Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Some Iowa Voters are Committing to Candidates; Republicans Argue to Force White House Compliance with Congress; State Department Calls Russia Sanctions Unnecessary. Aired 10:30-11a ET
Aired December 20, 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]
M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- two women on stage went with forgiveness. I actually think we have that sound bite, so let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will ask for forgiveness. I know that sometimes I get really worked up --
(LAUGHTER)
-- and sometimes I get a little hot. I don't really mean to.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'd ask for forgiveness any time any of you get mad at me. I can be blunt, but I am doing this because I think it is so important to pick the right candidate here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEE: This was just such a striking moment to me. You know, we talk so much about the fact that there are multiple women in the race this time. We talk about how in 2016, one barrier was broken, a woman was chosen as the nominee, the presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.
But still, a moment like this indicates that for women and including women candidates running for office, they are held to a different standard or they at least feel like they're held to a different standard, right? Having to either apologize for or explain away the reasons that they sometimes get emotional or worked up or whatever word you want to use.
And I thought particularly for Elizabeth Warren, it was striking because just a few weeks ago, she sent out a fundraising e-mail that said, I'm angry and I own it.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Yes.
LEE: So she wants to own it --
HARLOW: So true. LEE: -- but she also felt like she had to apologize at the same time.
HARLOW: Yes. It was so telling. I'm glad you brought it up, M.J. Thank you.
LEE: Thanks.
HARLOW: Appreciate it. Have a good holiday.
LEE: You, too.
HARLOW: All right. With just 45 days until the Iowa caucuses, voters in that state are starting to narrow down their choices for the Democratic nomination. Our national correspondent Gary Tuchman spent last night with that same group of voters, watching the debate. He's in Iowa for us this morning.
Good morning, Gary. What I find so interesting is, you've watched this debate with the same group of voters every time. What did you learn?
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Every time, Poppy, all six times. And we watched it with 11 voters here in Johnson County, Iowa. They do think that all the candidates did well last night. But the one who took their top honors is currently not one of the top-tier candidates.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCHMAN (voice-over): We've watched all the presidential debates with the same group of Iowa Democrats.
TUCHMAN: Who do you think did best in this debate?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amy Klobuchar.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Klobuchar.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar and Biden.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Klobuchar and Biden.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar and Warren.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Klobuchar.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar and Warren.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sanders.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Klobuchar.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Amy Klobuchar was picked by 10 of these 11 Johnson County, Iowa Democrats.
ROSEANNE (PH) COOK (PH): She just comes across as having thoughtful specific answers, and not rehearsed talking points.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the other ones were, you know, bickering, she was there to defuse it and bring focus back on why they were there.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Another consensus among this group? The belief that Joe Biden had his strongest debate.
RUTHINA MALONE, IOWA VOTER: His answers were direct, he stayed focused and just reminded me of the eight years under Obama. I mean, some -- that brought those memories back for me.
TUCHMAN: What was the most important moment of the debate for you?
COOK (PH): Well, this is a little bit of a macro perspective, but I've been waiting a long time for a woman president in the United States. I'll be 75 on Monday, so --
TUCHMAN: Not the oldest one.
COOK (PH): -- I -- thank you. I am so excited to see two women on that debate stage who just did so well, and I am so proud of them and I think either one of them would be a magnificent president.
ELIAS (PH): The most important part of this debate was very important to me personally as a transgender person, hearing Bernie Sanders say that his health care plan would explicitly cover trans health care.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): When we first met these Democrats, all were undecided. Temple Hiatt (ph) decided on Elizabeth Warren a few debates back. Roseanne (ph) Cooke (ph) picked Amy Klobuchar before the last debate. And now, six more are no longer undecided.
TUCHMAN: OK. Janice?
JANICE WEINER, IOWA VOTER: Caucusing for Amy Klobuchar.
TUCHMAN: Lukecia (ph)?
LUKECIA (PH): I'll be caucusing for Warren.
TUCHMAN: OK. Elias (ph)?
ELIAS (PH): Bernie Sanders.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Notably, three others have chosen a candidate who did not qualify for this debate.
TUCHMAN: Ruthina?
R. MALONE: I'll be caucusing for Cory Booker.
TUCHMAN: And you have a shirt with you. R. MALONE: Yes, I do.
TUCHMAN: OK, Leslie?
LESLIE CARPENTER, IOWA VOTER: Cory Booker.
TUCHMAN: Cory Booker, and you have a shirt also.
And your husband, Scott?
SCOTT CARPENTER, IOWA VOTER: Cory Booker.
TUCHMAN: Cory Booker. And why Cory Booker?
L. CARPENTER: Because he's endemically kind, intelligent, and he wants to unite the country.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Mira Bohannan Kumar, Eugene Malone, and Ed Cranston remain undecided.
TUCHMAN: Are you going to stay undecided until the last second?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got to stay tuned.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCHMAN: The voters in this group say they have been pleased with the tone in all these debates. They say it's a positive contrast to another candidate in the race, that candidate being President Donald Trump -- Poppy.
HARLOW: That was fascinating to see, Gary. I'm so glad you guys do that. Thank you very much. Have a good holiday.
TUCHMAN: Thank you.
[10:34:50]
HARLOW: All right. A group of former lawmakers and officials are taking sides against the White House in a subpoena face-off with Congress. Next, why this group is different from others that have taken on the president.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARLOW: All right. So a group of legal experts and former members of Congress are calling out the White House for stonewalling House subpoenas. This group is different than other critics on that front. In an important way, they are figures of the Republican Party, according to Politico.
And while they are weighing in on a case that isn't directly related to the president's impeachment, it could still impact it. With me now, two former Republican congressmen who signed this brief,
Peter Smith and Mickey Edwards. Good morning to you both. It's fascinating, I read through all of it. Thank you for being here.
[10:40:07]
When you look at this, the brief that you guys have signed onto is urging a federal appeals court to reject the White House's argument here that direct staffers like White House Counsel Don McGahn can just ignore Congress' call and the House's call and subpoena.
Let me read part of it. Quote, "The Trump administration maintains that its claim of absolute testimonial immunity for McGahn is not an unusual one. A Justice Department opinion written during the Obama administration notes such a stance as far back as the Nixon era."
Is this, Congressman Smith, though, different from what the White House did? Because there was stonewalling during Fast and Furious.
PETER SMITH (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I think that what you're charting with the history of this, if you go back to Nixon, is the steady erosion -- some say it's been given away, others say it's been taken -- of congressional authority as -- as one of the three parts of government.
And to me, Article II is absolutely clear. It is arrogated to the Congress, not to the courts, to be able to compel testimony and compel documents, period. And so I am less concerned about what practice has become and what all the opinions are, and more about saying, isn't it time for the Congress to assert itself, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, whatever the issue? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
HARLOW: Well, Congressman Edwards, if you go back, all the way back to the Nixon administration, those Nixon staffers did end up testifying.
MICKEY EDWARDS (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, you know, it went -- whether it was the Clinton impeachment, whether it was Nixon, whether it was Thomas Jefferson, the executive has always understood that a congressional subpoena carried weight, that you were supposed to respond to it, that the job of Congress was to oversight the -- have oversight over the executive branch.
The problem is that members of Congress today don't remember that. And they don't assert their -- their authority. And so what we tried to do with this lawsuit was to not just address the issue on the table, but to make the point that the president and his officials in the executive branch are not above the law, that the Congress has a right to ask for and to get responses to their subpoenas --
HARLOW: Well --
EDWARDS: -- and to be able to ask questions. And -- and --
HARLOW: And there -- there is a -- EDWARDS: -- so it's a fundamental question.
HARLOW: -- and you're -- it is a fundamental question. And, Congressman Smith, there is a fundamental power that Congress has that it has not used, and that is the power of inherent contempt, right? The sergeant-in-arms, and it has not been exercised. Would you advocate for that, given all the stonewalling that's happened?
SMITH: I think that the fact of the matter is that inherent contempt is in fact a tool that can be used and if the situation is dire enough, should be used.
I have great respect for the fact that it wasn't used in this case, precisely because we have somebody -- the difference I make between Richard Nixon and the current president, Donald Trump? Nixon had -- he knew when he was breaking the law. He knew when he was doing the wrong thing. And when he got caught, he admitted -- he came to it.
That is not the case today, apparently. And so I think the exercise of inherent contempt could have led to an absolute current and present crisis in which there were law people on both sides -- law men and women on both sides -- protecting and trying to seize.
So I have respect for the fact that given this president's temperament and his, I think, amorality when it comes to power, if not immorality, I think they were wise not to use it. I do think it is -- it is -- it should and can and should be used appropriately when Congress is frustrated.
HARLOW: Congressman Edwards, the McGahn issue and the subpoena issue there is separate from impeachment. But it's related in a way. And on that subject, you have said something that really struck me. And that is that if the Senate trial is going to be in your mind, you know, a phony one or not a, quote-unquote "fair trial," you're OK with seeing articles of impeachment not sent or held indefinitely from the Senate? I mean --
EDWARDS: Well, that's right. That --
HARLOW: Help make the case. Because isn't that abdicating the constitutional process laid out for impeachment?
EDWARDS: No, because -- no. Because, Poppy, what's happening here is that, consider a trial where the defendant is working with the -- the defendant in this case being Donald Trump, Donald Trump is working with the majority leader of the Senate, the jury -- they're the people who are supposed to be trying the case -- and telling them what to do.
Mitch McConnell has been very clear about that. You know, he's taking his orders from the White House. He's taking his orders from the person they're supposed to be judging.
So no, I think this is a case where what the -- what Nancy Pelosi is doing -- she may hold it up a little while, she may hold it up a long time -- is that, let it stand. He has been impeached. That is a serious rebuke. And instead of letting Mitch McConnell and the people who are just party hacks, you know, go along with just simply saying --
[10:45:20]
HARLOW: Well --
EDWARDS: -- oh, well, we're going to acquit him, nothing to see here and move on, folks.
We don't need to let that happen.
HARLOW: Again, this is coming -- if people are just joining us -- from two former Republican members of Congress.
Let me ask you both. We have one minute left, so 30 seconds each. Let me start with you, Congressman Smith. What is your message right now to the current Congress?
SMITH: The fact of the matter is that you're in a situation -- and we've all been in them -- when you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's a tough decision. But if I could have one -- one thing I would say, stand back, look in the mirror, understand you're going to look at that face every morning for the rest of your life. You want to be proud of the person you're looking at. Look at the facts, look at the Constitution and stand fast.
HARLOW: Congressman Edwards?
EDWARDS: Well, I totally agree with that. Remember the oath of office that you took. And you know, life goes on if you lose your election --
(LAUGHTER)
-- life goes on. You know, don't be afraid to do the thing that you were elected to do, which is to stand up, conduct oversight, do what's right, obey the Constitution. If that causes you to lose your election, go do something else.
But as Peter said, look in the mirror. Know that you did the best you could because this is your legacy, and people who are being complicit in this cover-up are going to live with that for the rest of their life. That's going to be the lead sentence in their obituary, and they need to keep that in mind.
HARLOW: Congressmen, thank you both for being with me. I appreciate it. Have a good holiday.
SMITH: Thank you.
EDWARDS: Thank you, Poppy.
HARLOW: Thanks so much.
Up next, why the Trump administration is calling a bipartisan effort to deter and punish Russia for election interference and a host of other issues, unnecessary. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:51:48]
HARLOW: The Trump administration is pushing back on Congress over sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election and, of course, for the annexation of Crimea. CNN has learned that the State Department has sent a letter to Congress, expressing strong opposition to what is a bipartisan piece of legislation.
This matters. Let's dig into it. Lauren Fox joins me now from Capitol Hill. So what is the White House objecting to? Because this is not some partisan bill.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: It's not. In fact, it was introduced back in February and Lindsey Graham, one of the president's closest allies, is one of the lead sponsors of this piece of legislation. It would essentially hammer Russia with additional sanctions. It would also require a two-thirds vote of the Senate, Poppy, if the president decided to leave NATO.
And this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. But as you know, this is something that the administration is warning could be a huge problem for them. They're arguing in a 22-page letter from a senior State Department official that this is an unnecessary piece of legislation. And in fact, it's a need, they argue, of, quote, "significant changes."
Now, Lindsey Graham made it clear, he might be open to some changes. But he also said he still needs this bill to be meaningful. It passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee, it has not been scheduled yet for a floor vote. We expect that could come in the new year.
But obviously, tension here between the Trump administration and of course Congress. And this isn't the only time this has happened when it comes to Russian sanctions -- Poppy.
HARLOW: Yes, no, it's not. That's a very good point. OK, we'll see where this goes, if the president would even consider vetoing it if it gets to that point. Lauren, thanks very much.
Coming up, something very cool. Look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAMILLE SCHRIER, VIRGINIA MISS AMERICA CANDIDATE: Now, this reaction is very simple. It only produces three things: water, oxygen gas, and heat. The heat --
HARLOW (voice-over): Her talent? Science at the Miss America Pageant. So were the judges impressed? That's next.
SCHRIER: -- has progressed. Now the next time that you see a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, I hope you impress your friends with what you've learned. Keep an eye out because science --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Camille Schrier, Virginia!
(APPLAUSE)
HARLOW: Pretty exciting night. The new Miss America is a biochemist from Virginia. Camille Schrier won the crown last night. So what did she do for her talent on stage? Nothing short of a science experiment. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHRIER: Now, this reaction is very simple. It only produces three things: water, oxygen gas, and heat. The heat is formed from the breaking of the bonds within the hydrogen peroxide molecule, and the oxygen gas is trapped in the dish soap, which forms the foam, so we can see how far the reaction has progressed.
Now, the next time that you see a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, I hope you impress your friends with what you've learned. And keep an eye out, because science really is all around us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: How great is that? Congratulations to her. She said she hopes to break stereotypes about what it means to be Miss America in 2020. Congratulations to all of them. Miss Georgia was the first runner-up.
Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm Poppy Harlow. Jim will be back with you Monday, I'm going to take a week off with the kids and I'll see you after the holidays.
"AT THIS HOUR" with Kate Bolduan starts now.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR, AT THIS HOUR: Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan. Thanks so much for joining me.
After a truly historic week in which Donald Trump became the third U.S. president to be impeached, Washington is quiet this morning. Congress has packed up and left town for the holidays, leaving huge uncertainty about what the heck is going to happen when they return.
At the center of it --
[11:00:00]
