Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Slams House Democrats' Rushed And Rigged Inquiry; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Speakers After House Impeaches Trump. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 19, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It is long past time for Washington to get a little perspective.

President Trump is not the first the president with a populous streak, not the first to make entrenched elites uncomfortable. He's certainly not the first president to speak bluntly, to mistrust the administrative state or to rankle unelected bureaucrats. And heaven knows he's not the first president to assert the constitutional privileges of his office rather than roll over when Congress demands unlimited sensitive information. None of these things, none of them is unprecedented.

I'll tell you what would be unprecedented, it will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate literally hands the House of Representatives a new partisan vote of no confidence, that the founders intentionally withheld destroying the independence of the presidency.

It will be unprecedented if we agree that any future House that dislikes any future president can rush through an unfair inquiry, skip the legal system and paralyze the Senate with a trial. If the House could do that, it will under this precedent.

It will be unprecedented if the Senate says second-hand and third-hand testimony from unelected civil servants is enough to overturn the people's vote. It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate agrees to set the bar this low forever.

It is clear what this moment requires. It requires the Senate to fulfill our founding purpose. The framers built the Senate to provide stability, to take the long view of our republic, to safeguard institutions from the momentary hysteria that sometimes consumes our politics, to keep partisan passions from literally boiling over. The Senate exists for moments like this. That's why this body has the ultimate say in impeachments.

The framers knew the House would be too vulnerable to transient passions and violent factualism. They needed a body that would consider legal questions about what has been proven and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires. Hamilton said explicitly in Federalist 65 that impeachment involves not just legal questions but inherently political judgments about what outcome best serves the nation. The House can't do both. The courts can't do both. This is as grave an assignment as the Constitution gives to any branch of government, and the framers knew only the Senate could handle it.

Well, the moment the framers feared has arrived. A political faction in the lower chamber have succumbed to partisan rage. A political faction in the House of Representatives has succumbed to a partisan rage. They have fulfilled Hamilton's philosophy that impeachment will, quote, connect itself with the pre-existing factions, enlist all their animosities and there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. Alexander Hamilton.

That's what happened in the House last night. The vote did not reflect what had been proven. It only reflects how they feel about the president. The Senate must put this right.

[10:05:00]

We must rise to the occasion. There's only one outcome that is suited to the posity of evidence, the failed inquiry, the slapdash case. Only one outcome suited to the fact that the accusations themselves are constitutionally incoherent, constitutionally incoherent.

Only one outcome will preserve core precedence rather than smash them into bits in a fit of partisan rage because one party still cannot accept the American people's choice in 2016. It could not be clearer which outcome would serve the stabilizing institution preserving, fever-breaking role for which the United States Senate was created and which outcome would betray it.

The Senate's duty is clear. The Senate's duty is clear. When the time comes, we must fulfill it.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: There you saw the Senate majority leader delivering about a half-hour rebuttal in effect to the House impeachment case, calling it the thinnest case for impeachment in the country's history and saying, Poppy, that this, if the Senate were so accept this, invite, in his words, impeachment of every future president.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: Yes, that's right. You know, what struck me was near the end, Jim, when he said historians will regard this as the great irony of our era that so many who profess concerns for our norms and traditions who are willing trample those norms and traditions, essentially for what they want. And this is what we were talking about this morning that if the articles for impeachment are not transferred in a timely manner as they were in the last impeachment of President Clinton, then this is what Republicans will push Democrats on.

SCIUTTO: I will though note as McConnell accused the Democrats of pure partisanship there, I want to play McConnell from 20 years ago on CNN when the question of witnesses in the Senate trial of Bill Clinton came up. He sang a different tune at the time. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCONNELL: Every other impeachment has had witnesses. It's not unusual to have witnesses in a trial. And I think we're handling this in exactly the appropriate way under the Constitution and it will end soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So, there, McConnell 20 years ago when a Democratic president faced impeachment, supported witnesses in a Senate trial. Today, he is calling requests like that unacceptable and the request of a political faction in the House. We've seen some flips like that from a number of participants in this.

HARLOW: We certainly have, right? Lindsey Graham, McConnell, Schumer on the other side, right?

All right, Manu Raju is back with us, Nia-Malika Henderson, Kaitlan Collins also joins us.

All right, guys, Kaitlan, let me begin with you. We haven't heard your voice yet this morning on this. What is your read, because Schumer is going to follow shortly here after with his remarks?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And what you heard from the Senate majority leader there was essentially firing admissive at the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in what she said last night, the questions about these articles of impeachment. He's essentially saying the House made a mess of this and the Senate is going to clean it up, essentially laying out his view for that is going to be though.

Of course, we're wondering when those articles are going to be transmitted. And last night, as Manu can Raju attest to since he was there, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't commit to when that will happen. And the hours after that, you saw these McConnell aides saying that that's essentially a gift to him because he has no desire for this Senate trial to happen. He's actually been in some arguments with the White House about witnesses and how they're going to conduct this.

And so it will be interesting to see how Pelosi herself responds to this. We know Schumer is going to speak soon and the two of them were supposed to meet this morning. So, of course, that's something that the White House is keeping a close eye on, the press conference from the Senate majority leader.

SCIUTTO: Manu, is there any possibility that Republican senators would join Democratic colleagues in voting by a simple majority vote to call witnesses, a John Bolton, for instance, Mick Mulvaney, or is McConnell signaling there he's got his caucus in line?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think it's a sign that he does believe that his caucus will be united. Ultimately on the question of acquittal, I don't think there's a discussion or concern about losing virtually anybody in the caucus, maybe a couple who have been thinking about it but no one is signaling that they will vote to convict the president.

But, yes, that is the key question, whether or not any will break ranks on some of the more procedural questions, the votes that will ultimately happen on the floor assuming a trial takes place to get the Mick Mulvaneys, the John Boltons of the world, because you just -- you do need just four Republicans to break ranks in order for a majority to vote in favor of subpoenaing or bringing forward any of these witnesses.

[10:10:06]

But, at the moment, these members trust what McConnell is doing. The Republican senators have their faith in the Republican leader to try to cut a deal first with Chuck Schumer on the overall rules of the process and also -- and go on the process. And then they're going to wait until after the trial takes place before they make those decisions about whether to vote to subpoena additional witnesses.

So McConnell will have to continue to do this to keep his caucus in line if the trial proceeds, if some of the members do want to hear key testimony. So that's going to be a question that he's going to have to grapple with in the coming weeks to keep Republicans united.

HARLOW: Nia, can you set the record straight for us because we keep hearing that back in '98, '99 in the Clinton impeachment, senators agreed 100-0 on the rules. That's true. But then when the second sort of phase of that when it came to agreeing on witnesses being called or not, they didn't, did they?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: No. And I -- my sense, you heard from Mitch McConnell there sort of a walk down history lane in terms of what other impeachments have looked like. Impeachable offenses are what the majority of Congress says they are, right? And they can decide what the rules are. There have only been a handful in history. He says this is the shortest. Johnson's was only a couple of days.

I am the daughter of a historian. I love history, but in many ways --

SCIUTTO: Stand by, we've got Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responding.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): It is only the third time in our nation's history that the president of the United States has been impeached. The articles of impeachment charge that President Trump abused the powers of his office by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections, not for the good of the country but to benefit himself personally. The articles also charge that the president obstructed Congress in the investigation of those matters. Together, these articles suggest the president committed a grave injury to our grand democracy.

The conduct they describe is very much what the founders feared when they forged the impeachment powers of the Congress. The founders in their wisdom gave the House the power to accuse, the Senate the power to judge. We are now asked to fulfill our constitutional role as a court of impeachment. Now that the House of Representatives has impeached President Trump, the nation turns its eyes to the Senate.

What will the nation see? Will the nation see what Alexander Hamilton saw, a body of government with confidence enough to preserve unawed and uninfluenced the necessary impartiality, or will the nation see the Senate dragged into the depths of partisan fervor.

The nation just witnessed how the Republican leader sees his role in this chapter of our history, demonstrating both an unfortunate dissent into partisanship and demonstrating the fundamental weakness of the president's defense.

Leader McConnell claimed that the impeachment of President Trump is illegitimate because the House voted along party lines. Forgive me, but House Democrats cannot be held responsible for the cravenness of the House Republican caucus and their blind fealty to the president.

Leader McConnell claimed the impeachment was motivated by partisan rage, this from the man who said proudly, I am not impartial, I have no intention to be impartial at all in the trial of President Trump. What hypocrisy.

Leader McConnell accused the House Democrats of an obsession to get rid of President Trump, this from the man who proudly declared his number one goal was to make President Obama a one-term president.

Leader McConnell claimed that Democrats impeach the president for asserting executive privilege. President Trump never formally claimed executive privilege. He claimed, quote, absolute immunity, unquote. The White House counsel wrote a letter stating simply that the administration would not comply with any subpoenas.

[10:15:00]

Leader McConnell claimed that the Democrats', quote, obsession with impeachment has prevented the House from pursuing legislation to help the American people. Leader McConnell knows very, very well that the House Democratic majority has passed hundreds, literally hundreds of bills that gathered dust here in the Senate, condemned to a legislative graveyard by none other than leader McConnell himself who proudly called himself the grim reaper.

Members of the Senate -- members of the 116th Senate have been denied the opportunity to legislate by Leader McConnell. We aren't even allowed to debate the issues that would impact the American people, healthcare, infrastructure, prescription drugs. We could have spent the year debating these issues. We weren't doing impeachment. Leader McConnell has chosen not to focus on these issues and to put none of these bills on the floor, and as he reminds us often, he alone decides what goes on the floor.

Leader McConnell claimed that the House did not afford the president due process. The leader knows well that President Trump refused to participate in the process despite invitation and blocked witnesses and documents from Congress in unprecedented fashion.

Leader McConnell claimed that the House ran, quote, the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. I know that that's the Republican talking point, but here's the reality. Leader McConnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history. His plan, to prevent House managers from calling witnesses to prove their case is a dramatic break from precedent.

We heard a lot about precedent from the leader. Never has there been a presidential impeachment trial in which the majority prevented the House managers from fairly presenting their case, to have witnesses explain their knowledge of the alleged malfeasance. Will Leader McConnell, breaking precedent, strong arm his caucus into making this the Senate impeachment trial of the president in history that heard no, no witnesses?

We ask, is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under oath. Is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under oath? If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents? We believe the House case is strong, very strong. But if the Republican leader believes it's so weak, why is he so afraid of relevant witnesses and documents which will not prolong things very long in our proposal, four hours for each witness?

It is true as the leader has said that the framers built the Senate to provide stability and to keep partisan passions from boiling over. However, their vision of the Senate is a far cry from the partisan body Senator McConnell has created.

I hope America was watching the Republican leader deliver his speech. I truly do. Because most glaring of all was the fact that Leader McConnell's 30-minute partisan stem winder contained hardly a single defense of the president of the United States on the merits. Almost none defended President Trump, because they can't.

In the wake of an enormous amount of evidence uncovered by House investigators, much of it in the form of testimony by top Trump officials whom the administration tried to silence, the Republican leader could not rebut the accusations against the president with facts.

The Republican leader complained about the process. The Republican leader made many partisan and inflammatory accusations about Democrats, but he did not advance an argument in defense of the president's conduct on the merits. That in and of itself is a damning reflection of the state of the president's defense.

[10:20:00]

Our goal in the Senate above all should be to conduct a fair and speedy trial. I have proposed a very reasonable structure that would do just that. Four witnesses, only those with direct knowledge of the charges made by the House, only those who could provide new, relevant and potentially illuminating testimony, strict time limits on each stage of the process to prevent the trial from dragging out too long. It's eminently reasonable. It's eminently fair. A group who had no partisan bias would come up with this type of proposal.

I have yet to hear one good argument why less evidence is better than more evidence, particularly in such a serious moment as impeachment of the president of the United States. In leader McConnell's 30-minute screed, he did not make one argument why the witness and documents should not be part of the trial.

President Trump protests that he did not receive due process in the House impeachment inquiry. Due process is the ability to respond to charges made against you and present your side of the case. The president was invited to provide witnesses and provide documents at every stage of the process. He chose not to.

Still, Democrats are offering the president due process again here in the Senate. The witnesses we suggest are top Trump appointed officials. They aren't Democrats. We don't know if their testimony would exculpate the president or incriminate him, but their testimony should be heard. If the president's counsel wants to call other witnesses with direct knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed, we say they should be able to do so.

President Trump claims he wants due process. I suspect he would rather hide or name call because if he really wanted due process, he could get it easily. One phone call to Leader McConnell telling him to let his aides testify, one phone call to his chief of staff telling him to release the documents to Congress, both of these actions would let the truth come out.

I ask again, can none of the president's men come defend him under oath?

To my Republican colleagues, our message is a simple one. Democrats want a fair trial that examines the relevant facts. We want a fair trial. The message from Leader McConnell at the moment is that he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, no intention of getting the facts.

Despite our disagreements, I will meet with Leader McConnell soon to discuss the rules, but each senator will influence whether the Senate lives up to its constitutional duty to serve as an impartial court of impeachment. In the coming weeks, Republican Senators will face a choice. Each Republican senator will face a choice. Do they want a fair trial or do they want to allow the president free reign. Each senator must ask him or herself, do you want a fair trial or do you want the president to do whatever he wants regardless of rule of law, regardless of the consequences to this great nation.

The nation turns its eyes to the Senate. What will it see? The president of the United States has spent the past several months telling Congress it has no right to oversight, no right to investigate any of his activities, that he has absolute immunity, that Article II of the Constitution gives him, quote, the right to do whatever he wants, unquote. That's the president's words. Past Senates have disagreed with such views and strongly and proudly stood up for the notion that the president is not omnipotent. Democrats have done it, Republicans have done it, and often presidents of their own party.

[10:25:00] The Senate has said in the past that the president serves the people, not himself, that he is not a king. Will it do so again or will it shirk from that responsibility.

If the Republicans proceed with the majority leader's scheme to sweep these charges under the rug and permit the president to ignore Congress, they will be creating a new precedent that will long be remembered as one of the Senate's darkest chapters. It will be remembered as a time when a simple majority in the Senate sought to grant two new rights to the president, the right to use the government for personal purposes and the right to ignore Congress at his pleasure.

Here, I agree with Senator McConnell. Moments like this are why the Senate exists. If the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors and the Congress can do nothing about it, not even conduct a fair tribunal where his conduct is judged by dispassionate representatives of the people, then the president can commit those crimes with impunity. This president can. Others can.

I have little doubt that if we tell the president that he can escape scrutiny in this instance, he will do it again and again and again. Future presidents will take note and may do worse. And the most powerful check on the executive, the one designed to protect the people from tyranny will be erased.

This chapter in our history books could be a lesson about the erosion of checks and balances in our modern age, or it could be a proud reaffirmation of those founding principles. This chapter in our history books could be about the overpowering partisanship of our times, or it could be about the Senate's capacity to overcome it. Again, moments like this are why the United States Senate exists.

I yield the floor.

SCIUTTO: You've just seen there two contradictory views of the role of the Senate in this impeachment process. Both senator -- the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, framing this as a historic moment, a threat to the Senate if it moves forward, a threat to the presidency if it moves forward. Schumer on the other side saying that future presidents will take note and may do worse if they're not held accountable by this process.

He also took a shot at McConnell for the lack of witnesses in the Senate trial saying, if the president's case is so weak that men -- that the president's men can defend him under oath, why won't they defend him under oath, Poppy.

HARLOW: Yes, that's the line that struck me the most as well, Jim, and that's what I wrote down. But let's talk to our guests about it again. Manu Raju, Nia-Malika Henderson, Kaitlan Collins are here.

The thing is, Nia, he says that now, Schumer, but he did not want witnesses in the Senate trial during Clinton's impeachment. Both men agree on the gravity of the moment and what this will say about the Senate but they also have reversed, you know -- almost traded places from how they felt in the late '90s.

HENDERSON: Yes. I mean, these impeachments have a sort of situational nature to them and you do see people flip-flopping in terms of what their positions are.

One of the things that was also striking about what Schumer there said there was he noted that Mitch McConnell never actually defended the president's behavior, right? He made it seem like that this impeachment was the result of unbridled partisan passions from Democrats who just don't like the president's behavior, that they think he's too mean, that he's mean to reporters, that he's mean to NFL players, and that is what has brought this about. Of course that is not what actually happened. The president brought this on himself by pressuring a foreign leader to interfere in an election. And so that I thought was interesting.

And so at some point these two men will hash out what they think the rules will be. I think Mitch McConnell obviously is in the majority and has most of the power here in terms of determining what this Senate trial will look like, and you have the Democrats now in some ways sounding like the Republicans were sounding on the House side and saying this is going to be an unfair process and prevailing on the president to have those four people testify in this trial. We doubt that it will happen but we'll see.

[10:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Inconsistent, Kaitlan Collins, with Republicans but also the president's strategy so far is to attack the process. But also interestingly, I think we should note this that McConnell also attacked --