Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Pelosi and Schiff Hold Briefing on Impeachment Inquiry; Schiff: White House Attempts to Stonewall Will Be Considered Evidence of Obstruction. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired October 02, 2019 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST: Yes, it is, welcome back. A lot to get into right now this hour. We are waiting to hear from U.S. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi for what is a weekly news conference. She will be joined today by Adam Schiff, who is the head of the House Intelligence Committee.
That is one of the three committees plowing ahead with a formal impeachment inquiry against president Donald Trump.
It was a week ago that we heard that that formal inquiry had been launched. And we have just learned those committees are drafting a subpoena,
demanding that the White House produce key documents. They plan to issue that subpoena on Friday.
Also in the coming hours, committee members will be hearing from the inspector general for the U.S. State Department. He is the head of an
independent watchdog and asked to speak to the committee members, quote, "urgently."
And CNN has learned he is planning to bring copies of documents related to the State Department and Ukraine.
Meanwhile, President Trump continues to deny allegations that he used his influence with Ukraine's president for personal gain, calling his phone
call to Volodymyr Zelensky in July at the center of this crisis, "perfect," and the impeachment inquiry a "coup."
Let's bring in our panel to talk about this. I'm joined by White House reporter Stephen Collinson, CNN's Elie Honig and Josh Rogin and
correspondent Melissa Bell, who is in Rome.
Let me start with you there where earlier, Mike Pompeo responding to questions about the Ukraine controversy, said -- oh, OK, we don't have
Melissa. Let me come back to the chaps and we'll get to Melissa shortly.
I've got you lined up, so I'm going to do you in order.
Stephen, we wait and continue to wait for Nancy Pelosi. We were discussing before at the top of this hour the fact this is only a week since we
officially heard from Nancy Pelosi, that she was formally launching an impeachment inquiry, something that she had been very reticent to do until
this point.
Will she now be, do you think, convinced at this point that it was a good idea?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think she's all in at this point, having sort of triggered this impeachment inquiry. She has no choice now
but to pursue it where it leads.
I think so far at least, the Democrats have the upper hand here. They have been dictating to the White House and the State Department and the other
areas of the U.S. government exactly how this is going to unfold.
For much of the Trump presidency, his success in Washington has been in keeping everybody off balance and behaving in such an unpredictable and
extreme way that no one can quite work out how to deal with it.
Nancy Pelosi, throughout the Trump presidency, has been perhaps the most successful political adversary of the president who has coped with this.
And she has dealt with the president quite well. It doesn't seem quite like President Trump really knows how to respond.
I think the interesting thing just in the last week is how wide this has gone. It's not now just about the call to the president of Ukraine from
the president back in July; the secretary of state is now being drawn in, Rudy Giuliani is now having to lawyer up.
There are questions about the way that the president and the attorney general, William Barr, have been trying to get U.S. allies -- Italy, Great
Britain, Australia -- to help the investigation, the administration has underway, in investigating exactly why the Russia investigation was first
started, an investigation a lot of people think is a political conspiracy.
So things are happening so quickly and, so much is coming out, we don't really know what's going to happen from one hour to the next. And that has
to be exceedingly worrying for the White House.
ANDERSON: Well, the secretary of state Mike Pompeo certainly front and center in this, whether he likes it or not. He earlier, and in responding
to questions about the Ukraine controversy, in Italy, said, "I was on that call."
Melissa, what else did we learn there from Mike Pompeo in Italy today?
[11:05:00]
MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that was a really important answer simply because we hadn't heard it from him. We'd heard him deny it
previously. Then we'd heard him kind of skirt around the issue.
So to hear him say directly, I was on that call, is crucial because that, Becky, goes to the heart of what the Democrats, who head up those
committees overseeing this investigation, have been accusing him of, that conflict of interest.
He was on the call and yet the secretary of state will be asked to hand over material to allow people at the State Department to take depositions.
And that conflict of interest was one of the things that they highlighted in that joint statement yesterday.
He was also asked whether any red flags had come up in his head as he heard President Trump press the Ukrainian president in that phone call.
He would not answer that question but he did take on those accusations from the committee chairman of stonewalling. What they said is that he'd
essentially tried to get in the way of the investigation, warning him that he needed now to cooperate. This was Mike Pompeo's response a little
earlier in Rome, Becky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We will, of course, do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch. But we are
going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system.
And we won't tolerate folks on Capitol Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees. That's unacceptable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BELL: Now he would also not be drawn on the question of what the inspector general is likely to tell Congress later today or indeed whether he was
aware that he'd reached out to Congress to make that urgent statement to them.
You know there is one person who's going to be watching very closely what happens over the course of the next few hours in Washington, that is Mike
Pompeo himself. He was due to have a visit of a museum this afternoon. That's been canceled.
But for now he remains in the Italian capital with his eyes, one suspects, firmly fixed on what's happening in Washington -- Becky.
ANDERSON: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely no doubt about that. Let's get to this news conference now, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Thank you for being here as we observe the district work here in the Holy Days. The -- as we gather here,
our members across the country are having communication with their constituents on two subjects in particular and one perhaps.
The first is on our legislation, H.R. 3, to lower the cost of prescription drugs now. We are very pleased at the response that members are receiving
as we've asked them to go out there to receive public comment on H.R. 3.
And when they return, we will be ready to proceed, some in committee, others just among members, to present the legislation. H.R. 3 is important
because, as I've said to you before, across the country, you could see grown men cry at meetings because of the cost of prescription drugs.
It's almost impossible for them to be healthy -- and financially healthy -- with the rising cost of prescription drugs.
In the last year's election, this was a very high priority. It continues to be. So when the president says that he can't do anything, at least he
has the threat of impeachment or consideration of impeachment, I hope he doesn't mean he doesn't want to work together to lower the cost of
prescription drugs.
It would give the secretary additional powers to negotiate for lower costs. It would end the disparity of costs between what consumers in America pay
and what they pay in other countries. It would have a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for catastrophic Medicare expenses.
It would also, in the negotiation, not only be for Medicare but for all. And it would have an inflation rebate that reverses years of increases. So
we're very pleased with the work that has gone into it so far by our committee chairman Frank Pallone of Energy and Commerce, Richie Neal of
Ways and Means and Bobby Scott of Educational Workforce and many members as well.
We will be discussing this again over the break and the district work period when we return.
At the same time, we are making progress on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. This is an issue of concern around the country and we want to
be sure that, as we go forward, we are protecting, we are strengthening America's working families and our farmers, who are very affected by this.
This is not about trickle-down trade. We're not trickle down economics people, we're not trickle-down trade people either, unless it hits home for
our workers and our farmers in terms of enforceability.
[11:10:00]
PELOSI: We can't be there yet. But we are on a path to yes. And as you probably know, on Friday, our House task force under the leadership of
Richie Neal in Ways and Means put forth a counter offer to what the administration has proposed.
When we can arrive at a place where not only do we have our issues addressed but that we have enforceability that will make it real for
America's families and farmers, then we can go down that path.
I hope, again, that the president saying, because of other actions in terms of upholding the Constitution of the United States, that he is not -- he
can't -- he can't work with us because I do think he wants this U.S.- Mexico-Canada trade agreement and we want it when it is right in terms of enforceability and that we can work together.
At the same time, we are hoping that we can return, renew our conversations about infrastructure, building infrastructure of America. As I've said,
our agenda last year when we ran was for the people. Lower the cost of health care by lowering the cost of prescription drugs, that's what we're
doing.
Building infrastructure of America in a green way so that we can increase paychecks, lower health care, bigger paychecks, cleaner government. Well,
I think that we can work with the administration on prescription drugs. I hope so. And infrastructure, I hope so.
Clean government, that's more of a challenge. And so as we gather here today, we are clearly at a place where we are legislating to try to meet
the needs of the American people in a transformative way. We are investigating. We are litigating.
We are also here today on the one-year anniversary of the Khashoggi -- since Khashoggi was killed. It's such a very sad thing. And at the same
time, you see the administration schmoozing with the very people who perhaps orchestrated that.
The -- again, it's -- yesterday the Chinese observed their 70th anniversary. At the same time, the president was very positive about that.
While observing their anniversary is one thing, praising them for it is another, when they have serious repression going on right now in China,
whether it's undermining the cultural language and religion of Tibet, whether it's the placing in education camps one, two or three, depending on
the cause, but at least 1 million Uighurs, whether it's the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and just the violation of human rights throughout
China.
It's the same fight we've been having for years.
"For what does it profit a man or a country if he gains the whole world but suffers the loss of his soul?"
But we seem to be able to ignore the shoutout from our soul on respecting the dignity and worth of every person. So I know many of you are here,
some of you are regulars. Many of you are not.
And I said to Mr. Schiff, maybe you should come to all of our meetings, we might get some coverage for what we're trying to do for the American
people.
But we are very proud of the work of our chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Our -- we take this to be a very sad time for the American
people for our country. Impeaching a president or having the investigation to impeach a president is not anything to be joyful about. I don't know
that anybody is joyful. But it is a sad time.
And as you've heard me say over and over again, the dark days of the Revolution, Thomas Paine said, "The times have found us." We think the
times have found us now, not that we place ourselves in a category of greatness of our founders but we do place ourselves in a time of urgency,
when the threat to the Constitution, a system of checks and balances, that is being made.
It is -- they fought for our independence, they declared independence, they fought and won, they established a democracy. Thank God they made the
Constitution amendable, so we could always ever be expanding freedom. And we see the actions of this president be an assault on the Constitution.
Once we had his even admission to that, we had no choice but to go forward. It's hard; we want to weigh the equities. We want to be fair as we go
forward. And we couldn't be better served than by the leadership of our chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, and it's my honor to
present him to you now.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Madame Speaker.
[11:15:00]
SCHIFF: And thank you for leading the entire House of Representatives through this very fraught time in the history of the Congress and, indeed,
the history of the country. I also want to express my own condolence once again to the family of Jamal Khashoggi, who bravely sought to advocate for
free expression in Saudi Arabia and it cost him his life.
We are deeply in his debt and we are determined to bring about justice for those who are responsible for that heinous murder. It's also an
appropriate time to recognize the danger facing journalists all over the world.
In terms of the issues that we've been focused on this week, I want to give you a brief update of what has transpired, really just within the last
week.
Last Thursday, the Intelligence Committee held an open hearing with the acting Director of National Intelligence. The following day, Chairman
Engel issued a subpoena to the State Department in close consultation with myself and Chairman Cummings.
We are deeply concerned about Secretary Pompeo's effort now to potentially interfere with witnesses, whose testimony is needed before our committee,
many of whom are mentioned in the whistleblower complaint.
And we want to make it abundantly clear that any effort by the secretary, by the president or anyone else to interfere with the Congress' ability to
call before it relevant witnesses, will be considered as evidence of obstruction of the lawful functions of Congress.
And more than that, we'll allow an adverse inference to be drawn as to the underlying facts, that if they are going to prevent witnesses from coming
forward to testify on the allegations in the whistleblower complaint, that will create an adverse inference that those allegations are, in fact,
correct.
On Monday, I issued a subpoena to Rudy Giuliani, again, in consultation with Chairmen Cummings and Engel. We expect Mr. Giuliani to comply with
the legal process we are using. He is obviously a key figure in all of this by his own admission as well as by the allegations in the
whistleblower complaint.
Today and just within the last half hour, Chairman Cummings noticed a subpoena that will go out later this week or next week after the notice
period has expired, that that committee intends to subpoena documents that the White House has been withholding from Congress. We are obviously
coordinating very closely with Chairman Cummings on that.
On Thursday, Ambassador Volker is scheduled to appear before our committee. And on Friday inspector general -- the inspector general of the IC, Mr.
Atkinson, will appear before the committee and testify as well. The last time that the inspector general testified, we did not have the complaint.
We now do.
And we certainly intend to ask the director about the efforts that were made to corroborate that complaint, which we now know the inspector general
found both credible and urgent.
Next week, we have also scheduled a deposition or interview with the former U.S. ambassador Yovanovitch to Ukraine and we are in discussion with other
State Department witnesses to secure their depositions.
So we've been very busy as you can tell this week; we're going to be very busy again next week. We are proceeding deliberately but, at the same
time, we feel a real sense of urgency here that this work needs to get done and it needs to get done in a responsible period of time. Thank you.
QUESTION: Chairman --
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Just one moment, please, I'll decide who asks the question.
Do we have any questions first on the work to meet the needs of the American people in terms of USMCA and the H.R. 3, on that subject?
QUESTION: How do you envision working with this president on these key Democratic agenda items -- lower prescription drug costs, tougher gun
safety measures -- as you're actively considering removing --
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: They have nothing to do with each other. We have a responsibility to uphold our oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States. We also have a responsibility to get the job done for the American people.
The president has said he wants this Mexico -- U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement to go forward. And we are awaiting the language on
enforceability.
So does it mean that he doesn't -- he can't do that?
[11:20:00]
PELOSI: That's really up to him. And I do expect that he does want that and that he does need that and that he's not going to blame it on us
because we are honoring our oath of office.
And then he says that he wants to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The American people want us to do that.
So is the president saying, if you question my actions, I can't agree on any subject?
Then the ball is in his court on that. But many of you have always been interested in USMCA.
Any ongoing interest there?
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: On USMCA, the president keeps saying that the USMCA will pay for his wall.
How does money generated by the USMCA work its way into the general fund to be appropriated by Congress to build a wall?
PELOSI: It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: I'm not calling on you. I'm calling on this young lady here. Thank you.
QUESTION: Lisa from PBS News. All right, thank you for having this conference.
A question for you, Chairman Schiff, do you have plans or would you take it off the table, the idea of a full House vote on an impeachment --
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Excuse me, dear, I'm first doing H.R. 3.
Anyone on H.R. 3?
Does anybody in this room care about the cost of prescription drugs and what it means to America's working families?
From time to time, you've asked those questions.
Does anyone care about the USMCA, U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Is there a hard, fast date on when you need this to be resolved on -- ?
PELOSI: This being what?
QUESTION: USMCA.
PELOSI: No, we've -- I'd like -- as I was -- we're on a path to yes as far as the trade agreement is concerned. And at some point I'm just saying,
it's either yes or no. We either have enforceability or we don't. But I'm hopeful that we will. And I'm hopeful that it will be soon.
QUESTION: What kind of deadline have you given the administration or anything?
PELOSI: No, we have a good working relationship -- believe me, the quiet you hear is progress. It's progress. And we go back and forth and over
this break, the stature (ph) between the two -- to the trade rep and our negotiators are seeking clarification. And where there's room for
cooperation, where we may have more challenges.
But it's going in a forward direction. So we're very pleased with that because, again, we're trying to find common ground with the president. He
always wanted this. We do, too, and let's just find our common ground in that regard.
QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi, another question on policy before we get to the other news of the day, which is impeachment.
What about the quiet we hear on gun legislation?
Two or three weeks ago the White House telegraphed we might hear whether the president would support some sort of gun package. The press has heard
nothing.
Have you heard anything from the White House?
PELOSI: The most recent communication I had from the White House on gun violence prevention was a call from the president last Tuesday. So we can
segue from one subject to the next here.
He called early that morning to say how happy I would be to see the progress that he was making on coming to agreement on gun violence
prevention. I was curious about what that progress could be. He said he was working with the Democrats and Republicans.
I don't know of any -- I reminded him that we had sent a bill over to the Senate, H.R. 8 and H.R. 11, 12, two pieces of legislation that would save
the most lives. And that I would hope that whatever he was talking about was very close to that.
Oh, yes, you're going to be very pleased.
That's the last I heard of that. At that point, that is when the president segued into the telephone call, in which he admitted that this call took
place and that what happened was perfect.
I didn't say, I said, Mr. President, it's not perfect. It's wrong. But your admission to what has now been in the public domain informs the timing
of how we go forward. So, again, that was the last I heard from them.
Let me just say on gun violence protection, prevention, we're not going away until we get legislation signed into law that protects our children.
I said to the president on another occasion, on the 200th day of the -- Chuck Schumer and I called the president on that, that was a couple of
Sundays ago, I think like the 15th of September, maybe 2.5 weeks ago.
That was the 200th day since we sent over H.R. 8. I said to the president, I pray for you and the safety of you and your family and I hope that God
will, pray that God will give you an illumination, an enlightenment to pray, to work for the safety of other families in our country.
So again, the most recent -- I'm not going to say the last, I hope it's not the last -- but the most recent communication I've had from the White House
was in the same call where the president admitted to what he said in that phone conversation.
[11:25:00]
PELOSI: OK?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Speaker.
On impeachment?
PELOSI: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you taken off the table or do you plan for a full House vote on an impeachment inquiry?
And Chairman Schiff, as the White House seems to be near (INAUDIBLE) interference the way in the past sometimes it's taken a long time, years to
compel documents and testimony from the White House.
Are you preparing for a court battle?
And how do you make sure that that happens in (INAUDIBLE) an expeditious manner?
PELOSI: First of all, there's no requirement that there be a floor vote. That's not anything that is excluded. And by the way, there's some
Republicans that are very nervous about our bringing that bill, that vote to the floor.
SCHIFF: To say that we are concerned that the White House will attempt to stonewall our investigation, much as they have stonewalled other committees
in the past, it's why I say the White House needs to understand that any action like that, that forces us to litigate or have to consider
litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.
And, of course, that was an article of impeachment against Nixon, the obstruction of the lawful functions of Congress, that is.
We will also draw the inference, though, as appropriate that they are trying to conceal facts that would corroborate the allegations in the
whistleblower complaint. So we'll have to decide whether to litigate or how to litigate.
We're not fooling around here, though. We don't want this to drag on months and months and months, which appears to be the administration's
strategy. So they just need to know that, even as they try to undermine our ability to find the facts around the president's effort to coerce a
foreign leader to create dirt that he can use against a political opponent, that they will be strengthening the case on obstruction if they behave that
way.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
I would like to ask Madame Speaker and also Chairman this as well, the president wants to interview the whistleblower. He says that he has the
right to meet his accuser.
Your response, both of you, please?
SCHIFF: The whistleblower has the right under the statute to remain anonymous and we will do everything in our power to make sure that that
whistleblower's protected, that that whistleblower's preferences, in terms of their anonymity, are respected.
And let's not make any mistake here. The president wants to make this all about the whistleblower and suggest people that come forward with evidence
of his wrongdoing are somehow treasonous and should be treated as traitors and spies.
This is a blatant effort to intimidate witnesses. It's an incitement to violence. And I would hope -- and we're starting to see members of both
parties speaking out against attacking this whistleblower or others that have pertinent information.
So the other thing I wanted to underscore, though, is what the whistleblower has set out that is within our power to this day to confirm,
we see confirmed in that call record. The president can attack the whistleblower rhetorically all the president wants.
It doesn't change the fact that the record of that call shows the president of the United States in the same conversation, indeed immediately after the
Ukraine president asked for more military help, the president of the United States asked that leader a favor, though.
And no attack on the whistleblower or anyone else is going to change those underlying facts.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Excuse me, on the subject of the whistleblower, I said to the president on that call, you've come into my wheelhouse, 25 years on
Intelligence Committee as a member, as ranking member, as Mr. Schiff was before he became the chairman, when we got the majority.
So I was part of the Gang of Four before I was even in the leadership as a Gang of Eight. So for 25 years, one way or another, I was there when we
approved the whistleblower legislation in the late '90s. I was part of that.
I was there when we made further improvements. And President Obama made -- I don't know if it was executive order but executive action, improvements
in the whistleblower legislation. And then we have further legislation.
And then I was there when we created the office of the Director of National Intelligence and what his responsibility was in terms of a whistleblower.
So this is very -- I hope that you understand and I suspect that you do -- the seriousness of the president of the United States saying he wants to
interview that person.
[11:30:00]
PELOSI: We will treat the president with fairness as we go forward. We will have investigations and questioning that are worthy of the
Constitution of the United States.
It's unworthy of the Constitution of the United States to do what he did in that call and he admitted it to me. He said it's perfect.
No, it's not perfect. It's wrong, A. And B, that protecting whistleblowers is a very, very important requirement that we have.
The intelligence community recognizes the importance of whistleblowers. Protecting whistleblowers, who see wrongdoing of any kind in our
government, is essential.
The president probably doesn't realize how dangerous his statements are when he says he wants to expose who the whistleblower is and those who may
have given the whistleblower that information.
This is a very serious, very serious challenge that the president has put there. It's very sad. I don't see impeachment as a unifying thing for our
country. I weighed those equities hard and long until I had the president's admission that he did what he did on that call.
QUESTION: One big picture question and one logistical question, just following up on what you just said.
Some Republicans have said that the president's phone call wasn't great but that it isn't an impeachable offense.
Is it possible that you're making too much of one phone call?
PELOSI: Absolutely not. I'm going to yield.
SCHIFF: Well, if you think about what the framers were concerned about at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, they were paramountly
concerned about foreign interference in American affairs.
They wanted to ensure that the President of the United States was defending the interests and national security of the United States and not corruptly,
secretly advancing some private agenda with a foreign power.
It's hard to imagine a set of circumstances that would have alarmed the founders more than what's on that call, where you have a president using
the full power of his office to try to effectively coerce a foreign leader that is completely dependent on our country for military, economic,
diplomatic and other support, to intervene in our election to help his campaign.
It's hard to imagine a more corrupt course of conduct.
So to my Republican colleagues who say there's nothing to see here or, yes, it's bad but is it really something you'd remove the president from office
for, they're going to have to answer, if this conduct doesn't rise to the level of the concern the founders had, what conduct does?
Now we only know some of the facts at this point. The call record seems to be pretty undisputed. The suspension of military assistance is undisputed
now. The sequestration of this call record and maybe others into a file, in which they were never supposed to be placed, a file that is for
classified information of the highest order, covert action, for example, those facts are not contested.
But all the facts around that we still need to flesh out.
What was the State Department's role?
What was the secretary's role?
What was the role of the attorney general?
There's a great more that we need to know to understand the full depth of the president's misconduct. And maybe when that comes out, it will
persuade some of those Republicans to recognize the gravity of the situation.
But I think we have to be realistic here. There seems to be no floor below which this president can drop that some of the GOP members -- and maybe
even many of the GOP members -- would not be willing to endorse, look away from, avoid comment on, let alone rise to condemn as incompatible with the
duties of his office.
PELOSI: Make no mistake, in that telephone call, the president undermined our national security because of his -- what he had done a few days
earlier. Did President Zelensky say that in the call?
No. The sequencing of it. You have to look at the sequence. A few days before the president withdrew that.
Now why, why would that just come from the president?
There was no source we know and we will find out if there is, any National Security Council justification for the president withdrawing assistance
that had been passed by the Congress of the United States in a bipartisan way. And then the president, just on his own, decided he was going to use
it as leverage. So using that as leverage -- we supported that military assistance in the interest of our national security.
[11:35:00]
PELOSI: Undermining our national security, undermining his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution because he was overthrowing an act
of Congress, just on his own, undermining the integrity of our elections -- and that's what means something to people in their lives.
They have to know that their vote counts and that it will be counted as cast and this president of the United States is stooping to a level that is
beneath the dignity of the Constitution of the United States and our founders, since the chairman mentioned our founders.
They put guardrails in the Constitution because they knew there might be someone who would overplay his or her power. They never thought that we
would have a president who would kick those guardrails over and disregard the Constitution and say Article 2 says that I can do whatever I feel like.
So this is sad. We have to be prayerful. We have to be worthy of the Constitution as we go forward. We have to be fair to the president. And
that's why this is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment. And we have to give the president his chance to exonerate himself.
But he thinks what he did was perfect. So we have that situation. But I say to my colleagues, calmness, quiet, so that we can hear, that we can
hear what is being said in this regard.
Again when -- on that very day, September 17th, that was Constitution Day, a Tuesday, two Tuesdays ago from yesterday. That was when that explosion
hit of what possibly happened in that phone conversation, which the president confirmed to me in our call.
And that day was the day we observed the adoption of our Constitution, September 17th. On that day, way back when, when Benjamin Franklin left
Independence Hall, people said to him, what do we have, Dr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic?
He said, a republic, if we can keep it. It is our responsibility to keep that republic with the genius of a separation of powers, three co-equal
branches of government, each a check and balance on the other, separation of power. A republic, if we can keep it. That's our responsibility,
that's the oath of office that we take.
And that is one of the reasons why we just have to look at the facts and the Constitution. Any other objections people may have through the
president have no place in this discussion in terms of, is he too cowardly to protect children from gun violence, is he too cruel to prevent or is he
too in denial to understand climate change? The list goes on.
Save that for the election. This is about the facts relating to the Constitution and that is how we will proceed, with dignity, with respect,
prayerfully and, again, worthy of the sacrifice of our founders, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who fight for our freedom, and
the aspirations of our children so they'll live under future presidents who will honor the Constitution of the United States. Thank you all very much.
ANDERSON: Yes, well, that was perhaps the most powerful woman in American politics, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking alongside Adam Schiff, who
is chair of the House Intelligence Committee, as they lead the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. Adam Schiff said, and I quote, "It is hard to
imagine a more corrupt course of conduct by the U.S. president."
He said that, the point being the context of this in putting pressure on the Ukrainian president, to dish the dirt on Joe Biden, that, of course,
leading to this impeachment investigation.
Adam Schiff went on to say, we are concerned that the White House will try and stonewall our investigation. He also said, and I quote here, "We are
deeply concerned about secretary of state Mike Pompeo's efforts to potentially interfere with witnesses that are needed by our committee.
"If they are going to prevent witnesses coming forward from testifying," Adam Schiff said, "that will create an adverse inference that those
allegations are, in fact, correct."
[11:40:00]
ANDERSON: I want to bring back Stephen Collinson, a regular guest on this show, he has incredibly important insight and analysis into what exactly is
going on.
Suzanne Malveaux, though, to you first on Capitol Hill.
What do you make of what we have just heard?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what I heard was that the tone and tenor of the press conference, the message from the leadership here,
was that the president has met his match.
While Speaker Pelosi said, we must be prayerful, that it is a sad time for the country, not a time of joy, she also said this is in my wheelhouse.
She went on to say she was in the Gang of Four before the Gang of Eight, that she was a part of drafting the whistleblower legislation back in the
day and that she helped create the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Essentially that she knows what she's doing, she's very serious about the task and she said that the president is behaving in a way that is demeaning
to the office and the Constitution.
We also heard from the chairman, Adam Schiff, and he said, in his words, we're not fooling around. And then he also warned the president as well
about any type of intimidation to witnesses they were calling forward, that he would use the full tools in his toolbox, from the legal system as well
as from Congress, to get those witnesses to go before him.
He outlined in great detail just the rapid fire pace and how this investigation has unfolded, with subpoenas being issued to the president's
personal attorney as well as to secretary of state Pompeo and that they are preparing for more subpoenas for the White House for documents later in the
week.
They are very serious. They seem like they are certainly not intimidated. And they seem to have gotten ahead of the White House in terms of the
messaging, in terms of how they are proceeding forward. They did not wait for the recess to end.
But they are working for it in earnest. They put out a plan, in which they're going to carry forward and bring more witnesses next week. And so
this is an endeavor that both of them have signaled to the president is very serious. And they are not going to be pushed around and they feel
like they are in a position of power.
So it will be very interesting to see how the White House responds to this because the strategy from the White House, so far, Republicans very much
steadfast in their defense, for the most part, of the president.
But the president, for the most part, simply tweeting and expressing a great deal of frustration and anger. And they've largely ignored that and
just proceeded, as they have said, that they are leading forward this charge. They're not going to be distracted by the president.
And they are simply warning him, putting him on notice, that impeachment is a very real possibility.
ANDERSON: Well, he is tweeting again. Stand by, I want to take a very short break. What the president has said in response to Adam Schiff and
Nancy Pelosi after this. Stay with us.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Welcome back, you're watching CONNECT THE WORLD, I'm Becky Anderson for you.
Just moments ago, two of the most powerful Democrats telling the White House, do not stonewall us or that will be considered obstruction of
justice.
Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee saying this, and I quote, "We are deeply concerned about Secretary Pompeo's efforts to
potentially interfere with witnesses that are needed by our committee."
In about two hours, we'll hear from Donald Trump. But we know he was watching.
"Democrats are trying to undo the election regardless of facts."
Let's bring in our panel to talk about this. The press conference, of course, going on, on Capitol Hill. Suzanne Malveaux there, expert mind in
all things political in D.C., Stephen Collinson.
And Nancy Pelosi started this press conference today by quoting Thomas Paine in the dark days of revolution.
She said, "The times have found us," and as Suzanne pointed out, she then went on to say, "Donald Trump you're in my wheelhouse now."
Thoughts.
COLLINSON: Right, Becky. I think Suzanne was right to point out the gravity of this press conference which contrasts with the way the White
House has been approaching this with hysterical tweets and conspiracy theory-laden arguments.
Two things really pop out. The first is that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he warned that any attempt by secretary
of state Mike Pompeo or anybody else to stop witnesses testifying to the impeachment hearings would be taken as evidence of obstruction and as
pertinent to the facts of this case.
What he is saying in no uncertain terms is that the White House would not be allowed to slow this down with a bunch of legal challenges or claims of
executive privilege and he is saying in effect that the Democrats are prepared to fold in this to an article of impeachment, alleging obstruction
of their investigation.
That is how serious this is and that puts the White House in a very difficult spot. It's going to be much more difficult for them to slow this
impeachment inquiry than the previous Democratic attempts to hold the White House to account.
The other thing is just the tonal aspect of this, the speaker and Adam Schiff were making detailed constitutional arguments. Schiff was talking
about how the founders of the United States were concerned, above all, about outside interference in American democracy.
Those are the kinds of arguments you'd expect to hear at an impeachment process and eventually in a Senate trial of the president. We've heard
nothing on that level, sort of intellectually, from the Republicans or by the White House or from the president.
And I think that speaks to how outgunned they have been so far legally and politically in this fight.
ANDERSON: Meantime, Donald Trump tweeting out, in the last six or seven minutes, the following, "Adam Schiff should only be so lucky to have the
brains, honor and strength of secretary of state Mike Pompeo. For a lowlife like Schiff, who completely fabricated my words and read them to
Congress as though they were said by me, to demean a first in class at West Point is sad."
Interesting, Suzanne, isn't it, to sort of juxtapose the gravity of what we have just heard by those two Democratic leaders, talking about the history,
constitutional issues, and that of that tweet in response from the U.S. president.
MALVEAUX: And this is something that Adam Schiff, Congressman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi really kind of brush aside. They don't really take these
tweets very seriously. You'll often see somewhat of a little bit of a snide retort.
But they really brush it aside because the goal here is, of course, to lay out their case and to make the case to the American people and they have
gotten more and more support as they've gone along. They're certainly taking advantage of the momentum that they have that's grown.
We've seen the polls, where it is showing that more Americans are looking very closely at this and certainly supporting an inquiry and perhaps
impeachment itself. So this has been a very methodical process and they have kept their eye on the ball. They have not really been distracted by
many of these insults coming from the president.
[11:50:00]
MALVEAUX: Becky, it's very interesting, when you think about it, that the State Department inspector general, Steve Linick, coming before members of
Congress today while the secretary of state is overseas, not even in the country, to sit with members of Congress and divulge what he knows.
Documents regarding the State Department and Ukraine and the fact that these committee heads said, yes, let's go right away really indicates just
how serious they are and how fast moving and how they feel that they can really build on this momentum and take advantage of this moment.
ANDERSON: Fascinating. I've got to take a very short break. I'm going to come back to this incredibly important story after this. Stand by,
everybody.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: All right, we're getting reaction from the U.S. president after two of the most senior U.S. Democrats spoke about their impeachment inquiry
into him.
Just one of his tweets reading, quote, "Democrats are trying to undo the election regardless of facts."
Before that, Adam Schiff saying, and let me quote the House Intelligence Committee chairman, "We are deeply concerned about Secretary Pompeo's
efforts to potentially interfere with witnesses that are needed by our committee."
I want to bring back our panel to talk about all of this right where that press conference was taking place on Capitol Hill, Suzanne Malveaux, expert
mind in all things political in D.C., Stephen Collinson and a man very familiar with the hallways of power, former spokesperson for the Department
of State, retired rear admiral John Kirby.
And John, let me get your take on what you heard specifically about Secretary Pompeo and about the potential for obstruction going forward that
Adam Schiff said was just not on.
ADM. JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Yes, not at all surprised that Chairman Schiff took that tack. I mean, he's got a case
to be made here. The Congress has legitimate rights and responsibilities in terms of gathering the kind of information they need to conduct this
inquiry.
And it is up to the executive branch to cooperate. Now there's limits to the cooperation, I understand that. And that's what Pompeo was saying in
Rome this morning, that he's concerned about their overreach.
But he does eventually have to provide the necessary documents to Congress so that they can do their job. And what Schiff's point was, look, it's
already bad enough. I mean, the president's admission that he tried to lobby a foreign leader to affect domestic election here in the United
States is bad enough, certainly warranting this inquiry.
If you obstruct our ability to get that information, you're only making it more impeachable. You're making it that much harder for the
administration. I suspect that Pompeo's going to come through with this, that this was a stonewalling, a sort of a delay tactic.
[11:55:00]
KIRBY: He's been on the other side of the dais. I think he understands very well that he has very little recourse in terms of his ability to
withhold this stuff.
ANDERSON: I've got 60 seconds, guys.
Steven, last thought.
COLLINSON: Yes, it's kind of ironic, what John was saying there. During the Benghazi issue, Mike Pompeo as a Republican congressman from Kansas was
one of Hillary Clinton's biggest tormenters. So this is a real case of poacher turned gamekeeper here for secretary of state.
ANDERSON: And Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Just reading this tweet I just got from the former attorney general, Eric Holder, a warning really, saying here, "We must have an
impeachment inquiry that is complete and proceeds rapidly. I hope we will value thoroughness over speed. The issues are too significant."
Of course, a little bit of a warning there, not to overstep, for the Democratic leadership to be cautious and methodical in the process here.
ANDERSON: You're not going to get better than this, this is your panel. That was your insight and analysis. There you have it, a political fight
that's really once in a lifetime, extremely busy times in Washington. All the Democrats go all in on impeachment inquiry into the American president,
which could take Donald Trump out of office.
Across the Atlantic, breaking news on Brexit, Britain's prime minister going all out on getting out of the European Union. I'm Becky Anderson,
that was CONNECT THE WORLD.
[12:00:00]
END
