Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Interview With Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL); Interview With Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA); Inspector General Testifies on Trump-Russia Probe Report; House Begins Debate on Trump Impeachment Articles. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired December 11, 2019 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:36]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM with our breaking news impeachment coverage.
The House Judiciary Committee is about to begin debate on two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Members will deliver opening statements an hour from now, kicking off a contentious two-day marathon. It's all leading up to an expected vote tomorrow to send the impeachment resolution to the full House of Representatives.
Let's go straight to Capitol Hill.
Our congressional correspondent, Phil Mattingly, is joining us.
Phil, so what can we expect tonight and over the next 24 hours?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, the impeachment hearings are over. The articles of impeachment, they are out, both of them.
And tonight starts the final step in the process before the full House of Representatives gets to vote to impeach President Donald Trump.
Here's what you're going to see tonight, the House Judiciary Committee coming together for a legislative markup of the two articles of impeachment that were released earlier this week, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Now, tonight, you're just going to see opening statements from all 41 members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. And those statements are likely to line up with what you have seen over the course of the last couple of weeks during hearings, Democrats making the case that they say bolsters the argument for those two articles of impeachment, Republicans repeatedly trying to puncture that case and defend the president on a unified manner. This is all leading until tomorrow. Tomorrow is when you're going to
see the actual legislative process kick into gear. Now, Democrats aren't expected to try and amend those two articles of impeachment during that process, but Republicans are and will have the opportunity to do so, can offer any amendment they want to change, to strip, to revise those two articles in any way they can.
Now, this is worth noting. Democrats hold the majority. So anything Republicans put up will likely be defeated, but it is expected to be lengthy, it is expected to be divisive. Frankly, Wolf, it's expected to be a lot of what we have seen over the last couple of weeks, all leading up to the next stage, which will hit next week.
That's the full House floor vote on the two articles of impeachment. Democrats are expecting that to pass. The reality remains, even as we continue to move through these last steps of the process, by the end of next week, the House will have voted to impeach President Trump -- Wolf.
BLITZER: What are you learning, Phil, about the thinking among Senate Republicans as they prepare for an impeachment trial probably in early January?
MATTINGLY: Yes, this is obviously the next step. And it's exceedingly important what Senate Republicans and to some degree what Senate Democrats want to see in that Senate trial, because they can dictate the rules going forward.
And what's been interesting over the course of the last couple of days and certainly today in interviews with several top Republicans is, there has been a shift. Keep in mind, President Trump and his top advisers have made clear they want witness testimony during this Senate trial as part of their defense for the president.
They have asked for people like Hunter Biden from the whistle-blower to come testify, not just generally for the trial, but also live and in person in the Senate well.
Senate Republicans are moving sharply away from that idea. multiple Senate Republicans we have talked to throughout the course of today are lining up with what I have been told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thinks, which is that a short trial, where the House Democratic managers present the case, the president's legal team puts out their defense, and then they have a vote to either acquit or remove the president from office, no witnesses.
Now nothing is final yet. No final decisions have been made. But a lot of Republicans you're talking to are making two points, Wolf. One, there is no expectation that the votes will be there to remove the president, so why prolong what they think is inevitable? That's why they think they can cut it short.
The other is this. If they start moving forward on the president's request for witnesses, that, in the words of one senator -- quote -- "can cut both ways." Democrats have witnesses they'd like to hear from too, people like John Bolton, the former national security adviser, Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff.
And they may have the votes for those witnesses, depending on where the moderate Republicans in the conference end up coming down. Because of that fact, you're seeing Republicans push towards the idea of a shorter trial. Nothing's finalized yet. But that's a shift, Wolf.
BLITZER: It certainly is.
You're also getting some new information, Phil, about some new testimony that was just submitted from the House Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee right now, just before the start of this debate.
MATTINGLY: Yes, that's exactly right.
This pertains to Jennifer Williams, the foreign policy adviser on Russia and Eurasian issues for the vice president. She had supplemental classified testimony, which the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have asked to be declassified for consideration in this process during impeachment.
They said, according to an official involved in the process, they have not heard back from the vice president's office related to that request. So they are sending the classified version out to the committee for it to be reviewed. Now, it's not declassified yet. It has not been made public.
[18:05:03]
But now members will have access to that supplemental material, classified material from Jennifer Williams, the aide to Vice President Mike Pence, to review as they move through this final stage of the process -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Phil Mattingly up on Capitol Hill, thank you.
As the president is getting closer and closer to being impeached, we're told he's privately agitated, even as he publicly mocks the allegations against him.
Let's go to our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
Jim, what are you hearing, first of all, from the White House?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, one thing we should mention, just jumping off of what Phil Mattingly was saying a few moments ago, the White House, from what I understand, is showing some more openness to the idea of a shorter impeachment trial in the Senate.
I just spoke with a senior administration official a few moments ago. When asked about this idea of a shorter impeachment trial, because some of these Republican senators, as Phil was just saying, aren't that hot about the idea of bringing in Hunter Biden, bringing in the whistle-blower, this senior administration official said that the lines of communication are open right now.
But they understand over here at the White House that this is Mitch McConnell's chamber, and that, to some extent, he is driving the train in this process. And so while they're not saying, yes, we have adopted the strategy of having a shorter impeachment trial, they are saying at this point that they're open to that idea, understanding that there are some Republicans up on Capitol Hill in the Senate who are not wild about this idea of a prolonged impeachment trial.
Now, one thing we should point out, just in the last hour so, we heard from President Trump at a Hanukkah celebration over here at the White House. Mr. Trump did not comment specifically about the impeachment inquiry, but he has been busy in his social media bunker posting some 70 tweets and retweets over the last 24 hours, many of those on impeachment.
Now, one thing we should note, we are hearing President Trump is growing increasingly agitated and aggravated over this likelihood that he will be impeached. A Trump campaign adviser told me earlier today simply that the coverage right now on all the cable networks, on all of the networks bugs him.
A separate Trump adviser said the president has been preparing for this moment for some time, suspecting for the better part of last year that Democrats, once they take control the House, were bent on impeaching him.
This adviser said Mr. Trump is somewhat taken aback, though, that it's the Ukraine scandal that is leading to this impeachment of the president. This adviser said -- quote -- "Frankly, I think he's a little surprised it's the Ukraine thing that has done it."
And we're also hearing that Mr. Trump is irked by the fact that he would be joining the less than envious list of presidents who have been impeached. The president has been calling it impeachment-lite, but, of course, Wolf, in the history books, they just call it impeachment -- Wolf.
BLITZER: That's absolutely right?
Jim Acosta at the White House, thank you.
Joining us now, a Democrat who's about to take part in the impeachment debate tonight.
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon is the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us.
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): Thank you.
BLITZER: So, we're learning your committee has just received additional testimony from Vice President Mike Pence's aide Jennifer Williams.
First of all, what can you tell us about this new development?
GAY SCANLON: Well, I will look forward to going back over and reading the material, now that we have it. Obviously, it was just transmitted. And it has to be kept in a secure location, because it has not yet been declassified.
BLITZER: Because the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff, says there's no reason for this supplemental information to be classified. So I take it you haven't the testimony yet; is that right?
GAY SCANLON: Not yet.
It's my understanding it was just sent over.
BLITZER: So what do you hope to convey in your opening statement later tonight?
GAY SCANLON: Well, look, this is only -- as you have been reporting, it's only the third time that we will actually likely impeach someone, I guess the fourth time that we have put articles out there.
It's a sad day for the country. It's a very sober moment. But it's a necessary thing that we do here. The framers put impeachment in the Constitution to deal with situations like this. And they specifically talked about situations where a president put his personal interests ahead of the country.
They specifically talked about times when someone tried to undermine our elections, using the power of the presidency to get reelected. And they specifically talked about presidents who were involving foreign countries in our government's affairs.
We have got all of that here.
BLITZER: You're the vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, yes.
How do you and the chairman, Jerry Nadler, plan to maintain order during what's sure to be a rather fiery debate?
GAY SCANLON: You know, on our side of the aisle, we take this extremely seriously. We're here out of duty to country.
I don't think we take it kindly, and we won't -- I don't think the American people will take it kindly if people try to turn this into a circus.
BLITZER: Well, what should we expect from tomorrow's hearing, as all 41 members of the Judiciary Committee, they will be permitted to introduce amendments?
GAY SCANLON: Certainly.
And I don't expect a lot of amendments from the Democratic side. We have been discussing the articles of impeachment. Obviously, there's been a lot of input. And I think we're very comfortable with where they are.
[18:10:00]
I can't speak to what the Republicans are going to do, because they have made it very clear they have no interest in the facts. They only want to raise a ruckus in order to distract.
BLITZER: Your committee is taking up these two articles of impeachment.
But we understand that the chairman, Jerry Nadler, had actually pushed for a third article as well. Where do you stand on that overall debate?
GAY SCANLON: You know, people push for a lot of things.
And you govern by consensus, and that's where we are now.
BLITZER: When do you think the full House of Representatives -- assuming the Judiciary Committee passes these two articles of impeachment, when will the full House vote?
GAY SCANLON: I mean, we're hearing next week, but things have been moving at such a pace, and the schedule changes every day.
So, you may know before I do.
BLITZER: How will you vote?
GAY SCANLON: How will I vote?
Based on the articles as they're drafted now, I think we have no choice but to vote to -- in favor of these articles.
BLITZER: How many Democrats do you think might decide to vote against impeaching the president?
GAY SCANLON: I'm more interested to know how many Republicans have the courage to vote in favor of it.
BLITZER: Well, do you think any of them will?
GAY SCANLON: I think they should.
BLITZER: Because in the vote whether to even start an impeachment inquiry, all the Republicans were united in opposing such an inquiry.
There were two Democrats who opposed the inquiry as well.
GAY SCANLON: And there was one Republican who supported it, except he was thrown out of the party for showing that lack of loyalty to the man in the office, rather than the office itself.
BLITZER: So, you're ready for a fierce debate over the next 24 hours?
GAY SCANLON: We may have it. BLITZER: Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon, thanks so much for joining
us.
GAY SCANLON: Thank you.
BLITZER: All right, there's more breaking news coming up, as we get closer and closer to the impeachment debate in the House Judiciary Committee, as we have noted, likely to be a lot of fireworks there.
And the Justice Department's inspector general is defending his report that the FBI was justified in launching its Russia investigation, after sharp criticism from the attorney general.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:16:48]
BLITZER: As we stand by for the House Judiciary Committee to start debating articles of impeachment, there's another very important story we're following, the Justice Department's inspector general testifying before the Senate, defending his report on the Russia investigation.
Michael Horowitz stood firmly in his finding that the FBI was justified and unbiased in launching the probe, but he also bluntly criticized the bureau for what he described as significant errors.
Our justice correspondent, Jessica Schneider, is with us right now.
Jessica, he faced intense questioning for several hours.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: He did, Wolf.
And that intense questioning really playing off the partisan divide, with the Republicans drilling into the significant errors and omissions that the I.G. says the FBI made, Democrats directing the focus on the I.G.'s conclusion that the Russia investigation was opened without any bias.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Tonight, the Justice Department's nonpartisan watchdog in the hot seat, inspector general Michael Horowitz standing by his report's conclusions and largely quashing conspiracy theories.
MICHAEL HOROWITZ, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL: We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that indicated political bias or improper motivation influencing his decision to open the investigation.
SCHNEIDER: While Horowitz maintained the FBI was justified in opening its investigation, he did point to failures within the bureau when it came to the FISA warrant application and subsequent renewals on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
HOROWITZ: We found, and as we outlined here, are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Would you have submitted a warrant application, as a lawyer?
HOROWITZ: Let me put it this way. I would not have submitted the one they put in. They certainly misled -- it was misleading to the court.
SCHNEIDER: Republicans pounced on the problems.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): This wasn't Jason Bourne. This was Beavis and Butt-Head.
SCHNEIDER: And Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham called out former FBI Director James Comey, who was at the top when the investigation began.
GRAHAM: Former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?
HOROWITZ: You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this.
SCHNEIDER: Top Democrats Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues fought back, repeatedly working to spotlight the I.G.'s core finding.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): This was not a politically motivated investigation. There is no deep state. Simply put, the FBI investigation was motivated by facts, not bias.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So we are clear, did your report uncover systematic political bias at the FBI?
HOROWITZ: As to what we looked at the end and the openings, we did not find documentary testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias.
SCHNEIDER: Horowitz also pushed back on the criticism coming from Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. attorney John Durham, who is conducting his own DOJ-sanctioned investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.
Barr said in an interview Tuesday that the FBI may have acted in bad faith, Horowitz saying he was given no evidence from Barr or Durham to prove that.
[18:20:03]
FEINSTEIN: Did either Barr or Durham present anything that altered your findings?
HOROWITZ: No.
SCHNEIDER: The hearing was also a reminder of the ongoing probe involving the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The I.G.'s office is investigating potential leaks by FBI officials in New York to Giuliani before the 2016 election. The probe stems from Giuliani's claims weeks before the election that Hillary Clinton would soon be facing big problems.
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And I think he's got a surprise or two that you're going to hear about in the next few days.
I mean, I'm talking about some pretty big surprise.
QUESTION: Yes, I heard you say that this morning. What do you mean?
GIULIANI: You will see.
SCHNEIDER: Speculation has swirled that Giuliani was tipped off by FBI agents in New York that FBI Director James Comey would soon announce he was reopening the criminal probe into Clinton's e-mail server.
HOROWITZ: We are investigating those contacts. We have issued a couple of public summaries so far about people we found violated FBI policy.
We have other investigations ongoing that, when we conclude it, we will also post summaries of.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Now, Giuliani has denied any insider information.
And, right now, the focus will be shifting to the Durham investigation and whether it might reveal new details about the origins of the Russia investigation or any possible bad faith by the FBI that the attorney general alluded to this week.
But, of course, Wolf, the inspector general made clear today that neither Barr nor Durham offered up any evidence to the I.G. that would have changed that conclusion that the FBI did properly open the Russia investigation in July 2016.
BLITZER: It was a really explosive, very lively hearing today, which we watched.
Thanks very much, Jessica Schneider, for that report.
Let's bring in a senator who questioned the Justice Department's inspector general. Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee. He is also the chamber's second highest ranking Democrat.
Senator, thanks so much for joining us.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): You bet.
BLITZER: So, you were there in the room as the inspector general testified he did not find evidence of political bias in the origins of the probe. The attorney general has refused to accept that finding, instead
advancing the president's conspiracy theory, if you will. Did you successfully combat that theory today?
DURBIN: I don't know that there's any way to successfully stop this irrational conspiratorial theory that keeps coming out of the tweets of the president and his most ardent admirers.
But what we heard from the inspector general today was a consistent reply that there was no political motivation behind this effort to find out if the Russians had somehow compromised the Trump campaign.
There were no spies in the Trump campaign, which the president, I think, said as late as last night. He just went through the litany. And he didn't vary from it.
Now, he did make it clear some things that happened before that FISA court are unacceptable. As a critic of the FISA court procedure for a long, long time, I was glad to put that on the record, so that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will consider it.
BLITZER: Yes, he was very, very blunt in really railing against that process in getting those FISA warrants against Carter Page.
You have also, as you point out, raised some serious concerns over the years about FISA. So what changes do you want to see?
DURBIN: Oh, I think there has to be more of an adversarial presentation.
At this point, it's one side comes in, presents the evidence to a judge, and it's a take-it-or-leave-it circumstance. Unless you're zeroing in on something specific, where you can have both sides represented, you're likely to get misrepresentations over and over again.
In the history of FISA courts, we have seen exactly that happen.
BLITZER: Are you optimistic that some sort of bipartisan solution is possible?
DURBIN: I'm a very optimistic person. And you have to be if you're going to serve in the United States Senate.
I hope today was a revelation to many of the Republicans who resisted this reform over the years that they should join a member of their own ranks, Mike Lee of Utah, Pat Leahy and myself, for real FISA reform.
BLITZER: You pressed the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, about potential leaks by FBI officials to Rudy Giuliani back in 2016.
We just heard Jessica Schneider's report on that. Horowitz said he would not speak about ongoing investigations. So what does that tell you?
DURBIN: Well, if you will remember, Comey argued that he had to make this presentation on October 28, for fear that, if it went through an FBI field office, it would be leaked out in the New York area.
So, he went public with it. And it was devastating to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
What I asked today was about Giuliani's boast on the air -- and I think you just played it back for your viewers -- that he had an insider source of information. He knew this was coming ahead of time.
Well, if that's the truth, and that's a fact, and he said it, it's wrong. It shouldn't be allowed.
BLITZER: Well, do you blame Comey for making that public statement about an ongoing investigation only a week or so before the election? Was it very damaging to Hillary Clinton.
DURBIN: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
And the argument today from the Republicans was how politically biased the FBI was against Donald Trump.
[18:25:03]
Well, listen, a lot of us on the Democratic side took a look at that Comey announcement and said, that sunk the boat for Hillary in the closing days of the campaign.
BLITZER: We're learning your Republican colleagues are warming up to the idea of a very short impeachment trial, with no witnesses even being called.
What do you make of that?
DURBIN: It has to be credible. And to be credible, we have to take our time and do it properly.
There should be documents and witnesses, as there were in the Clinton impeachment. Those are things that I think are just part of an ordinary trial procedure. If this is going to be a rush to judgment, let's file a motion to dismiss and leave town.
I think a lot of American people are going to push back and say, that was not the way we expected to see a constitutional procedure of this magnitude and of this importance before the American people.
BLITZER: Senator Durbin, thanks so much for joining us.
DURBIN: Thank you.
BLITZER: All right, just ahead, heated debate over the articles of impeachment.
We're standing by for the House Judiciary Committee to hold an unusual late-night session.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN THE SITUATION ROOM: We're just minutes away from a critical and contentious new step toward impeaching the president of the United States. The House Judiciary Committee is about to start a marathon, two-day meeting, to debate and then vote on articles of impeachment. You're looking at live pictures coming in from the Judiciary Committee up on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans expected to do battle as they finalize the charges that the president the president abused his power and obstructed Congress.
Let's discuss with our analysts, our correspondents.
All 41 members of the Judiciary Committee, Dana, they're going to be speaking tonight. What do you anticipate?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We're going to get sort of the passionate, the solemn, for the most part, the fit the moment speeches that we have seen as we've looked back through history in speeches like this. Most recently, in '98, and, of course, didn't get to the point of Richard Nixon, but in and around that, and they are going to have an opportunity.
Tomorrow is the day where they're going to actually start to vote and it could be incredibly ruckus because Republicans showed, just in some of the hearings like, for example, this past week, that they're all in on using whatever procedural methods they have to kind of slow things down, and they're going to have that ability big-time tomorrow. But tonight, most likely, and it could surprise us, feel different.
BLITZER: All of those 41 members, especially the Republicans, tomorrow, they'll be introducing amendments, and there will be votes and roll calls. That will be rather contentious.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It will rather be contentious and there will be real issues, not that the Republicans are going to win any of these. But the fact that the Republicans have not able to call witnesses, the fact that a lot of witnesses -- I mean, there have been no fact witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, no eyewitnesses, no people who were actually involved. All we had were law professors and then the lawyers for the committee. Those, I'm sure, will be the basis of some of the amendments proposed by the Republicans. They will make good rhetorical points but they ain't got the vote.
BLITZER: Yes. Michael Gerhardt, you're one of those law professors that testified before this committee in recent days. What do you anticipate? What do you expect will come of this?
MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: My guess is that what you're going to see tonight and maybe tomorrow is an extension of what we've already seen, the two sides, Democrats and Republicans, have a huge gulf between them. The Democrats are going to focus on reports from Mueller and from the House Intelligence Committee and Republicans will continue to just sound the same themes they have, which are Democrats are evil, the president did nothing wrong.
BLITZER: Bianna, the full House, presumably next week after the House Judiciary Committee approves these two articles of impeachment, the full House will have a chance to debate and vote next week. I assume, but tell me if you think you agree, it's going to be almost completely along party lines?
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think that's a given, Wolf. And I agree with Michael. It's interesting when you had Michael testifying last week that if what the president did wasn't impeachable, then nothing is. And what you're going to hear is more of the same that we've heard along party lines where you're going to have Democrats sort of repeat the same and really focus on this impacting the elections and the safety of national security involved in the U.S. elections, while Republicans will argue that this is the thinnest example and thinnest case of evidence of something that's impeachable. And tThey will both be citing the founding fathers, obviously, for different reasons.
But it's important to remember that this is happening in primetime. So while we have been these hearings and we've heard a lot of the arguments over the past few weeks and months, many Americans didn't have the opportunity to watch them wall-to-wall. And they're going to be hearing while we're going to be hearing a lot of the things that we've heard in the past. And many Americans will be hearing them for the first time tonight.
BLITZER: Yes, it will be going after hours tonight and then many, many hours tomorrow.
Laura Coates, even though it's written as one resolution, these two articles of impeachment will be voted on separately by the House of Representatives. What's the strategy there?
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they want to either have an opportunity to split the baby or they are aware of the notion that there are political consequences for each one. And one, remember, it's about abuse of power. A much more of an umbrella-like term that would require that we're talking about contextual things and about Ukraine and answer the question, why this instance of abuse of power and why now during an election year compared (ph) to the world the people come up again.
[18:35:11]
The second part about obstruction of Congress, that's more about why the impeachment is about the power of Congress and if they do not act, they will be impotent during the long run and any future presidency. So they have that opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to say they don't have to be all in, they could vote on one versus the other.
Now, whether that will satisfy the American public and electorate is a very different scenario. Remember, what's not on there as part of that consideration, obstruction of justice, the Mueller report, they're giving a very -- a small needle and threading the whole even thinner, and this is the chance to do so. BLITZER: What do you think of that strategy?
TOOBIN: Well, in previous impeachments, there have not been lock-step votes on each article. There have been several members of Congress who have voted for one and not the other. That doesn't seem like it's shaping up in this instance but it's certainly possible.
One option that the Democrats had was to put a third one, a third article out there, so that some of the moderates could vote against it and say that, you know what, we made a judgment, but, apparently, Nancy Pelosi said we only want those that are going to pass virtually with unanimous Democratic -- almost unanimous Democratic support.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: But this is a safety net in the end. There are 31 Democrats who are from districts that Donald Trump won, and Nancy Pelosi knows that. And by dividing this up, she's giving people the opportunity who may not, in the end, feel comfortable voting for one to be able to vote for the other.
BLITZER: Michael Gerhardt, you're the professor of law at the University of North Carolina School of Law. What do you think?
GERHARDT: Well, I think that the focus of the Democrats will be on the evidence. The evidence is very strong. And I think coming up with two articles makes a lot of sense to me. I think these are the strongest articles supported by the evidence that have just been put forward.
Even with Richard Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee back in 1974 didn't go with everything it had, it went with the three strongest articles it had. Because when you're focusing on the president of the United States, you don't want to present something where there's some disagreement or whether there's some perceived weakness. Here, the evidence, I think, is strong and that's what the Democrats are relying on.
BLITZER: You've been doing some reporting, Jamie, on Senate Republicans now apparently inclined to try to do a speedy trial and not even not call witnesses.
GANGEL: They are getting ready. So what we're hearing is that Mitch McConnell would like the Senate trial to begin January 6th, 7th, that week. He wants it over very quickly. And unlike what we're hearing from President Trump, he does not want live witnesses. We've heard Republicans have been calling the White House and telling the White House Counsel, this is not to be turned into a circus.
On the other hand, we've heard that President Trump would like to see Hunter Biden called or maybe the whistleblower called. My sources in the Senate tell me that Mitch McConnell has the votes to make sure that does not happen.
TOOBIN: And you heard that interview just moments ago with Dick Durbin, a senior Democrat, and he said he wanted more witnesses. I think there are going to be a lot of Democrats who would be very happy to go with the Republican proposal to shut this thing down very quickly. I don't think they want a Senate trial. Everybody knows there are not 67 votes to remove the president. Getting this thing over with the Senate's dignity intact is not a bad strategy.
BLITZER: I don't think, Dana, Joe Biden wants to see Hunter Biden called and testify in a Senate trial.
BASH: Right. Also, okay, I might eat my words, it's not going to happen for the reasons you just said. In order for a witness to come forward, if it's contentious, and Hunter Biden would be contentious, contentious of the notion of even inviting him, there will be a vote. And it's hard to imagine that there are enough -- no matter what kind of political atmosphere we're in, there are enough of the vice president's former Senate colleagues who will say, yes, let's drag his son up here and put him up before the Senate trial.
COATES: And totally at odds though. If that's the strategy, that's totally at odds what the House Republicans have been doing.
BASH: Yes, they're very different.
COATES: Just been saying, we want more witnesses, where is Adam Schiff, we want this person and that person. And it's odd that you have this united GOP party that is saying, on the one hand, this has not been transparent enough, we have not gotten enough information, who is the whistleblower, something that Mitch McConnell was saying, you know what, I don't need to hear from anybody else. So that will be a very, very different end.
GANGEL: But Mitch McConnell is in a very different situation, and that is he controls the Senate right now. The House Republicans don't. And Nancy Pelosi has 31 vulnerable members. Mitch McConnell has 23 Republican seats coming up.
[18:40:03]
He wants to remain the leader.
BLITZER: Yes, go ahead, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And Mitch McConnell has been talking throughout this process about it being unfair. You haven't heard him talking about defending the phone call or the president's actions. You haven't heard him talk about the Bidens as well. So while it may disappoint the president not to turn this into major theatrics and have all of these witnesses, the president should be at least pleased that we're not seeing from Republicans what we saw early on in this process, and that was at least a few Republicans who condemned the president's actions and said, while we don't support the actions, they're not impeachable, you're not hearing that line of -- that argument, that line of defense anymore. So that, in the very least, should make the president happy.
BLITZER: All right. Everybody stand by. I want to bring Preet Bharara, our CNN Senior Legal Analyst, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Preet, we're only minutes away from the start of the House Judiciary Committee's debate over these two articles of impeachment. How is this process suppose to work and what are you looking for?
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we haven't had this kind of thing happen very often in American history, as we have been talking about it for weeks and weeks. But an ordinary markup is what this is called, whether it's in the House or the Senate. And I served in the Senate Judiciary Committee for 4 1/2 years, you have debate, depending what the chairman allows, you have the opportunity for people to make statements. Usually, they are designed to make news in their hometown papers. That takes a long time before you get to the substance of debate.
And with an ordinary piece of legislation, there would be back and forth about whether or not the language is appropriate and whether or not there're some petitions (ph) what need to be stricken or some amendments that need to be added. Here, it seems like they have drafted a pretty concise and clear document that they're going to want to pass in full without any amendments at all.
And given the numbers that are present in the committee and the dominance of Democrats, I think you'll see a lot of talking, a lot of debating, a lot of furious rhetoric but that you'll end up with articles of impeachment that look exactly like they've been drafted when they vote tomorrow.
BLITZER: But the Republicans tomorrow -- every Republican will have a chance to introduce an amendment and there will have to be votes, debate. This process could get rather ugly in the course of hours of debate tomorrow.
BHARARA: Yes, and also time consuming. I mean, the last two hearings that we've seen in the House have been far more dramatic and more contentious and lengthy that I think people expected. Even the hearing that I predicted incorrectly would be a little bit dull with four constitutional scholars lasted well into the evening and there was a lot of serious rhetoric in that context as well. So you can expect that to happen.
And we saw, by the way, in both of those hearings, there were efforts by the Republicans to slow things down by making points of order and having those being voted on not just voted on by voice but by roll call vote. And they have to go through all 41 members, so it's going to take a while. So people need to have some patience.
BLITZER: Yes. It could slip into Friday if this debate continues. But assuming the House Judiciary Committee passes these two articles of impeachment, which presumably they will, it goes to the full House of Representatives, let's says, next Tuesday or Wednesday and it passes the House, what do you anticipate will happen in early January during a trial?
BHARARA: Well, as the reporting pointed out, it sounds like they're still haggling over whether or not there should be an extensive trial or not. I will say, not everyone will agree with this, it's a little bit hard for Democrats to argue that there should be a very, very substantial lengthy trial in the Senate when they have made a point, I think, for good reason to have a pretty sped-up process in the House with respect to the impeachment. 12 witnesses over a few days, really rushing to get the impeachment articles drafted, voted, on, not a lot of time to digest the Intelligence Committee report. I think there's good reason for that. But it's a little bit hard to argue that and say, well, the trial should be longer than the investigative phase.
BLITZER: Well, what about witnesses? Some of the Republicans are now saying, have a little debate and get it going a few days, but then call an end. You simply need a simple majority, 51 votes, in order to end the whole thing. You need 67 to convict and remove a president from office. That's almost certainly not going to happen. But what do you think of this notion of avoiding calling witnesses?
BHARARA: Look, in an ordinary trial, like the kind I used to be involved with, that would be unheard of. If you want to have the truth to come out and you want to be persuasive, whatever side you're on, you tend to want to put on witnesses.
Now, if the jury, in this case, the senators, would have a role in figuring what the rules are, which is completely different from how you have it in real life, the jurors are passive bystanders who observe and react to the evidence, if they're essentially proxy defense lawyers for a defendant, in this case, the president of the United States, it is sometimes true that the defense doesn't need to put on witnesses.
And I think that the burden of proof has not been met by the prosecution. And here, that's clearly the argument that a lot of them are going to make, that you've seen a lot (INAUDIBLE) and a lot of theory about nothing, and at the end of the day, there doesn't need to be much of a mounting of defense in terms of witnesses who are favorable to the president.
[18:45:00]
It also happens to be true there are not a lot of witnesses favorable to the president.
[18:45:04]
And then you have to have a debate about some of the witnesses who are continuing to abide by the directive not to come testify, are you going to have a fight about that?
You know, the Senate, according to the House resolution -- I'm sorry -- other laws have been passed making it clear the senators can overrule the chief justice with respect to what is admissible. That will include what witnesses come to testify. But it would be awkward position to be in I think if it was an application made by one side to have people like John Bolton come testify and have the senators go back and overrule that.
So, you avoid messiness and you have clarity and you have closure more quickly if you don't have witnesses. It's a bizarre thing, but I could see it going in that direction.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I could see going in that direction as well.
Preet, I want you to stand by. Dana, you've been doing reporting on this. Certainly, there are witnesses the Democrats would like to come before a Senate trial, Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. But there are witnesses the Republicans would like to call, like the whistleblower, for example, or Adam Schiff, or Hunter Biden, for example. This could get rather tense ugly.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. You know, Preet just brought up John Bolton in particular and we haven't talked about him because he is somebody who is outstanding in terms of somebody who has made very clear, even though it was cryptic, it was clear that he has things he wants to say. His former deputy did testify under oath about his reaction and his disgust and the actions he saw going on in regards to Ukraine and holdup of the aid. And so, he is maybe a prime example of somebody, definitely a prime example of somebody the Democrats would have to call, would want to call.
Historically speaking and going back to 1998, there were negotiations that Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, would say something like, OK, if you have John Bolton, we're going to get our witness X. We're in different times now, it's even more partisan now and they were probably be put to votes. But, you know, we do have -- there is more decorum in the Senate certainly than there is in the House, but those kind of gentleman agreements and lady agreements I guess.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: There's another problem with somebody like John Bolton, that is his lawyer made it clear he wanted to be forced to testify.
BASH: Right.
GANGEL: Just because the Senate calls him and just because John Roberts is sitting up there does not mean that you wouldn't be back in the same situation again. But there are two people that I know the Democrats would love to have. One is John Bolton, who has said that there was a one-on-one meeting that he had with the president, and the other is Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, who had, let's just -- yes, he was right in the middle of it. Whatever was going on, he knew.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Did we not fail to mention that John Bolton has sold a book about all this, but refuses to testify? I mean, I just think that is such a disgrace that this guy, you know, it's OK to write a book but he has to have a court force him to do his civic duty? I -- you know --
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It goes back to obstruction of Congress. Remember, there are two chambers but they should be united at the idea of somebody thumbing their nose at a congressional subpoena, not a House subpoena, not a Senate subpoena, but a congressional subpoena. So, they are effectively undermining the entire Congress by ignoring things like that. BLITZER: Go ahead, Michael.
MICHAEL GERHARDT, IMPEACHMENT HEARING WITNESS: I want to emphasize the point that the people that testified so far are the people the president ordered not to testify, but they did testify under oath. The people close to the president that know a lot about this are refusing to testify under oath because they've been ordered not to. If there are witnesses not showing up that are important, it's because the president ordered them not to comply with lawful subpoenas. That's the basis of the second order of impeachment in this situation. And so, there's a lot of connection among thing. People who have not shown up have been not to, and this is the basis of impeachment.
GANGEL: A critical point about John Bolton, there are people who showed up to testify even though they were ordered not to, who still go to work at the State Department, Pentagon, Colonel Vindman goes to the White House everyday. John Bolton is not in the government anymore.
BLITZER: Let me get Bianna to weigh in on this as well. This is clearly a very, very sensitive moment. And we don't even know if there will be any witnesses.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: That's true. And to follow up on the John Bolton comment, what stood out to me in Susan Glasser's piece last week when she interviewed Adam Schiff, was she asked him just that, what about subpoenaing Bolton and what are the odds that you're going to hear from him?
And he said, look, point blank, people in my staff reached out to his lawyers and the lawyers said, hey, sue us -- subpoena us, we're going to sue you and this is going to play out in the courts for months to come. So, it doesn't look like they were anticipating him to participate in any of this at all.
[18:50:13]
What else is an interesting observation, both sides are arguing for precedent, the Republicans are saying if they can do this to any president, imagine what will happen for future presidents. And Democrats are saying the same, one day, you're going to have a Democrat in office. And I'm not sure about Republicans are going to feel as happy as being stonewalled the way this administration is stonewalling Democrats right now.
BASH: I'm glad you brought this up as we watch the people trickle in, members of the Judiciary Committee, I went up to the Hill and I interviewed Republican Steve Chabot who was one of five lawmakers on this committee who were there in 1998, during the Clinton impeachment and still there now.
And he has something on his well, an article on his wall back then and said it's a moment of history. And even though he was on the Republican side obviously and he was the manager in pushing the case of impeachment against Bill Clinton, he said in there and repeated to me today that he wouldn't wish impeachment on his worst enemy. Obviously, he stands in a very different place now. He doesn't want this current president to be impeached, but what he said is, because he's been around a while, I'm worried that just the way the Bork situation changed the way the judicial nominees are treated, that the fact that we've had three impeachment processes in the last 50 years when it didn't happen for almost 200 is a scary thing because there is a tit-for-tat going on that could speed up even more on something as grave as impeachment.
BLITZER: The Democrats clearly have the decisive role in the House of Representatives. They're the majority. Elections matter, they're the majority. But in the Senate, the Republicans have the majority, 53 Democrats, 47 Democrats and two of them are independents who side with the Democrats.
So, the Republicans clearly have a huge advantage going into a Senate trial.
TOOBIN: They have a huge advantage and they also have Mitch McConnell who is someone who is not just in name the majority leader, but someone who really runs the United States Senate. And, you know, though there are certain vulnerable Republicans, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner in Colorado, by and large especially on procedural votes, McConnell is in charge, and he is really going to be the person who makes the procedural judgments about how this trial is structured, how witnesses will be dealt with, if there'd be witnesses at all.
What I think is interesting is that I'm not sure he'll get a huge amount of pushback from the Democrats on that. I don't see great passion on the part of Democrats to have a long trial with lots of witnesses. So I think there is really a possibility and a consensus here.
BLITZER: That's important and let's go back to Preet Bharara.
You know, Preet, the point that a lot of people have made, yes, he'll be impeached in the House but he almost certainly will not be convicted and removed from office in the Senate, so what's the point? To that argument that has been made, what do you say?
BHARARA: It's their constitutional duty and if you believe the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then you let the politics fall where it falls and you proceed.
You know, I agree with Jeffrey Toobin a bit on the idea that Democrats may not want a long, protracted proceeding with a million witnesses. But a couple of things to bear in mind here: Democrats needed to have witnesses, live witnesses, sympathetic witnesses, compelling witnesses which they got in the Intel Committee. The country lived through that. Tens and millions of people watched a portion of those hearings.
And you have incredibly compelling figures like Fiona Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch and others who brought home to people the clear storyline of the president abusing his power, and you don't have that with respect to the Mueller report. I suspect one reason we don't have articles of impeachment directly relating to the Mueller report is because people haven't seen the live witnesses testify and all of that happened behind closed doors.
So, on the one hand, I think Democrats should want there to be some live witnesses to carry the story forward, and have the American people have their public sentiment be affected by watching these folks. On the other hand, it's already happened. I mean, you keep talking about the Senate trial, but in a manner of speaking, there has been a mini trial and the president has had his allies with great anger and sharp rebukes of witnesses, you know, defend, and an act on his behalf and we had that for a couple of weeks.
So to the extent we don't need to have a repetition of those same witnesses at a Senate trial. That's probably correct, but the Democrats' cause in so far as public sentiment matters is enhanced by having live, compelling witnesses testify to the Senate trial.
BLITZER: You know, Michael Gerhardt, you're the expert on the history of impeachment. We are told once the hearing starts, the committee chairman Jerry Nadler will have his opening statement and he'll read portions of these two articles of impeachment out loud and he'll make a statement and the ranking Republican will make a statement, that everybody will have a chance to deliver a five-minute statement.
[18:55:05]
Give us the historic nature of what we're about to see.
GERHARDT: Well, this is something, of course, that is rarely seen. One thing to keep in mind about this entire process, it is very rare, and one thing I might add parenthetically here is that I think people and the members of Congress do not develop a taste for impeachment. It's going to be hard to repeat or replicate because it's very difficult for everybody, including the Democrats. But I think you'll see them really take a strong position here. It's a position largely for the sake of history and putting down a marker here and so you're going to hear them, yes, very -- in very, sort of somber and solemn terms set forth their case.
I think Republicans will probably be very similar to what we've seen in the past which itself is different from what we've seen in past impeachment proceedings that have been televised. In past proceedings, Republicans have been much more again, solemn, somber, focused on the evidence and made legal arguments. Here, I think, they're going to engage in personal attacks instead of focusing on the evidence.
So, it's going to seem again like we've got two sides looking at different worlds. But the fact is this is incredibly rare and incredibly historic. The president of the United States is on the path of being impeached by the House of Representatives.
BLITZER: You know, Jeffrey, I was just going to say, you look at the members and the Republicans who are going to be speaking fairly soon. We are only minutes away from the start of this historic hearing, but the top Republican Doug Collins, not a shy guy, Louie Gohmert, not a shy guy, Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Matt Gaetz.
This is going to be extremely, extremely contentious.
TOOBIN: And you know whose name jumps out at me about this process and this moment is someone who was a congresswoman in 1974, Barbara Jordan, who was the first African-American woman to represent Texas and she gave probably the most famous statement ever made at an impeachment proceeding about her faith in the Constitution, and it was at precisely this moment in the Judiciary proceedings -- Judiciary hearing proceedings -- Judiciary Committee proceedings in 1974 when she rose to the occasion in a way that I don't think anyone has in this process or even in 1998.
And it will be -- I hope some of our colleagues who are going to be covering this live play some of Barbara Kordan, but also if someone matches her eloquence it would be a big surprise.
BLITZER: Let's see.
Bianna, you were going to say?
GOLODRYGA: I was just going to make a point and that was a great point about Barbara Jordan, Jeffrey. I was going to make a point as to the Republican defense that we kept hearing throughout this process and that is that there's nothing to see here because the money was delivered. They did meet at the U.N., and President Zelensky said that there was no pressure.
And the irony there is that this president, in a sense, was saved by the person that he and all of his allies have been vilifying and that's the whistle-blower, because if the whistle-blower complaint hadn't come forward, and the president hadn't been pressured to deliver on the money, then we would be in a completely different place right now. We could very well have President Zelensky speaking out publicly saying that my money and the aid promised to me was not delivered and look at the consequences.
And this is not the first time where the president's actions were prevented from going to a bad place by those around him. We saw that with Don McGahn during the Mueller investigation, and we're seeing it now, too, and I'm wondering how that plays out at home with Americans who say the president may have attempted to do something, but in the end, the money was delivered, and Ukraine got the aid. Of course, you have Schiff and the Democrats saying that it misses the bigger picture and you have to talk about the attempt, as well, and not just the fact that he didn't get away with it.
BLITZER: You know, Dana, Doug Collins, the ranking Republican, he's there. The pressure is really going to be on the man you know, you've covered him for many years, Jerry Nadler, the committee chairman, who's going to gavel this session and then he'll make his opening statement.
BASH: That's right. I mean, it is going to be up to him or maybe if there's going to be a Barbara Jordan moment by someone else on the panel to encapsulate all of the witnesses that -- the testimony that we've seen, the report that the House intelligence --
BLITZER: He's walking in right now. You can see Jerry Nadler coming into the room.
BASH: And he can just do it simply by reading the articles of impeachment. But, you know, one thing we should keep in mind that we are going to sort of pinging off of what Michael Gerhardt just said, 25 years ago almost to the day, you did have Democrats upset about the conduct of the president, very different issue.
BLITZER: That would be Bill Clinton.
BASH: Bill Clinton, but in this situation you really are going to have very different worlds.
BLITZER: We certainly will.
This is a moment that a lot of people have been waiting for. We'll see what happens. We're going to have special live coverage throughout the night, of course.
Thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Our special impeachment coverage continues right now with "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT".
[19:00:00]
