Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sen. Mitch McConnell Says, We're At An Impasse Over Impeachment Trial; Saudi Arabia Sentences Five To Death In Khashoggi Killing; Interview With Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 23, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: -- over the weekend and 19 shots were fired in total on that situation.

[10:00:04]

And then you mentioned the shooting that happened about 12 miles north of Minneapolis in a restaurant parking lot, seven people shot, one person killed, in total, 28 people shot over this weekend to start this holiday week, Ryan.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN NEWSROOM: Omar Jimenez live in Chicago. Omar, thank you for that report.

Good morning, I'm Ryan Nobles.

The House and Senate may be on recess, but this morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is digging in when it comes to the standoff with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Meantime, redacted emails showing the effort to freeze security funding to Ukraine began just 90 minutes after President Trump's July 25th call with Ukraine's president. Now, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says, we need to hear from a key White House Budget official at the center of those emails.

As this all unfolds overnight, we learned the Justice Department has told a federal appeals court to stay out of the fight over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGhan, a position that appears to contradict previous GOP stances.

Let's begin with CNN Congressional Reporter Lauren Fox. She's live on Capitol Hill.

So, Lauren, what are you hearing from lawmakers about these redacted emails?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Ryan, Democrats are really emboldened since those emails came out on Friday night essentially arguing this is just more reason why they need to hear from witnesses as part of the Senate trial, but we're not quite there yet, Ryan.

As you know, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, are in a standoff about whether or not and when she will send over those articles of impeachment to the Senate and precisely how a trial would even be run. Here's Majority Leader McConnell earlier today on Fox News.

(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 McConnell and Schumer did meet just before the Senate broke for that two-week recess but they were unable to come to an agreement about how the Senate trial would actually be run. Essentially, Schumer is arguing they need to hear from witnesses and McConnell is saying, what we want to do is we want to hear a presentation from the House managers on the Democratic evidence, then we want to hear from White House Counsel on how they plan to defend the president. Then we'll get to a decision about whether or not we want to hear from witnesses.

But the next two weeks, you can expect a continued standoff, Ryan.

NOBLES: The staring contest continues. Lauren Fox, live on Capitol Hill. Lauren, thank you.

And new this morning, the Justice Department now saying a federal appeals court should stay out of the fight between House Democrats and the administration over testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGhan.

CNN's Evan Perez joins me now. So, Evan, what do we know about this?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, this is a sort of a new flavor of an old argument that the Justice Department has been making on behalf of the administration, on behalf of Don McGhan. So let's step back for a second.

The House has been looking to try to get testimony from Don McGhan, including obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation. Obviously, he has a lot of information given the fact that he was a key witness in the Mueller investigation. He was there as the White House Counsel.

Now, the fact is there's a judge that's ruled that McGhan should provide testimony to the House inquiry, but the Justice Department now says that that's not appropriate right now simply because the House has already voted to impeach the president, and we're waiting on a Senate trial which has to do with obstruction issues.

So they're asking the appeals court essentially to stay out of this fight. This is the same argument essentially that they've been making, even at the trial court level, at the district court level, they were asking a judge to just stay out of it. They're saying essentially that this is a fight between Congress and the White House, and that the courts have no role in this.

This is obviously -- hasn't worked so far with the courts, Ryan. We'll see whether or not the appeals court buys this argument that was made late last night.

NOBLES: All right. Evan Perez, thank you so much for that update. We appreciate it.

So let's discuss this now more. I'm joined now by Democratic Strategist Paul Begala, former RNC spokesperson Kevin Sheridan and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

So, Renato, let's talk first about the law here. This is what the Justice Department said in that late-night filing. They said, quote, if this court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial. That would be of questionable proprietary whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post dated any impeachment trial. Do they have a point with this particular argument?

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, what I would say is that courts are reluctant to wade into political disputes between the other branches of government. That is why they're making this argument. I think it's a savvy argument to make on their part.

[10:05:00] That said, I also would think that a court would be concerned because this is, of course, evidence of presidential wrongdoing. We've seen in the past, we've never had a situation quite like this one. But we've had situations, for example, in the Nixon impeachment where there were, for example, documents that were being kept from Congress. And the courts ruled to have disclosure of those documents.

So I would be surprised if a court didn't take into account the heightened need for this evidence because, of course, this witness is somebody who has evidence of serious presidential wrongdoing, it appears from the Mueller report, evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the president. So, you know, this is an argument I think ultimately that won't succeed.

NOBLES: All right. So, Kevin, isn't this a bit contradictory from the White House and Republicans? I mean, they've been saying throughout this process that the courts shouldn't play this role and they should allow things to play out in the courts. Now, they're saying they don't want the courts involved. I mean, can they have it both ways?

KEVIN SHERIDAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT: Yes. And Democrats have been a bit hypocritical on this, as well. They've said that they didn't fight for witnesses, all the witnesses that they could have gotten in the House, and then went ahead with impeachment anyway. And now we're stuck in this place where, you know, we have half of an impeachment without the articles being sent to the Senate. So, yes, I think you're getting a lot of conflicting story lines from both sides. But, look, the longer this plays out, I think the worst politically it is for the 2020 candidates, particularly on the Democratic side, because we're going to be pushing well into -- you know, possibly well into January, maybe February, when voters start going to the polls. And that's not good for the sitting senators who are going to have to sit in there and preside over or sit as jurors in the Senate.

NOBLES: So to Kevin's point, Paul, we may not see resolution to this court battle, right? I mean, it could be well into the spring before the appeals court even weighs in on this. Does it matter? I mean, at that point the Senate impeachment trial could be long over. What's the point of continuing this fight?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it matters tremendously because there should be. There has been since 1215 A.D. a proposition in Anglo American Jurisprudence that no one is above the law.

Now, I worked at the White House -- every White House has a to and fro, a push and pull with Congress about executive privilege, and that's good. I believe in executive privilege. But no president in all of American history has said no one will participate in a congressional inquiry, no one. They've barred all witnesses and documents. That is obstruction of Congress, it's one of the reasons the House impeached the president.

It's really quite -- I think it's useful at the end of the year. Take a step back and take a breath. What this president is asserting is that he has more power than a king, that no one can question his aides, particularly now today, this weekend's news, that these mails have come out from one of his White House Budget officials, 90 minutes after his call with the president of Ukraine, ordering the budget office -- the Pentagon, rather, to stop the payments and telling them, don't tell anyone. If it was such a perfect call, such a great thing to do, why is this White House aide for President Trump telling them to stop and telling them don't tell anyone that we've stopped the payments? We have to have this testimony.

NOBLES: Right. So, Renato, I want to talk about Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones. Listen to what he had to say this weekend on ABC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DOUG JONES (D-AL): I've been trying to read this, I'm trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, then I think it's a serious matter. I think it's an impeachable matter. If those dots aren't connected and there are explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too. I've got to make sure that -- what I really want to see though is to fill in the gaps.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: So some important context here, Jones obviously a Democrat from a very red state up for re-election in 2020. But, Renato, he says there are gaps, that he still needs dots to be connected in terms of this impeachment inquiry. From your view, are there still gaps? MARIOTTI: Not really. I mean, I think it's pretty clear to me what happened here. There's not a real -- a lot of dispute about what happened factually. We really haven't heard much from the president regarding an actual factual defense on the merits. I mean, he's made something recently of the word, using the word us instead of me in the transcript.

If you read the transcript, it's pretty clear what he's trying to accomplish. He's not talking about corruption. He's talking about Biden. If you look at the testimony of all the witnesses, it was clear, you know, many testified about a quid pro quo and so forth.

I don't really see much of an actual factual dispute here. Really, the question is whether or not you believe this is an impeachable offense. And that is separate and apart of whether or not there is a factual defense.

[10:10:01]

I can understand there may be political reasons why the senator doesn't want to commit to something now. But I don't really see any factual defense here.

NOBLES: So, Kevin, let's talk about another Democratic senator, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. He said that senators on both sides have gone too far in saying how they're going to vote on impeachment before the trial has even begun. Of course, Mitch McConnell himself saying he's not going to be an impartial juror. But he's saying both Democrats and Republicans have gone too far. Do you agree?

SHERIDAN: Well, it's a political process. I think we're being naive if we pretend that these people are going to sit as impartial jurors. They're reflecting the will of their states, and they're reflecting the will of the American people. And that's the same as it was in the Clinton impeachment.

And, look, if you look at the 2020 battlegrounds or if you look at a state like Alabama, you're going to get some senators who are not going to be comfortable taking a step to remove a president in an election year especially for the alleged offenses.

And I think, you know, about three weeks ago, the polls changed on that, especially in Wisconsin, Florida and the key 2020 battlegrounds. And removal is just not a popular position right now. They're under water, at least five points in some of those states or more, and it's trending in the right direction for the president. And he's fund- raising off of it, he's campaigning on it. So both sides -- both of the bases seem to like it, but the independents are largely unconvinced or just sitting it out.

NOBLES: So, Paul, to that point, what do you make of Speaker Pelosi's strategy here to hold on to the articles of impeachment? The vice president's chief of staff says that she's confident that she'll ultimately yield on sending these articles. Do you think that she's making the smart move here, holding on until she gets what she views as a fair trial in the Senate? BEGALA: Well, as we say back home in the south, hit dog hollers. Why is this president squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Because he wants this over with quickly. He wants a sham trial. He wants to rig election in November. He wants to rig the trial in January. And Mitch McConnell has promised that he'll rig that trial. So he wants to get it over with immediately.

In fairness to Nancy Pelosi, she can't very well choose the House managers who will prosecute the impeachment cases until she knows the rules of the trial. If there are going to be witnesses, you're going to pick a very different manager to present the case, someone who can interview, interrogate, cross examine witnesses rather than if you're simply going to just regurgitate the facts that we were able to see in the House side. So she's got, I think, a good point. And you can tell it's really driving Trump crazy, and that alone is a public service.

NOBLES: All right. So, obviously, a lot we don't know yet about this Senate trial. And we may not know until after the New Year. Paul Begala, Kevin Sheridan, Renato Mariotti, thank you all for being here. We appreciate it.

MARIOTTI: Thank you.

NOBLES: And still to come, death sentences handed down in the murder of Washington Post Columnist Jamal Khashoggi. We'll tell you who was sentenced and more importantly who was cleared.

Plus, was it legal for the president to hold up Ukraine aid? One Democratic senator wants an answer from a government watchdog. We will talk to that lawmaker ahead.

And a homecoming 35 years in the making, Eddie Murphy slays during his return to Saturday Night Live and pulls no punches.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDDIE MURPHY, AMERICAN ACTOR AND COMEDIAN: If you had told me 30 years ago that I would be this boring, stay-at-home, you know, house dad and Bill Cosby would be in jail. Even I would have took that bet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

NOBLES: As the Senate awaits its role in the impeachment proceedings of President Trump, my next guest is asking the Government Accountability Office to decide whether or not the president broke the law when he held up military aid to Ukraine. This in the wake of newly released documents that reveal the efforts to freeze the aid began about 90 minutes after the July 25th call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

So let's now bring in Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. He's a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee and he's the one who sent that letter to the GAO. Senator, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.

Let's talk first about this --

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Ryan, good to be with you.

NOBLES: Let's talk first about this Letter that you sent to the GAO's office. How do you think this could affect the opinions of the Senate trial coming up next month?

VAN HOLLEN: well, Ryan, we know from all the evidence uncovered by the House of Representatives that President Trump abused his power and abused the office of the presidency when he held up vital military aid to Ukraine in exchange for trying to get this personal political favor to interfere in our elections.

The purpose of the letter to GAO is to make the argument that even if you accept President Trump's sort of made-up argument that he withheld the aid because he wanted to conduct a, quote, policy review, that that still is an illegal action and a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.

And so we've asked GAO to take a look at this argument. I think to the extent that they agree, it will just be more evidence on top of the already mountains of evidence that this was far from a perfect call and a perfect action, and that this will represent another violation of the law.

NOBLES: So we know that the GAO is already looking into this. I mean, what do you hope your letter adds to that conversation? And do you anticipate that you're going to get some resolution to this before the Senate makes a decision on the impeachment articles?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I certainly hope so. GAO began looking into this after I asked them a series of questions at a Budget Committee hearing. And so we are now following up on that line of questioning.

[10:20:03]

And we're glad the GAO is conducting this review and look forward to receiving their legal opinion.

I certainly hope we have that in time for the Senate proceeding because what it does is knock the legs out of even the president's argument, which is still sort of a fanciful theory based on what we know.

But what we're saying here is, look, even if you took them at their word, this sort of Trumped up idea that this was a policy review, they're still in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. They're still committing illegal acts.

NOBLES: All right. So you were one of the first to float the idea of the House holding on to the articles of impeachment until the Senate Republicans agree to a fair trial. You, of course, have a lot of experience in the House of Representatives. I mean, why do you think this is a good play for Speaker Pelosi?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think she's doing exactly the right thing because what she's doing is focusing public attention on the need to have a fair trial in the United States Senate, and a fair trial, every American knows, means you get to call your witnesses.

I was listening to your earlier conversation, as you know, an ABC poll showed that 70 percent of the American public agrees that you can't have a fair trial if you don't get to call your witnesses.

So what she's doing is especially important in light of the fact that Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said publicly that he would not be impartial in the Senate trial, that he was going to work in lockstep with the president who's the defendant in this case, and that he was going to deny access to key witnesses with material information, like Mike Duffey, who we just learned the other day, within 90 minutes of President Trump's call with President Zelensky, sent an email to the Pentagon withholding this vital aid. And so he is one of the four key fact witnesses that we've asked for.

And I think the American Public regardless of political party agrees that you can't have a trial if you don't get to call your key fact witnesses.

NOBLES: Now, the Republicans would argue on the other side of this if they were going to call the witnesses that the Democrats were interested in, then Republicans should be able to call witnesses that they believe are materially contributing to this conversation. And that may include former Vice President Joe Biden and perhaps his son, Hunter Biden. And President Trump has alluded to the fact that he'd like to see them testify.

Would that be having somewhat you would be open to? Is that something that Minority Leader Schumer should be open to in a conversation with the majority leader as they -- start, you know, create a path toward resolving this impasse?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I haven't heard any Republican senators say they wanted to call those witnesses. If they make that request, obviously, that would become part of the discussion. As you well know, having the Bidens testify is really irrelevant to the core impeachment articles of abuse of power here.

But, look, if they want to put that into the mix, that can obviously become part of the discussion. But the key thing is that, you know, everybody gets to put on their witnesses. The House has come forward with overwhelming evidence, but President Trump says he wants to have a big trial, and he wants to call witnesses to exonerate himself. And we should listen to all the evidence. But, obviously, we should be able to call these White House fact witnesses.

And the fact that they do not want the Senate to hear from these witnesses, witnesses who they prevented from testifying in the House, obviously raises questions, right? If they've got nothing to fear from the testimony of these witnesses, then send them down. I mean, if that's what the president -- if the president wants to have a big trial and a fair trial, why are they working so hard to prevent these key witnesses from testifying in the Senate trial?

NOBLES: All right. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a very important newsmaker today, sending that letter to the Government Accountability Office. We appreciate you being on, sir, and have a very happy holiday.

VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you. And you too.

NOBLES: All right, thank you.

Saudi Arabia says five people will be put to death for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But what's making headlines is who wasn't sentenced for that killing. We'll have more on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

NOBLES: Earlier today, we learned that Saudi Arabia has sentenced five people to death for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Washington Post columnist was allegedly killed and dismembered inside the Saudi Consulate in Turkey last year. Saudi officials released several others due to a lack of evidence. That includes three people who are known to have very close ties to the Saudi crown prince.

Joining me is our Global Affairs Analyst Kimberly Dozier. She's also a contributor to The Daily Beast.

And, Kimberly, we actually have just gotten a response to the Saudi verdict from the Washington Post and their publisher, Fred Ryan. I'm going to read portion of it to you. It says, quote, this was merely a sham trial and that, quote, those ultimately responsible at the highest levels of the Saudi government continue to escape responsibility.

[10:30:00]