Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Speaks After Democrats Lay Out Articles Of Impeachment; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: I Wish Trump's Actions Did Not Make Impeachment Necessary; House Democrats Unveil Two Articles Of Impeachment Against President Donald J. Trump; House Democrats Announce USMCA Trade Deal Agreement. Aired 12-12.30p ET

Aired December 10, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): --defend the constitution of United States which in its wisdom our founders put up republic Franklin said if you can keep in Republican separation of power, not a moderate case. That's what they work against.

And so it was most as I said this morning first order of business for member of Congress to anyone engaged in official duties. But speaking for ourselves is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. I wish it were not necessary. I wish the President's actions did not make it necessary. But he did. And we would be delinquent in honoring our oath of office if we did not impeach him for not honoring his oath of office.

ANNA PALMER, SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: There is some discussion about obstruction of Justice based on the Mueller report being one of the articles. Why did you ultimately decide that it wasn't part of this?

PELOSI: The Committee, our members are six committees who have been having legislation, investigation, litigation for a long time. Everyone came to the conclusion that this was it. I wish we just focus on what we are bringing forward, because they're very serious violations of our constitution.

Undermining the national security of the United States, jeopardizing the integrity of our elections, and again, going right at the heart of a system of checks and balances honoring the oath of office. So this isn't talking about what it isn't, this is talking about what is, and that's how we're going forward.

PALMER: Did you support though the idea of more narrowly focused articles of impeachment? That's only you wanted?

PELOSI: I support my Chairman, Chairpersons. Maxine Waters, Karen Maloney, Elliott Engle, Richard Neal, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, I tried to do them in seniority but--

PALMER: So you're ranking them as you go down.

PELOSI: Yes. PALMER: One of the biggest criticisms of the process has been the speed at which the House Democrats are moving. If this - but seriously though--

PELOSI: It's been going on for 22 months, okay? Two and a half years actually.

PALMER: There has been some criticism, though, I will say about whether or not you should move forward at the end of the year or wait for the courts. Why do you think now is the time to move?

PELOSI: Well, I think we're not moving with speed, this so was it two and a half years ago that they initiated the Mueller investigation? It's not about speed it's about urgency. One of the charges against the President of the United States is that he was violating his oath of office by asking a foreign government to intervene in our election, undermining the integrity of our elections.

If we did not hold him accountable, he would continue to undermine our election. Nothing less is at stake than the central point of our democracy, a free and fair election, not disruptive by foreign powers. And our founders were very concerned about that. And in their wisdom, they gave Congress, the House of Representatives, the opportunity - not the opportunity because I don't see it that way, but the path to correcting that as impeachment.

This is not with any speed. This has been going on for a very long time, but there is a sense of urgency. Once we saw the facts presented in the hearing with the Foreign Service officers, facts made known to the public, some of us had seen them before. The facts made known the constitution as presented by the constitutional experts, and the facts in the constitution, there it is.

And so, again, we do this with great sadness, prayerfully, somberly. It's about the constitution of the United States, and if we allow one President, any President, no matter who she or had he may be, to go down this path we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a President King. That is what is at stake in this election and this impeachment as well.

And when we come to the election, people say, well, you did this, you did that. I say that's not what impeachment is about. If you think, as do I, that he's a coward when it comes to agreeing to protecting children from gun violence, or he's cruel in how he treats D-R-E-A-M- E-R-S, et cetera, or he's in denial about climate change, all of that, that's about the election.

That has nothing to do with the facts of the case of the President violating his oath of office, again, undermining our national security. This is a national security issue and it's a constitutional issue as it relates to how he did that.

PALMER: But let's talk about the politics, because nothing happens in a vacuum here. Republicans believe their path to majority in the House is through 31 districts, that the House won, that President Trump won. Impeachment is not popular there. Are you worried that impeachment could cost you the majority?

[12:05:00]

PELOSI: If we believe that our constitution is being violated, that our very democracy is at stake, that as Franklin told us, a republic if you can keep it, and this very person is jeopardizing that, what are we there for? Just to continue to have a job? We take an oath to protect and defend. If we did not do that, we would be, again, delinquent in our duties. So it isn't about elections, it's about the constitution.

PALMER: You're not worried, though, that this could damage the House?

PELOSI: That has nothing to do with it. This isn't about politics, it's not about Democrats or Republicans, and this is about patriotism. This is about patriotism. Don't take the oath. Amend the constitution to take impeachment out and say a President can do whatever he wants. The President said article II says, I can do whatever I want. It doesn't say that at all.

It says we have a system of checks and balances, a system of co-equal branches of government. Gary Wills just did an article that said article I is preeminent. Article II is the presidency. Well, if you think I can impeach him but he can't impeach me, then I have some advantage over him.

PALMER: We started this conversation, and you mentioned at 9:00 am, the Chairman announced articles of impeachment. 10:00 am you and Richie Neal held a press conference on the USMCA trade deal. Heads are spinning in Washington. There are several critics on the left who are hating you right now for impeaching the President but at the same time giving him a deal on USMCA and that you should have waited until the election, because why give him a win? How do you respond?

PELOSI: Well, I say the same thing I said to you before. This is not about politics, giving the President a win. On the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, I don't think any one of us is so important, including the President of the United States, that if we have an opportunity to advance the well-being of America's workers, America's farmers and America's manufacturers, America's interests, that if we have an opportunity to do the right thing by the American people that we should walk away from it because of him?

It's just not worth it, in my view. None of us is worth it. Not just him, none of us is worth it. So, yes, there are people who have said - there are a few. I know there are those that like to amplify any descent those of who have said why you shouldn't do this? This gives him a win. No. We are so far away from the proposal that he put forth that this is a triumph for American workers.

We are miles and miles from what he put forth. So he has yielded on what this is. But nonetheless, he'll claim that he wrote it this way, I guess, I don't know. But whether you're talking about the environment, whether you're talking about pharmaceuticals, whether you're talking about workers' rights, whether you're talking about enforcement, we've come miles. First of all, it's much better than NAFTA, and that's what we wanted to replace. But over and above that, its way far away from what the President was proposing. He wouldn't even recognize it. But, anyway, he'll claim it. But a collateral benefit, somebody gets a collateral benefit from something, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the benefit that is for our country, pass up that opportunity. Some of these things are very perishable. What's within our grasp right now may not even be there. We're dealing with other countries.

PALMER: I want to ask you about that - I think--

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on a remarkable day here in Washington, a historic day here in Washington. Welcome to "Inside Politics." I'm John King. Listening to the Speaker for an extended speech there, because of the history making of the day a conversation with "POLITICO" the Speaker talking about her decision to go forward this morning with two articles of impeachment against the President of the United States also talking about the remarkable whiplash moment if you will, just an hour later appearing in another room to announce an agreement with the very same President of the United States, on a very major trade agreement that U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

Impeachment though dominating the day here, the Democrats going forward with two articles of impeachment, one accusing the President of an abuse of power saying he leveraged the power of his office for personal political gain in his dealings with Ukraine. The second article alleging obstruction of Congress, saying the President then refused to give any information, documents, witnesses to Congress even though it has a constitutional right to launch an impeachment inquiry.

Let's talk about the articles of impeachment and this important day. With me to share the reporting and their insights, CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Carrie Cordero Carl Hulse of "The New York Time" Vivian Salama with "The Wall Street Journal" and Karoun Demirjian with "The Washington Post".

[12:10:00]

KING: Let's start with the Speaker. This was a process it involves law, but most of all it involves politics and she is front and center on this day making the case to those who disagree with her and even those within the Democratic family Carl who have some difference, who wanted something more broad, who wanted the Mueller, who wanted obstruction of Justice, who wanted four articles or five articles or at least three or four articles. She said, no, keep it narrow, keep it tight, keep it focused.

CARL HULSE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think this goes back to when she started the inquiry. We want to keep it simple we want people to be able to understand it. We don't want it to be too complicated. That's what's reflected here. I'm sure there are people who wanted to bring in the Mueller findings, but there's not support in the Caucus for that at the same level as there is for this. To Nancy Pelosi, this seems clear cut, unavoidable, let's just focus on Ukraine. KING: And focus on what is in here and what's not in here, essentially trying to quiet her own critics. Anyone on the left who says we should have gone bigger and we should have gone bolder, she's trying to say, let's just march.

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Right, exactly. And she seems to be as Carl was saying; you know she has this core of support to focus on these issues. The problem for her though in making that argument is that she's been saying that for the last two months and it seems like they brought no one else into the ranks. There is no GOP members who are willing to cross the aisles for something that is so clear cut.

If you take Pelosi's word for it, if it's such a clear cut case of wrongdoing and so simple, either politics is superseding or it's not actually is as straight forward issues presenting it to be. And I think that that is going to be now the test for now how closely can she keep Democrats in line and keep their frustrations muzzled for the duration that takes in the next weeks or so if they didn't actually get--

KING: I want to talk more about these specifics in just a moment. It only runs 9 pages, really only 8 pages. It just barely carries over to the 9th page. The two articles of impeachment against the President but in the end it says, Donald J. Trump should be impeached and removed from office a momentous day for any President.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is live for us at the White House. Kaitlan, the President expected this day to come but here it is now. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats know they have the votes. They will mark up these articles of impeachment this week. They're likely to bring it them to the House floor next week. How does the President respond?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: John, the White House is responding to this by looking ahead to the Senate, with the Press Secretary saying that the President is eager to get his side of the story out, and they believe that Senate trial is going to be the place where the President can do that.

But new reporting to CNN, John shows that there is a divide between President Trump and the Senate Majority Leader over what they think that trial should look like. Our sources tell us that Mitch McConnell essentially wants this trial to be over with as quickly as possible. He doesn't want his members to take any votes that could potentially be damaging to them.

And so he's going to be keeping an eye, and when he gets those 51 votes that he can to get that trial essentially over with, that's something he'll be keeping an eye on. John, that's not what we're hearing that the President wants. Instead, he really wants this to turn into a show. He wants Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. He wants them to be live witnesses, not these taped depositions like you've seen at impeachment hearings in the past.

Instead he wants them there in person being cross-examined and essentially wants to turn this into a spectacle because he thinks that's a way he can inflict maximum damage on Democrats in the election because the way he views it John, we're being told is that he's been sitting back waiting and watching as these current and former aides are going forward, testifying about his actions, and now he's ready to have his say at the trial.

Now the Senate Republicans have warned the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, don't turn this into a circus, messages they passed on to the President, but that is not how the President is viewing this and as - said the President is "Eager to get his story out".

KING: Well, I think the President is about to be disappointed, both on the speed of the Senate action and by the scope of the Senate witnesses. Kaitlan Collins live at the White House. We appreciate that important reporting. We'll continue the conversations in just a moment. We're getting into the details of the articles of impeachment. More on the politics from both sides the Democrats and the Republicans.

And on this momentous day some somber word from the Senate chaplain, who knows there are trying times just ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARRY C. BLACK, SENATE CHAPLAIN: Give them eyes to discern and understand the intricate complexity of this turbulent season. Lord, guide our Senators to the right paths. Lead them beside still waters. Restore their souls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:15:00]

KING: More now on today's big drama here in Washington. Democrats announcing this morning and then shortly thereafter releasing two articles of impeachment against the President of the United States it's a short document runs just over eight pages. Two articles against the President Article I accuses the president of the United States of an abuse of power in his dealings with Ukraine.

A piece of that article says it is President is using the powers in his high office. President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. President Trump engaged in this scheme for course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal, political benefit. In doing so, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a matter that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States Democratic process.

That is Article I accusing the President of an abuse of power. Article II then accuses him of obstructing Congress is in its investigation of that abuse.

[12:20:00]

KING: "Without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas". President Trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the House of Representatives.

Impeachment is a political process. Congress if it has a majority vote it can impeach the President for whatever it decides is a high crime and misdemeanor. You followed the debate for weeks now. As you look, Carrie, at these eight pages, essentially, did the Democrats make a compelling case?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they've made a case from through the evidence that they've created and this substantive reports from the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee that support these few pages that contain these articles.

So the first Article I which is on the substance of it, the facts of what happened in this Ukraine matter, go to the heart of the matter, the fact that they believed the President abused his power of office, abused the office of the executive for personal, political, partisan and his political advantage.

The second part is about the process, and I think more is for history in terms of a President not being willing to respond to the demands of Congress for information. And so the first part is on the facts and the substance. The second part is on the process.

KING: And Vivian, back to Kaitlan's reporting earlier and when you cover the White House, the President says he wants to make his case by calling Hunter Biden, by having live witnesses. In the Clinton Impeachment they'd had no live witnesses there was an agreement between the Democratic and Republican leaders. They allowed some video tape testimony into the hearing.

The president is unlikely to get that wish, but why is it so important for the President? Is the President going to make a factual presentation, I didn't do these things, or is he going to make a what we've seen in many other cases a distraction argument, let's turn the attention over here?

VIVIAN SALAMA, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, publicly he makes that argument that he didn't do these things all the time. He says that the transcript was perfect and that there was no quid pro quo and we've repeatedly heard that from him. But calling on Hunter Biden or Joe Biden or even Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the Intel Committee for him is a counter argument.

There is another side to the story and he insists that the Democrats are taking a very partisan path to this entire investigation by only pursuing one angle of it without looking at the whole picture. And so he defends the White House's decision to block certain witnesses from testifying, A, because they that say some of it is subject to executive privilege and they're not supposed to go out and talk about it publicly, but then B, they just say that it's just unfair and one- sided. KING: Or C, and let me give you a C. One of those potential witnesses would be the President's Acting Chief of Staff who actually went into the White House briefing room on camera and did a briefing in which he essentially pled guilty. He essentially pled guilty to the President of the United States. He said we withheld the aid in part because we wanted the investigation into the 2016 elections.

He said, get over it, it's a fact of life. Mick Mulvaney speaking again this morning, take this with a grain of salt. He says I would love to testify if the boss would let me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Part of it really wants to. We'll do whatever the President wants us to, is what it comes down to. So if the Senate decides to take live witnesses and the President directs us to do it, we will, if we direct us not to and we won't. I'm not going to testify here today but I will remind everybody what Sondland said which is it, he very rarely talked to me and could get me on the phone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The President wants Hunter Biden. The American people could be nice to hear from Mick Mulvaney. Mitch McConnell will make these decisions based on the math of his members.

DEMIRJIAN: He'll do that - half of his members and what he can get more than 50 votes or at least 50 votes to get across the floor. You may have to see some horse trading happen there if you want to get people like Adam Schiff and Hunter Biden who were the more incendiary witnesses to come forward.

But in order to get people that are subpoenaed and those subpoenas were flouted on the House side. You kind of have a comparison right now between two different strategies, right? The President is showing he's willing and able to throw the kitchen sink at the counter argument to make every last ditch argument he can make to bring up Hunter Biden, people that weren't part of the probe to make that argument.

You look at these articles of impeachment, Democrats seem like they are certainly making a very hard and fast case, as Carrie pointed out, but willing to pull a few punches. They don't use the word bribery here they don't go after the obstruction of Justice as some of their members wanted. They're being careful. And the President is not careful. We'll see which one wins out when we're talking GOP legislation.

KING: Well, I want to come to back to that - oh, please go ahead.

CORDERO: That's actually a good point because the Democrats really adopted the opposite strategy in drafting these articles of impeachment. These are measured, they're limited. They didn't include the many acts of obstruction from the Mueller report that they could have. I find that a little bit unsatisfying because on one hand, I understand this is a political process and they made a political judgment about that, but from a rule of law perspective, they've given him a pass on a lot of conduct.

KING: And to your point, the Speaker has decided here there is no evidence Republican votes are going to move. Therefore her plan is to do this as cautiously as possible to protect her members as much as possible.

[12:25:00]

KING: The Mueller report is not in there for 25 to 30 Democrats who come from Trump districts for whom that would be a problem. That is a political decision without a doubt. We'll come back to this conversation a bit later.

But up next, whiplash day here in Washington, House Democrats agree with the President on a major trade deal. As we go to break Congressman Richard Neal gives this advice, when you're in negotiations, and Speaker Pelosi calls, even if you're watching a very important football game, you answer the phone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHRD NEAL, (D-MA): Sunday when Tom Brady was about to take it in, all of a sudden I looked at my phone it said Pelosi for caller ID. Long wisdom tells me, the hell with Brady, take the call.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:00]