Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Trump Responds to Questions While in London; Democrats Meet to Discuss Impeachment; Soon: House Judiciary Committee's First Impeachment Hearing; Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) is Interviewed About the Impeachment Inquiry. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired December 04, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The one who is most vocal in the prior -- in the intelligence committee is the one who had a skeleton in his closet in a report. Is that here, too? I'll be waiting to see.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right. Everybody, stay with me. We have a lot more. We're only just beginning.
(MUSIC)
Good morning and welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Right now, House Democrats are meeting to plan out their next steps in the impeachment inquiry, just minutes before the next phase of the impeachment inquiry kicks off. The House Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing on the allegations against President Trump. It will put four constitutional scholars in the spotlight facing questions on the legal framework for impeachment.
And we're just getting their opening statements right now. Democratic witnesses saying the president is committing -- is committing impeachable acts, worse than any other president, while the Republican witness, Republican witness says he's concerned by a lack of evidence.
The Intelligence Committee would likely disagree with that argument. Its 300-page report is a road map for articles of impeachment.
We'll get more on that in just a moment. But let's begin this hour up on Capitol Hill with our senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju just outside the room where the Democrats will be meeting this morning. They're getting ready right now.
All right. So, Manu, take us inside and set the scene for us.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, just in a matter of moments, the Democrats will discuss their next steps on the impeachment proceedings. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee is going to detail the report that his committee issued that will serve as a backbone for articles of impeachment assuming the House goes that route. He's going to detail that to his caucus to answer questions from the members about some of the next steps.
No staff is allowed in this room. Nancy Pelosi also expected to address her caucus in private.
Now at the same time, the public proceedings will take place in the House Judiciary Committee in the next phase of the investigation and we're expecting a very contentious affair from the start, Republicans are going to object to the proceedings saying the Democrats have not made their case to impeach and remove this president.
The Democrats, on the other hand, say the case is crystal clear. The president abused his office and he obstructed Congress and deserves to be impeached. That's the case they want to make to the American public.
Now, the format will be much like what we've seen in previous testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. First, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, will deliver his opening statement followed by the ranking Republican Doug Collins delivering his. Then, there will be each of the four witnesses who are all legal experts will weigh in about high crimes and misdemeanors, whether or not in this case, this had been met under the Constitution.
Now, we're getting a taste of what some of these witnesses have said based on their opening statements we've seen so far. And a couple of things stand out.
One from Michael Gerhardt, who's one of the Democratic witnesses invited by the Democrats from the University of North Carolina, says: The president's serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice in Congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president, including what previous presidents who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing.
Now, the Republican witness, one of the four who is testifying, Jonathan Turley from George Washington University, has a different take. He's going to say this: I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachment as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record and narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. It does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and at times bitterly divided.
Now, after they deliver their opening statements, that's when we'll see the staff counsels ask questions, including Norm Eisen, the Democratic counsel who previously worked in the Obama administration. He's going to have about 45 minutes to question, followed by the Republican counsel and each of the members will have their own five- minute rounds to ask questions as they try to make the case to the American public why the president should be impeached, why he shouldn't be impeached. But, Wolf, again, this is the next phase in what is expected to be a
quick moving process here in the House to potentially have that impeachment vote before Christmas. Nancy Pelosi in private has not told her colleagues a specific timeline for moving forward. She refused to do that last night I'm told in private talking to her colleagues. We'll see if she says anything different today. But the moment Democrats mostly united believe the president should be impeached and they're trying to make that case to the country today -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, on the other hand, the Republicans are mostly -- I should say, completely united in opposing any sort of impeachment.
Manu Raju, stand by.
The Intelligence Committee in the House took what they learned from more than 100 hours of testimony, dozens of subpoenas and boiled it down to a 300-page report, showing what the Democrats consider to be an overwhelming case against the president.
Let's go to our congressional reporter, Lauren Fox.
[09:05:02]
She's also up on Capitol Hill.
So, Lauren, tell us about the findings, the major findings. Just remind our viewers.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Wolf, this was a very important report because, as you said, this was a two-month investigation. They interviewed many witnesses. They also were having many of these depositions behind closed doors.
This was really the full summation of what they found. And one of the biggest takeaways is this was really going to form the basis for any articles of impeachment that they write. They broke this report into two sections. Basically, documenting the president's abuse of power as well as talking about all the witnesses, all the documents in great detail that they weren't able to obtain because they believe the administration was obstructing Congress.
That could be another potential article of impeachment. So that really set the stage for what was coming forward.
But the big new information coming from this report, the call records from April. Of course, I want to set the stage a little bit back in April was when Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, was facing struggles. In the spring she was ousted from her post, as you recall from this investigation.
So, Wolf, this was a significant development because what it found was that Rudy Giuliani and other associates for the president, as well as associates for Giuliani were engaged back in April and having phone calls with the OMB, also the White House, and it was very unclear what these calls are specifically about. But it paints the picture, according to Democrats, this was going on
long, long before many Republicans are willing to admit that these associates were working on ousting Marie Yovanovitch.
Also important, Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, was having conversations with one of Rudy Giuliani's associates, Lev Parnas. Four different conversations in April. And I think that's an important note.
If you remember, Nunes is the top Republican. He's someone who spoke at every Intelligence Committee hearing. He's been part of all these closed door depositions and interviews with witnesses. Republicans saying that it's not a problem. Democrats saying it's a very serious issue -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Lauren. We'll get back to you as well. Lauren Fox up on Capitol Hill.
Joining us now, Republican congressman Tom McClintock. He serves on the Judiciary Committee. He's going to be asking questions later today as well.
Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): My pleasure, Wolf. Thanks for having me.
BLITZER: So, you defended the president by saying his demand on Ukraine is how a Manhattan businessman talks. But when you look at the House Intelligence --
(CROSSTALK)
MCCLINTOCK: I said the language he used was that of a Manhattan businessman. Very blunt and to the point. But I fully believe he was acting within his authority and responsibility as president.
BLITZER: Let me read to you what this Harvard law professor who is going to be testifying this morning, Noah Feldman says, and then we'll get your reaction, Congressman.
According to the testimony and to the publicly released memorandum of the July 25th, 2019, telephone call between the two presidents, President Trump abused his office by soliciting the president of Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election. This act on its own qualifies as an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.
That's from Noah Feldman, the Harvard law professor that the Democrats asked to testify. What's your reaction to that?
MCCLINTOCK: I don't see it that way at all. The Constitution gives the president the authority to conduct the nation's foreign relations. It commands him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized aid to Ukraine in the first place, requires the administration to determine that that government is taking steps to combat corruption before funds can be released.
The way I read that conversation, that's exactly what the president was doing. Just because Joe Biden is a candidate for president doesn't shield him from inquiry.
BLITZER: But, you know, I guess the point that the Democrats are going to be making, you've heard it many times, Congressman, in that rough transcript that the White House released of that conversation, the only references to corruption were alleged corruption by the Bidens.
The president didn't make any allegations of corruption as far as Ukraine was concerned in that phone conversation. And he specifically asked the new president of Ukraine, Zelensky, to go ahead and investigate the Bidens. You don't have a problem with that?
MCCLINTOCK: The question is, did the president have probable cause to believe that laws were violated when then-Vice President Biden used over a billion dollars of federal loan guarantees to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the general prosecutor, preparing to interrogate Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son. To me, that's a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
BLITZER: Well, let me --
MCCLINTOCK: There's probable cause for the president to pursue that.
Don't forget, all of the executive authority of this government is vested in one person, the president of the United States.
[09:10:03]
He has a responsibility to take care that those laws be faithfully executed, and I see it, he was doing exactly that.
Just because the Democrats don't want Joe Biden investigated for what to me is clearly an abuse of power, is certainly not an excuse for the president not to discharge his responsibility.
BLITZER: But, Congressman McClintock, if the president wanted an investigation of the Bidens, he went to the Ukrainians to ask for that investigation. Why didn't he go to the Justice Department? Why didn't he ask the FBI? Why didn't he ask U.S. authorities to investigate the Bidens?
MCCLINTOCK: I hope he has.
BLITZER: He didn't.
MCCLINTOCK: Well, he should. And again, when he's talking to the Ukrainian president, he is discharging his duties under the National Defense Authorization Act to determine if they are --
BLITZER: But you agree, if he had a serious problem that the then- vice president of the United States and his son Hunter Biden were committing crimes, and that's the allegation, he should have asked the FBI to investigate. He should have --
MCCLINTOCK: Again, I don't know.
BLITZER: -- ask the Justice Department to investigate. Instead he went to the Ukrainian government.
MCCLINTOCK: Wolf, first of all, I don't know and you don't know what is being investigated right now. We have a far-reaching investigation being headed up by John Durham, that may well be looking --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: But that's on the Russia investigation, that's on the Russia investigation.
MCCLINTOCK: And I'll tell you something else. This, I think, is central to the president's motivations, in asking for that cooperation, and that's all going to come out.
If the Democrats continue to suppress that in the House, I think the Senate is going to demand a full airing of all of these facts.
And we live in a free society, and free societies, the prosecution does not get to choose what witnesses the defense calls. That's been the process over here in the House. I don't think the Senate will stand for it.
BLITZER: The new documents that have been released by the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman, show your Republican colleague, the House Intelligence Committee's ranking member Devin Nunes, was closer to the Ukraine affair than he let on, and we now know, based on these documents that have been released, that there was a web of communications he had with the now-criminally indicted Ukrainian American businessman Lev Parnas.
So listen to what he said last night when asked about those phone calls. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): It's possible, but I haven't gone through all my phone records. I don't really recall that name. I remember the name now because he's been indicted.
I'll go back and check all my records but it seems very unlikely that I would be taking calls from random people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: So what's your reaction to that, Congressman? Was it appropriate for Congressman Nunes to lead Republicans in this inquiry in the intelligence committee when he was communicating directly with people being investigated in the inquiry?
MCCLINTOCK: Well, I don't find it the least bit remarkable that the ranking member of a committee is going to talk to a wide range of people involving the issues that are before his committee. In fact, that's his job.
BLITZER: So you don't have any problem that he didn't disclose any of those conversations during the course of his questioning, during the House Intelligence Committee hearings?
MCCLINTOCK: That's an important question, Wolf. He's not required to, of course.
But if you go back to the whistle-blower complaint that started all of this, the whistle-blower is required to disclose under penalty of perjury any contact he's had with congressional offices. My understanding is the whistle-blower didn't do that.
BLITZER: Congressman McClintock, we're going to continue these conversations down the road. It was kind of you to join us today on this historic, very important day. Appreciate it very much.
MCCLINTOCK: Thanks so much for having me.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Still to come -- we're only minutes away from a high-stakes hearing up on Capitol Hill. The House Judiciary Committee holding its first public impeachment proceedings. The Chairman Jerry Nadler says he's not going to take any theatrics. We'll see what goes on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:15:00]
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Another monumental day here in Washington with major implications at the top of the hour, all eyes will shift back to Capitol Hill for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States. Let's bring back our panel of experts. And let's talk about the goal for house Democrats, Jeffrey Toobin, you first. So, what do they hope to accomplish on this day?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's pretty straightforward. Generate some outrage. Generate some understanding of what the standards are, and say that -- and persuade people, if there are any persuadable people out there, that the conduct that the president engaged in is not just wrong, it's not just inappropriate.
That, it is a violation of the constitution. And that requires understanding what the constitution actually means by the phrase bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And I think the most useful thing the Democrats could do if to advance their goals is to establish a framework, a rubric that the facts easily mean that, to say that, you know, this is exactly why we have this phrase in the constitution.
This is exactly why we have a mechanism in the constitution to remove a president because this kind of conduct is so far beyond the pale.
[09:20:00] GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, I also think their goal is to kind of make the larger case here that it set it in a historic context and say, this isn't just about Democrats hating Donald Trump, et cetera, wanting to undo an election or whatever else you want to call it. But this is about the constitution as Jeffrey says.
And to make the larger point as they did in the house report yesterday, that if one president can do this, then any president in the future can also do these --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes --
BORGER: Things and not worry about it because it will be fine. And to bring you back to the -- to the founding fathers who, after all, were trying to escape authoritarianism and say, look, this is why they did this because they did not want an authoritarian in the White House who could do whatever he wanted.
So, I think the larger historic moment, if they can do that for the American public, put it in some context, it would be important.
LAURA COATES, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: And they're going to have to also grapple with the notion --remember that phrase, quid pro quo that everyone used for weeks on end? Well, one of the enumerated crimes in the actual section is the word bribery. You've got four law professors there to talk about what was intended and what was contemplated by that very phrase.
And one, Jonathan Turley on the actual panel is going to be the one to say this is not sufficient to constitute an official act of bribery. He'll look to the Supreme Court of the United States which had the -- remember Governor of Virginia, McDonnell who had sentence(ph) overturned for taking what Rolexes and what -- and trips whatever it was to be to have an FDA-approved dietary supplement for a constituent.
Well, they found that, look, it wasn't enough even then to constitute official acts. They're going to say, is this quid pro quo of an official act, did he actually pay to have somebody interact with the president --
BLITZER: Well, let me read Ross -- what Jonathan Turley, he's the constitutional scholar from the George Washington University law school who the Republicans invited to testify this morning. And let me read a little chunk of what he will say. "I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the house proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
Does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply, and at times, bitterly divided."
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I think that gets to sort of the heart of what I think, one of the biggest issues is going to be. Putting aside the shortness of the proceedings, I don't think that matters. The question I think is going to be, is there enough evidence? Does it reach the standard for impeachment?
Is what the House Intel Committee found enough, or are the members of Congress forced to draw too many inferences to get to that final conclusion of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, is there enough?
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Can I just make a point? I think the challenge today for these legal experts is to talk more about what the founders were thinking than what Donald Trump was thinking. Because there are the facts and there's the law. They're there to talk about the law.
The facts will be decided by others. And so while it is elucidating to understand what the framers were thinking about and how we think about high crimes and misdemeanors, the danger in these proceeding is the false hope that somehow this is totally on the level. And that we can sit back as citizens and learn something and come to some sort of reasonable conclusion.
That's not the situation in which we're operating. We are in a polarized Washington and a polarized proceeding with a panel of legal experts who are themselves polarized and who are drawing conclusions based on all of the evidence here.
TOOBIN: But we are all familiar with Supreme Court decisions that are 5-4 with regularity. And it's not because one set of justices is smart and the other is dumb, and one is good and the other is bad. It's because these legal issues have tremendous political content. And that the way -- the political ideology you bring to these questions will often dictate your result.
So, you know, it is a fore-long hope that someone who has spent, you know, much of his career talking about the Supreme Court -- you know, the idea that, oh, if only the justices could just do the law instead of doing politics, it's impossible to separate.
GARBER: Right, but it's not just politics --
TOOBIN: Yes --
GARBER: Though, I think one of the challenges today for the Democrats will be -- putting aside the politics is to try to show that this isn't just a partisan exercise.
TOOBIN: Yes --
GARBER: This started off as a very partisan exercise. The most partisan impeachment process --
TOOBIN: Well --
GARBER: In modern history. It started off that way. I think one of the purposes for today, for the Democrats is to kind of bring it back, the fundamentals, and say this isn't just about Republicans --
TOOBIN: Right --
GARBER: And Democrats --
BORGER: They've been saying that --
GARBER: It's also like, what do you do --
TOOBIN: It's a strategy --
GARBER: But to try to show it because it hasn't worked so far.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It's partisan in part because Republicans have managed to stay together, right, even as the evidence has mounted here. And to be fair, you are right when you look back to the Clinton impeachment.
[09:25:00]
There were Democrats who voted against the president there, even going back to Nixon, there were Republicans who voted against Nixon in that case. That said, the political make-up of Congress is different than it was even in the late '90s, right? There were folks who occupied something of a center that just don't exist anymore in Congress as it stands --
GARBER: Well, we still have some of them. And I think what the Republicans would say --
SCIUTTO: Fewer.
GARBER: There are fewer, but there are some, and I think the Republicans would note that, you know, the proceedings were started without a single Republican, not one vote --
SCIUTTO: A former Republican --
COATES: But also let's call balls and strikes here as well though, because I think you all have a point about this. They have to prove that this is not only based on conjecture and assumptions. That's absolutely true and the legal experts have talked about why that would not be sufficient. But then the reason there would be conjecture and assumption having take a leap in some respects is because there's been stonewalling by the White House, the administration.
The people who would be able to answer the questions you raised, David, about the idea of what would he have done, had the actual deliverable not been delivered? What if he hadn't actually done the announcement he did not? What would happen if the whistleblower complaint had not come out?
Well, the people who could testify to these things and provide more substance and meat on the bone for the experts --
SCIUTTO: Yes -- COATES: To talk about are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney or the
president of the United States or Mike Pompeo, among others. And so, if you don't have that, they are reduced to talking about this in a more of a theoretical constitutional --
TOOBIN: Laura --
COATES: Lecture framework.
TOOBIN: Laura is exactly right about the absence of evidence is not just because the Democrats are lazy and they haven't sought it out. Of course, they've sought it out, and it's --
COATES: And it's evidence --
TOOBIN: And it's not just witnesses. Every modern case, civil or criminal now, has lots of e-mails and lots of texts. This was a complicated, multi-pronged effort to influence Ukraine here. It was not just conversations. It was e-mails. It was texts. Where are they?
SCIUTTO: Yes --
TOOBIN: We've seen a very small handful from Ambassador Taylor who produced his own. But --
COATES: Not a quarter of a million --
TOOBIN: You know --
SCIUTTO: Right --
TOOBIN: There are -- you know, there is all this evidence out here and just --
BLITZER: Right --
TOOBIN: A point --
GARBER: Yes --
BLITZER: Right --
TOOBIN: About whether you can make an inference about what that evidence would show is a critical factual issue that I hope it gets discussed.
BLITZER: Everybody stick around, we're not going anywhere. There's a lot more that we're standing by. The house Democrats right now, they're discussing behind closed doors the next steps of the impeachment proceedings just ahead of today's open House Judiciary Committee hearing. We'll have live coverage, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:32:08] BLITZER: The president of the United States meeting with world leaders in London as the next phase of the impeachment inquiry kicks off minutes from now back here in Washington.
We just saw President Trump meeting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and he struck what seemly was a much more muted tone as compared to yesterday's comments.
Our White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, is in London for us.
Kaitlan, it was very interesting to see the president today as opposed to yesterday.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it was, Wolf.
And today when the president was taking these questions from reporters, one of them came up about Rudy Giuliani and that report that was surfaced yesterday that was released by those House Democrats. And, of course, one of the big parts of new information was about these phone calls that the president's personal attorney had with one of them, including a number from the Office of Management and Budget.
Now, that's not an office that's known to most people, but it's at the center of this impeachment inquiry because you saw in the testimony multiple officials said it was an Office of Management and Budget official that told them to freeze the aid when they did back over the summer.
Now, the president was asked, what purpose does his personal attorney have in calling a member of the Budget Office in the administration? Here's how he responded to reporters today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I really don't know. You'd have to ask him. Sounds like something that's not so complicated. But you'd have to ask him. No big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So, Wolf, the president saying he doesn't think it's a big deal that Rudy Giuliani made those calls, but not explaining why he did.
BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, the comments he had, there were some pretty not very nice words about the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. Tell us about that.
COLLINS: Yes, this is the first time the president has responded to the video that surfaced overnight that appeared to show the Canadian prime minister, the French president and the British prime minister mocking the president for those extended question and answer sessions he had yesterday totaling two hours and one minute. Those videos, the White House had not responded to, nor the French and Canadian offices. The president did respond, though, and he said he believes that the
Canadian prime minister is two-faced. He said he believed that reaction of Trudeau on video there talking about the president and the way he conducted himself was a reaction to the pressure that the president put on him yesterday during their one on one. A one on one that was much less contentious than the one the president had with the French president. But at one point, while sitting down with Trudeau, the president turned to him and asked, how much Canada was spending and what percent of its GDP on defense.
Now, Wolf, sources saying the president knows very well that Canada is not meeting that 2 percent standard that these NATO countries have set for themselves, but he wanted to have Trudeau say it. Trudeau said he -- they had increased it and then finally the president got him to say that it was around 1.3 percent, far below that 2 percent threshold that the president has hammered these allies over getting. Now he says he's two-faced.
[09:35:03]
And, Wolf, something else the president said is that he's canceling that scheduled press conference he was going to have in just a matter of hours. And that comes after these leaders, we should note, were apparently mocking the president for taking so many questions from reporters, for speaking for such great lengths during their meetings.
BLITZER: All right, Kaitlan Collins in London for us. We're going to get back to you as well.
Meanwhile, here in Washington, we're getting some details about what's happening behind closed doors right now as House Democrats are meeting to discuss the next steps of the impeachment proceedings.
Manu Raju is outside that meeting room right now.
What are you hearing, Manu?
RAJU: Yes, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, just walked into this room. She declined to answer reporters' questions.
Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, also arrived moments ago to detail the outlines of this report that his committee issued, outlining what the Democrats believe is serious abuse of power, something that most Democrats here believe warrants his impeachment. He's going to go through that step by step.
But this caucus meeting is being taken under unusual circumstances. They're not allowing staff in the room, which they usually do. They're encouraging members not to bring their cell phones into the room. They're closing off one entrance where members usually arrive, presumably to prevent reporters like us from seeing what's inside as they go in and out. They're denying access to reporters for one specific hallway, only allowing members to go in and out, showing the sensitivity of this discussion as the members try to grapple with the next steps. There are a number of questions that members have about how the
speaker will come down in terms of the timing, in terms of what articles of impeachment they're thinking about, in terms of the scope of those articles. There's some debate internally about how that will go down. The expectation among -- on Capitol Hill is that this will all be wrapped up by Christmas time. There will be a vote on the House floor before Christmas. That's the expectation. That's the way it appears to be going in the House Judiciary Committee with its first set of hearings today, followed by probably more proceedings next week, followed by the House vote likely the week after.
But the speaker has been resistant to detailing their specific timeline. Last night at a closed door meeting I'm told from multiple sources she did not lay out a specific timeline. I'm also told that she did not say that whether or not they are in fact going to impeach. And when I asked her if she had made the decision last night to impeach the president or not, she said, I have not.
But, Wolf, she tweeted this morning that the president is a, quote, continuing threat to democracy. So we see where this is all going and we'll see what she has to say to her members in a matter of minutes here, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, they would like to wrap up these articles of impeachment, as you have often pointed out, by Christmas.
All right, Manu Raju, we'll get back to you as well.
A committee with a track record of theatrics about to take over the impeachment inquiry. Can their leader, the chairman, Jerry Nadler, get members to leave their drama at the door. Much more of our special coverage right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:42:39]
BLITZER: All right, right now we're awaiting the House Judiciary Committee. Right at the top of the hour they're scheduled to begin the formal impeachment inquiry hearings. The first time the House Judiciary Committee will be doing so. The -- they will hear testimony from four constitutional scholars.
And this could be rather lively, Jim Sciutto. This could be a very lively session given the nature of some of the Democrats and the Republicans who will be asking questions or maybe in their respective capacities making statements as opposed to asking questions when they each have five minutes to do so.
But the committee lawyers will start off the process with 45 minutes of presumably serious, constitutional questions about this process.
SCIUTTO: And the challenge is going to be is explaining it in a way that the public can understand, right? I mean, you know, it's interesting, and I'm surrounded by people who know far more about this than me, but I've already learned something just reading the opening statement of Noah Feldman, Harvard Law professor, that if you go back to the history that high, in terms of high crimes and misdemeanors, meant connected to high political office. And he quotes here from Alexander Hamilton emphasizing the word political there.
And that gets to the central argument here of Democrats, right, is that, you know, this was the president using leverage of aid and a meeting between presidents, the U.S. president and the Ukrainian president, to get a political favor. Something clearly a power of his office, clearly connected to something that he would benefit politically from that office.
Now, the trouble is, four constitutional scholars on daytime television, can you break through what is already a little bit of public exhaustion with these proceedings?
GREGORY: But one of the -- one of the challenges, and I think the Democrats who have made a compelling case that has not really been rebutted on the facts, but what Republicans are doing is attacking process, saying, why are we here? But it is to ask the very basic question, which is, what did you do when a president does this? What is the right remedy? Is it removal from office or do voters decide? And that is something that's going to have to be debated.
But if no one is really engaging on the Republican side, the answer to that question, do -- is this the new standard that you dig up dirt on your political opponent with any foreign leader? Is that what we want to allow? And, if not, then what's the remedy?
BLITZER: Well, let me --
BORGER: And --
BLITZER: Gloria, let me read to you what Professor Pamela Karlan from the Stanford University Law School will say in her opening statement.
BORGER: You know, I'm not a lawyer.
BLITZER: I know you're not a lawyer, but you had a good night's sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.
[09:45:00]
BORGER: I did.
BLITZER: Well, you're ready after this -- this question.
GREGORY: Movie references next.
BLITZER: Yes.
BORGER: OK.
BLITZER: All right, so here's what she says. She says, but everything I know about our Constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign investment in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as I want to explain in my testimony, drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.
BORGER: Right. Foreign governments should have nothing to do with our democratic process. Period. And I think, you know, the -- to David's point, the question has to be, and I'm not -- I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an impeachment scholar, but the question has to be, is this acceptable to Americans? Not whether it's inappropriate. Not whether just is it impeachable, but if they're watching this hearing, maybe one of the goals is for Americans to sit there and say, is this acceptable behavior to me for a president of the United States?
And some will certainly say, well, I think he's great on a lot of things, maybe not so much on this, but this is just Trump being Trump or whatever excuse. But that, to me, is the key -- is the key question here, whether it is acceptable, not necessarily -- I mean, look, is it a high crime? I don't know what a high crime is. You guys tell me.
TOOBIN: Gerald Ford was the House majority -- the minority leader in the 1960s when there was an attempt to impeach William O'Douglas, who was on the Supreme Court, and he said something that's been quoted many times since then. When they were discussing, what is an impeachable offense, and he said, an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives decides is an impeachable offense.
Now, a lot of law professors have taken offense at that and it's --
GARBER: I think virtually everybody. I think all of these witnesses would say that is not true.
TOOBIN: It's not true --
GARBER: Right.
TOOBIN: But it's not entirely untrue either.
GARBER: Well -- yes.
TOOBIN: The judgment of impeachment, of what is an impeachable offense, will always be a political judgment. This is not a courtroom. Who the losing side --
BORGER: So acceptable is --
TOOBIN: The losing side can't appeal this decision. This is the one and only place impeachment can be decided.
BORGER: So, can Congress say this is unacceptable to us (ph)?
TOOBIN: Right. That's right.
GARBER: Yes, so --
TOOBIN: And that -- that's the question. GREGORY: But there's remedies for that, and that's why there's censure, right?
GARBER: Right.
BORGER: Right.
GARBER: Well, there are a lot of potential remedies that Congress has. I think that's why today's discussion might actually be interesting because even the Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, says that he thought the president's conduct was not appropriate. So let -- kind of -- you know, that's where we start.
The question is the one that you've identified is, what is the remedy for it?
BORGER: Right.
GARBER: Is this an oversight issue where Congress can use its normal tools, or is this that extreme example? Is this the high crime and misdemeanor akin to bribery and treason that warrants --
BORGER: Well within the (INAUDIBLE) --
BLITZER: All right, hold on, let me get Laura to react to this.
Michael Gerhardt, he's also one of the witnesses, University of North Carolina School of Law, he will say this, the president's serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice and Congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president, including what previous presidents who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the reason he's saying that, of course, because it involves a foreign government. It involves what people look at as the umbrella reason and cause to call it an abuse of power. When you use your position to invite a foreign government into this independent country of the United States of America, and that's why people say it's more important.
But, also, this is also -- even more than the president of the United States and what will it mean for a president, this has every bit to do with, what does it mean for Congress? What -- the power of Congress is exclusive ones to be able to have these impeachment inquiries, to have the impeachment processes. If they essentially are dismissive of conduct that is it even debatably a high crime or misdemeanor, bribery or treason, that essentially is what Gerhardt talks about, which is to say, it would render impeachment completely spineless. It would mean nothing at any point in time.
So if Congress has to endeavor to -- essentially it's the pursuit of justice sometimes even more than the conviction itself. It's the pursuit of separation of powers. And that's what's important here.
TOOBIN: Think of the goal -- SCIUTTO: (INAUDIBLE) would require, though -- just -- because remember where -- how we got here. Three years ago, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented attack on its political process by a foreign power. Part of which there was an episode where members of the Trump campaign were willing to at least talk to Russians, a foreign power, about getting dirt on their opponent. So -- so three years later, you have the sitting president, even in the wake of that, and a two-year-long investigation by the special counsel having the gall to seek help from a foreign power in his election, right? In effect, that -- that takes remarkable gall.
[09:50:02]
TOOBIN: Michael Gerhardt -- I have to say, that is an especially moving and important statement by Michael Gerhardt because of who Michael Gerhardt is. Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina is the author of a book called "The Federal Impeachment Process," which is now in its third edition, and I am sure soon to be in its fourth edition.
But he is, without question, the leading scholar of impeachment, if ever in the history of the United States. And not known as a particular partisan. Yes, I am sure he's a Democrat, as the Republicans have pointed out, but this is not someone who was known as a partisan.
Pamela Karlan, an extremely admired scholar, is known as a very strong Democrat. She served in the Obama administration. Been very outspoken on voting rights issues.
Michael Gerhardt is not. And the fact that Michael Gerhardt says this is worse than Nixon, this is worse than Clinton, this is worse than Andrew Johnson back after the Civil War, that is, I think, very significant.
BLITZER: Yes, all right, Jeffrey --
GARBER: Gerhardt's been saying that for a long time now. Gerhardt's very, very smart. But he's been on the record for a long time as saying this is -- this is so bad.
TOOBIN: Maybe it's true.
GARBER: And the other -- and the other challenge is, we haven't had very many impeachments in U.S. history. So saying that it's worse or better, it has -- it has sort of limited applicability.
BLITZER: We see members of the Judiciary Committee now arriving over at the Longworth House Office Building.
We're going to have special, live coverage. The start of the hearing is supposed to begin right at the top of the hour. This is an historic day here in the United States.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:56:26]
BLITZER: All right, any minute now the House Judiciary Committee set to hold its first hearing on the allegations against President Trump. We're back with our experts as we await the start of this hearing.
You know, Jeffrey Toobin, the members are arriving. We see -- we see various members there. There's Representative Collins, who's the top Republican on this committee. He's going to have an opening statement. The chairman, Jerry Nadler, will have an opening statement. Then we'll hear from these four witnesses. They're supposed to keep their opening statements down to about ten minutes or so.
TOOBIN: Yes, and Professor Turley's opening statement, the prepared, is 53 pages. So I think it's -- he's going to have to talk really fast to get it in, in 10 minutes. I assume he's got a shortened version.
You know, one issue that the Democrats are dealing with, mostly behind closed doors now, but I think is relevant to today's hearing is how broad will this impeachment be? And this is an issue -- it's interesting, all the Democrats you interviewed, Wolf, and I notice it happened today, they have not touched this issue yet, but it's incredibly important, which is, will this impeachment be limited just to Ukraine or will it also include the obstruction of justice uncovered by the Mueller investigation, as well as the various obstructions of Congress in terms of this investigation and with Mueller?
This is something that the Democrats seem genuinely undecided about and it will be interesting to see, as the Democrats ask questions here, are they going to try, at least some of them, to show this was broader than just Ukraine or was it -- is this impeachment just about Ukraine?
GREGORY: And, Wolf, can I raise a point that I -- where I think today is important as we think about the Constitution, about the intent of the framers and the fact pattern here. You know there is a really big question about misjudgment by a president versus abuse of office by a president. And I think it's murky. I think it's difficult to distinguish one from another. What about the Gulf of Tonkin, how we got into the Vietnam War? What about other decisions made by presidents about going into war? When there's misjudgment involved, that we know about historically or even contemporaneously. That's, I think one of the battleground here. And I wonder if we're going to have a real debate about that or simply a partisan show.
BORGER: Well, and one doesn't exclude the other, right?
GREGORY: Yes.
BORGER: And the Intelligence Committee report describes not just a misjudgment, as in a bad phone call, but describes what it called a dramatic crescendo, which was a month-long campaign that involved the entire administration and was led by the president. And that is what I think you're going to see Democrats talking about today and trying to kind of hone in on that.
GARBER: We may hear --
BLITZER: We got a little preview of what the Republicans are going to say when I interviewed a little while ago, Congressman McClintock of California. You heard that interview. And he was making the point that the president had every right to raise the issue of bidden corruption, alleged bidden corruption, in the course of that conversation with the Ukrainian president.
SCIUTTO: It shows how misleading statements or really you could even say falsehoods have infiltrated the GOP's defense of Trump. Let's talk about that. You know, of course the president has the right to make sure that Ukraine is using this money properly. The fact is the Department of Defense did that in May. I'll read from the letter that was sent.
It says that we have certified the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense, institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption and increasing accountability. They made that judgement. They certified, as it's called, in May. So for Republicans and the president to claim, well, we don't know how they were using this money, it's just not factually true.
[10:00:00]
And, again, you heard McClintock repeating that point that Biden had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son. The fact is, all of Europe wanted to fire this --
