Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Holiday Stalemate Grips Senate Impeachment Trial; DOJ Argues Courts Should Stay Out of Don McGahn Testimony Battle; Democrats Canvas Key States with Iowa Caucuses About a Month Away; Boeing CEO Steps Down in Wake of 737 Max Crashes; GOP Blasts Pelosi for Withholding Impeachment Articles. Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired December 23, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
RYAN NOBLES, CNN ANCHOR: -- have the week off. And right now the Senate's top Democrat once again demanding more witness testimony when the chamber takes up impeachment.
The latest order from Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer comes as redacted government e-mails show the effort to freeze security funding to Ukraine began just 90 minutes after Trump's July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian president. Now Schumer says we need to hear from the White House budget official Michael Duffey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): If there was ever an argument that we need Mr. Duffey to come testify this is that information. This e-mail is explosive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOBLES: Meanwhile, we are learning overnight the Justice Department has told a federal appeals court to stay out of the fight over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, seeming to contradict the GOP position the Democrats should have let this play out in the courts.
Let's begin this morning with CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox. She's on Capitol Hill.
Lauren, what are lawmakers saying following the release of these redacted e-mails?
LAUREN FOX, CNN POLITICS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you heard there, Ryan, from Chuck Schumer. He's basically arguing that these e- mails are explosive and they really provide more evidence for why the Democrats need to hear from witnesses as part of that Senate impeachment trial. But we heard from Majority Leader McConnell just a few minutes ago on FOX News and what he said essentially was that they are not prepared to have a debate about witnesses in the very early stages of this trial. Instead, he's arguing Nancy Pelosi just needs to send those articles
of impeachment over, then they will have a discussion about witnesses after they've heard a presentation from the House managers who are going to make their Democratic case, then they're going to hear a presentation from the White House's side who is going to make their case. Then they will make a decision about where to go from there.
Whether or not it's a vote on the articles of impeachment, whether there's going to be 51 senators ready to vote or whether they move on to witnesses. So McConnell's arguing right now he and Schumer are at an impasse, but not a lot is going to change. Here's what McConnell said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Look, we're at an impasse. We can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over. So, everybody, enjoy the holidays.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOX: And Nancy Pelosi just a few minutes taking -- a few minutes ago, Ryan, taking to Twitter and arguing that she is not prepared to send those articles over until she sees exactly how a Senate trial is going to be taken apart -- Ryan.
NOBLES: All right. Lauren Fox live on Capitol Hill. Lauren, thank you for that report.
And new this morning, the Justice Department is arguing that our federal appeals court should not decide if former White House counsel Don McGahn could testify before House lawmakers. The House Judiciary Committee said it needed McGahn's testimony as part of its impeachment inquiry related to President Trump and obstruction of justice. But DOJ attorneys argue that since the impeachment vote last week, McGahn's testimony is no longer necessary. A three-judge panel in Washington is set to hear the case on January 3rd.
All right. Let's discuss the legal ramifications of this with former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi.
Gene, thank you for being here this morning. Now this came in --
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you for having me.
NOBLES: This came in a late-night filing last night. Let me read to you what the White House said. It said, quote, "If this court now were to resolve the merits, the questions in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial that would be part -- that would be a questionable proprietary whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial."
Do they have a point?
ROSSI: They have a small, tiny sliver of a point. When I worked at the Department of Justice for 30 years -- by the way, Happy Holidays. When I worked at the department for 30 years or so, we never told the court, hey, don't make a decision that we have asked for. The Department of Justice, after Judge Brown Jackson's ruling on November 25th, basically wanted an expedited appeal process with the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals.
They're now saying that we don't want you to rule, so as you said in your prologue here on your show, there's a little inconsistency in the Department of Justice's position. So they have a tiny point, but it's overridden by the practice and procedures that they followed for the last 150 years.
NOBLES: And also, this, of course, comes against the backdrop of how Republicans have been treating the court's involvement in all of this. They've repeatedly slammed Democrats for attempting to get the court's involved in this impeachment process. Aren't they contradicting themselves a bit with this particular filing?
ROSSI: They are.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSSI: First off, the Justice Department headed by Attorney General Bill Barr has engaged in a plethora of contradictions over the last year and a half, so this is just another, you know, feather in the cap if you will.
[09:05:03]
It doesn't surprise me. What really -- at the end of the day, the appeals court is not going to make a ruling on the McGahn issue until probably February, March or April because it's going to be a three- judge panel, they all would want to write some, you know, fulsome opinion, Warren piece, for history books. So you're not going to get a ruling in January. I would be shocked if there was a ruling.
NOBLES: So -- I mean, is there really anything Democrats can do at this point? I mean, they've essentially already handed this over to the Senate at this point. It seems unlikely that McGahn is really going to be a part of this process. Is there anything Democrats can really do?
ROSSI: They can't do a thing. The McGahn issue is sitting on a back burner in the court of appeals. What the Democrats and members of the Senate should do is focus like a laser beam, present their case, and let the chips fall where they may. If President Trump is removed, that's the Constitution. If he's acquitted, so be it. Let's move on.
NOBLES: All right. Gene Rossi, appreciate your perspective, former federal prosecutor weighing in on this information, playing out in the courts related to impeachment.
Gene, thank you.
Let's keep the conversation going now with Karoun Demerjian, a congressional reporter at "The Washington Post" and Francesca Chambers, White House correspondent at McClatchy D.C.
Francesca, let's start with you. I mean, these new e-mails do show efforts to freeze security funding to Ukraine. It actually started roughly 90 minutes after President Trump spoke on the phone to Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25th. I mean, if you're the Democrats what can you really do with this at this point?
FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, MCCLATCHY D.C.: Well, without testimony from those officials and Mick Mulvaney, there isn't too much that they can do with this at this point especially over the holidays by the way. And there's been conflicting information about whether or not there would be live witnesses at this point in a Senate trial.
We heard Mitch McConnell this morning saying that they still haven't made a decision on the live witnesses, but just yesterday Lindsey Graham said there wouldn't be live witnesses, we shouldn't expect to hear from these Trump administration officials because the president has given them executive privilege.
So there seems to be a disconnect about what would happen in a Senate trial, regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does.
NOBLES: All right. Let's take a listen to what vice president's chief of staff said about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to hold off on sending articles of impeachment to the Senate. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC SHORT, CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Quite confident that this position is untenable and she's going to move it along and that Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell reach a deal on how it's going to proceed in the Senate.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: So you think that she'll eventually give in.
SHORT: She will yield. There's no way she can hold this position.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOBLES: Karoun, you spent a lot of time around Nancy Pelosi. Is Marc Short right? How long can she old on to this position?
KAROUN DEMERJIAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Nancy Pelosi has held on to positions based on her convictions for longer than others have around her and she and McConnell are very alike in that way, that they're both very strong-willed, they've both very good at counting their votes and deciding what to do based on that. But it does seem like it's a little bit politically difficult for the Democrats to sit on those articles of impeachment in perpetuity.
They went through this entire process, it was a politically -- there were some potential benefits, there were a lot of risks involved, and to not let it go forward into the trial there are too many Republicans that are basically accusing them of being afraid that they don't have a good enough case. So there's some leverage she has especially in this period in which nothing was going to happen anyway because it's the holidays, to push Mitch McConnell, to push the Senate to try to make some of their stances clear about witnesses and as you heard McConnell say on FOX today, he started to speak a little bit more open language about what witnesses may or may not be allowed in.
But her leverage starts to potentially fade once they get back to town in January because something has to happen and the more it doesn't, the more there's going to be fingers pointed at her for saying why aren't you letting it? Are you not confident in this case?
NOBLES: Yes. It will be an interesting staring contest over the holidays.
DEMERJIAN: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
NOBLES: Will they really be --
DEMERJIAN: And they're both very good at it.
NOBLES: Exactly. Exactly. And how engaged will they be. Of course Nancy Pelosi still tweeting about it this morning so it's obviously on the minds of both of them.
You know, Francesca, you obviously cover the White House. This of course Nancy Pelosi's tweet from this morning, talking about how she's not even going to hold off on naming impeachment managers until they know exactly how the Senate is going to handle this. And of course, Francesca, from the White House perspective, we know that President Trump is anxious to be acquitted. In fact Marc Short said that this weekend.
You know, in the minds of the White House, and in the GOP, is an acquittal a full exoneration? Is that how they're going to sell it to the American people?
CHAMBERS: That's absolutely how President Trump plans to sell it to the American people. And there's also this question of the State of the Union now. Nancy Pelosi has invited him to give it on February 4th and whether or not a trial would be finished by that point, and so that's a question that's at play. And what I've been hearing from White House officials overall about Nancy Pelosi and what we expect over the next month is that they are wondering at this point what she will do next and saying that what happened to the lack of urgency.
[09:10:08]
Before she has said that this was urgent, now White House officials are saying well, how urgent can it be if you're now saying that you're going to delay it indefinitely while we go back and forth over the Senate trial procedures and that was another argument that Marc Short had made yesterday. But realistically, again, because of the holidays it's very tough for the White House to do anything or Mitch McConnell or the Senate, until they get back into session this month or next month, sorry.
NOBLES: Yes, meanwhile, Karoun, President Trump already in Mar-a- Lago, mixing it up with his allies, on vacation there. Already seen meeting with conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh. We know Rudy Giuliani is down there. I mean, how will this impact all these folks surrounding President Trump, his mentality going into that Senate trial?
DEMERJIAN: Well, this is what some people feared, right? Which is that when he's at Mar-a-Lago, the access to him is pretty much more wide open than when he's at the White House and all of his aides and advisers are around to control that. I think Trump has not always been in lockstep with his legal team. His legal team seems to be more in line with Mitch McConnell's thinking in terms of keeping this small and tight and keeping witnesses out of it if they can.
The president has taken to Twitter and said give me the whistleblower, give me Hunter Biden, and you can't really get those two. I don't think that there would be 51 Republicans that would agree to just the GOP side witnesses and not others who are in the administration. And so if the president decides that he is going to just kind of play a little bit fast and loose, he could really undercut the position that the GOP is trying to take and that could add to Nancy Pelosi's leverage in this situation because if the president swings the balance or really pushes this past the point where Mitch McConnell can hold everybody else in line, there you go.
That's not your 51 senators anymore and then Democrats may be able to get some sort of deal that involves some measure of the witnesses on their preferred roster.
NOBLES: To think this is going to be a quiet few weeks while the Senate is out of town I think is a little bit of a fantasy, especially because President Trump still has access to his Twitter account while he's at Mar-a-Lago with all those folks around him.
All right, Karoun Demerjian, Francesca Chambers, terrific discussion, thank you both for being here.
And still to come, we're just over a month away from the Iowa caucuses. Candidates are canvassing that key state in a final sprint, and we have Democratic hopeful Andrew Yang with us. He joins me next. What's his battleground state strategy?
Plus, new CNN reporting about Kim Jong-un's Christmas gift to the United States. What that may turn out to be or not be. That's coming up.
And Saudi Arabia sentences five people to death over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Why now?
[09:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RYAN NOBLES, ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: It is a candidate traffic jam in Iowa. Just over a month away from the caucuses there, and with the Democratic presidential race still very much up for grabs. Candidates are flocking to the Hawkeye State. And as one Democratic pundit put it, we're in the fourth quarter and everything matters. Joining me now to talk about this, Democratic White House hopeful and entrepreneur Andrew Yang. Mr. Yang, thank you so much for joining me and happy holidays to you.
ANDREW YANG, ENTREPRENEUR & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for having me, Ryan, happy holidays to you and yours.
NOBLES: So, let's talk about Iowa. Of course, the first caucus state, a state that requires a ton of organization. Just tell me about your strategy there. I would imagine your goal is to bring a lot of different voters, people that perhaps haven't participated in the caucus process before, because you are running a bit of an unconventional campaign. Tell me about your organizational efforts on the ground there to win in Iowa.
YANG: I was just in Iowa. We just wrapped up this incredibly successful bus tour. We were opened -- now it's up to almost two dozen offices filled with staffers and volunteers who are canvassing every single day in Iowa. I'm heading to South Carolina this weekend and celebrating new year's in New Hampshire. But after that, January, I'll be in Iowa most of the month because as you're suggesting, it is crucial for all of us who are in the field.
NOBLES: So, explain to me, though, you know what's the difference between an Iowa caucus versus even a New Hampshire primary, South Carolina primary? You need a level of investment from a voter there to go out, spend part of their evening casting a ballot for you and doing so publicly. How do you convince those voters to make that investment in your campaign?
YANG: That's one reason why we are going to shock the world in February because Iowa caucuses -- like you just said, are really high investment. You have to go in front of your friends and neighbors, and say Andrew Yang should be president and here is why? It's not something where you go into an anonymous voting booth, you poll a booth, get a sticker and leave.
The entire process can take hours instead of minutes. And so, this is exactly why our campaign is going to over-perform because our supporters are the most locked in, the most passionate, the most enthusiastic, the most likely to get out there and fight for the campaign and our vision for the country, come February 3rd. We're going to outperform expectations by a very wide margin in February.
NOBLES: Recovering 2020 pretty closely, I can definitely confirm that your support is passionate. The question is, are enough of those voters in your column right now -- especially to win? And I mean, do you have a goal for what you need to accomplish in Iowa, a certain percentage or a certain place that you need to come in and -- if you don't reach that goal, is Iowa make or break for you?
YANG: We know the goal is to outperform expectations, and one fun thing about this campaign is that, we've done so at every stage. So, it's going to happen in Iowa -- we're very strong in New Hampshire -- again, I'm celebrating new year's there.
[09:20:00]
We have a lot of support in Nevada and South Carolina. We're going to be here the entire primary season all the way through the Spring, and it's going to start in Iowa, but I do not think Iowa is make or break for my campaign.
NOBLES: OK, so during last week's debate, you talked about the fact that you were the only non-white candidate on the stage, you said that was both an honor and a disappointment, and that you missed Cory and Kamala, talking about Cory Booker and Kamala Harris of course who did not make the cut -- and even Senator Harris was forced to drop out of the race.
At this point, what do you make of the lack of diversity in the top- tier of the Democratic field, especially when you consider that this started as one of the most diverse fields in presidential political history?
YANG: Well, it was an honor and disappointment. And I said on the debate stage, unfortunately it points to the fact that you need disposable income to participate and certainly donate to political campaigns and the financial resources are flowing to people who have been household names, in some cases for decades.
So, I'm thrilled to be breaking new ground. We raised $10 million in the last quarter, an increments of only $30 each, no corporate PAC money. This is a grassroots, people-powered campaign, and that's the way you have to finance campaigns to succeed in 2019 and 2020.
NOBLES: So, do you think then that because it seems as though the deck is stacked against these minority candidates for the reasons that you described, that the DNC should change their standards for the upcoming debates? Because they're only going to get -- there's only going to be a higher price of entry in order to get into these debates?
YANG: I was surprised that they decided to elevate the standards for January. I thought that they would make a move that would, frankly, get Cory back on to the stage, and so yes, it was a surprising decision. I mean, as a candidate, all we can do is compete and make sure whatever the threshold is that we meet it, and I stay on that stage in January.
NOBLES: And do you believe you will meet that threshold for the next debate?
YANG: Oh, yes. We already cleared the donor threshold by a very wide margin, we've already got in the qualifying polls, so we're very confident that I'll be right there on the stage in Iowa in a little bit less than a month.
NOBLES: All right, let's talk about the debates themselves, and you've talked about how you don't get as much time to speak at some of these debates. And I think we have a graphic that shows exactly, you know, where you are as compared to some of the other candidates. You were down at the bottom 10 minutes, 47 seconds compared to some of the other candidates there.
Can you break through? Do you feel like you're not being treated fairly in these debates or is there something more that you can do to assert yourself and kind of push yourself into the conversation more the next time around?
YANG: Well, I'm certainly looking forward to the next debate because some of your colleagues at CNN are moderating.
(LAUGHTER)
I think you guys do a fantastic job. The fact is, after this last debate, we raised 750,000 in less than 24 hours, our web traffic and Google search results were number one in terms of the candidates post the debate. So, we got a lot done, and it doesn't correspond necessarily to speaking time. It corresponds to what you do with that time.
NOBLES: All right, Andrew Yang, a candidate for president in the Democratic field, a very busy few weeks for you. We appreciate you being here, thank you very much.
YANG: Thanks Ryan, say hey to your brother-in-law for me. Happy holidays.
NOBLES: All right, I'll do that, I appreciate it, thank you. And breaking news this morning after two deadly crashes and an investigation that will stretch into the new year, the head of Boeing is out. We'll have more on that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:25:00]
NOBLES: And this just in to CNN. Boeing's embattled CEO Dennis Muilenburg is stepping down. His resignation caps a turbulent year for the aviation giant. Let's go straight to CNN's Clare Sebastian. Clare, this is just coming in. What do we know at this point?
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Ryan, interesting timing for this coming just two days before Christmas. But what we know is that the new CEO will be David Calhoun, he is currently a director on the board, he's been there since 2009. There will be an interim CEO handling the transition, that is Greg Smith, the current CFO.
And Dennis Muilenburg who has been in the job, who has -- who has been the face of this company throughout the crisis with the 737 Max which has now been grounded since March, he will be out of the job. Don't forget, he was already stripped of his chairman's title back in October, but this now, the final decision, he will be stepping down.
So, look, this is in the views of many people the biggest crisis that Boeing has faced in its more than 100-year history. And just recently, it took the decision to suspend production of the 737 Max from January, that is a huge decision that will ripple throughout the supply chain.
Thousands and thousands of companies could in fact affect the GDP of the U.S. economy overall. So, look, this is what the company is saying, they say Boeing will operate with a renewed commitment to full transparency including effective and proactive communication with the FAA and global regulators and its customers. A renewed commitment to transparency, the company clearly feels that a change in leadership was what was necessary to try to move beyond this crisis, Ryan.
NOBLES: All right, Clare Sebastian with that news. The CEO of Boeing stepping down, Clare, we appreciate that. And it may be a holiday week on Capitol Hill, but behind the scenes, Democrats and Republicans are strategizing the next steps in the impeachment process. The Senate will only be able to begin its trial to decide whether President Trump should be removed from office once house Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell.
Now, Pelosi says she's not going to do that until McConnell and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer agree to fair terms. So, with me now to discuss that, one of the Democrats who did vote in favor of impeachment, Congressman Adriano Espaillat. Thank you for being here, Congressman, we appreciate it so much.
END
