Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

House Judiciary Committee to Debate Articles of Impeachment; Office of Management and Budget Releases Rationale for Delaying Appropriated Military Funds to Ukraine; Soon: House Panel Debates Articles of Impeachment; Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is Interviewed About the Articles of Impeachment; Eric Holder: William Barr is "Unfit" to be Attorney General; Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) is Interviewed about Impeachment; McConnell May Move to Acquit Trump. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired December 12, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Debate over the articles of impeachment continues right now with Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Next hour, the final step before impeachment articles hit the House floor, another round of fiery face-offs in the House Judiciary Committee. Democrats have settled on their impeachment charges -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Now Republicans will get to weigh in and try to add amendments, sparking what could be a day-long debate. A preview of what we're about to see came last night with hours of opening statements.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, (D-NY) HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: If we do not respond to President Trump's abuses of power, the abuses will continue.

REP. DOUG COLLINS, (R-GA) RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Two articles, like that? The only abuse of power here is the majority racing the fastest they've ever had the clock in the calendar determining what impeachments look like.

REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND, (D-LA): Confessions, admissions, witnesses, video, we have everything but DNA. What else do you need?

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, (D-WA): The president is the smoking gun. The smoking gun is already reloaded. And whether or not it gets fired, that's up to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: If the two articles pass today a House vote is expected next week. Then the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he will hold a trial at the start of the new year, moving to acquit the president instead of immediately dismissing the charges.

Let's begin with the very latest in the House of Representatives. Our senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is joining us right now. So Manu, set the scene. What can we expect in the immediate hours ahead?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this is going to be a messy, contentious affair that's going to take place in just under an hour before the House Judiciary Committee. This is not going to be like your typical congressional hearing where a witness testifies and the members ask questions. Instead, these members are going to be engaging directly with one another, going back and forth for hours as Republicans try to gut, try to undermine, try to undercut the two articles of impeachment the Democrats have put forward. Expect Republicans to offer amendment after amendment to try to change those articles.

And there's no rule prohibiting them from offering whatever they want. Essentially a member could decide on the spot at that moment about offering an amendment. So this means that this could on for potentially hours. It really depends on when members eventually give up, get tired, and at that point that's when we will see that ultimate vote in which Democrats will vote to send these two articles of impeachment to the House floor for the full House's consideration. That historic vote is still expected sometime today.

When it gets to the House floor, which we're expecting to happen by early next week, potentially Tuesday or Wednesday for a House floor vote, that's when the real vote counting will take place in which the president could become the third president to be impeached in history.

Right now, Democrats expect to have a majority to support both articles of impeachment, but there could be defections beyond two Democrats who have already expressed their opposition. We are hearing from Democratic leadership sources that they expect potentially a handful or more to defect, particularly ones who are in swing districts. Those swing district Democrats told me in the last couple of days, they are still weighing this seriously. They're going to go back home this weekend, they're going to listen to voters, and hear what -- get feedback before ultimately determining how they come down. And Nancy Pelosi has indicated that they can vote however they so choose.

But at the moment, Wolf, we do expect this vote to pass today, to get approved by the House Judiciary Committee along party lines, and then we expect that vote in the full House along party lines, and that will tee up that historic trial in the Senate as well for January. So very fast-moving developments here, historic developments and very contentious developments that we're going to see here in just a matter of hours.

BLITZER: Very important developments, indeed. Manu we'll get back to you.

We're also now hearing from one of the key figures in the impeachment inquiry, the Office of Management and Budget. CNN's senior White House correspondent Pamela Brown is joining us. Pamela, so first of all, tell us what you're learning on this front.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we've learned that OMB created a legal memo this month trying to justify why it was holding up military aid to Ukraine saying it was a policy process, not a political process to block Congress' approval of those funds.

Here's what the memo says, quote, "It was OMB's understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds. OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the president's foreign policy."

As you know, Wolf, there has been a number of explanations from this administration as to why those funds were held up. This provides a window into OMB's legal explanation for that hold-up. And of course, the hold-up is part of this debate on the floor, it's a central part of the debater as part of this mark-up.

One other thing, Wolf, I should note is the president is tweeting this morning about the impeachment process. He is claiming, falsely, that this would be the first impeachment of a president where no crime was committed. But as you know, Wolf, there is no crime that needs to happen in order for a president to be impeached.

BLITZER: We're also learning that the retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz could emerge as a legal adviser to the president. What exactly are you hearing on that front?

BROWN: Yes, that's right. Alan Dershowitz has a close relationship with the president. He took his side during the Mueller investigation, was very outspoken about that. And he's been playing this role as an informal adviser to the White House during this impeachment process. And a source familiar with the matter tells me that he very well could join the president's legal team and play a role in the Senate trial by arguing the constitutional merits. But at this point, it's not formalized. He is, though, talking to the president about the matter, Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll see what happens on that front. Pamela Brown at the White House, we'll of course get back to you throughout the day.

Joining us now to discuss all of this, our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, our CNN political analyst David Gregory, and our special correspondent Jamie Gangel. Jim Sciutto, what do you make of this OMB memo saying they were engaged in a policy process, that's why the nearly $400 million in defense related aid to Ukraine was being withheld?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It does seem like something of a retroactive rationalization here, because there was a policy process that already took place, right? Congress appropriated the funds in May of this year. The Defense Department authorized the funds because it reviewed corruption in Ukraine and sent a letter to Congress, saying we reviewed it. They're making efforts. We approve of it. Certification, that's the word for that.

Beyond that, though, just remember the public testimony. The president's own aides and appointees testified under oath to decisions made outside the policy process. They talked about it. Gordon Sondland talked about it, that everybody was aware of it, that they had to run this through Rudy Giuliani, and so on, not through the people the president appointed as per the normal policy process, the Russia person on the NSC, et cetera. So the facts of this do not support the OMB's explanation.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Could we just talk about timing? The fact this is coming out today, they have had weeks and weeks and weeks to mount a defense. And all we have heard about is process, how it's not fair, denial. All of a sudden at 11:59, they've come up with an explanation.

BLITZER: The Democrats have a potential problem here in that they may lose two, they may lose four, they may lose six Democrats. They may even lose a few more going forward. They'll probably almost certainly have enough votes to get these two articles of impeachment passed on the House floor next week, but it could be a little bit awkward.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It could be awkward, and there's no question that in this age of partisanship, Speaker Pelosi wants unanimity if she can have it, but she has to understand that those members who are coming from more contentious districts, tougher districts politically, have to be able to walk. And she's got to give them room to do that. As long as she's secure in having the votes, I think she'll give them that.

BLITZER: It looks like the Republicans will be totally unified.

GREGORY: Totally unified. And the fact that we really know, absent some new revelations, how this is going to go I think renders this process that much more divisive as we watch each element of it.

BLITZER: We're hearing that -- and you are doing some reporting on this, Jamie, that the president was actually surprised that of all of the issues out there it was Ukraine that has now resulted in these two articles of impeachment.

GANGEL: Doesn't it just make you wonder what else he's thinking about that's been going on? We've had some hints about this this. I was looking at reporting we did six, eight weeks ago, and I spoke to two former White House officials who were on a lot of calls with world leaders or who had read transcripts of them. And their point was not that in those calls that he did anything illegal or crossed the line, but they said he is so consistently outrageous, was the word that they used, that staff becomes desensitized to it. This is the way he speaks.

I said, could you give me an example? They weren't going to give me an example, but one said to me, the way he speaks at a rally is the way he speaks to world leaders. It is so blunt. It is so out there. And Trump knows this about himself. But I did find our reporting on that to just -- it made me laugh. GREGORY: But this will be part of the defense of Trump, right, that

he's outrageous, that he's inexperienced, that he crosses lines without really knowing it, but in the end the aid flowed and there was never an investigation. You have to kind of let Trump be Trump. We're seeing the elements of this defense, even on the OMB memo, which is why he wants to mount a big public defense if there's a trial.

[08:10:10]

SCIUTTO: And that loose speaking style, it affects the policy, right? It affects substantive decisions. Just another example in something of a similar vein was his discussions with the Chinese in trade negotiations in saying I'm not going to bring up the Hong Kong protesters in the midst of that, in effect trading what is a human rights issue for the hope of progress on a trade issue there. And by the way, that's another call that was moved to that secure server. So folks in the White House knew the sensitivity.

BLITZER: Everybody, stand by. There's a lot more we're watching. We're only minutes away now from the House Judiciary Committee continuing down its historic path toward impeachment. Things could get contentious as lawmakers consider amendments set to two articles of impeachment. Stay with CNN for all the fast-moving developments. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:05]

BLITZER: All right. Just minutes from now, the House Judiciary Committee coming together to debate and ultimately vote on whether to move impeachment articles to a full House of Representatives vote. The debate began last night. And during it, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell called out his Republican counterparts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Governance is about courage. Think about the courage displayed by the witnesses who came forward in this investigation. If they can show that type of courage and risk everything, why can't my Republican colleagues?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: I'm joined now by Congressman Swalwell.

Congressman, you called out Republicans for what you described their lack of courage. But what do you say to your vulnerable Democratic colleagues who may vote against one or both of these articles of impeachment?

SWALWELL: Well, I thank my vulnerable colleagues for having the courage early on after this phone call was revealed to come forward and say that the president must be held accountable.

You'll remember, Wolf, it was new members who had served in the military and the intelligence community who wrote an op-ed in "The Washington Post" saying that their sense of duty called on them to say that this is wrong and we should do something about it.

BLITZER: How many Democrats said do you expect to lose in the vote that is likely to happen tonight?

SWALWELL: There's no official count, Wolf. We're not whipping it, and the Judiciary Committee I expect the full committee will probably approve the articles. But the case we're making to our Republican colleagues is that the facts are really not in dispute here. And they're not disputing what President Trump did and no one really seems to want to defend that, quote/unquote, perfect call. They're just making process attacks.

If you mind yourself in that position, you really have to ask yourself, do we want to allow the future presidents of the United States to use their office to allow foreign governments to cheat our elections?

BLITZER: The Judiciary Committee vote today. Next week, the full House of Representatives. We did hear last night, Republican Congressman Gohmert name the possible, possible whistle-blower in his opening statement.

Do we expect more of that today?

SWALWELL: We expect more of the Republicans not to focus on the facts here and make process attacks. And we're going to stick to the facts of what Donald Trump did and, again, that's not in dispute, but also what we are called to do when someone violates their oath, jeopardizes our national security and our elections and refuses to this moment to cooperate with Congress. That's where the focus should be and that's where we'll stay.

BLITZER: The House Intelligence Committee, as you know, you're a member of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, sent more evidence to the judiciary committee that is relevant to Jennifer Williams' testimony and the vice president's September 18th call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. She's a top aide to the vice president.

What do you make of this supplemental testimony? Does it do anything to shift your understanding of this case?

SWALWELL: It's relevant testimony, but what's unfortunate is that in the spirit of President Trump refusing to cooperate at all in this investigation, the vice president is refusing at the request of Chairman Schiff to declassify this information. We do not believe that it should be classified for any reason, period. We think the public should be able to see it. The vice president refuses to do that so we'll have to consider how we use that in those articles.

But again, that just goes to a pattern of not wanting the American people to know what this administration, particularly the president did, with Ukraine. And, Wolf, most people at home when they hear that, they assume that it's because you have a consciousness of guilt. BLITZER: If he is impeached in the House next week and it goes to a

full Senate trial in January, two Republican senators have told CNN that the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not merely dismiss the charges but will move to acquit the president once the majority of senators believe the trial has run its course. May not even call witnesses in the process.

What's your reaction?

SWALWELL: That would be irresponsible. We've heard just from what limited investigation we've been able to conduct with the president's obstruction, powerful evidence that the president abused his office to cheat an election. And the Senate has a duty to also hear that evidence and use their powers as well to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, even Secretary Pompeo, people who have refused to come forward. They should make their own efforts.

It would be irresponsible and send the wrong message to this president because you think he's just going to stop going over to Ukraine and asking him to cheat. He continues to do that right now as this is a crime spree in progress.

BLITZER: Congressman Swalwell, thanks so much for joining us.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: I know it's a very busy several days for you. I appreciate it very much.

Coming up, President Obama's former attorney general gives a scathing criticism of the current Attorney General William Barr, calling him unfit to lead. CNN's special live coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:24:22]

BLITZER: All right. Now just moments away, the beginning of a marathon day of impeachment debates up on Capitol Hill.

President Trump faces two articles of impeachment. The first for the president's alleged abuse of power, claiming President Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky to open investigations into his political rival. The second article of impeachment is for obstruction of Congress which contends the president stonewalled Congress' investigations by not allowing officials to testify and withholding documents. Notably House Democrats chose not to include any allegations against the president from the Mueller report.

Back with us right now, our team of experts. Also joining us for the first time this morning, Gloria Borger, Jeffrey Toobin and Ross Garber.

[08:25:04] You know, on this day, Eric Holder, Jeffrey, let me get your reaction to this, writes a scathing op-ed in "The Washington Post", William Barr is unfit to be attorney general of the United States.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It's very unusual for one attorney general to criticize the incumbent. There is sort of this formal nonaggression pact that's been honored over -- you know, many, many years. Attorney General Holder decided to change that tradition because things are different now. And, you know, this is not a personal thing, and it really about a vision of the Constitution that Attorney General Barr has about executive authority that is so different from even Republican attorneys general in the past that Holder felt he had to speak out.

And, you know, the second article of impeachment, the obstruction of Congress, really gets to this dispute because it's really about whether the attorney general -- whether the executive branch has to respond in really any way to the other branches. That's what this is --

BLITZER: I'll read the last sentence, Gloria. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Which means that holder thinks he should be removed from office, period. And that is kind of stunning to have a former attorney general say that about a current attorney general. But he also makes the point he thinks that Barr is effectively lying for partisan reasons. He says that the partisan talking points he uses bear no resemblance to the fact his own department has uncovered.

And what he's saying is that you have an attorney general who is saying don't listen to the people who work for me. Don't listen to the people in the FBI. They're wrong. Don't listen to the inspector general's conclusions. I disagree with those. And by the way, my hand-picked person will soon come out with another report which will say what I want him to say.

And so, Holder is saying, he ought to leave, or taken out of office.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: It's a question of distance, too, from the administration.

You know, President Trump, when he was complaining about Jeff Sessions says, you know, Barack Obama, President Obama, he had Eric Holder who look after him. That was his perception.

What Holder is saying, no, there should be some distance that an attorney general has from an administration, even your named by the president, that there's some independence by the Justice Department, by the FBI, the FBI director has a ten-year term to be above partisan politics.

But in this case, you have Barr who has certainly positioned himself as a partisan and a protector and an enforcer of his view of executive power as Jeffrey talked about.

BLITZER: Let me get Ross Garber in.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's actually even more than that, because even if you assume sort of a robust view of executive authority and the unitary executive, I think the bigger issue is the notion that the attorney general or other executive branch officials are potentially acting out of partisan interests or out of personal loyalty as part of that discussion related to Eric Holder's role.

Remember, it's that famous line where the president said, what -- where is my Roy Cohn?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Where's my Roy Cohn?

GARBER: I think that's one of the big problems.

BORGER: Right here. Here's your Roy Cohn.

(CROSSTALK)

GARBER: I think there is confusion about roles and responsibilities here, from Rudy Giuliani not making clear and nobody really making it clear whether he's acting in his personal capacity or whether he's representing the president personally or whether he's on some sort of official mission to Barr not making it clear what his motives are. I think that's one of the big problems here and I think that's one of the things Eric Holder is trying to get at.

GANGEL: Can you imagine what the chilling effect is at the Justice Department, at the FBI? Barr has made it very clear that all he cares about is an audience of one, Donald Trump. And we are hearing from FBI officials, from Justice Department people who really can't believe that this particular role, the attorney general, which is supposed to always be the most independent has become so political.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: You know, it gets to this point. The OMB's argument this morning this was all a policy process, right? It shows how that argument is thin, right?

On the Ukraine thing, there was a clear process outside the normal policy process. His personal attorney, that even his own appointees acknowledged were strange and everybody knew about but with I.G.s, you know, I.G.s are designed to be nonpartisan investigators of this kind of stuff within the DOJ. You have Barr then knock them down.

And, remember, this started with a whistle-blower complaint which the I.G. in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said this is something we have to pass on. Remember, Barr said this is something we -- it's not a priority. That is all outside the way this is supposed to function.

BLITZER: I listened to all of Michael Horowitz, the inspector general's, testimony yesterday for, what, seven, eight hours, and he -- he is very, very impressive.

[08:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BORGER: Well, and the thing about Barr is, we know that he came into office believing very strongly in executive power. This was his whole raison d'etre. I mean he -- he's written about it extensively. Some say he auditioned for the job by sending a memo on the authority of the president and that's why they hired him.

But this goes beyond -- this really goes beyond this sort of notion of executive authority. And this question of Donald Trump can do nothing wrong. And that's effectively where -- where Barr is, even to the point, and you say, the inspector general, very impressive yesterday. And -- and didn't walk political lines, found things wrong with the FBI, said there was no political motivation in starting the investigation. Barr disagreed with him vociferously and said, well, wait a minute, you know, you're going to find out the real story pretty soon.

BLITZER: Yes.

BORGER: So, you know, this is somebody, it started out executive power and has gone really beyond that to a great degree in defending Donald Trump.

BLITZER: Everybody stand by.

We're waiting for the start of the Judiciary Committee. The gavel will go down momentarily, but let's get a preview -- a likely preview of what to expect today.

Last night there were many, many statements. Listen to how Republican Congressman Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota framed his defense of President Trump. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): So here we are tonight on an ambiguous abuse of power charge.

This began the day President Trump was elected, and it's culminated here. But this never-ending march towards impeachment and overturning the results of the 2016 election has consequences. Because you are telling 63 million voters that you don't respect or honor their vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And joining us now, Congressman Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

And, very briefly, give us your strategy. What is likely to happen over the next several hours?

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): We are going to continue to make our case why these articles of impeachment are ill-advised, streamlined and moving forward on an artificial date of a clock and a calendar. This has gone incredibly fast. It's -- the smallest record in history. And we're going to do everything we can to supplement that record.

BLITZER: Are you planning personally on introducing an amendment?

ARMSTRONG: I -- right now I'm not planning on doing it, but we'll see how the rest of the day goes. I am planning on speaking whenever I have the opportunity.

BLITZER: We've seen Republicans use procedure to interrupt the process over previous hearings, and it got sort of nasty and ugly at a few moments. We're hearing the Senate may not even call witnesses in the January trial, assuming the articles of impeachment pass the full House of Representatives.

What does that say? Does that reflect weakness in the Republicans' defense of the president?

ARMSTRONG: Absolutely not. And I don't -- and I think that there are many procedural reasons you do this. You know what -- anybody who's ever spent time in a courtroom understands that there are good -- there are procedural motions and process matters because that's how the facts come out. And when you are in the minority, you don't have a lot -- a lot of weapons to use when you're in the U.S. House, but you have certain ones. And we'll take advantage of them. And they're not -- they're not baseless. They're not intended to just completely slow it down. They're intends to point out the fact that this process has been rigged since the day it started.

BLITZER: We've heard the president complain bitterly that the process in the House has been totally unfair. Doesn't he deserve to mount a strong defense in the Senate, including calling witnesses?

ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean, once this goes over to the Senate, they're going to do it how they do it. I completely trust them. They've been through this. I'm -- but it's going to be a little different because Republicans control the Senate and Democrats control the House. And so we should continue to work over, but how they determine to do it will be how they do it.

BLITZER: Are you confident, Congressman, that your Republican colleagues in the House, all of them, will vote in lockstep on impeachment, or do you expect any Republican at all to vote for one or potentially both of these articles of impeachment?

ARMSTRONG: You know, I'm pretty confident this seems as united as we -- as the Republican Party's been. I just got here in January, but talking to members who have been here for a long time, and I -- and I found it a little interesting last night that there was a lot of pleading from my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to get Republicans to come over to their side. I would -- I would -- I would strongly guess that their concerns -- they should worry less about our side and maintain the people that they're going to keep on their side because I think that's probably the best indication of how this has gone since the public hearings began in the Intelligence Committee. They'll have less Democrats vote for impeachment now than they did at the beginning.

BLITZER: Well, we'll see what happens. Democrats, they will lose at least two, maybe four, maybe six, but they'll still have enough votes to pass these articles of impeachment on the floor of the House.

[08:35:04]

We anticipate that.

Congressman Kelly Armstrong, thanks so much for joining us.

ARMSTRONG: Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, still to come, we're learning more about the GOP strategy for a potential trial in the U.S. Senate. But as we go to break, it was on this date 21 years ago that the House Judiciary Committee voted on its fourth and final article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) (December 12, 1998): The longer I am at these proceedings, the more I am convinced of the weakness of the case made by the majority.

Last night our chairman, who I esteem and have always esteemed and will continue to esteem, tried to tell the American people, don't worry, we're not yet throwing the president out, even if we vote for these articles of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:50]

BLITZER: If the full House of Representatives passes the two articles of impeachment, as expected, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, says the trial will begin in the Senate in early January.

But just how long will it last? What will it entail? Those are questions that remain to be answered.

CNN's Lauren Fox is joining us right now with more on the Senate strategy.

Lauren, you've been doing some reporting on this. What are you hearing that the Senate may try to do to clear up President Trump of any -- clear President Trump any of wrongdoing, but also not call witnesses? What's the latest?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, there's really been a bit of a shift in terms of how moderates in the Senate are thinking about this trial. For a long time, many of them wanted to ensure that no one was cutting it short. They essentially wanted to make sure they couldn't be accused back home of making it seem like they had not gone through all the steps needed in a Senate trial.

But now that started to shift because people are looking ahead at who might be called as witnesses. The whistleblower, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and thinking that that could become very problematic if they have to have individual up or down votes.

So right now one of the things they -- lawmakers are discussing is this idea of having sort of a shorter trial. You would have the House managers present their evidence. You would have the White House being able to defend the president in their presentation. And then there essentially would be a vote on the articles of impeachment. And it would, in a way, clear the president's name as Republicans could vote against them.

So, of course, that is what we are hearing right now. This is all very fluid, though, Wolf. We have not had that meeting between McConnell and Schumer where they might hammer out the rules of the road and come up with some kind of plan to contain the witness list. But, of course, this is a moving target. This is where Senate Republicans are today.

Wolf.

BLITZER: I suspect both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, they want to contain, they want to limit or completely exclude witnesses.

Lauren Fox, thanks very much for that.

Up next, Democrats anticipate they could lose votes on the articles of impeachment. We'll take a closer look at the Democrats from swing districts where constituents have split opinions on impeachment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:47:03]

BLITZER: In moments, the House Judiciary Committee will continue to debate and then vote on two articles of impeachment against President Trump. This meeting is an important step toward impeachment for House Democrats, but it doesn't seem to be as important to voters.

Look at this, a new Monmouth University poll finds that 45 percent of Americans want President Trump impeached, while 50 percent say they do not. That's the same split as last month, meaning the public hearings apparently didn't do much to sway public opinion. Down party lines there's a clear divide, however. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats want the president to be impeached, 88 percent of Republicans do not.

Let's bring back our experts.

And it's interesting, Gloria, because in this poll, among independents, should Trump be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency? Among independences, 36 percent say yes, 55 percent say no.

BORGER: Right. I mean this is not good polling for the Democrats right now. But when you look at that, also 71 percent say they're set in their opinions. Nothing you can do is going to make me change my mind. Only 24 percent say they're open to changing their mind, which is why perhaps a short trial would be better for the president if he acquiesces to listening to his advisers because he --

GANGEL: And maybe for the democrats as well.

BORGER: Right. Exactly. Because no one's -- no one -- people -- the cake is baked.

GREGORY: Right.

BORGER: And that they're not going to -- they're really not going to change their minds unless there's -- and, of course you can't rule this out, this being the Trump presidency, unless there's some dramatic witness like Bolton, for example --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BORGER: Like John Bolton going up there and saying, look, you know, I'll tell you what --

SCIUTTO: It happened.

BORGER: This --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BORGER: It happened and this was bad and -- you know, but -- but barring that, the public knows where it is (INAUDIBLE).

SCIUTTO: But it is a -- it's a disappointment for Democrats. We know that because they said publicly. Jerry Nadler said it. Other Democrats said on my broadcast. I know you spoke to others, Wolf. They said they hoped, expected public hearings to move the dial and the fact is, one, it didn't with public opinion and it clearly did not among Republicans.

BORGER: Well, they did a little bit, didn't it? I mean it moved public opinion --

SCIUTTO: Well, if you go back months --

BLITZER: Yes.

BORGER: Which was at 37 percent.

SCIUTTO: But since -- since the public hearings, though. Since the public hearings.

GANGEL: (INAUDIBLE).

GREGORY: But this is why I think Trump wants a big show of a trial. I think he does believe he has an opportunity to win this to muddy the water enough that, remember, whatever happens with impeachment, and I agree, it's basically baked, when it comes to election year, people will make a judgment. All of this will be a judgment about presidential timber and fitness for the job.

BORGER: Sure.

GREGORY: The extent to which the president and his allies can muddy this make it even worse for the Democrats, they would like to be able to do that to diminish the potency of this issue.

TOOBIN: The issue with witnesses is, you never know what's going to happen.

GANGEL: Right.

GREGORY: Right.

GANGEL: Exactly.

TOOBIN: And you never know how they will be perceived, both inside the chamber and out.

And -- and -- and that's why, you know, I think senators, one reason they're senators is they're risk averse and they -- they don't want to throw the cards up in the air when, as you have pointed out, as we all know, there are not 67 votes to get him removed from office.

[08:50:14]

It just seems to me that the Democrats, as well as the Republicans --

GREGORY: Yes.

TOOBIN: Leave well enough alone. Let's get on after January.

BLITZER: All right, Jamie, you're getting some new information about how unified the Republicans are in the House.

GANGEL: So I was just texting with a senior Republican official. I asked the question, are you going to lose any votes on either articles? Because obstruction might do something. One word answer, nope.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GANGEL: The other thing, to the point of the Senate is this. Right now, look, Donald Trump loves a fight. We know that. He picks a fight even when he's winning. But at the end of the day, what does he know right now? He knows he's not going to be removed from office. He knows he has those votes in the Senate.

I think he is listening to Mitch McConnell and there -- that he understands that right now, no surprises, no big witnesses, he's going to be -- he's going to be safe at the end of the day.

GREGORY: You know what's striking, you think about impeachment of -- of President Clinton. Remember Joe Lieberman, Senator Lieberman, went to the floor to condemn the president's actions. Joe Biden, I remember my colleague at NBC at the time, having reporting about Biden saying to the caucus that -- that Clinton should think about resigning at a certain point. You have none of that out of the Republicans --

GANGEL: Right.

GREGORY: Who will really be harsh in their condemnation of what the president has done.

BORGER: But the president's defenders, Bill Clinton's defenders, all came up, including Ruff, the White House counsel, Charles Ruff, said, call his behavior disgraceful --

GREGORY: Right.

BORGER: Call it shameful.

GREGORY: Yes.

BORGER: Call it whatever you want.

GREGORY: Right, just don't vote to remove.

BORGER: Just -- yes, just understand that it is not impeachable.

GREGORY: Right.

BORGER: That it is -- it's not an affair of state, OK.

GREGORY: Yes. Yes.

BORGER: And then if you look at this, Republicans aren't even saying that phone call was disgraceful, it was shameful.

BLITZER: Yes.

GREGORY: Yes.

BORGER: They're just saying, the process is bad and let's -- and let's move on.

BLITZER: Ross --

BORGER: And they're defending that phone call.

GARBER: Yes. As much as the president might like a fight, and might like to actually change the narrative, especially during the season as we, you know, come up on Democratic primaries and caucuses in February, as much as he might want to focus attention on the Bidens and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, you know, I -- I'm always reminded of that advice to young lawyers, when you are winning in court, sit down. Take the win. And I think there are going to be a lot of people advising the president of that.

BLITZER: Yes, I think a lot of his advisers are saying, get this over with as quickly as possible and move on to other issues.

In just minutes, the House Judiciary Committee is set to debate on two articles of impeachment leading up to a crucial vote. You're looking at live pictures coming in from the Judiciary

Committee. We'll have our extensive, live coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:57:12]

BLITZER: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world.

In minutes, the articles of impeachment are up for debate in the House Judiciary Committee. Today, Republicans will weigh in facing off directly with Democrats while trying to add amendments. If the articles pass today, as expected, a full House vote is expected next week. Then it's on to the Senate in early January for a trial.

Our senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is joining us from Capitol Hill right now.

So, Manu, within minutes this committee hearing will begin.

RAJU: Yes, it's going to be very contentious. I'm hearing from Democrats that they are ready to fight their Republican colleagues on these amendments that the Republicans plan to offer. This is not going to be like your typical congressional hearing where a witness testifies and then each member gets a chance to ask questions of that witness. Instead, these members will be engaging directly with one another. Each member can -- any member can offer any amendment they want and then, at that point, any of the members of the committee, there are 41 members of the committee, 40 are expected to attend. Each of them will have a chance to speak for up to five minutes each on each amendment.

So this could take some time to play out through the course of the day and it will probably end at the point where the Republicans decide they have no more amendments to offer because Democrats are expected to reject amendment after amendment that Republicans seek to undercut the two articles of impeachment that the Democrats have put forward, one on abuse of power, the other on obstruction of Congress. But this is expected to end today along a party line vote to approve these two articles of impeachment. There will be separate votes on each article and then those articles will be sent to the House floor.

And we do expect that vote on the House floor to occur by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. And when that occurs on the floor, the question will be ultimately how many Democrats do vote to impeach the president. We do expect there will be a majority enough to impeach the president, but we do expect at least two to defect. And we're hearing from Democratic sources there could be more than two at the moment. A lot of Democrats from swing districts in particular are weighing this issue, planning to hear from their constituents over the weekend and announce their positions early next week.

And I'm told from Democratic leadership sources they don't plan to whip their members. In other words, they don't plan to twist arms to force them to vote the party line. So it will be a bit unpredictable until the final moments about how the ultimate votes play out. But this is not unpredictable, Wolf. We do expect the president to get impeached by the House, by next week. We do expect this historic vote in the House Judiciary Committee to play -- take place today and the aftermath of what is expected to be a long, bitter, contentious affair as the two parties engage in these proceedings today, Wolf.

BLITZER: You know, Manu, last night they had their opening statements, all 41 members spoke five minutes each. It went on for more than three hours. So walk us through the procedure this morning. Will there be an opening statement from the chairman, the ranking member, the ranking Republican, and then what happens?

[09:00:00]

RAJU: Yes, we -- and then, at that point, any member can simply say they move to offer an amendment. And when they offer an amendment, they have to actually provide the text of that language to the --