Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Trump Impeachment; India Citizenship Law; Serie A Anti-Racism Campaign Artwork Condemned; Aired 11a-12:00p ET

Aired December 17, 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)

CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN HOST (voice-over): You are watching CONNECT THE WORLD, I'm Christina Macfarlane live from London.

We begin in a tiny room on the third floor of the U.S. Capitol, a room that reporters usually pass by without another thought. But this hour, the

hearing room of House Rules Committee is the center of attention, as they lay out the way the House will stage its impeachment vote of Donald Trump.

These are live pictures. You can see coming into us and that hearing there is about to get underway. It's the final step before a planned Wednesday

vote by the entire House. This will be just the third time in history that a presidential impeachment vote will take place.

But importantly, if, even if Donald Trump is impeached, he'll likely not be removed from office. The U.S. Senate is the jury in the case and, with

Republicans in charge, it's unlikely they'll convict the president.

Let's get into this with our CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, who is on Capitol Hill. We're also joined by White House reporter Stephen Collinson.

And Suzanne, I just want to start with you because you're at Capitol Hill right now, where the House Rules Committee is currently meeting. All

attention focused on this one room with it usually doesn't happen.

What is the feeling in Congress where you are today?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN U.S. CORRESPONDENT: All eyes are on that room, yes. The Rules Committee will determine the scale and scope of what we'll see

tomorrow as they lay out the plan, the debate and the final vote on the House floor for articles of impeachment.

We'll get into some of those details but I want to tell you about a very compelling fight that is taking place on the Senate side now. We just saw

it erupt on the Senate floor.

This was Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who roundly rejected his Democratic counterpart in the Senate, the negotiations they're involved in

for a Senate trial. Schumer was asking for four witnesses to come forward as part of the Senate trial, the conviction phase of this, including acting

chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and the former national security adviser John Bolton.

McConnell responding to Schumer, essentially calling the investigation sloppy and slapdash, saying he's not going to cooperate, this is going to

be a quick and speedy trial and that this is not the job of the Senate to accommodate these witnesses or even further documents, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House's obligation, to, quote, "build an

ironclad case to act."

That's Speaker Pelosi.

It's the House's obligation to build an ironclad case to act, end quote.

If they fail, they fail. It's not the Senate's job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So what he is saying here, essentially throwing down the gauntlet, if you will. This is not a fact finding mission. But what it

also says, too, is we've heard from McConnell in the days before saying that he is in lockstep with the White House. He's been involved in

discussions with White House counsel and there's no daylight between them.

So this is an evolution for Trump who said he wanted a bunch of witnesses, a big show for the Senate trial and McConnell calling for this, rejecting

this idea, the White House coming around to that position.

In the meantime we take a look at what is inside that room, what is taking place with the Rules Committee, how it's all going to play out. You will

have some new people, some new faces. You'll see the chairs of that committee making their opening statements.

You'll also see some familiar faces from those in the Judiciary Committee, who will -- representatives who will be making their own case. This is

going to be a chance for a real back and forth inside of that room to determine a number of things tomorrow, what kind of amendments would be

allowed tomorrow, how long would the debate take place and just an opportunity and chance for many of the Republicans to vent about the

articles of impeachment and allow that to breathe, if you will.

This is going to be a historic occasion that's going to happen tomorrow. Today, we're looking at all the different pieces, very fast moving pieces

that will determine just how that will play out, the scale and scope of the drama and the historic nature of what we'll see in those votes tomorrow.

MACFARLANE: It's certainly going to be drama, indeed, if Mitch McConnell is anything to go by. They're fighting talk from here, indicating just how

partisan this is becoming and has been.

[11:05:00]

MACFARLANE: Stephen, I want to get to you. One thing everyone is watching is whether there will be any defections of Democrats voting no on

impeachment or Republicans voting yes.

Democrat leaders say they're not putting pressure on their members. In fact, a few minutes ago, one of the leading Democrats in the House said his

side doesn't even have a count of how many will support impeachment. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), N.Y.: There's been no arm twisting in here. The Speaker has made it very clear that, whatever the individual wants to do,

there's no whip, there's no count. And I think that's the right way to go about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: There is no arm twisting, Stephen.

Is there any chance we get more than one or two Democrats voting no tomorrow, do you think?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it's possible. I think the Democrats wouldn't have come this far if they didn't know they

have a strong majority.

What we've seen in recent days is Democrats, even those in districts where Trump won big in 2016, coming towards a decision that, whatever happens to

them in the general election next year, they're going to support impeachment.

It's possible that, once that majority is assured, that the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could allow a couple of more moderate Democrats in those

difficult districts to vote against impeachment as a way of preserving themselves in the election next year.

But it's clearly, what the Democrats want is a very strong majority to impeach the president.

Then this all shifts, of course, to the Senate, as Suzanne was saying. There are a number of Republicans in the same position as some of those

vulnerable Democrats in the House. They're running for reelection in what we call purple states, swing states that can go either Democrat or

Republican.

And they will find themselves particularly opposed for voting to acquit the president. So you have on the margins of this very difficult decisions for

a limited number of lawmakers.

But the U.S. political map is so polarized that most lawmakers have a very clear choice about what they will do. And it's less to do with what they

think about the president's conduct and more to do with their own political preservation.

MACFARLANE: Yes, and I guess beyond all of this is what the public perception of this is. To that point, we saw a brand new CNN poll, which

showed the American public is almost evenly divided; 45 percent think President Trump should be removed from office while 47 percent say he

should remain. The numbers that President Trump has just said dropped like a stone. I want to bring in Shan Wu.

These numbers have not shifted largely.

Do you think people are feeling impeachment fatigue?

How important is it that we sort of remain focused on this process?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think they're probably feeling a little bit of fatigue. This is not the most compelling part of the process. With the

release of Judiciary report, which is very important from a legal, substantive standpoint, it's pretty dense reading for most of the American

public.

Then today's Rules Committee, it's the work of a committee again, very important to the process but not a committee that most Americans are even

familiar with.

So I think it's possible that some of that fatigue is not so much fatigue, as much as it is this is a much more technical but necessary part of the

process. And in addition to that, of course, we're coming on the holiday season, so there may be additional distractions for people.

MACFARLANE: Yes, that certainly might be the case.

Thank you all for joining us.

We'll be back with more after this short break. Stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:10:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MACFARLANE: We are waiting right now to hear from the House Rules Committee hearing room, which is taking place on Capitol Hill right now,

where the committee are laying out the final steps before the House vote this Wednesday.

You can see there the members gathering in the room where we'll expect to hear from the minority and majority leaders and the chairman of the Rules

Committee, Jim McGovern.

We have waiting on Capitol Hill our Suzanne Malveaux and we're also joined by Stephen Collinson and CNN legal analyst, Shan Wu.

I want to go back to Suzanne on Capitol Hill.

Give us the mood ahead of tomorrow.

You were saying earlier that Mitch McConnell has spoken out with some fighting talk in the past half an hour about how this process is playing

out?

MALVEAUX: Already people are girding for a fight. I mean, it's very contentious, very partisan, very divided here on Capitol Hill. I covered

the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and really it was partisan back then.

But this tone is very, very harsh. It is different. It is defiant as we know. And people are dug in here. We don't anticipate or even expect

there's going to be much crossover here, especially when it comes on the Senate side here and the Senate trial.

We have heard from senator Lindsey Graham, who has made it very clear that he says he's not even going to pretend to be fair about this. And so his

colleagues, Democratic colleagues have issue with the fact that Republicans have already stated the trial itself is not going to sway their opinion.

They have dug in, they have taken sides. They will all take an oath to be impartial jurors. But in fact it's very much so a sense it's baked in and

that the results are predictable. But that doesn't mean we're not going to see fireworks, that we're not going to be raw emotion that is going to

spill out.

And a lot of people are already asking, yes, they're going to be politicians who are going to pay the price for their votes.

But how is the American people going to heal?

How are they going to come together?

Those are the kinds of questions that people are already asking before this plays out tomorrow in the historic vote in the House. And before it goes

to that Senate trial, where it is expected that he will be acquitted.

MACFARLANE: And Suzanne, we saw Chuck Schumer coming out earlier this week with a list of requests or demands, whichever way you want to put it, for

witnesses to be put, you know -- to be put for trial during the Senate trial to testify -- excuse me.

What is your sense as to whether, you know, Republicans will -- there are any Republicans who might jump the aisle, you know, to meet Chuck Schumer

on any of those demands?

I know you've been saying this is becoming increasingly partisan and polarized.

Is that even a possibility at this stage?

MALVEAUX: Well, that's a very good question. Very likely, what could happen is that you would have some defectors on the Senate side when it

comes to the process, the trial process, and not necessarily whether or not the president would be removed from office.

It's very clear from everyone you talk to that they're not going to get to that 67 magic number.

[11:15:00]

MALVEAUX: But if you take a look at senators like Susan Collins, for example, a moderate up for reelection. That would be something that she

might take a look at and say, for the sake of the presentation, that it looks like it is a fair trial; let's allow for some of those documents.

Let's demand those documents. Let's allow these witnesses.

Someone like Senator Lamar Alexander and many others, who are actually retiring as well, don't have a lot to lose, could take a position that they

want something that's more fulsome.

And then you have senators like Mitt Romney, who have been harsh critics of the president, or Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has taken on the president

from time to time and broken from her party, that may go ahead and say, this is what we demand, this is what we want.

Clearly there could be some defections when it comes to the process. It's only a majority that's needed, 51 Republicans or 53 in the Senate. If they

get to 51, then they set the rules for that Senate trial.

And so that is going to be a very interesting thing to watch and see that group of senators, about half a dozen or so, who could sway dramatically

how the process plays out when it goes to the trial.

MACFARLANE: Suzanne, thank you.

I just want to let our viewers know that we have been actually looking into the committee room in the past few minutes; we've seen Jim McGovern, the

chairman of the Rules Committee, who will be addressing the room in a short while.

Shan, what will actually be decided at the House Rules Committee meeting today?

What are we about to see?

WU: What's important for us to remember, is this is a Rules Committee meeting setting the rules for the House vote, not the actual trial, which

will be in the Senate. They're going to cover some basics, such as how long can the debate go for with regard to the House vote on whether to

basically indict or hand down the articles of impeachment.

Also, they'll be covering issues about whether it's possible to consider amendments for the articles --

(CROSSTALK)

MACFARLANE: We'll just have to break you off there, Shan, and go to Jim McGovern, who is speaking right now. Let's listen in.

[11:17:19]

REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): President Trump withheld congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, a partner under siege, not to fight corruption but

to extract a personal political favor.

President Trump refused to meet with the Ukraine's president in the White House until he completed this scheme, all the -- while leaders in Russia,

the very nation holding a large part of Ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our elections in 2016, had yet another meeting in the

Oval Office just last week.

These are not my opinions, these are uncontested facts.

We have listened to the hearings, we read the transcripts, and it's clear that this president acted in a way that not only violates the public trust,

he jeopardized our national security and he undermined our democracy. He acted in a way that rises to the level of impeachment.

That is why we are considering H.Res. 755 today, a resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and

misdemeanors. Congress has no other choice but to act with urgency.

You know, when I think back to the founders of this nation, they were particularly concerned about foreign interference in our elections. They

understood that allowing outside forces to decide American campaigns would cause the fundamentals of our democracy to crumble. But the evidence shows

that is exactly what President Trump did: not only allowed, but solicited foreign interference, all to help him win his reelection campaign.

What shocks me, quite frankly, about so many of my Republican friends is their inability to acknowledge that President Trump acted improperly. It

seems the only Republican members willing to admit the president did something wrong have either already retired or announced plans they intend

to retire at the end of this Congress.

I get it. It's hard to criticize a president of your own party. But that shouldn't -- you know, but that shouldn't matter here.

MCGOVERN: I admired President Clinton when he was president of the United States and I still do today. But when this House impeached him -- which I

didn't agree with -- I went to the House floor and I said I thought what President Clinton did was wrong. Because moments like this call for more

than just reflexive partisanship, they require honesty and they required courage. Are any Republicans today willing to muster the strength to say

that what this president did was wrong?

Now let me say again what happened here: The president withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country under siege to extract a

personal political favor. He did not do this as a matter of U.S. policy, he did this for his own benefit. That is wrong. And if that is not impeachable

conduct, I don't know what is.

I've heard some on the other side suggest that this process is about overturning an election. That is absurd. This is about President Trump

using his office to try and rig the next election.

Now think about that. We like to say that every vote matters, that every vote counts. We learned in grade school about all the people who fought and

died for that right. It is a sacred thing.

You know, I remember as a middle schooler, in 1972, leaving leaflets at the homes of potential voters urging them to support George McGovern for

president. No relation by the way. I thought he had a great last name, and he was dedicated to ending the war in Vietnam and feeding the hungry and

helping the poor.

I remember even to this day what an honor it was to ask people to support him even though I was too young to vote myself, and what a privilege it was

later in life to ask voters for their support in my own campaigns.

Now, I've been proud of winning campaigns and I've been proud of losing ones too. People I thought would be great presidents, like Senator

McGovern, were never given that chance.

Make -- make no mistake, I was disappointed, but I accepted it. I would take losing an election any day of the week when the American people render

that verdict. But I will never -- and I mean I will never be OK if other nations decide our leaders for us. And the president of the United States

is rolling out the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference. To not act would set a dangerous precedent, not just for this president, but

for every future president.

The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming, and this administration hasn't handed over a single subpoenaed document to refute it. Not one.

Now it's up to us to decide whether the United States is still a nation where no one is above the law or whether America is allowed to become a

land run by those who act more like kings or queens, as if the law doesn't apply to them.

You know, it's no secret that President Trump has a penchant for cozying up to notorious dictators. He's complimented Vladimir Putin, congratulated

Rodrigo Duterte, lauded President Erdogan, fell in love with Kim Jong-un. I can go on and on and on.

And maybe the president is jealous that they can do whatever they want. These dictators are the antithesis of what America stands for, and every

day we let President Trump act like the law doesn't apply to him, we meet - - we move a little closer to them.

You know, Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention and said, "The founders have created a republic, if you can keep it." There are no

guarantees. Our system of government will persist only if we fight for it. And the simple question for us is this: Are we willing to fight for this

democracy?

I expect we'll have a lot of debate here today. I hope everyone searches their conscience.

MCGOVERN: To my Republican friends, imagine any Democratic president sitting in the Oval Office, President Obama, President Clinton, any of

them. Would your answer here still be the same?

No one should be allowed to use the powers of the presidency to undermine our elections or cheat in a campaign, no matter who it is and no matter

what their party.

We all took an oath, not to defend a political party, but to uphold the Constitution of the United States. History is testing us. We can't control

what the Senate will do, but each of us can decide whether we pass that test, whether we defend our democracy and whether we uphold our oath.

Today we'll put a process in place to consider these articles on the House floor. And when I cast my vote in favor, my conscience will be clear.

Before I turn to our ranking member, I want to first recognize his leadership on this committee. We take up a lot of contentious matters up

here in the Rules Committee, and often we are on different sides of many issues, but he leads with integrity and he cares deeply about this House.

There will be passionate disagreement here today, but I have no doubt we will continue working together in the future and side-by-side on this

committee to better this institution.

And let me also state for the record that Chairman Nadler is unable to be here today because of a family medical emergency, and we are all keeping

him and his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Testifying instead today is Congressman Raskin.

[11:25:00]

He is not only a valued member of this committee, but also the Judiciary and Oversight Committees. In addition, Congressman Raskin is a

constitutional law professor, so he has a very comprehensive and unique understanding of what we're talking about here today. And I appreciate him

stepping in and testifying this morning.

I also want to welcome back Ranking Member Collins, a former member of the Rules Committee, someone who I don't often agree with, but someone who I

respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution.

And having said that, I'm --now will turn over -- turn this over to our ranking member, Mr. Cole, for any remarks he wishes to make.

COLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by reciprocating a -- a personal and professional respect for you and the other members of this committee as well, because I do think

very highly of each and every person on this committee, and particularly of you, Mr. Chairman.

But this is a day where we're going to disagree, and disagree very strongly.

It is, as you referenced, Mr. Chairman, a sad day; a sad day for me personally, for the Rules Committee, for the institution of the House and

for the American people.

We're meeting today on a rule for considering articles of impeachment against a sitting president of the United States on the floor of the House

of Representatives.

This is not the result of a fair process and certainly not a bipartisan one (ph). Sadly, the Democrats' impeachment inquiry has been flawed and

partisan from day one. So I guess it should come as no surprise the Democrats' preordained outcome is also flawed and partisan.

Seven weeks ago, when this committee met to consider a resolution to guide the process for the Democrats' unprecedented impeachment inquiry, I warned

that they were treading on shaky ground with their unfair and closed process. Reflecting on how things have played out since then reaffirms my

earlier judgment that this flawed process was crafted to ensure a partisan, preordained result.

Unfortunately, this entire process was tarnished further by the speed with which my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees

have rushed to deliver their predetermined judgment, to impeach the president for something, anything, whether there are stones left unturned

or whether there is any proof at all.

There's no way this can or should be viewed as legitimate, certainly not by Republicans whose minority rights have been trampled on every step on the

way and certainly not by the American people observing this disastrous political show scene by scene.

As I've said before, unlike any impeachment proceedings in modern history, the partisan process prescribed and pursued by Democrats is truly

unprecedented, and it contradicts Speaker Pelosi's own words. Back in March of this year, she said, quote, "Impeachment is so divisive to the country

that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides

the country," unquote. The key word in that quote is bipartisan.

Indeed, during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the process for even opening the inquiry was considered on a bipartisan basis. Back then both

sides treated the process with the seriousness it deserved, negotiating and finding agreement across the aisle to ensure fairness and due process for

all involved in the inquiries. But that's not the case today. Instead, Democrats have pushed forward using a partisan process that limited the

president's right to due process, prevented the minority from exercising their rights, and charged ahead toward a vote to impeach the president

whether the evidence is there or not.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by any of this. Democrats in the House have been pushing to impeach President Trump since before he was even sworn

in. In December of 2017, when a current Democratic member of the House forced a vote on impeachment -- an impeachment resolution, 58 Democrats

voted then to impeach President Trump, even without an investigation, without any evidence to point to, and those numbers have only grown since

then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment heedless of where it takes the country and regardless

of whether they have proven their case.

Mr. Chairman, it didn't have to be this way. We -- when she became entrusted with the gavel over the House, this Congress, Speaker Pelosi

assured us all that she would not move forward with impeachment unless it was bipartisan and unless there was a clear consensus in the country.

Neither of those two conditions are present here.

[11:30:00]

Indeed the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls on impeachment shows the country evenly split, with 46.5 percent of Americans in favor of

impeachment and 46.5 percent against. That is hardly what I would call a national consensus in favor of impeaching President Trump. When half of

Americans are telling you that what you're doing is wrong, you should listen.

I think this is especially the case given how close we are to the next election. In 11 months the American people are going to vote on the next

president of the United States. Why then are we plunging the country into this kind of turmoil and this kind of trauma now when the voters themselves

will resolve the matter one way or another less than a year from today?

All it does achieve is make the political polarization and divisions in our country even worse. That makes no sense to me.

Though we may be moving forward with a vote, I certainly do not believe the majority's proven its case or convinced the American people that the weeks

of wasted time was worth it.

And personally, I believe the articles themselves are unwarranted. The majority is seeking to remove the president over something that didn't

happen.

And personally I believe the articles themselves are unwarranted. The majority is seeking to remove the president over something that didn't

happen.

MACFARLANE: We have just been listening in to the U.S. House Rules Committee. They're meeting in what is the last step in an impeachment

process before the House votes 24 hours from now. They'll today establish the rules for tomorrow's debate.

The chairman of the committee Jim McGovern saying President Trump is rolling out the mat to welcome foreign interference.

We'll be back after the break with more on this story, stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MACFARLANE: Welcome back. The House Rules Committee is meeting right now to hammer out the way the impeachment debate and vote will go. Barring

something unforeseen, the House should be voting on impeachment tomorrow.

Assuming it passes impeachment, it will then move to a Senate trial. The chairman of the committee, Jim McGovern, saying President Trump is rolling

out the mat to welcome foreign interference.

Let's bring our panel back in: Suzanne Malveaux is on Capitol Hill. We're also joined by reporter Stephen Collinson and our CNN legal analyst Shan

Wu.

[11:35:00]

MACFARLANE: I want to go straight to Suzanne on Capitol Hill, where we've heard strong words on both sides of the divide, Suzanne.

Your reaction to what's just been said?

MALVEAUX: Well, it's not surprising. Certainly this is a case where Republicans and Democrats see a completely different story here and there's

no even merging or any kind of negotiation or compromise on even the set of facts that are being put before the American people.

So it can be kind of a confusing time because many Republicans -- initially what you had heard at the beginning of the process was a few who came

forward and said they didn't believe that it was appropriate behavior on the part of the president.

That has since turned. And many Republicans taking a hardline stand that the president has done nothing wrong.

On the other side, Democrats who have laid out this case, they look at the details, they look at the case they've made, the many witnesses, the fact

witnesses and say this is a very clear-cut case of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. And so they're almost talking, you know, just

across from each other.

And this is how it's playing out you know, kitchen tables across the United States here.

I do want to mention while we were watching that we also got a statement from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in very detail, laying out why

he is rejecting Senator Schumer's proposal that they handle this -- the procedures of the trial in a certain way.

He says that Schumer wants to handle this the way the Clinton impeachment trial was taking place back in 1999. But he says he's actually not being -

- he's been disingenuous, he's not being honest about that because he wants to put forward these witnesses.

And what McConnell is saying is back in the Clinton impeachment trial, they had two different resolutions they were voting on, one which was about

opening statements and different kinds of motions that they could make.

And then the second was done much later and that had to deal with witnesses. So the process had played out to a certain extent before they

called for witnesses. He is saying that now Schumer wants this one big resolution to guarantee these live witnesses in this process and this

procedure and he says that that is just not the Senate's job, that this is a really a case of the House not putting forward a strong enough case to

make for impeachment and then requiring or asking the Senate to do its job.

MACFARLANE: That's great new information, thank you, Suzanne.

I just want to bring in our Stephen Collinson who has been standing by.

As Suzanne was saying just there, we heard what we expected to hear in many ways, two sides of the impeachment divide, both extremely polarized.

How much do you feel, even in those statements we just heard, that both Republicans and Democrats here are trying to claim the battle for the

narrative on how the impeachment process is playing out?

COLLINSON: They're both clearly playing to their own political supporters and trying to make a wider case for any undecided American people regarding

the president.

What you saw was an argument by the Democrats on the facts. They're bringing up the key point of the case, that there is strong evidence, even

in the words of the president and those around him, that he did conduct the offense that he's accused of conducting.

He clearly appeared to have abused his power by inviting a foreign nation to intervene in the U.S. election by investigating an opponent.

Tom Cole, the top Republican on the committee, didn't address those allegations. And this has been typical of the Republican approach because

the evidence appears to be so damning against the president. They're simply disregarding it. Tom Cole there argued that the process was unfair,

that it was going too quickly. The Democrats hasn't proved their case.

But he never came up against the key allegations the Democrats are making.

And, after all, what have we seen over the last few days?

We've seen Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, coming back from Ukraine, saying he has evidence that this case is not proven. He is

indulging in exactly the same activity on behalf of the president for which the president is being impeached.

So this is more than a disconnect. It's a complete lack of common understanding about the appropriate behavior of a president inside the

constitutional system.

MACFARLANE: Thanks, Stephen.

I just to get back to what we are going to see in the room and the potential outcomes of that. We spoke earlier about possible defectors in

the Senate trial.

What about possible defection within this vote, this Democrat vote?

I mean, we know it's obviously going to pass. That is the overwhelming message. But if there are even a minority number of Democrat defectors.

[11:40:00]

MACFARLANE: How will that affect or impact the Democrats at least in terms of the optics of that message they're trying to put out there?

WU: I don't think that substantively there is enough risk of so many defectors it could imperil their ability to bring the impeachment forward.

Optically, there is some effect to that. I think in particular the Republicans would be wise if the Democrat who is thinking of defecting

parties, if they were to have that done after the vote, a matter of conscience rather than just a crass political calculation.

I think what we'll see and we're already seeing, as Suzanne prophesied for us, a lot of partisan attacks. This is the first opportunity that the

Republicans will have to really launch their criticisms against that very dense report issued by the Judiciary Committee. So they'll be mounting

criticism against that.

They may potentially ask that, when the House votes, that the House entertains amendments to the articles of impeachment and then really, down

to the nuts and bolts, they're going to have to be deciding exactly how the debate is going to go on on the House floor.

So very nuts and bolts questions but I think you'll see them decided in an atmosphere of great partisanship.

Also to Suzanne's point earlier about the McConnell's statement, it's a little bit disingenuous to compare it to the Clinton situation because

there was much more bipartisan support there. In fact, they didn't even go to the House Rules Committee. They took care of this step through

unanimous consent.

MACFARLANE: Indeed. Well, we will, of course, continue to follow this with all three of you in the hours to come, Shan, Stephen and Suzanne,

thank you all very much for the time being.

And it's the latest from Capitol Hill as the House prepares for their impeachment vote tomorrow, that's what you've been watching.

But coming up on CONNECT THE WORLD, we have more news after this short break, stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MACFARLANE: Welcome back. India's prime minister Modi is accusing political opponents of trying to stir up trouble.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE (voice-over): Huge crowds turned out again Tuesday to protest India's new citizenship law. They say it's an attempt to marginalize

Muslims. The protests have been going on for days with police firing tear gas at rock-throwing protesters.

Buses and cars have been damaged and fires have been set. There have been at least five deaths since the protests started last week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Yogendra Yadav is the president of the Swaraj India Party and a fierce critic of the citizenship law.

[11:45:00]

MACFARLANE: He joins us now from New Delhi via Skype.

Thank you so much for joining us. I want to ask you, Mr. Modi is trying to put across this new law as some sort of humanitarian gesture.

But in your opinion, what is his real intent?

And how dangerous could this be for the fabric of the country?

YOGENDRA YADAV, SWARAJ INDIA PARTY: Mr. Modi unfortunately is another leader who believes in saying exactly the opposite of what he's doing.

Ostensibly the new law -- because the government has changed the situation of law of the country -- ostensibly to accommodate the policy for religious

minorities from neighborhoods.

Given Mr. Modi's politics, of course, everyone is suddenly concerned for minorities. But the point about the law is that, for the first time in the

history of India, India's citizenship has been linked to religion, which goes against the basic secular tenets of the Indian constitution.

Second, this law creates a special category of the illegal immigrants, those who are non-Muslims but who are from the Muslim neighborhoods. So in

essence this law says, no Muslims. If you want to come from outside India, sorry, this country is not for Muslims. This is what people are objecting

to. So it threatens a secular content of our constitution.

Secondly, it discriminates against Muslims in a very simple way. It goes against the constitution of India.

If the government says that you really want to favor the religious persecuted minority, a simple question is, why pick only three countries?

India also has China as a neighbor and Chinese will have suffered from religious discrimination.

Why not them?

India has Sri Lanka as a neighbor. Hindus and Muslims have suffered discrimination.

India has Myanmar as a neighbor and Rohingya Muslims have suffered discrimination.

So why not consider them?

This is a blatant attempt to single out Muslims and to indicate in the long run they would enjoy a second degree of citizenship.

MACFARLANE: You mentioned the constitution there. I want to touch on that in a moment on how this will play out in the courts. First, we're seeing

images of protests breaking out across India. It's a significant shock as to how some of these crackdowns have been so brutal.

How much could these images we're seeing backfire in actually uniting Modi's opponents, if not the general citizens, against him?

YADAV: Absolutely. We must remember there are three different kinds of protests led by three very different groups that are happening

simultaneously.

There are protests in the northeast of India, very large protests underreported in the media. But their problem is that they're worried

about overinclusion because of this new law.

There have been widespread protests by Muslim communities who feel targeted. That's all over the country.

The third kind of protest that is from students, many who are not directly affected by this but who are saying, look, I don't want to live in this

kind of country. This is unprincipled. This is against the constitution.

These are the protests which happen in the city of Delhi which have caught public imagination because the police went out of its way to beat up

students in one of the central universities of Delhi.

These images went wider and drew more public attention and that could, of course, go against Mr. Modi. But he is trying to present it as if only the

Muslims are opposing what he does.

MACFARLANE: There's so much to speak about but, unfortunately, we're a bit pressed for time today. But we appreciate you coming on and speaking to us

about this. No doubt we'll be back covering this story as it continues to escalate. Thank you for joining us from New Delhi.

All right.

Up next, is this an own goal for Italian footballers?

The nation's top league launches an anti-racism campaign. Many think this is actually racist.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MACFARLANE: Welcome back.

You'll remember this controversy from the beginning of the month, when an Italian newspaper "Corriere dello Sport" ran the headline "Black Friday"

alongside images of Roma defender Chris Smalling and Inter Milan striker Romelu Lukaku prior to a match between the sides.

The paper actually contained an anti-racist message within the story but somehow managed to entirely miss the point and cause more offense. Now

Italy's top flight football league Serie A seems to have taken things a step further with its own anti-racism campaign, depicting three monkeys of

apparently different ethnic origins beneath a banner, saying, no to racism.

Black players in Italy have been subject to racist abuse during games, including monkey chants. So the use of images of primates is highly

controversial. CNN "WORLD SPORT's" Don Riddell joins me now.

Sadly, Don, given everything we know about Italy's history of handling issues of racism in football, this isn't that surprising. But it is

shocking, is it not, that even, in an instance where they're meant to be protesting anti-racism, they can get it so wrong and be so far off the

mark.

DON RIDDELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's quite remarkable. We know racism in football is on the rise right across the European continent.

We've seen incidents in England, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Netherlands. But Italy is often cited as the worst offender.

Whilst, we should, I suppose, applaud Serie A for having some kind of campaign to try to address it, it seems to have spectacularly blown up in

their faces. This campaign has been roundly condemned, including even by these fans on streets of Rome today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It is not as though people of color are like this. They are not monkeys. I do not think people of color

are monkeys, absolutely not. It is a very strong metaphor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If this explained with a conclusion behind it, it could be positive. But just put up in this

manner, I don't think anyone would understand it's something anti-racist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): At this moment if you speak in this manner, if you express yourself in this manner, there is just no pity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIDDELL: Two of the top clubs in Italy have responded via Twitter. Roma said they were very surprised to see what appears to be an anti-racist

campaign from Serie A. We understand the league wants to tackle racism but we don't believe this is the right way to do it.

AC Milan said, "Art can be powerful but we strongly disagree with the use of monkeys as images in the fight against racism and were surprised by the

total lack of consultation."

I think that's a key point, the lack of consultation. You have to wonder who actually saw this campaign and then approved it. Serie A, they were OK

with it, I guess. This is exactly how players are being abused in Italy. They're having to play football, as Lukaku did earlier, to the sound of

monkey noises raining down from the terraces.

It's an absolutely awful situation --

MACFARLANE: You have to take a serious look at how they got to this point, Don. You mentioned AC Milan and Roma speaking out against Serie A.

How important is it that clubs do that?

[11:55:00]

MACFARLANE: Because previously we've seen it left to players themselves to speak out and to protect themselves.

Should we -- should there be more of an emphasis on clubs coming out and speaking more strongly on racism like we're seeing here?

RIDDELL: Yes, I mean fair play and full credit to Roma and Milan, they also spoke out about the headline you referenced in the lead-in to this

segment. They actually banned the newspaper from coming to their training ground for the rest of the year and said their players wouldn't be doing

any interviews with them.

So the clubs are starting to respond. Roma and Milan are leading by example. And they are really reacting to their players, who, for so long,

were silent themselves but now that they're speaking up. This does seem in Italy, today, Christina, to be another case of two steps forward, which is

great, but one step back, unfortunately.

MACFARLANE: Yes, it certainly is. Don Riddell, thank you there from CNN Center.

And I am Christina Macfarlane. That was CONNECT THE WORLD. Thanks for watching. Stay with us. Richard Quest has "THE EXPRESS" after this quick

break.

END