Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow And Jim

CNNW CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow And Jim Sciutto December 4, 2019 15:00:00

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 truly three coequal branches of government or can one thumb their nose that leads to an authoritarian regime . We are looking at a very historic moment. Looking at what the power of congress. Remember, everyone, just in 2016 and beyond, in 2018, democrats ran on the notion that they felt slighted because there was not enough power conveyed to congress. George washington university, one of the warnings he was invited by the republican minority. I think he will be one of the most important figures of today, wolf. Primarily, his argument is twofochld number one, why are we wasting through this . Why not get that third branch of judiciary to get rulings . Why waste through to figure out if the other witnesses will be testifying to figure out if there was construction. He concludes his statement, all three pages of it, essentially saying i know everyone is mad. My dog is mad, im mad. But thats not a reason to impeach a president. It has to be more it to. That just tell us you how significant today is. Sit about partisanship or undermining democracy . The president keeps making the point, too, this is an unfair process. You got Three Witnesses On Constitutional Law invited by the democrats and only one invited by the republican, to which you say thats how congress works. In the days when the republicans ran the House Of Representatives, they got the lions share of witnesses. Thats how congress owe snow what you are saying is elections matter . Elections matter. You know what . If whole process is an this whole process is an election matters. You know the Impeachment Procedure would be on the identical behavior with the republicans were in control of the House Of Representatives. Zero. Zero chance of this Going Forward so, yes, the number of witnesses and who called them is certainly an element of an example of how elections matter. But much more significantly, the fact that this proceeding is going on at all is evidence of how much the democratic control of the representatives matter. You see Michael Gerhardt there from the university of North Carolina. Hes a constitutional legal scholar as well and also happens to be a cnn contributor. Because we only hire the best. A very smart guy and Professor Carlin of stamford, she will be testifying as well. Its going to be and im anxious, you know, ross, for your thoughts, it going to be very, very academic . At least the opening session . I think the thing to look for right out of the gate is whether the republicans try to score some points. By the way, thats noah feldman from law school, the fourth witness. On the point that laura and david were making about sort of what this means about the power of the presidency, you know, when we actually do get down to the substance, i think thats one of the things we will hear is that the framers were actually concerned about an executive that would be too powerful. Also, at the same time, having an executive who is powerful enough and fought having a congress that was too powerful, it is about this balance. And one of the things the framers debated at the beginning was included now administration as a ground for impeachment. That was included in a lot of State Constitutions at the time. The framers debated it and they decide no now with the administration being a bad president , even an intentionally bad president isnt enough for impeachment. That would make congress, the president s boss, which they didnt want. I dont think thats an argument the republicans wanted. From misjudgment, making bad decisions. That is not enough. Thats one of the things we know from those early debates is now the administration not enough. I did speak to nancy pelosi about this impeachment. One of the things she says when bush was president , george w. Bush, i had members of my caucus, democrats when she was speaker of the house who said we have to impeach the president over the iraq war. Its such a disaster. She said, no, this is not how impeachment works. You cant just impeach a president because you dont like them or disagree with his policies. Now, the ukraines and she was basically continuing that view through the publication of the mueller report. But when the ukraine story broke, she flipped and she became basically a supporter of impeachment. But i think that idea heres the chairman, jerry nadler, hes walking in, he will bring this session to order momentarily. Go ahead. You know, i think the stakes for the democrats are very high here on how they conduct this hearing and how jerry nadler conducts this hearing around how he rules in this hearing and for the republicans as well. Because there is a risk i believe as the American Public watches this as this devolves into some kind of theatric cal experience rather than a serious discussion about the constitution of the United States and about what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. This is an ethic constitutional argument that we are having in this country right now. And that will continue in the house and perhaps in the senate. But, it is a serious moment and to turn it into just an argument over procedure that most of the American Public, lets face it, doesnt really understand what the procedures of the house are about, neither do i in this minute detail, sort of undermines the seriousness of the discussion that theyre about to have right now in the house. A and the questions owe tower is kwus questions that should be asked of these clear, Studying The Constitution and studying impeachment, itself. You know what, it all began he just banged the gavel. Yeah. All right. Lets listen in. This is the grand room. I was wondering whether this was created all right. So that was a sort of a false gavel. We thought he was starting. Hell be starting momentarily. This is hes going to make an Opening Statement, then the rank member will make an Opening Statement. Lets listen in. Recessses of the committee at any time or you are observing the right to objection. The objection is noted. I have reserved the right to object. Gentleman is heard. Mr. Chairman pursuant to cause 2j 1 of rule 11 i am furnishing you a demand of minority hearings on this subject signed by all the republican the Gentleman Will suspend. I could not understand what you were saying. Repeat it more clearly. Pursuant to cause 2j1 of rule 11 i am furnishing you a demand of minority natives on this subject signed by all of the republican members of the committee and i would request that you set this date before the Committee Votes on any articles of impeachment. I withdraw my reservation. We will confirm ruling on this later. The quorum is present. This is the first hearing. This is the first hearing we are conducting pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in sex 4a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Each witness will have ten minutes to make their statements and then we will proceed to questions. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman . I have the time for an Opening Statement, the parliamentary inquiry is not in order at this time. The facts before us are undisputed. On july 25th, President Trump called president Zelensky Of Ukraine and in President Trumps words asked him for a favor. That call was part of the concerted effort by the president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next eselection election. This time by his political adversaries by a Foreign Government to obtain that private political advantage, President Trump withheld both an official white house meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress Found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and to withhold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him, when Career Professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising that they will quote go through some things, closed quote. Okay, this is not the first time that President Trump has engaged in this pattern of conduct. In 2016, the Russian Government engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign of interference in our elections. In the words of special counsel, robert mueller, quote, the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome. Closed quote. The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time. When President Trump asked russia to hack his political opponent the very next day, the Russian Military Intelligence Unit attempted to hack that political opponent when his own justice the department tried to uncover the extent to which a Foreign Government had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. Then as now this administrations level of Obstruction Without precedence. No other president has vowed to Quote Fight All Of The Suspense Unquote as President Trump promised. In the 1974 impeachment proceedings, President Nixon produced dozens of recordings. In 1998, president clinton physically gave his blood. President trump by contrast has refused to produce a single document and directed every witness not to testify. Those are the facts before us. The Impeachment Inquiry has moved back to the house Judiciary Committee and as we begin a review of these facts, the president s pattern of behavior becomes clear. President trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both case, he got caught. And in both case, he did everything in his power to prevent the American People from learning the truth about his conduct. On july 24th, the special council testified before this committee. He impolice department us to see the nature of the threat to our country. Quote, over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian Governments effort to interfere in our elections is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every american. Closed ignoring that warning, president called the ukrainian president the very next day to ask him to investigate his political opponent to determine this pattern of behavior constitutes an Impeachable Offense, it is important to place President Trumps conduct into historical context. Since the founding of our country, the House Of Representatives has impeached only two president s. A third was on his way to impeachment when he resigned. This committee has voted to impeach two president s for obstructing justice. We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trumps conduct fits these categories, there is precedent for recommending impeachment here. But never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a Foreign Government. Never before has a president engaged in a course of duct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers. The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. They fought a war. They witnessed terrible violence. They overthrew a king. But as they met to frame our constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all, foreign interference in our elections. They juxtopposed a tyrant. They were deeply worried we would lose our newfound liberty, not through a war, if a foreign army were to invade, we would see that coming, but from corruption from within. Within the early years they asked us, each of us, to be vigilant to that theft. Washington warned us. Quote, to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most bainful foes of the government. Adam wrote toeverson, as often as elections happen, the danger occurs. Hamiltons warning was more specific and more dire. In the federalist papers he wrote that quote the most deadly adversaries of the republican government unquote will almost certainly attempt to quote raise a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the union. In short, the founders warned us we should expect our foreign adversaries to target our elections, that we will find ourselves in grave dang fer if president willingly opens that door to their influence. What kind of president would do that . How will we know if the president has betrayed his country in this manner . How will we know if he has betrayed his country in this manner for petty personal gain . Hamilton had a response for that as well. He wrote, when the a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed a considerable talents known to have scoffed and pride and principles of liberty, when such a man is steamed mount the hobby horse of popularity, to take the every opportunity of embarrassing the general government and bringing it under suspicion. It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may radio id the storm and direct the whirlwind. Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the constitution. And the facts before us are clear. President trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference from our elections. He directly is and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded. He was willing to compromise our security at his office for personal, political gain. It does not matter that President Trump got caught and ultimately released the funds that ukraine so desperately needed. It matters that he enlisted a foreperson government to intervene in our elections in the first place. It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used his office not merely to defend himself but to obstruct investigators at every turn. We are all aware that the next election is looming. But we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election the one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again, to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain. Today we will begin our conversation where we should, with a text of the constitution. We are empowered to recommend the impeachment to the house f. We find he has committed treason, bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few day, we will reconvene and hear from the committees that worked to uncover the facts before us. And when we apply the constitution to those facts, if it i

© 2025 Vimarsana