US lawmakers clash over impeachment charges against Trump


Today. The House Judiciary Committee is marking up. The articles of impeachment in a confrontational televised hearing. Were also learning new details about the inevitable Senate trial early next year. I've got to fantastic guests. Tell me unpack all the news of the day in a few minutes. We'll be talking with White White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks that CNN. Political analyst. April Ryan but I I'm joined by my colleague. CNN producer and reporter the relentless Marshall. Cohen Marshall Thank you so much for being here on the podcast. Thank you David so I want you to hear a little bit of sound from today's hearings now just I said marking up. The what is happening here is actually like the normal legislative process. What you know when When a bill gets introduced in committee it gets marked up that means each side? Has the ability need to make amendments to the bill change it and the committee homes that bill and then passes that to the full House and that is what is happening with these articles of impeachment. Now of course. The Democrats crafted these articles. They're very comfortable with the language and they're trying to change anything. Republicans are being given the opportunity Obviously To be able to slow roll this day make their political points Try to amend the articles but they're outvoted time and time again. procedurally These two articles are likely to be passed out of committee before the day is done and then onto the house floor for a vote next week. But that's the process. Here's the rhetoric I want you to I hear hear from Congresswoman Pramilla Jal of Washington state will any one of my colleagues on the other side. Say that it is an abuse of power to condition aid to condition aid on official acts. We'll forget about president trump. Aw Forget about President. Trump is any one of my colleagues willing to say that it is ever okay for President of the United States of America to invite foreign interference in our elections. Not a single one of you has has said that so far what I heard jibe. How say this Marshall? Today my ears perked up because she was really trying to remove donald trump from the equation and really focus on the fact that Republicans on the hill. Her colleagues on the other side of that day are would from her perspective blindly in lockstep with him no matter what so her her whole arguments here stripped him out of it. Are you okay with this presidential behavior. We've heard from a couple of Republicans. Mike Turner of Ohio will hurt Texas that have indicated the the phone call with Dolinsky that trump's language was not okay. I mean I think Turner used that that exact phrase Mr President. This is not okay yet. He fully does oppose impeachment She wishes it. Was that simple though. You could just strip trump out right hand mant trying to make an argument larger about Republicans here right about being just blindly lockstep with him. But they don't agree with her on the merits of this. Either right she's she said said two things she said trump Conditioned official acts on these favors number one and number two solicited election help from Ukraine crane. Now Democrats are in lockstep. That that's what happened Most outside observers that are acting in good faith would say that that is apparently apparently what happened but the Republicans dispute both of those right they say number one there was no direct proof that trump conditioned the military aid aide on the investigation. And you didn't hear that From anyone not even sunland right. Who said a Gordon Sunland the US ambassador to the U.? You who said that. It was conditioned on the White House invitation but not necessarily the military and then secondly we've been hearing this all day from Republicans today they're not conceding the ground that this was trump soliciting election. Help they're still arguing and they've been doing all day that this was trump trying to crack down down on corruption because Burris MMA The Ukrainian energy company was corrupt. And Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden was involved with these corrupt crooked get actors so problem with the ground. Marshall can you point to all the other places that Donald Trump has made it policy to fight corruption and using Presidential Oval Office meetings meetings and Military aid is a way to accomplish cycle no and the Republicans are acting in bad faith by pushing both of these points it strains credulity ability it it defies logic. It's it's not a good faith. Argument here is perhaps a better argument from the Republicans that I wanted to hear from a Republican Congressman of California in Utah McClintock. His argument is really neither of those things. It is that the president has the ability to set policy here. And what is At core in McClintock's point of view here is all of these witnesses. You've heard from data policy disagreement of the way he was managing the Ukraine relationship relationship and priority. Here's McClintock MR chairman. The constitution introduces the President. With fifteen words. Executive Power shall be vested in a president under the United States of America. It does not vest any authority in Lieutenant colonels the NFC Ambassador State Department officials are Cabinet Secretaries Rotarians the only authority that these officials exercise is delegated to them by the president so all of the criticisms and resentments Johnson personal and political disagreements. That we've heard from those officials are completely irrelevant. I give him some credit there for making a a constitutional to tional argument on the constitutional question of impeachment. Is he right well. The president does get to set the policy but if the the policy is essentially that the United States government should be used to help the re election of Donald J trump then okay. The president sets that policy but it's in his own personal interest. The outcome of that official policy is for his his personal benefit and as Democrats describe it. What you just described is in violation of the Constitution and the oath of office that he swore You know when he became president. That is Nancy Pelosi's ultimate point right when when we discussed this yesterday. Whenever she's pressed on the politics of this she she goes to her oath of office to protect and defend and uphold the constitution and that the president violated that very oath that he also takes? Ah On she's not you know hooting and hollering and making a big show out of this in many ways. It's been very much reluctant march to get here. And and you know I think the strongest proof of that is that when Nancy Pelosi in the Democrats took over in January of this year. They didn't impeach anybody they didn't even they tried to snuff out talk of impeachment and anytime did any of the more Liberal members of their caucus started bringing it up Pelosi's he just shot it down over and over the are largely here. I think it's pretty clear that they are here because they feel like the president forced them to do this that he was so so unconstitutional and so much putting the integrity of our next election at stake that they had to do it period. So where do we go from here. Marshall so These articles get passed out of committee. Today I assume on a party line vote. We have no indication that there's a Democrat on judiciary. WHO's not in favor of these? These articles of impeachment and judiciary is known to be a a more partisan committee of all the committees on on Capitol Hill And then we see action on the House floor Lord but what happens between now and then yeah right so the question is going to be. How many Democrats are going to break ranks and joined the Republicans a few have already stated their opposition? No big surprises there I think that the the same guys that voted against authorizing the inquiry are going to be voting against impeachment number two of those Jeff Andrew of of New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. That's right so no big surprise there I don't think that anybody really believes that. Either of these articles of impeachment each mint will get voted down by the house. It seems like there's a They've crossed that threshold based off of where we are right now. That could change but You know is it going to issue going to drop. Is Nancy Pelosi to lose more to this. Point where it's kind of embarrassing and people will sort of get second thoughts and feel like it's limping. Something over to the Senate or will they keep it in the low single digits. Maybe you can count it on one hand and say well it's too bad that we didn't get any Republicans but look we still have a clear majority very few defections and we did our jobs and now we'll kick it over to our colleagues in the upper

Coming up next