --

GERGEN: Right.

HARLOW: -- on "LARRY KING LIVE" in 1990, quote, "It's not unusual to have a witness in a trial. It is certainly not unusual to have witnesses in an impeachment trial."

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERGEN: I don't think he's saying no to witnesses ever. I think what he's saying is, in the middle of the trial, that's when we can consider this.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERGEN: That's what we did back in the Clinton days. He isn't --

HARLOW: So wait until it gets started?

GERGEN: -- yes, he's -- he's shutting the door for now. He doesn't want to call the witnesses in advance.

SCIUTTO: Well, it's a bit of a convenient argument, right (ph)?

GERGEN: Oh, it's very convenient (ph).

SCIUTTO: Because of course, they did call those witnesses in the House investigation, they were blocked repeatedly by the White House.

GERGEN: Yes. What I also found interesting about what he said was that his -- he's framing the argument overall against the Senate moving. And he's obviously doing the White House's bidding. He's obviously, as he said, a couple days ago, I'm going to take my cues from the White House.

But he's also picking up on that argument by the lawyer in the House -- in the House hearings, the lawyer who represented the Republicans, who was saying this is the thinnest evidentiary trail we've ever had for an impeachment. He's picking up on that theme -- SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERGEN: -- and throwing (ph) -- it's clear they're going to use that. Now, so what we're all looking for, what arguments are they going to make as Republicans, what arguments are they going to make as Democrats? Are the -- I can't imagine the Republican senators will be shouting the way Jordan and some of the other (ph) people (ph) --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: In a word, they're going to make process arguments --

GERGEN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- that's what we saw in the House --

(LAUGHTER)

David Gergen, Manu Raju up there on the Hill --

HARLOW: Thanks, guys.

SCIUTTO: -- thanks very much.

[10:38:15]

Rick Gates, remember him? Deputy Trump campaign chairman? He cooperated with Robert Mueller's investigation. Will he get a break at his sentencing? Any minute now, we should learn the sentence of the former Trump campaign aide. And remember, he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Any moment now, former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates will be sentenced in federal court. This, after pleading guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. His attorneys are asking for a more lenient sentence of just probation. And prosecutors say they will not oppose it. This, we should note, after Gates worked extensively with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, cooperating with that investigation.

TEXT: Who Is Rick Gates? Former Trump Deputy Campaign Manager; Former Inaugural Deputy Chairman; Pleaded guilty to conspiracy, lying to FBI; Testified against Paul Manafort and Roger Stone

HARLOW: A major witness for the Mueller probe, testifying against several in the president's inner circle including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump confidante Roger Stone.

Our Shimon Prokupecz is all over this. And as I understand it, Shimon, we are minutes away from knowing his fate?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Possibly. The court hearing, the sentencing is under way now. Glowing reviews, probably the best way to explain how prosecutors there are describing him to the judge, indicating how important his cooperation was to their investigations. Not only the Mueller investigation, but keep in mind, he cooperated in the Roger Stone trial, I was there, he testified.

Other investigations that he helped the Department of Justice in, and they are essentially going through that. Of course, he also helped them. He was the big first cooperator in all of this. It was during the Manafort investigation and the indictment of Manafort, he was indicted with Manafort. And it was after that that he began to cooperate and he became very useful for the government in many parts of their investigation.

And as you said, both his attorney and prosecutors here are asking that he get probation, essentially. We'll see what the judge does ultimately here. But that is because of his cooperation, they're saying he should essentially walk out a free man today.

SCIUTTO: House Democrats, they're still pushing for grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation --

PROKUPECZ: Right.

SCIUTTO: -- even as things move forward very quickly with impeachment. Are they getting any closer or is this never going to happen?

PROKUPECZ: So it could happen, right? So this is now before the circuit judge. Of course, this was on the appeal by the Department of Justice after a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the Department of Justice to release this material. The Department of Justice appealed it, and so now that's where this is. It could get decided -- these things don't tend to work quickly, but it can.

[10:45:17]

What's interesting here is that the House members, the attorneys for the House, are arguing that they need this information for this impeachment trial. They need the grand jury information, they want to be able to use it at their impeachment trial. I think that's kind of an interesting argument because so far, you know, there's nothing in these charges in the articles of impeachment that relate to the Mueller investigation.

But certainly, they're arguing to the judge that they need this information, and the judges here in the appeals court, in the circuit court are going to decide at some point. We don't know when, this could move quickly, it cannot, we'll see. Does this happen after the impeachment trial? It's not going to be of any use to them if it does, but we'll see.

SCIUTTO: Shimon --

PROKUPECZ: Sure (ph).

HARLOW: Thanks very much. We appreciate it. SCIUTTO: In a matter of minutes, a key House panel is set to debate

the guidelines ahead of tomorrow's full House vote on impeachment. This will set the rules for how things will play out tomorrow. We're going to be right on top of it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Just minutes from now, in that room, the House Rules Committee will begin discussing the rules for tomorrow's full House debate and vote on articles of impeachment against the president.

And with no time constraints for members, this debate could be long, could be contentious. Imagine that.

[10:50:01]

HARLOW: Yes, imagine that. For more on the next phase of impeachment and what this all means for the state of our republic, we are joined by former Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich. Good morning, Governor Kasich. It's always good to have you, especially when it comes to sort of --

JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you.

HARLOW: -- the big picture and the implications of this on the country, beyond the Senate trial. How are you feeling about all of this, going into today?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KASICH: Well, the first thing is, I've had flashbacks about going to the Rules Committee. This is something that the public really doesn't understand. So they meet in this little room, there aren't any cameras, usually reporters in the back. It's very cramped and it's very partisan.

So if you're the Republicans in the majority, you have the chairman, you decide what the rules are going to be. And vice-versa with the Democrats. So then they come out with a set of rules.

And what does that mean? That means down on the House floor, they have set the terms of the debate: who can offer amendments, what the amendments look like. It's -- it's an interesting process. And I have flashbacks because sometimes it was bad and sometimes it was good.

In terms of this whole business, what I'm most concerned about is the siloed nature of our country. You know, the tribal nature of our country, people lined up, one against the other.

And what I'm particularly concerned about is the fact that the truth has increasingly become relative. You know, well (ph), the facts, you know, if the facts don't comport with what I think, then the facts are wrong. And so we're heading down a railroad track here where we can't agree, sometimes, whether it's even day or night.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KASICH: And that's very concerning about the long-term future and the -- and sort of the culture of our country. We've got to snap out of this.

SCIUTTO: Even on basic facts.

I want to ask you about what has become the essential GOP argument here as we head towards a Senate trial -- you heard it from Majority Leader McConnell -- is that, you know, we're not going to call these witnesses that are central to the Democrats making their case here, you know, folks with firsthand knowledge in the White House, you should have called them in the House.

But of course they did call them in the House and the White House blocked it, sending it to the courts, knowing that that would be a long process --

KASICH: Yes, but that's the interesting thing.

SCIUTTO: -- they're --

KASICH: The White House blocked --

SCIUTTO: -- you know, what is your --

KASICH: -- the White House blocked it.

SCIUTTO: The White House blocked it. And I did have a Republican lawmaker on here who, in the past, has had his mind at least open to impeachment who said the same, you know --

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- that they should have waited for the courts to decide. Democrats' argument is, we wait for the courts to decide, we'll be right in the middle of the next election, you know, with more foreign interference. How do you come down on this?

KASICH: Well, Jim, I wish they had somehow expedited the process. I mean, maybe this would have been what they should have done at the beginning.

I mean, a couple things. One, I think that in the beginning, they should have moved expeditiously -- hat being the Democrats -- to have an impeachment inquiry, which might have created an expedited process, so the courts would have determined this.

Secondly, I really wish the Democrats had reached out to people like, for instance, Rooney and said, look, you know, this is a serious issue. Let's see if we can work together. Maybe they would have gotten -- they wouldn't have gotten anywhere, but I think that would have been smart.

I obviously have always believed that the more information the better. And for the Senate to say, well, we're not going to do anything because that was the House's job? Come on, the reality of it was they didn't want to tie the thing up for six months.

It just has not been a very good process, you know, because it's been so partisan. And that's different than what happened in these other investigations and impeachments that we've seen throughout our history. It's -- it's frustrating because you want to hear from the people that can provide the information --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KASICH: -- particularly John Bolton, in my opinion.

HARLOW: But --

SCIUTTO: To be clear, they could testify of their own free will because as a lot of --

HARLOW: Of course.

SCIUTTO: -- as a lot of witnesses did in the House, you know, a lot of them defied the White House to speak. So anyway, there's that.

HARLOW: We have 30 seconds.

KASICH: Well, the Bolton thing is interesting because I keep thinking that he would like to testify. But for some reason, he's not been compelled to do so.

HARLOW: Yes.

KASICH: And I think his testimony is very, very important.

HARLOW: OK. Governor Kasich, thank you. We'll have you on again very soon --

KASICH: Thank you.

HARLOW: Let's hop over --

KASICH: Happy holiday, merry --

HARLOW: -- to the Senate -- Merry Christmas to you too.

Here is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, responding to McConnell.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Well, if we were allowed to show a video here on the Senate floor of the Republican leaders' appearance on Sean Hannity's program last week, it would expose the fallacy of his argument.

Leader McConnell, unfortunately, skipped his first step, when he began publicly talking about the rules of a Senate trial, telling Hannity that he'd be taking cues from the White House and his idea for how to conduct a trial, long before any conversation, which he still hasn't had with me.

My letter was intended as a good-faith proposal to kick-start the discussions that Leader McConnell has so far delayed in scheduling. I still expect we'll sit down and discuss trial parameters, despite his public appearances on "Fox News."

But let me say this. I listened to the leaders' speech. I did not hear a single sentence, a single argument as to why the witnesses I suggested should not give testimony. Impeachment trials, like most trials, have witnesses. To have none would be an aberration.

Why is the leader, why is the president so afraid of having these witnesses come testify? What are they afraid the witnesses would say? I'd like to hear Leader McConnell come to the floor and give specific reasons why the four witnesses we've asked for shouldn't testify.

I don't know what they'll say. They might have some things, they're President Trump appointees. They might have something exculpatory to say about President Trump, or they might not. But they certainly were the four key people who saw exactly what was going on. What is Leader McConnell afraid of? What is President Trump afraid of, the truth?

But the American people want the truth, and that's why we have asked for witnesses and documents, to get at the whole truth and nothing but.

This week, the House of Representatives will vote on articles of impeachment against the president of the United States. If these articles pass the House, the Constitution dictates that the Senate serve as a court of impeachment.

Conducting an impeachment trial, Mr. President, is a tremendously weighty and solemn responsibility, entrusted to us by its founders. If such a trial is to happen, Democrats strongly believe it must be fair. And the American people must regard it as fair. A fair trial is one that allows senators -- a fair trial is one that allows senators to get all the relevant facts and adjudicate the case impartially.

In the letter I sent to Leader McConnell, I proposed a very reasonable structure for a fair trial. I've sent that same letter to every one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican. There is a grand tradition in America: speedy and fair trials. We want both.

The leader seems obsessed with speedy and wants to throw fair out the window, to simply repeat the arguments that were made in the House and Senate when there are witnesses and documents that could shed light on what actually happened, why not have them? Let's hear a single word of answer to that. We've heard none.

And in fact, the American people want it as well. A poll today in "Washington Post," ABC, 72 percent of Americans want to hear these witnesses, 64 percent of Republicans do. The American people are fair. They don't want a cover-up, they don't want concealment.

This is weighty stuff. The House has put together a very, very strong case that the president abused his power and wanted to let a foreign power interfere in our elections. That goes to the heart of what our democracy is and what the founding fathers warned against. And now, to not allow witnesses to come forward, who would be able to

discuss what actually happened? If we don't have them, the trial won't be fair. The four witnesses we proposed have direct knowledge of why aid to Ukraine was delayed, and the administration's request for Ukraine to conduct two investigations for political reasons. They have direct knowledge of those facts.

We don't know, as I said, what kind of evidence they'll present. It may be incriminating, it may be exculpatory, it may influence how senators vote, it may not. But they certainly ought to be heard, by virtue of their senior positions in the White House.

Each witness we named was directly involved in the events that led to the charges made by the House. We've also proposed subpoenaing certain records, including e-mails by certain key officials that are directly related to the charges brought by the House.

[10:59:58]

I believe these documents are also of great importance to making sure senators have the information necessary to make a fully informed decision, this terribly weighty decision.