Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow And Jim

While the republican witness, republican witness says hes concerned by a lack of evidence. The Intelligence Committee would likely disagree with that argument. Its 300page report is a road map for articles of impeachment. Well get more on that in just a moment. Lets begin this hour up on capitol hill with our senior Congressional Correspondent manu raju just outside the room where the democrats will be meeting this morning. Theyre getting ready right now. So take us inside and set the scene for us. Just in a matter of moments the democrats will discuss their next step. Adam schiff is going to detail the report his committee issued that will serve as a backbone for articles of impeachment assuming the house goes that route. Hell answer questions from the members about some of the next steps. No staff is allowed in this room. Nancy pelosi also expects to address her caucus in private. Now at the same time, the public proceedings will take place in the House Judiciary Committee in the next phase of the investigation and were expecting a very contentious affair from the start. Republicans are going to object to the proceedings saying the democrats have not made their case to impeach and remove this president. The democrats say the case is crystal clear. The president abused his office and obstructed congress and deserves to be impeached. Thats the case they want to make to the American Public. The format will be much like what weve seen in previous testimony before the house Intelligence Committee. First the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, jerry nadler, will deliver his Opening Statement followed by the ranking republican doug collins delivering his. Then each of the four witnesses who are all legal experts will weigh in about high crimes and misdemeanors, whether this had been met under the constitution. Now were getting a taste of what some of these witnesses have said based on their Opening Statements weve heard so far. And a couple of things stand out. One from Michael Gerhardt, one of the democratic witnesses invited by the democrats from the university of North Carolina, says the president s serious misconduct, including bribery, solicitting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice in congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president , including what previous president s who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing. Now the republican witness, one of the four who is testifying, Jonathan Turley from George Washington university, has a different take. Hes going to say this. Im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a plausi i pla pla plausity paucity of evidence. It would stand out as the shortest proceeding with the shortest evidentiary record and narrowest grounds ever to impeach a president. It does not bode well for future president s who are working in a country often sharply and at times bitterly divided. Now after they deliver their Opening Statements, thats when well see the staff counsels ask questions, including the democratic counsel who previously worked in the obama administration. Hes going to have about 45 minutes to question, followed by the republican counsel and each of the members will have their own fiveminute rounds to ask questions as they try to make the case to the American Public why the president should be impeached, why he shouldnt be impeached. This is the next phase in what is expected to be a quick moving process here in the house to potentially have that Impeachment Vote before christmas. Nancy pelosi in private has not told her colleagues a specific timeline for moving forward. She refused to do that last night im told in private talking to her colleagues. Well see if she says anything different today. But the moment democrats mostly united believe the president should be impeached and theyre trying to make that case to the country today. On the other hand, the republicans are mostly i should say, completely united in opposing any sort of impeachment. Manuerageu stand by. The Intelligence Committee took what they learned from more than 100 hours of testimony, sddozen of subpoenas and boiled it down to a 300page report showing what the democrats consider to be an overwhelming case against the president. Lets go to our congressional reporter lauren fox. Shes also up on capitol hill. Tell us about the findings, the major findings. Just remind our viewers. Wolf, this was a very important report because, as you said, this was a twomonth investigation. They interviewed many witnesses. They also were having many of these depositions behind closed doors. This was really the full summation of what they found. And one of the biggest takeaways is this was really going to form the basis for any articles of impeachment that they write. They broke this report into two sections. Basically, documenting the president s abuse of power as well as talking about all the witnesses, all the documents in great detail that they werent able to obtain because they believe the administration was obstructing congress. That could be another potential article of impeachment. So that really set the stage for what was coming forward. But the big new information coming from this report, the call records from april. Of course, i want to set the stage a little bit back in april was when marie yovanovitch, the former ambassador to ukraine, was facing struggles. In the spring she was ousted from her post, as you recall from this investigation. This was a significant development. It found that Rudy Giuliani and other associates for the president as well as associates for giuliani were engaged back in april and having phone calls with the omb, also the white house, and it was very unclear what these calls are specifically about. But it paints the picture, according to democrats, this was going on long, long before many republicans are willing to admit that these associates were working on ousting marie yovanovitch. Also important, devin nunes, the Top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, was having conversations with one of Rudy Giulianis associates, lev parnas. Four different conversations in april. And i think thats an important note. If you remember, nunes is the Top Republican. Hes someone who spoke at every Intelligence Committee hearing. Hes been part of all these closed door depositions and interviews with witnesses. Republicans saying that its not a problem. Democrats saying its a very serious issue. Wolf . Lauren, well get back to you as well. Lauren fox up on capitol hill. Joining us now, republican congressman tom mcclint ok. Hell be asking questions later today. Thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure, wolf. Thanks for having me. So you defended the president by saying his demand on ukraine is how a manhattan businessman talks. But when you look at the house i said the language he used was that of a manhattan businessman. Very blunt and to the point. But i fully believe he was acting within his authority and responsibility as president. Let me read to you what this harvard law professor who is going to be testifying this morning, noah feldman says, and then well get your reaction. According to the testimony and to the publicly released memorandum of the july 25th, 2019, telephone call between the two president s, President Trump abused his office by solicitting the president of ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in the 2020 president ial election. This act on its own qualifies as an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. Thats from noah feldman, the harvard law professor that the Democrats Asked to testify. Whats your reaction to that . I dont see it that way at all. The constitution gives the president the authority to conduct the nations foreign relations. It commands him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The National Defense authorization act, which authorized aid to ukraine in the first place, requires the administration to determine that that government is taking steps to combat corruption before funds can be released. The way i read that conversation, thats exactly what the president was doing. Just because joe biden is a candidate for president doesnt shield him from inquiry. But, you know, i guess the point that the democrats are going to be making, youve heard it many times, congressman, in that rough transcript that the white house released of that conversation, the only references to corruption were alleged corruption by the bidens. The president didnt make any allegations of corruption as far as ukraine was concerned in that phone conversation. And he specifically asked the new president of ukraine, zelensky, to go ahead and investigate the bidens. You dont have a problem with that . The question is did the president have probable cause to believe that laws were violated when thenvice President Biden used over a billion dollars of federal loan guarantees to pressure the Ukrainian Government to fire victor shokin, preparing to interrogate hunter biden, joe bidens son. Thats a violation of the foreign corrupt. Theres probable cause for the president to pursue that. All of the executive authority of this government is vested in one person, the president of the United States. He has a responsibility to take care that those laws be faithfully executed, and he was doing exactly that. Just because the democrats dont want joe biden investigated for what to me is clearly an abuse of power, is certainly not an excuse for the president not to discharge his responsibility. Congressman mcclintock, if the president wanted an investigation of the bidens, he went to the ukrainians to ask for that. Why not the Justice Department . Why didnt he ask the fbi . Why didnt he ask u. S. Authorities to investigate the bidens . I hope he has. He didnt. Well, he should. And again, when hes talking to the ukrainian president , he is discharging his duties under the National Defense authorization act to determine if they are but you agree, if he had a serious problem that the thenvice president of the United States and his son hunter biden were committing crimes, and thats the allegation, he should have asked the fbi to investigate. He should have again, i dont know. Ask the Justice Department to investigate. Instead he went to the Ukrainian Government. I dont know and you dont know what is being investigated right now. We have a farreaching investigation being headed up by john durham that may well be thats on the russia investigation. And ill tell you Something Else. This, i think, is central to the president s motivations. In asking for that cooperation. And thats all going to come out. If the democrats continue to suppress that in the house, i think the senate is going to demand a full airing of all of these facts. We live in a free society, and free societies, the prosecution does not get to choose what witnesses the defense calls. Thats been the process over here in the house. I dont think the senate will stand for it. The new documents that have been released by the house Intelligence Committee, congressman, show your republican colleague, the house Intelligence Committees Ranking Member devin nunes, was closer to the ukraine affair than he let on, and we now know, based on these documents that have been released, that there was a web of communications he had with the nowcriminally indicted ukrainian american businessman lev parnas. So listen to what he said last night when asked about those phone calls. Listen to this. Its possible, but i havent gone through all my phone records. I dont really recall that name. I remember the name now because hes been indicted. Ill go back and check all my records but it seems very unlikely that i would be taking calls from random people. So whats your reaction to that, congressman. Was it appropriate for congressman nunes to lead republicans in this inquiry in the Intelligence Committee when he was communicating directly with people being investigated in the inquiry . Well, i dont find it the least bit remarkable that the Ranking Member of a committee is going to talk to a wide range of people involving the issues that are before his committee. In fact, thats his job. So you dont have any problem that he didnt disclose any of those conversations during the course of his questioning, during the house Intelligence Committee hearings . Thats an important question, wolf. Hes not required to, of course. But if you go back to the whistleblower complaint that started all of this, the whistleblower is required to disclose under penalty of perjury any contact hes had with congressional offices. My understanding is the whistleblower didnt do that. Congressman mcclintock, well continue these conversations down the road. It was kind of you to join us today on this historic, very important day. Appreciate it very much. Thanks so much for having me. Still to come were only minutes away from a highstakes hearing up on capitol hill. The House Judiciary Committee holding its first public impeachment proceedings. The chairman jerry nadler says hes not going to take any theatrics. Well see what goes on. Without my medication, my small tremors would be extreme. Without it, i cannot write my name. I was diagnosed with parkinsons. I had to retire from law enforcement. It was devastating. One of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. Prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. For sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. And we wont stop. Join us in fighting for whats right. [airport pa]all flights have been delayed. Tmobile makes the holidays easier. Like this. Because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. On that. So you can post this. Score this. Be there like this. And share all of this. With that. So do this, on that, with us. Now, buy a Samsung Galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free. Seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in. As little as 2 1 2 days when used at the first sign. Abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. Abreva acts on it. So you can too. Another monumental day here in washington with major, major implications at the top of the hour, all eyes will shift back to capitol hill for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States. Lets bring back our panel of experts. Lets talk about the goal for House Democrats, jeffrey toobin. You first. What do they hope to accomplish on this day . Well, i think its straightforward. Generate some outrage. Generate some understanding of what the standards are and say that and persuade people, if there are any persuadable people out there, that the conduct that the president engaged in is not just wrong. Its not just inappropriate. That it is a violation of the constitution. And that requires understanding what the constitution actually means by the phrase bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And i think the most useful thing the democrats could do to advance their goals is to establish a framework, a rubric that the facts easily mean that, to say that this is exactly why we have this phrase in the constitution. This is exactly why we have a mechanism in the constitution to remove a president because this kind of conduct is so far beyond the pale. I also think their goal is to make a larger case here that it set it in an Historic Context and say, this isnt just about democrats hating donald trump, et cetera, wanting to undo an election, but this is about the constitution as jeffrey says. And to make a larger point, as they did in the house report yesterday, that if one president can do this, then any president in the future can also do these things and not worry about it because it will be fine. And to bring you back to the Founding Fathers who, after all, were trying to escape authoritarian im and say, look, this is why they did this. They did not want an authorit authoritarian in the white house who could do whatever he wanted. I think the larger historic moment, if they can do that for the American Public, put it in some context. It would be important. Theyll have to grapple with the notion, remember the phrase quid pro quo everyone used . One of the enumerated six crimes is the word bribery. You have four law professors there to talk about what was intended and contemplated by that phrase and one, Jonathan Turley is going to be the one to say this is not sufficient to constitute an official act of bribery. Hell look to the Supreme Court of the United States which had the remember governor mcconnell who had overturned for taking rolexs and trips whatever it was to have an fda approved dietary approved supplement for a constituent. Theyre going to say, is this quid pro quo of an official act, did he actually pay to have someone lets read what Intelligence Committee<\/a> would likely disagree with that argument. Its 300page report is a road map for articles of impeachment. Well get more on that in just a moment. Lets begin this hour up on capitol hill with our senior Congressional Correspondent<\/a> manu raju just outside the room where the democrats will be meeting this morning. Theyre getting ready right now. So take us inside and set the scene for us. Just in a matter of moments the democrats will discuss their next step. Adam schiff is going to detail the report his committee issued that will serve as a backbone for articles of impeachment assuming the house goes that route. Hell answer questions from the members about some of the next steps. No staff is allowed in this room. Nancy pelosi also expects to address her caucus in private. Now at the same time, the public proceedings will take place in the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> in the next phase of the investigation and were expecting a very contentious affair from the start. Republicans are going to object to the proceedings saying the democrats have not made their case to impeach and remove this president. The democrats say the case is crystal clear. The president abused his office and obstructed congress and deserves to be impeached. Thats the case they want to make to the American Public<\/a>. The format will be much like what weve seen in previous testimony before the house Intelligence Committee<\/a>. First the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a>, jerry nadler, will deliver his Opening Statement<\/a> followed by the ranking republican doug collins delivering his. Then each of the four witnesses who are all legal experts will weigh in about high crimes and misdemeanors, whether this had been met under the constitution. Now were getting a taste of what some of these witnesses have said based on their Opening Statement<\/a>s weve heard so far. And a couple of things stand out. One from Michael Gerhardt<\/a>, one of the democratic witnesses invited by the democrats from the university of North Carolina<\/a>, says the president s serious misconduct, including bribery, solicitting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice in congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president , including what previous president s who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing. Now the republican witness, one of the four who is testifying, Jonathan Turley<\/a> from George Washington<\/a> university, has a different take. Hes going to say this. Im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a plausi i pla pla plausity paucity of evidence. It would stand out as the shortest proceeding with the shortest evidentiary record and narrowest grounds ever to impeach a president. It does not bode well for future president s who are working in a country often sharply and at times bitterly divided. Now after they deliver their Opening Statement<\/a>s, thats when well see the staff counsels ask questions, including the democratic counsel who previously worked in the obama administration. Hes going to have about 45 minutes to question, followed by the republican counsel and each of the members will have their own fiveminute rounds to ask questions as they try to make the case to the American Public<\/a> why the president should be impeached, why he shouldnt be impeached. This is the next phase in what is expected to be a quick moving process here in the house to potentially have that Impeachment Vote<\/a> before christmas. Nancy pelosi in private has not told her colleagues a specific timeline for moving forward. She refused to do that last night im told in private talking to her colleagues. Well see if she says anything different today. But the moment democrats mostly united believe the president should be impeached and theyre trying to make that case to the country today. On the other hand, the republicans are mostly i should say, completely united in opposing any sort of impeachment. Manuerageu stand by. The Intelligence Committee<\/a> took what they learned from more than 100 hours of testimony, sddozen of subpoenas and boiled it down to a 300page report showing what the democrats consider to be an overwhelming case against the president. Lets go to our congressional reporter lauren fox. Shes also up on capitol hill. Tell us about the findings, the major findings. Just remind our viewers. Wolf, this was a very important report because, as you said, this was a twomonth investigation. They interviewed many witnesses. They also were having many of these depositions behind closed doors. This was really the full summation of what they found. And one of the biggest takeaways is this was really going to form the basis for any articles of impeachment that they write. They broke this report into two sections. Basically, documenting the president s abuse of power as well as talking about all the witnesses, all the documents in great detail that they werent able to obtain because they believe the administration was obstructing congress. That could be another potential article of impeachment. So that really set the stage for what was coming forward. But the big new information coming from this report, the call records from april. Of course, i want to set the stage a little bit back in april was when marie yovanovitch, the former ambassador to ukraine, was facing struggles. In the spring she was ousted from her post, as you recall from this investigation. This was a significant development. It found that Rudy Giuliani<\/a> and other associates for the president as well as associates for giuliani were engaged back in april and having phone calls with the omb, also the white house, and it was very unclear what these calls are specifically about. But it paints the picture, according to democrats, this was going on long, long before many republicans are willing to admit that these associates were working on ousting marie yovanovitch. Also important, devin nunes, the Top Republican<\/a> on the Intelligence Committee<\/a>, was having conversations with one of Rudy Giuliani<\/a>s associates, lev parnas. Four different conversations in april. And i think thats an important note. If you remember, nunes is the Top Republican<\/a>. Hes someone who spoke at every Intelligence Committee<\/a> hearing. Hes been part of all these closed door depositions and interviews with witnesses. Republicans saying that its not a problem. Democrats saying its a very serious issue. Wolf . Lauren, well get back to you as well. Lauren fox up on capitol hill. Joining us now, republican congressman tom mcclint ok. Hell be asking questions later today. Thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure, wolf. Thanks for having me. So you defended the president by saying his demand on ukraine is how a manhattan businessman talks. But when you look at the house i said the language he used was that of a manhattan businessman. Very blunt and to the point. But i fully believe he was acting within his authority and responsibility as president. Let me read to you what this harvard law professor who is going to be testifying this morning, noah feldman says, and then well get your reaction. According to the testimony and to the publicly released memorandum of the july 25th, 2019, telephone call between the two president s, President Trump<\/a> abused his office by solicitting the president of ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in the 2020 president ial election. This act on its own qualifies as an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. Thats from noah feldman, the harvard law professor that the Democrats Ask<\/a>ed to testify. Whats your reaction to that . I dont see it that way at all. The constitution gives the president the authority to conduct the nations foreign relations. It commands him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The National Defense<\/a> authorization act, which authorized aid to ukraine in the first place, requires the administration to determine that that government is taking steps to combat corruption before funds can be released. The way i read that conversation, thats exactly what the president was doing. Just because joe biden is a candidate for president doesnt shield him from inquiry. But, you know, i guess the point that the democrats are going to be making, youve heard it many times, congressman, in that rough transcript that the white house released of that conversation, the only references to corruption were alleged corruption by the bidens. The president didnt make any allegations of corruption as far as ukraine was concerned in that phone conversation. And he specifically asked the new president of ukraine, zelensky, to go ahead and investigate the bidens. You dont have a problem with that . The question is did the president have probable cause to believe that laws were violated when thenvice President Biden<\/a> used over a billion dollars of federal loan guarantees to pressure the Ukrainian Government<\/a> to fire victor shokin, preparing to interrogate hunter biden, joe bidens son. Thats a violation of the foreign corrupt. Theres probable cause for the president to pursue that. All of the executive authority of this government is vested in one person, the president of the United States<\/a>. He has a responsibility to take care that those laws be faithfully executed, and he was doing exactly that. Just because the democrats dont want joe biden investigated for what to me is clearly an abuse of power, is certainly not an excuse for the president not to discharge his responsibility. Congressman mcclintock, if the president wanted an investigation of the bidens, he went to the ukrainians to ask for that. Why not the Justice Department<\/a> . Why didnt he ask the fbi . Why didnt he ask u. S. Authorities to investigate the bidens . I hope he has. He didnt. Well, he should. And again, when hes talking to the ukrainian president , he is discharging his duties under the National Defense<\/a> authorization act to determine if they are but you agree, if he had a serious problem that the thenvice president of the United States<\/a> and his son hunter biden were committing crimes, and thats the allegation, he should have asked the fbi to investigate. He should have again, i dont know. Ask the Justice Department<\/a> to investigate. Instead he went to the Ukrainian Government<\/a>. I dont know and you dont know what is being investigated right now. We have a farreaching investigation being headed up by john durham that may well be thats on the russia investigation. And ill tell you Something Else<\/a>. This, i think, is central to the president s motivations. In asking for that cooperation. And thats all going to come out. If the democrats continue to suppress that in the house, i think the senate is going to demand a full airing of all of these facts. We live in a free society, and free societies, the prosecution does not get to choose what witnesses the defense calls. Thats been the process over here in the house. I dont think the senate will stand for it. The new documents that have been released by the house Intelligence Committee<\/a>, congressman, show your republican colleague, the house Intelligence Committee<\/a>s Ranking Member<\/a> devin nunes, was closer to the ukraine affair than he let on, and we now know, based on these documents that have been released, that there was a web of communications he had with the nowcriminally indicted ukrainian american businessman lev parnas. So listen to what he said last night when asked about those phone calls. Listen to this. Its possible, but i havent gone through all my phone records. I dont really recall that name. I remember the name now because hes been indicted. Ill go back and check all my records but it seems very unlikely that i would be taking calls from random people. So whats your reaction to that, congressman. Was it appropriate for congressman nunes to lead republicans in this inquiry in the Intelligence Committee<\/a> when he was communicating directly with people being investigated in the inquiry . Well, i dont find it the least bit remarkable that the Ranking Member<\/a> of a committee is going to talk to a wide range of people involving the issues that are before his committee. In fact, thats his job. So you dont have any problem that he didnt disclose any of those conversations during the course of his questioning, during the house Intelligence Committee<\/a> hearings . Thats an important question, wolf. Hes not required to, of course. But if you go back to the whistleblower complaint that started all of this, the whistleblower is required to disclose under penalty of perjury any contact hes had with congressional offices. My understanding is the whistleblower didnt do that. Congressman mcclintock, well continue these conversations down the road. It was kind of you to join us today on this historic, very important day. Appreciate it very much. Thanks so much for having me. Still to come were only minutes away from a highstakes hearing up on capitol hill. The House Judiciary Committee<\/a> holding its first public impeachment proceedings. The chairman jerry nadler says hes not going to take any theatrics. Well see what goes on. Without my medication, my small tremors would be extreme. Without it, i cannot write my name. I was diagnosed with parkinsons. I had to retire from law enforcement. It was devastating. One of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. Prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. For sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. And we wont stop. Join us in fighting for whats right. [airport pa]all flights have been delayed. Tmobile makes the holidays easier. Like this. Because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. On that. So you can post this. Score this. Be there like this. And share all of this. With that. So do this, on that, with us. Now, buy a Samsung Galaxy<\/a> s10 or note 10 and get one free. Seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in. As little as 2 1 2 days when used at the first sign. Abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. Abreva acts on it. So you can too. Another monumental day here in washington with major, major implications at the top of the hour, all eyes will shift back to capitol hill for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States<\/a>. Lets bring back our panel of experts. Lets talk about the goal for House Democrats<\/a>, jeffrey toobin. You first. What do they hope to accomplish on this day . Well, i think its straightforward. Generate some outrage. Generate some understanding of what the standards are and say that and persuade people, if there are any persuadable people out there, that the conduct that the president engaged in is not just wrong. Its not just inappropriate. That it is a violation of the constitution. And that requires understanding what the constitution actually means by the phrase bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And i think the most useful thing the democrats could do to advance their goals is to establish a framework, a rubric that the facts easily mean that, to say that this is exactly why we have this phrase in the constitution. This is exactly why we have a mechanism in the constitution to remove a president because this kind of conduct is so far beyond the pale. I also think their goal is to make a larger case here that it set it in an Historic Context<\/a> and say, this isnt just about democrats hating donald trump, et cetera, wanting to undo an election, but this is about the constitution as jeffrey says. And to make a larger point, as they did in the house report yesterday, that if one president can do this, then any president in the future can also do these things and not worry about it because it will be fine. And to bring you back to the Founding Fathers<\/a> who, after all, were trying to escape authoritarian im and say, look, this is why they did this. They did not want an authorit authoritarian in the white house who could do whatever he wanted. I think the larger historic moment, if they can do that for the American Public<\/a>, put it in some context. It would be important. Theyll have to grapple with the notion, remember the phrase quid pro quo everyone used . One of the enumerated six crimes is the word bribery. You have four law professors there to talk about what was intended and contemplated by that phrase and one, Jonathan Turley<\/a> is going to be the one to say this is not sufficient to constitute an official act of bribery. Hell look to the Supreme Court<\/a> of the United States<\/a> which had the remember governor mcconnell who had overturned for taking rolexs and trips whatever it was to have an fda approved dietary approved supplement for a constituent. Theyre going to say, is this quid pro quo of an official act, did he actually pay to have someone lets read what Jonathan Turley<\/a>, who the republicans invited to testify this morning. Let me read a little chunk of what he will say. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the house proceeds solely on the ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. Does not bode well for future president s who are working in a country often sharply at times in a bitter divide. That gets at the heart of one of the biggest issues will be. Put aside the shortness of the proceedings, i dont think that matters. The question is going to be, is there enough evidence . Does it reach the standard for impeachment . Is what the House Intel Committee<\/a> found enough, or are the members of congress forced to draw too many inferences to get to that final conclusion of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors . Can i just make a point . The challenge today for these legal experts is to talk more about what the founders were thinking than what donald trump was thinking. Because there are the facts and theres the law. Theyre there to talk about the law. The facts will be decided by others. And so while it is alluse dating to think about what the framers were thinking about, the danger in this proceeding is the false hope that somehow this is totally on the level. And that we can sit back as citizens and learn something and come to some sort of reasonable conclusion. Thats not the situation in which weve operating. Were in a polarized washington with a panel of legal experts who are themselves polarized and who are drawing conclusions based on all of the evidence here. But we are all familiar with Supreme Court<\/a> decisions that are 54 with regularity. And its not because one set of justices is smart and the other is dumb and one is good and the other is bad. Its because these legal issues have tremendous political content. And the political ideology you bring to these questions will often dictate your result. So it is a forelong hope that the idea that if only the justices could just do the law instead of doing politics, its impossible to separate. Its not just politics, though, i think one of the challenges today for the democrats will be put aside the politics is to try to show that this isnt just a partisan exercise. This started off as a very partisan exercise. The most partisan impeachment process in modern history. It started off that way. I think one of the purposes for today, for the democrats is to kind of bring it back, the fundamentals and say this isnt just about republicans. Theyve been saying that. Also, what do you do but to try to show it because it hasnt worked so far. Its partisan because republicans have managed to stay together, even as the evidence has mounted. And to be fair, you are right when you look back to the clinton impeachment. There were democrats who voted against the president there, even going back to nixon, republicans who voted against nixon. That said, the political makeup of congress is different than it was even in the late 90s. There were folks who occupied something of a center that just dont exist anymore. We still have some of them. I think what the republicans would say fewer. There are fewer, but there are some. And i think the republicans would note that, you know, the proceedings were started without a single republican, not one vote former republican i think you all have a point about this. They have to prove this is not only based on conjecture and assumptions. Thats true. The legal experts have talked about why that would not be sufficient. Then the reason there would be conjecture and assumption is because theres been stonewalling by the white house, the administration. The people who would be able to answer the questions you raised, david, about the idea of what would he have done had the actual deliverable not been delivered . What if he hadnt actually done the announcement he did not . What would happen if the whistleblower complaint had not come out . The people who could testify to these things and provide more substance and meat on the bone for the experts to talk about are john bolton or Mick Mulvaney<\/a> or the flepresident of the unit states or mike pompeo. They are forced to talk about this in a theoretical constitutional way. The absence of evidence is not just because the democrats are lazy and they havent sought it out. Of course they sought it out. And theres evidence. And its not just witnesses. Every modern case, civil or criminal now, has lots of emails and lots of texts. This was a complicated, multipronged effort to influence ukraine here. It was not just conversations. It was emails. It was texts. Where are they . Weve seen a very small handful from ambassador taylor who produced his own. But there are there is all this evidence out here and just the point about whether you can make an inference about what that evidence would show is a critical factual issue that i hope gets discussed. Everybody stick around. Were not going anywhere. Theres a lot more that were standing by. The House Democrats<\/a> right now, they are discussing behind closed doors the next steps of the impeachment proceedings just ahead of todays open House Judiciary Committee<\/a> hearing. Well have live coverage. Stay with us. So why treat your mouth any differently . Listerine\u00ae completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99. 9 of germs. Try listerine\u00ae. Need Stocking Stuffers<\/a> . Try listerine\u00ae ready tabs\u2122. The ones that make a truebeen difference in peoples lives. And mikes won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat americas biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. All against big odds you can beat him. Im Mike Bloomberg<\/a> and i approve this message. Im Mike Bloomberg<\/a> and i approve this message. Is just like our originalhn sandwiches. Only littler. So we bought a little ad. On lil jon. Little johns, yeah 3, what . and my side super soft . With the sleep number 360 smart bed it can. With your sleep number setting. Can it help keep me asleep . Yes, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. Save up to 500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. Only for a limited time. Afterat kay, weve learnedions othe most important one will always be your own. Every yes. Oh my gosh, yes. Begins with kay. What are you doing back there, junior . Since were obviously lost, im rescheduling my Xfinity Customer Service<\/a> appointment. Ah, relax. I got this. Which gps are you using anyway . A Little Something<\/a> called instinct. Been using it for years. Yeah, thats what im afraid of. He knows exactly where were going. My whole body is a compass. Oh boy. The my account app makes todays Xfinity Customer Service<\/a> simple, easy, awesome. Not my thing. The president of the United States<\/a> meeting with World Leaders<\/a> in london as the next phase of the impeachment inquiry kicks off minutes from now back here in washington. We just saw President Trump<\/a> meeting with german chancellor Angela Merkel<\/a> and struck what was a much more muted tone as compared to yesterdays comments. Kaitlan collins is in london for us. It was very interesting to see the president today as opposed to yesterday. Yes, it was, wolf. Today when the president was taking these questions from reporters, one of them came up about Rudy Giuliani<\/a> and that report that was surfaced yesterday that was released by the House Democrats<\/a>. One of the big parts of new information was about these phone calls that the president s personal attorney had with one of them, including a number from the office of management and budget. Now thats not an office known to most people but its at the center of this impeachment inquiry because you saw in the testimony multiple officials said it was the office of management and budget official that told them to freeze the aid when they did back over the summer. Now the president was asked what purpose does his personal attorney have in calling a member of the Budget Office<\/a> in the administration . Heres how he responded to reporters today. I really dont know. You have to ask him. Sounds like something thats not so complicated. Youd have to ask him. No big deal. So, wolf, the president saying he doesnt think its a big deal that Rudy Giuliani<\/a> made those calls but not explaining why he did. Its interesting the comments he had, there were some pretty not very nice words about the Prime Minister<\/a> of canada, justin trudeau. Tell us about that. Yeah, this is the first time the president has responded to the video that surfaced overnight that appeared to show the canadian Prime Minister<\/a>, the french president and the british Prime Minister<\/a> mocking the president for those extended question and answer sessions he had yesterday totalling two hours and one minute. Those videos the white house had not responded to nor the french and canadian offices. The president did respond and he believes the canadian Prime Minister<\/a> is twofaced. He believed that reaction of trudeau on video talking about the president and the way he conducted himself was a reaction to the pressure that the president put on him yesterday during their one on one. A one on one that was much less contentious than the one the president had with the french president but at one point, while sitting down with trudeau, the president turned to him and asked, how much canada was spending and what percent of its gdp on defense. Sources saying the president knows very well that canada is not meeting that 2 standard that these nato countries have set for themselves but he wanted to have trudeau say it. Trudeau said they increased it and the president got him to say it was around 1. 3 , far below that 2 threshold the president has hammered these allies over getting. Now he says hes twofaced and Something Else<\/a> the president said is hes canceling that press conference he was going to have in just a matter of hours and that comes after these leaders we should note were apparently mocking the president for taking so many questions from reporters for speaking for such Great Lengths<\/a> during their meetings. Kaitlan collins, well get back to you as well. Here in washington were getting some details about whats happening behind closed doors right now as House Democrats<\/a> are meeting to discuss the next steps of the impeachment proceedings. Manu raju is outside that meeting room right now. What are you hearing . Nancy pelosi, the House Speaker<\/a> just walked into this room. She declined to answer reporters questions. Adam schiff, the house Intelligence Committee<\/a> chairman also arrived moments later to detail the report, outlining what the democrats believe is serious abuse of power, something that most democrats here believe warrants his impeachment. Hes going to go through that step by step. But this caucus meeting is being taken under unusual circumstances. They are not allowing staff in the room which they usually do. Theyre encouraging members not to bring their cell phones into the room. Theyre closing off one entrance where members usually arrive, presumably to prevent reporters like us from being whats inside as they go in and out. Theyre denying access to reporters from one specific hallway, only allowing members to go in and out. Showing the sensitivity of this discussion as the members try to grapple with the next steps. There are a number of questions that members have about how the speaker will come down in terms of the timing, in terms of what articles of impeachment theyre thinking about, in terms of the scope of those articles. Debate about how that will go down. The expectation on capitol hill is that this will all be wrapped up by christmas time. There will be a vote on the house floor before christmas. Thats the expectation. Thats the weight. It appears to be going in the house judiciary with its first set of hearings today followed by probably more proceedings next week followed by the house vote, likely the week after. But the speaker has beneficial resistant to detailing the specific timeline. Im told he did not lay out a specific timeline. Im also told he did not say whether or not they are going to impeach. And when i asked her if they made the decision last night to impeach the president or not, i have not but she tweeted this morning that the president is a continuing threat to democracy. So we see where this is all going and well see what she has to say to our members in a matter of moments. They would like to wrap up these articles of impeachment as you have often pointed out by christmas. Manu raju, well get back to you as well. A committee with a history of theatrics about to take over. Can jerry nadler get members to leave their drama at the door. Much more of our special coverage right after this. alarm beeping welcome to our busy world. Where we all want more energy. But with less carbon footprint. Can we have both . At bp, were working every day to make energy thats cleaner and better. And we see possibilities everywhere. To make energy thats cleaner and better. You are the one light of my life i love you so please be my wife . Yes yes save on a gift that says it all. Only at jared a lot will happen in your life. Wrinkles just wont. Neutrogena\u00ae rapid wrinkle repairs dermproven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. Making wrinkles look so last week. Rapid wrinkle repair\u00ae pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. Neutrogena\u00ae male anchor . An update on the cat who captured our hearts. Female anchor how often should you clean your fridge . Stay tuned to find out. Male anchor beats the odds at the box office to become a rare nonfranchise hit. You can give help and hope to those in need. Can a banana peel fuel your flight. Bp and Fulcrum Bioenergy<\/a> think so. Together well reduce emissions and Landfill Waste<\/a> by turning garbage into jet fuel. At bp, we see possibilities everywhere. Right now were awaiting the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> at the top of the hour. Theyre scheduled to begin the formal impeachment inquiry hearings. The first time the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> will be doing so. Theyll hear testimony from four constitutional scholars. This could be rather lively. This could be a very lively session given the nature of some of the democrats and the republicans who will be asking questions or maybe in their respective capacities making statements as opposed to asking questions when they each have five minutes to do so. But the Committee Lawyers<\/a> will start off the process with 45 minutes. Presumably serious constitutional questions about this process. And the challenge is going to be explaining it in a way the public can understand. Its interesting, im surrounded by people who know far more about this than me, but ive already learned something reading the Opening Statement<\/a> of noah feldman. If you go back to the history that high, in terms of high crimes and misdemeanors meant connected to high political office. And he quotes from Alexander Hamilton<\/a> emphasizing the word political there. And that gets to the central argument of democrats. This was the president using leverage of aid and a meeting between president s, the u. S. President and the ukrainian president to get a political favor. Something clearly a power of his office, clearly connected to something that he would benefit politically from that office. The trouble is four constitutional scholars on daytime television, can you break through what is already a little bit of public exhaustion with these proceedings . One of the challenges, and i think the democrats who have made a compelling case thats not been rebutted on the facts but republicans are attacking process saying why are we here . But it is to ask the very basic question which is, what did you do when a president does this . What is the right remedy . Is it removal from office or do Voters Decide<\/a> . And that is something thats going to have to be debated. But if no one is really engaging on the republican side, the answer to that question, is this the new standard that you dig up dirt on your political opponent with any foreign leader . Is that what we want to allow . And if not, then whats the gloria, let me read what professor pamela karlan will say in her Opening Statement<\/a>. Im not a lawyer. I know im not a lawyer but you had a good nights sleep at a holiday inn express. I did. Movie references next. Heres what she says. Everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record tells me that when President Trump<\/a> invited, indeed demanded Foreign Investment<\/a> in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power. Indeed as i want to explain in my testimony, drawing a Foreign Government<\/a> into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. Right. Foreign governments should have nothing to do with our democratic process. Period. And i think, you know, to davids point, the question has to be, and im not a lawyer, nor am i an impeachment scholar, but the question has to be, is this acceptable to americans . Not whether its inappropriate. Not whether just is it impeachable, but if theyre watching this hearing, maybe one of the goals is for americans to sit there and say, is this acceptable behavior to me for a president of the United States<\/a> . And some will certainly say, well, i think hes great on a lot of things. Maybe not so much on this. But this is just trump being trump or whatever excuse. But that, to me is the key question here whether it is acceptable. Not necessarily look. Is it a high crime . I dont know what a high crime is. You tell me. Gerald ford was the minority leader in the 1960s when there was an attempt to impeach William Odouglas<\/a> on the Supreme Court<\/a> and he said something thats been quoted many times since then. When they were discussing what is an Impeachable Offense<\/a>. And he said an Impeachable Offense<\/a> is whatever the house of represent of its decides is an Impeachable Offense<\/a>. Now a lot of law professors have taken offense at that and i think everybody. I think all of these witnesses would say that is not true. Its not true, but its not entirely untrue either. The judgment of impeachment, of what is an Impeachable Offense<\/a>, will always be a political judgment. This is not a courtroom. Who the losing side acceptable is the losing side cant appeal this decision. This is the one and only place impeachment can be decided. Did congress say this is unacceptable . Theres remedies for that. Thats why theres censure. There are a lot of potential remedies congress has. Thats why todays discussion might be interesting because even the republican witness Jonathan Turley<\/a> says that he thought the president s conduct was not appropriate. So kind of thats where we start. The question is the one that youve identified is, what is the remedy for it . Is this an oversight issue where congress can use its normal tools or is it that extreme example . Is this the high crime and misdemeanor akin to bribery and treason that lets get lauren to react to this. Michael gerhardt, one of the witnesses at the North Carolina<\/a> school of law, he will say this. The president s serious misconduct including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice and congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president , including what previous president s who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing. And the reason hes saying that because it involves a Foreign Government<\/a>. It involves what people look at as the umbrella reason and cause to call it an abuse of power. When you use your position to invite a Foreign Government<\/a> into this independent country of the United States<\/a> of america, and thats why people say its more important. But this is also even more than the president of the United States<\/a> and what will it mean for a president , this has every bit to do with what does it mean for congress . The power of congress is exclusive to be able to have these impeachment inquiries, to have the impeachment processes. If they essentially are dismissive of conduct that isnt even debatably a high crime or misdemeanor, bribery or treason, it would render impeachment completely spineless. It would mean nothing at any point in time. If congress has to endeavor to the pursuit of justice sometimes even more than the conviction itself. Theets pursuit of separation of powers. And thats whats important here. Just remember how we got here. Three years ago, the u. S. Experienced an unprecedented attack on its political process by a foreign power. Part of which there was an episode where members of the Trump Campaign<\/a> were willing to at least talk to russians, a foreign power, about getting dirt on their opponent. Three years later you have the sitting president , even in the wake of that, and a twoyearlong investigation by the special counsel having the gall to seek help from a foreign power in his election. In effect, thats remarkable. I have to say that is an especially moving and important statement by Michael Gerhardt<\/a> because of who Michael Gerhardt<\/a> is. Michael gerhardt of the university of North Carolina<\/a>, is the author of a book called the federal impeachment process which is now in its third edition and soon to be in its fourth edition. But he is, without question, the leading scholar of impeachment, if ever, in the history of the United States<\/a>. And not known as a particular partisan. Yes, hes a democrat, as republicans have pointed out, but this is not someone known as a partisan. Pamela karlan, an extremely admired scholar is known as a very strong democrat. She served in the obama administration. Been very outspoken on Voting Rights<\/a> issues. Michael gerhardt is not. And the fact that Michael Gerhardt<\/a> says this is worse than nixon. This is worse than clinton. This is worse than Andrew Johnson<\/a> back after the civil war. That is, i think, very jeffrey gerhardt has been saying that a long time. Hes very, very smart. Maybe its true. And the other challenge is, we havent had very many impeachments in u. S. History. So saying its worse or better, it has limited applicability. We see members of the Judiciary Committee<\/a> arriving after the. This is an historic day here in the capital. Instead of a travel site and youll experience a whole new range of emotions like. The relaxing feeling of knowing youre getting the best price. Thesell work. The utter delight of free wifi. Oh man this is the best part. Isnt that you . Yeah. And the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. I can read minds too. Really . Book at hilton. Com. If you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25 off that stay. Expect better. Expect hilton. Seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in. As little as 2 1 2 days when used at the first sign. Abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. Abreva acts on it. So you can too. The holidays are here and so is tmobiles newest, most powerful signal. And we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. So tmobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. For yourself, or up to a family of four. Keep your family connected, and hurry into tmobile today, to get up to four iphone 11s on us. Only at tmobile. Hi, its real milk, just00 farmwithout the lactose, id. So you can enjoy it even if youre sensitive. Delicious. Now, ive heard people say lactaid isnt real milk. Ok, well, if it isnt real then, i guess those things over there cant actually be cows. Must be some kind of really big dogs, then. Sit bad dog. Tech so you think this chip is nothing to worry about . Well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. These friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. So they scheduled at safelite. Com. They didnt have to change their plans or worry about a thing. Ill see you all in a little bit. And i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. Plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. Customer really . tech being there whenever you need us thats another safelite advantage. Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. Hi dad. No. Edont try to get up. Hi, im julie, a right at home caregiver. And if id been caring for toms dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. Thats because im trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. Well be right there. We have to go. Hey, tom. You should try right at home. Theyre great for us. The right care. Right at home. The amount of Student Loan Debt<\/a> i have, im embarrassed to even say. We just decided we didnt want debt any longer. I didnt realize how easy investing could be. Im Picking Companies<\/a> that i believe in. I think sofi money is amazing. Thank you sofi. Sofi thank you, we love you. Hurt. All right. Any minute now the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> set to hold the first hearing against President Trump<\/a>. We are back with our experts as we await the start of this hearing. Jeffrey toobin, the members have arrived. There is representative collins who is the Top Republican<\/a> on this committee. He will have an Opening Statement<\/a>. The chairman jerry nadler will have an Opening Statement<\/a>. Then well hear and they will keep their Opening Statement<\/a>s down to ten minutes or so. Professor churleys is 57 minutes. I assume he has a shortened version. You know, one issue the democrats are dealing with mostly behind closed doors i think is relevant to todays hearing is how broad will this impeachment be . This is an issue. Its interesting. All the democrats you interviewed wolf, i noticed they have fought touched this issue which is incredibly important. Will this be limited to ukraine or the obstruction of justice unconfident by the Mueller Investigation<\/a> as well as in terms of this investigation and with mueller . This is something that to the democrats seem genuinely undecided about and it will be interesting to see as the Democrats Ask<\/a> questions here, are they going to try at least, some of them, to show this was broader than just ukraine or is this impeachment just about ukraine . Can i raise a point where i think today is important . As we think about the constitution and the framers and the fact pattern here. You know, there the a big question about misjudgment by a president versus abuse of office by a president and i think its murky. I think its difficult to distinguish one from another . What about the gulf of on thekin tonkin. When there is misjudgment we know his tore clip or contemporaneously. Thats one of the battleground here. I wonder if we will have a real debate or sim play a partisan show . And one doesnt excluld the other . And the Intelligence Committee<\/a> report describes not just a bad judgment but described a dramatic cre schenn do which was a monthlong campaign that involved the entire administration and was led by the president and that is what i think you will see democrats talking about today and trying to kind of hone if on that. We have a preview of what republicans will say, when i interviewed congressman quinta of california. You heard that interview. He was making the point that the president had every right to raise the issue of Biden Corruption<\/a>, alleged Biden Corruption<\/a> in the course of that conversation with the ukrainian president. It shows how misleading statements or falsehoods have infiltrated the gops defense of trump. Lets paulk talk about that. The president that is right to make sure ukraine is using this money properly. The fact is the department of defense did that in may. I will read from the letter sent. It says, we have certified the government of ukraine has taken substantial action of reform for the purpose of decreasing accountability. They certified as its called in may so for republicans and the president to clarification well, we dont know how they were using this money is not factually true. You heard mcclk chin tok saying he had the mcclintock saying that he had the prosecutor fired. Yet those talking points are respited despite the fact theyre not based on fact. Its an important moment. I want to get your sense of the history of what were about to see. You see the members showing up, the staff, theyre showing up. The witnesses will be there. Theyll be sworn in as well. Its a moment that doesnt happen very often if american history. It doesnt and it shouldnt. Because its so important you think about the the way constitution set up our democratic structure here and were looking back right now to say what did the founded fathers envision about the country that we are now in . What did the separation of powers mean . Are there","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803108.us.archive.org\/34\/items\/CNNW_20191204_140000_CNN_Newsroom_with_Poppy_Harlow_and_Jim_Sciutto\/CNNW_20191204_140000_CNN_Newsroom_with_Poppy_Harlow_and_Jim_Sciutto.thumbs\/CNNW_20191204_140000_CNN_Newsroom_with_Poppy_Harlow_and_Jim_Sciutto_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}