Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump "Mad As Hell Demands Immediate Senate Trial; CNN Poll Shows 76 Percent Of Americans Say Economy Is Good; Donald Trump Is Venting His Rage At A Christian Magazine. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 20, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Playing this game so publicly, you know, the Navy and the Army kind of pride themselves on discipline. So there will be some punishments there. But the Army Navy, the heads coming out in issuing statements saying that look, even though this was just a game, the perceptions are important and that the fact that this gesture could be misinterpreted, that should have been known.

So again, they're going to try to work to educate on that issue, but it turns out that this was all just a game, Brianna.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, Ryan, thank you so much. And that is it for me. NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

[14:00:30]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Brianna, thank you very much. Hi, there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN on this Friday afternoon. Thanks for being here.

All right, here's the story today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi extends an invitation to the President who is quote-unquote "mad as hell" at her. Speaker Pelosi has just officially asked President Trump to give his annual State of the Union address that's next February 4th and it comes hours after reports of the President's anger about being in essentially impeachment limbo.

This is what he tweeted, "I want an immediate trial!" But both the House and the Senate cleared out of Capitol Hill for the holidays, so it's apparent the President is not going to get what he wants before Christmas, and that specifically is to know the House will actually be sending the two Articles of Impeachment to the Senate triggering the impeachment trial.

Speaker Pelosi has made it clear, she has not done that yet, delaying the handoff while expressing concerns if senators will actually hold a fair trial. But Trump supporters, they are calling her out for being unfair. Here's more from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Bad just left President Trump. He is mad as hell that they would do this to him and now deny him his day in court. The reason they're denying him his day in court to know their case sucks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: But one scholar is speaking out about Speaker Pelosi's delayed hand off. Harvard Law Professor, Noah Feldman testified for the Democrats during the Impeachment Inquiry, and he says if the House doesn't send the Articles over to the Senate, that means the President has not technically been impeached.

Let me rephrase what he wrote in Bloomberg, quote, "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the President. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all."

So let's go straight to CNN legal analyst Ross Garber. He teaches impeachment law at Tulane Law School. And so, Ross, do you agree with this line of thinking that he wouldn't technically be impeached?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So this Professor is very creative. He is a smart guy, very creative. But somehow the Speaker of the House and you know CNN and "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" and virtually everybody on the planet somehow missed this.

You know, the Constitution says that the House has the sole power to impeach. They passed Articles of Impeachment. The Speaker of the House said the President is impeached. You know, I don't think this argument, you know, while creative really goes anywhere.

Now, having said that, the Senate rules do say that the actual start of the trial is triggered by the delivery of the Articles of Impeachment and the appearance of House managers.

So there's some argument there, but to be clear, the Senate is now fully in control of when this trial starts.

BALDWIN: OK. But just make me make sure so we're all on the same page. Because sources tell CNN that House Democrats, Senate Democrats are preparing for a trial as soon as the week of January 6th, but until the House actually hands over the articles, Ross, the Senate would still be at a standstill, correct?

GARBER: Well, under the current rules, but remember, the U.S. Supreme Court said in very clear language in a case called Nixon versus United States case of a Federal judge's impeachment said that the Senate is totally in control of its trial rules.

And so right now, the Senate trial rules say exactly that. So if the trial doesn't start until managers appear and the Articles are delivered. But the Senate could set a deadline for those things. They could also change the rules. They could also just act and dismiss the charges.

But for right now, I think, you know, Senator McConnell, the Senate Republicans are fine to have this debate going on.

BALDWIN: OK. If you play it forward, waiting and holding on to the Articles and, you know, essentially playing this game of who blinks first, what are some potential options of how this could play out on the Senate side once the Articles are then handed over?

GARBER: Yes. So once the Articles are handed over, and, you know, again, right now, you know, I think Senator McConnell and the majority in the Senate are fine to have this discussion go on.

Once the articles are actually handed over, then that does trigger a number of procedural steps. But the big thing that we're looking for is the adoption of the rules and procedures to say how this trial is going to go. Right now, the Senate is very vague on how it all happens. Will there be witnesses? How many witnesses will there be? Will there be opening arguments?

[14:05:08]

GARBER: How long will the opening arguments go? In Clinton, the Senate adopted a set of rules that provided for long opening arguments and not only after those arguments that the Senate then turn to the question of whether additional witness testimony was necessary.

And then in the Clinton case, the Senate decided that no, there was going to be no need for a live witness testimony, but they did provide for the taking of three depositions.

So there are a lot of questions about how this trial is actually going to happen, and that's what's being negotiated now.

BALDWIN: We'll wait and see what they decide. Ross Garber for now. Thank you very much for of course, all of your impeachment expertise.

Despite President Trump's threats, meanwhile, that the economy would tank with his impeachment, Americans say it's actually been the best it's been in two decades and the numbers prove it.

Look at these numbers. A new CNN poll out today show 76 percent of Americans think economic conditions are good. Only 22 percent think they're poor. That is the highest rating by the way since 2001.

Add to that the fact that 55 percent of Americans approve of President Trump's trade deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, that deal USMCA is how it is referred to just passed the House yesterday and economic growth is ticking steadily upward. The latest GDP numbers show America's economy growing by 2.1 percent in the third quarter.

So with me now, opinion columnist for "The Washington Post" and CNN political commentator, Catherine Rampell. And so this week may not have been a highlight of President Trump's in his lifetime. But when you look at those numbers, and you're also thinking all right, the election is about to be kind of like a blink away.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

BALDWIN: If you are a Democrat, are you shaking in your boots a little bit? RAMPELL: This is a challenge for them, right? Americans do rate the

economy very strongly and in fact, the candidates were asked about this last night. What is your message to America if the public is generally happy with where the economy stands now?

Now, you could argue, as I and many others have that Presidents get too much credit when the economy is good, too much blame when the economy is bad. But the fact that I have to say that over and over again suggests it's not the most compelling argument politically.

If you listen to what the candidates said, they basically argued that look, economic growth has been pretty good, but the gains have not been equally shared. And there is poll data to suggest that that message could be a winning one amongst the American public overall.

BALDWIN: Because when I'm wondering, when you look at the 76 percent, superficial level, obviously it's awesome for Americans in terms of jobs, but isn't there nuance in the sense that all right, people may be employed, but they may not be thinking their economic situation is peachy, thus President Trump may not be the saving grace, correct?

RAMPELL: Right. So if you look at for example, a recent poll from Pew Research Center, they asked people to evaluate the economy overall, but also do you think current economic conditions are helping the wealthy? Helping the middle class? Helping the poor? Et cetera.

BALDWIN: Yes.

RAMPELL: And most people said yes, they are helping the wealthy, but most people said no, they are hurting the middle class and they are hurting the poor and about half of people said, families like mine are not benefiting. Families like mine are being hurt.

BALDWIN: So it's not so significant.

RAMPELL: And in fact, even Republicans, a decent portion of Republicans said that -- a plurality of lower income Republicans in this survey, which was people earning under $40,000.00 a year said current economic conditions are hurting my family.

So this suggests that there is kind of a toehold for Democrats to talk about this, to talk about the fact that wage gains have not really materialized. They're about the same in terms of year-over-year growth in inflation adjusted terms.

Today, as they were before Trump took office, GDP growth, it's nothing to sneeze at. It's about two percent. But GDP growth averaged two percent during Obama's second term, and we spend, of course $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy in the meantime.

So there is a narrative here that I think is borne by the facts that suggests that even if the overall numbers are good, they're not that much better or substantially different from those under Obama, and a lot of people feel like they're missing out.

BALDWIN: I did want to ask you about the tax cuts just before we let you go, because you have been quite opinionated on how you feel about the Republicans and their tax cuts, and I'm just wondering, though, despite what you have certainly written about and spoken about, why isn't that reflected in the polls?

RAMPELL: Because the tax cuts did not actually help the middle class and the poor that much. Most people got some amount of tax cut, but the amount was so small for the typical family that it wasn't really just discernible from regular week to week fluctuations in their paycheck.

It was heavily weighted towards the wealthy, towards corporations, which Americans even before this thought paid too little in taxes. And of course, a lot of the other promises that were made about them, that they would pay for themselves, that they would supercharge growth, that they would lead to raises have not been borne out.

So this was not the saving grace that Republicans claimed it would be despite the fact that they are now arguing for even more tax cuts. This has not been a political winner for them.

BALDWIN: OK, Catherine, thank you very much. Catherine Rampell.

President Trump is starting off his holiday with an attack. Just days before Christmas. He is venting his rage at a Christian magazine.

[14:10:12]

BALDWIN: Plus from wine caves to selfie strategies, the best and the worst moments from the last debate of the year.

And from suggesting a distinguished Congressman is in hell to making fun of a former Vice President who used to have a stuttering issue. What has happened to empathy and decency and America? I want to talk about that today.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:25]

BALDWIN: Franklin Graham, the son of the late evangelist, Billy Graham is weighing in on this furor over a "Christianity Today" editorial entitled, "Trump Should Be Removed from Office." In his op- ed, it says that President Trump's phone call with the President of Ukraine was quote, "profoundly immoral" and the impeachment case against him is unambiguous.

But Graham posted a lengthy rebuttal on Facebook arguing that his famous father who founded "Christianity Today" would be disappointed in this editorial.

Franklin Graham also maintains that Billy Graham voted for Donald Trump back in 2016 and believe that he was the man for this hour in history. Mark Galli is the Editor- in-Chief for "Christianity Today." He is the one who penned this opinion piece that is getting so much attention. So Mark, first and foremost, thank you so much for joining me.

MARK GALLI, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "CHRISTIANITY TODAY": Glad to be with you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: So reading this piece, I mean, you're clear that the facts are unambiguous that President Trump's actions not only violate the Constitution, that they are immoral. Tell me what exactly that you mean.

GALLI: Oh, gosh. Well, they are clearly unconstitutional in the sense that he tried to influence a foreign -- head of foreign state to get dirt on one of his political opponents. That's just -- that's one of the Articles of -- that's one of the things the Constitution says that a President cannot do.

So that it seems to me that that's one thing that became pretty clear in the impeachment hearings. I mean, some people have asked why did you wait so long to say the sort of thing you're saying because hasn't he been immoral for some time?

BALDWIN: I was going -- I was going to ask? I mean, aren't you leaving your post soon?

GALLI: There you go.

BALDWIN: Does that have to do with that you feel sort of free to speak how you feel?

GALLI: No. Actually, that's kind of a coincidence. I was actually praying that I wouldn't have to write another hard tutorial before I left. But it did seem like if we didn't address it yesterday, we were not going to address it as a magazine, and I thought it would be irresponsible for us to address it. So there you go.

But the reason why we didn't think about dressing it earlier, the previous investigation, the Mueller investigation, I found confusing. I had no idea what was up and down and what was legal, oral and what was typical behavior and not behavior for various and sundry people.

But the impeachment hearings made it pretty clear and concise the nature of, at least one particular act that, to me, reveals or suggests there must be -- there's other things going on around and at the same time that are immoral.

So it's unconstitutional, and because it's unconstitutional, it's almost by nature, immoral because the President is forsaking something he promised to uphold. So just in those simple ways, it's immoral.

But of course, I make the argument larger than that about his behavior on Twitter, about protecting people he has around him, about his attitude toward women and other things he's done.

It was a cumulative effect over many months and years. And I just felt like, if we didn't say something yesterday, we might not say it for a long time. So I thought, let's do it. BALDWIN: So here you are. You speak up. You prayed on it. You

wrote this hard editorial, but guess what? A lot of Trump supporters will not agree with you. What's your message for them?

GALLI: That's just shocking that they wouldn't agree with me. It's such a well-written piece.

BALDWIN: OK, writing aside, seriously, I mean, like there is a chunk of this country that respects this man. Go ahead.

GALLI: Yes, kidding aside. I mean, I'm under no illusions that anything I would write is going to change massive amounts of people's opinions. That's just, that would be just absurd.

And a lot of the people who disagree with my editorial are our good friends, who can remain convicted that the balance between the things Trump can do for the things we care about: Pro-life, religious freedom. And his questionable moral character that those things can be weighed in the balance and they can still in good conscience, vote for the President.

I have come to the conclusion that the analogy is like this. When a woman marries a man, they have children. He is a great father. He is a great -- he is a great provider. He has a temper, and he abuses his wife verbally sometimes.

Well, I can imagine that wife saying, well, I don't like this part of his character, but he is a good provider. He is a good father to the children. And you live with that balance. You live with that tension.

[14:20:04]

GALLI: There comes a time though if the man starts to become physically abusive and even dangerous, the logic of the balance no longer works. He may still be a great provider, he may still be a great father to his children. But now things have changed to such a degree that the balance thing doesn't work anymore. That man just needs to get out of the house.

And for me, the impeachment hearings were that moment when it said to me, the balance argument doesn't work anymore. I love my brothers and sisters to take that point of view, what I'm trying to say, I don't think -- I don't think it holds water anymore. It is time for us to think about this whole situation and do something.

BALDWIN: I'm listening to you really closely, and there's a whole -- obviously, like when you think of the impeachment itself and the constitutional part of this and we're talking to legal scholars about that, but there's also just the civility, decency, you know, human being portion of this whole conversation and the President just publicly suggested you know, this week at that Michigan rally that the longest serving, you know, Congressman is in hell, which obviously, you know, it was a punch in the gut to his grieving widow, a current, you know, sitting Congresswoman. What did you think, Mark, when you heard that? GALLI: Well, what I think when I hear that, that's not the first time

he said something so cruel and offensive. It's just really sad because the President of the United States, it doesn't say that this is part of his job in the Constitution. But I think we all recognize that the leader of any country has a number of things he is responsible for and one of them is to help manage the government, help defend the borders of the country, to provide for the welfare of the people.

But he or she automatically also becomes a person whose character is looked to, whose sense of morality is looked to for guidance, whether you like it or not, whether you want that happen or not, it happens.

And so, Mr. Trump has just regularly had opportunities to raise the vision of the American people to something more noble and wonderful. He has the opportunity to make America great again, that is to say, to make it a nation that speaks well of people from various points of view and various ethnicities and various colors.

And he seems to have and seems to be deaf to his responsibility to do that and his ability to do that and it's very sad.

BALDWIN: So that's your response to, you know, the President's attack. He just upped the ante a little bit in his most recent tweet. He is essentially asking if you'd support any of the Democratic candidates. So my question to you is, would you?

GALLI: Well, see, that's a question I'm going to artfully dodge because -- and the reason for that is --

BALDWIN: Tell me why.

GALLI: Yes, we are not a political magazine. We're not in the business of recommending candidates. We rarely have ever, even recommend specific pieces of legislation even about things we care deeply about.

If there is a Pro-Life Bill that's going to force some State Senator, or the Congress, we're reticent to just say you should or should not support this bill and we're very --

BALDWIN: But in writing this piece, Mark, I've got to interject, you know, you basically stuck your big toe in this massive impeachment President Trump conversation, so if you can write this editorial, then I have to -- you can't be on the record saying, all right, if I don't support President Trump, I do support blank. It's a fair question.

GALLI: No and the reason that -- yes, let me finish.

BALDWIN: OK.

GALLI: And that would be to say, under normal circumstances, we don't enter the political fray and make specific recommendations. There are crucial moments in the history of the nation when we do step in. We did write an editorial during Nixon's impeachment saying he was unfit for the presidency. We did write an editorial for Clinton's impeachment saying he was

unfit for the presidency.

We then didn't turn around and say who would make a great President. We still think that our readers are perfectly capable of kind of arguing in the public square about who then would make a good President. But I think it's unfair to say that just because one assumes that there is a person currently in office who is unfit for the presidency, I must automatically have an opinion about who would make the best President.

That strikes me is as we're taking a step beyond what "Christianity Today" is about.

BALDWIN: I'll respect that, and I respect you Mark Gali. Thank you very much for coming on and getting this opinion out there. I appreciate you.

GALLI: Sure. Thank you. I appreciate your questions, even the hard ones. I think that's really -- you're doing your job well. I appreciate that. Thank you.

BALDWIN: Thank you. I try. I try. Take care. We continue on with the last Democratic debate of the year. The lineup got a bit smaller, but the stakes only higher. We'll take a look at who was on the attack and who was the target?

[14:25:09]

BALDWIN: And two cruise ships collide off the coast of Mexico. We have new video just in from passengers. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: There are just 45 days left between now and the Iowa Caucuses. So last night's Democratic debate was a huge opportunity for seven of the candidates to make their mark before the year wraps up.