The Daily Beast Podcast - Dem Impeachment Manager: Here’s Why We Didn’t Call Witnesses During Trump’s Trial

Episode Date: February 21, 2021

We know how the story went: Trump was impeached for a second time. There is a trial. He is found not guilty because there not enough votes needed to make it happen, despite the majority of the Senate voting against the former president. Lots of people have questions in regards to this process. Namely, what the hell? But also, why didn’t the Democrats forgo their right to call witnesses? Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CA) told co-host Molly Jong-Fast his perspective on things in this member-only bonus episode of The New Abnormal. “Whether it's five witnesses or 5,000 witnesses, it would not have changed the ultimate outcome,” he says, echoing Rep. Jamie Raskin has said on the issue. They did consider witnesses nonetheless, says Neguse, but to him, it came down to timing. “It was clear that other witnesses whom had been speculated about in the media in terms of potential witnesses that we could have heard from were unlikely to voluntarily comply and voluntarily appear, which meant we would have to issue subpoenas. And they could very well contest those subpoenas in court,” he says. Ultimately, he feels the point was made, and everyone knows Trump was responsible: “That is something that obviously was crystal clear by virtue of the evidence that we showed during the course of the trial, which of course the American public had a chance to see as well.” He shares his own experience during the Capitol insurrection, including the moment he realized things had gotten bad. “I texted my wife and told her that, uh, I loved her and our daughter,” he says. Plus! He and Molly discuss what plans the House has to make sure this doesn’t happen again and that people in power are held responsible. And is Medicare for All and federal legalization of marijuana on the horizon? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello and welcome to another Members Only Beast Inside episode of The Daily Beast, The New Abnormal. We thank you so much for being here. Today we have a very special bonus episode with Joe Noghous, who's the U.S. Representative for Colorado's Second Congressional District. You may know Joe as one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party after his role as an impeachment manager, and we're going to talk to him all about that and a handful of other issues.

On this show, we had James Carville, And we were talking before, and he said, the thing about impeachment, because I was asking him, he thought it was a success. And he said, the thing that's so great about impeachment is we've just discovered all this new talent in the Democratic Party. So I'm pretty sure he was referring to you. I think that's fair to say. He's very kind. So talk to me about the impeachment manager. How did you get the job?

How did that go down? I think people would love to hear a little backstory on that. Tour. Well, you know, so by way of background, myself. Mr. Raskin, my good friend colleague, Jamie Raskin, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Schiff, and then Chairwoman Lofgren, Zoh Lofgren from California. The four of us had been asked by Speaker Pelosi to prepare the arguments for the Electoral College certification process on January 6th. So we had been working for about a month, you know,

over virtual Zooms and kind of preparing for January 6th, recognizing, given the public reporting that various Republican members were likely to make, you know, basal subjections to the Electoral College certification and wanting to make sure that we were fully prepared for that moment. So we, as I said, had spent a great deal of time preparing on that front. And then, of course, the events of January 6th happened, which we can go into great detail, but obviously our country lived through that terrible day. Were you on the floor that day? I was. So we, myself, Jamie, Chairman Schiff and Chairwoman Loughbred,

we were all on the floor because we were, you know, managing the floor debate for the electoral college certification. So I actually was very focused on, you know, delivering my arguments. I just finished delivering my first kind of set of arguments. And one of my Republican colleagues began to, you know, make his presentation. And then I noticed that the Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, was escorted off the floor, which, of course, you know, clearly, you know, was a signal to us in the House that something was amiss. And then I noticed that the majority leader, Penny Hoyer, who was sitting a row or two behind me, that he was evacuated by his security detail, and then it, you know, kind of descended from there, of course, as we, you know, found out

that the chamber winds locked down and that the rioters had breached the Capitol and had, you know, were in the Capitol Rotunda and that tear gas had been deployed. And so, you know, we're instructed to, you know, retrieve our gas masks. And eventually, we, you know, were evacuated from the floor to a secure location elsewhere in the capital complex. And then, of course, as you know, we, you know, later that evening, returned back to the House floor to finish the job that we had started. We all felt very passionate about making sure that the Congress sent a signal not just to Americans, but to the rest of the world, that, you know, our republic would endure and that we wouldn't be intimidated into not finishing our solemn obligation. So in any event, long-witted way of saying,

given the events of January 6th and given, you know, the weeks leading up to it, Jamie and I had worked fairly extensively on that front. And so the speaker, obviously, following the vote on impeachment and the article being approved by the House, she reached out and gave me a call and asked me to serve in this capacity. And given the events of January 6th and my role in terms of the electoral college certification, I felt duty bound to do it and ultimately proceed. Did you think you were going to die? It's a good question. You know, I, when I was on the first, floor. I mean, I, again, in the beginning, it wasn't clear to me what was happening outside of the Capitol, right? I mean, there are no TVs on the house floor. And so I was getting text messages from friends and from my wife that, you know, we're kind of growing more alarmed as I was sitting there. But again, I don't know that it fully dawned on me until my wife texted me and said, this is bad. They are in Statuary Hall, which for those of your listeners who've been to the Capitol will know that

Statuary Hall is very close near feet away from the house chamber. And so once she sent that, once it was clear, as you could hear, the rioters pounding on the doors to the outside of the house chamber, you know, at that point, of course, was very concerned about my safety, the safety of everybody in the Capitol. I texted my wife and told her that I loved her and our daughter. We have a two-and-a-half-year-old very much and told her that everything would be fine because I was worried that she would, you know, clearly, as she's watching on TV, what I can't necessarily see but can only imagine. And, you know, you kind of hope for the best. And again, I would just grateful to Capitol Police who, you know, were so brave and so courageous and really, you know, saves lives that day. I mean, you think

about all of the members of Congress, the staff, they just, they put themselves on the line. And I'll forever be grateful. Yeah, it does seem like terrible disaster was averted. Definitely. You know, when you see the video footage, of course, that some of which none of us had seen until last week when, you know, we shared it during the course of the impeachment trial of, you know, Senator Romney and just how close he came to some of these insurrectionists and just the fact that they were so close to potentially encountering members of Congress

or even potentially the vice president of the United States. Again, the Capitol Police were true heroes. And of course, as we know, tragically, we've lost several officers during the course of the event and the days after. Yeah, and the weekend after. So I think the question that everybody in the world wants to know is, why didn't Democrats call witnesses? That's a great question. And it's a fair question and one that I've gotten from a lot of folks. Sorry.

I'm trying to stay away from the question that everybody asked, but I wanted it. I think this is going to be a question that's asked for a lot of years to come. It's a fair question. Let me take a step back and then I'll get to kind of the core of this issue, right? So 30,000 foot view. As lead manager Raskin said early on, we believed and we continue to believe that we proved our case. The evidence was overwhelming of the president's guilt. That is evidenced by the fact that a majority of the United States Senate in the most bipartisan vote in the history of our republic voted to convict, including seven Republicans.

and, of course, multiple other senators who, while they acquitted the president on jurisdictional grounds, nonetheless, in effect, concede that we proved our case and that we met our burden. Given that, I agree with Lee Manjuraskin that, you know, whether it's five witnesses or 5,000 witnesses, it would not have changed the ultimate outcome. Now, all of that being said, we debated the question as to whether or not to ask for witnesses to provide video deposition testimony during the course of the trial. Now, as you know, the way the trial is structured under the organizing resolution that was adopted by the Senate, which largely mirrors the one that was used during the Clinton impeachment, that timeline allows for the calling of witnesses after the prosecution presents its case and after the defense presents their rebuttal. And so ultimately, that happened to be on Saturday morning.

On Friday, we learned Friday evening of the full extent of the statement made by Congresswoman Herrera Butler. And the statement that she recounted from a leader McCarthy and his conversation with the president, which of course went directly to the president's state of mind, was probative evidence in our view and supported our theory of the case. And so we decided that we thought it was important for her statement, in effect her testimony to be a part of the evidentiary record. And so lead manager Raskin proceeded to make this motion to have her testify as one witness, not, multiple witnesses, but one. Shortly after we made that request, a couple of things became pretty clear in sort of the ensuing two hours. First, the President's counsel indicated that

they would concede that her testimony be entered into the evidentiary record, which was no small feat, because as you'll recall, their attacks on the evidentiary record were significant. So their willingness to stipulate that that testimony would, you know, her statement, which in effect would be the same as any video testimony that she offered, that that would be entered into the record that the Senate could consider it for purposes of their deliberations and that the American people would hear it, would matter a great deal. And then secondly, my understanding, you know, again, based on conversations that, you know, I think, took place, it was clear that other witnesses whom have been speculated about in the media in terms of potential witnesses

that we could have heard from were unlikely to voluntarily comply and voluntarily appear, meant we would have to issue subpoenas, and they could very well contest those subpoenas in court. And of course, for the six of us managers who served and continued to serve on the House Judiciary Committee, who had a front row seat to the president's obstruction during the Mueller investigation, who are still litigating today the subpoena for Don McGahn two years later. It was very clear to us that we could end up in protracted litigation for weeks, months, years. So at the end of the day, there was a balancing of the equities. So on that point, on the first point that I mentioned, and I think given that we had ultimately succeeded in

getting the critical piece of evidence that we believe should be shared with the Senate into the record, we felt like the most proven way forward was to move forward. And I think that was the right call. I trusted lead manager Raskin's judgment on that front. And ultimately, again, And as I said, I think that's largely a view that has vindicated, or an approach rather, that was vindicated by that ultimate outcome. Already, there's been so much pushback from Republicans about the Capitol right. Like, I wrote a piece for the beast two days ago about how they're, they've been sort of, I mean, I'm sure you've seen this. There was a letter written by Jim Jordan and broken brain to Devin Nunes that said that maybe this was Nancy Pelosi's fault for not having let the National Guard come in. So there's already so much disinformation coming out of the GOP side.

How do you, and I understand that this is like a sort of untraditional question for Democrats, but how can you guys fight against this and make it clear to history that this was actually Trump supporters? I have not seen that particular letter that you referenced, but I guess I would say my sense is that the American public very well understands what happened on January. and who was, you know, as Mitch McConnell himself said, practically and morally responsible for the events of that tragic day. I don't think there is any doubt amongst the vast majority of the American public about the answer to that question. And that is, you know, something that obviously was crystal clear by virtue of the evidence that we showed during the course of the trial, which, of course, the American public had a chance to see as well. And I think it's, as I said,

evidenced in, you know, the outcome during the trial and the seven Republicans who chose country over party and did the right thing and stood up when their country needed them the most in terms of voting to convict. So look, those particular members of Congress you mentioned are going to say what they're going to say. I'll let the historical record speak for itself. The empirical, you know, polling data that I've seen seems to bear out the consensus view that I just described. And I, you know, my focus will remain, I think, on the latter as opposed to trying to to disabuse others of, you know, the opposite notion, I guess. We've done a lot of interviews on how you combat fascism,

and we're pretty convinced that you guys have to really deliver for the American people this time, no matter how Republicans obstruct you. Deliver a narrative. Well, delivering actual change for people. Oh, yes. Also that. I see that you support Medicare for all, but I haven't seen indication of how, how fast we're going to get to start to lure that.

I think that that will be the most substantive change for people in their lives. Do we see any hope on that happening soon? That's a good question. So let me say two things. First, because this is an issue that I know you all have written about extensively, right? As we think about just in terms of structural reforms in strengthening Article 1 of our Constitution, right, in the legislative branch.

And then I'll talk a little about health care in particular. But I just, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that it's important for us not to become complacent. There are, you know, we saw what happens when you have an administration that undermines the rule of law with the various scandals of the Department of Justice, for example, under the former Attorney General, and the inability of the Congress to hold the executive branch fully accountable. So I hope that the Congress would move swiftly on enacting structural reforms that will ensure that we can prevent any future, you know, reckless executive branch from undermining the constitutional safeguards that have undergirded our republic since the very first days of our founding.

I'll give you an example. For example, it would include strengthening the ability for congressional subpoenas to actually have teeth. Right. That would be cool. You know, Ted Liu, a colleague of mine, a fellow manager, we've had a proposal out for over a year that would re-institute, reassert the congressional inherent contempt power. Because again, these issues, they should be relevant, irrespective of who is in the White House. It's about congressional. authority under Article 1 to ensure that the legislative branch can function the way that the framers intended. So there's a long list of reforms that Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler, myself,

and others have been working on, and I'm hopeful that we can make progress on those. Now, with respect to your point about, you know, making a change for the better in the daily lives of Americans, I couldn't agree more. I think it's important for us to be bold and to be progressive in trying to do what we can to move the needle for the American people. It's why I support Medicare for all and have supported Medicare for all since the very first day that I was sworn into the United States Congress. There are disagreements, as you know, about, you know, the best way forward on health care reform and, you know, different thoughts and suggestions about how to get there. I think there's general consensus in the Democratic caucus that we have to make health care more affordable, more accessible. So, you know, there will be some in that conversation who are pushing for Medicare for all.

There are others who are pushing for, you know, various other options like Medicare X and lowering the Medicare eligibility age, for example, from my point of view, that's, you know, those conversations will happen within the caucus. And I will try to do everything I can to, you know, push to to make the ultimate, you know, bill that is adopted and implemented, one that covers as many people as possible as we possibly can. I have a question for you about this 9-11 style commission that Nancy Pelosi is going to set up. One of the things that Jesse and I have done all these interviews have learned about is this idea that narrative fights fascism and that the way to sort of fight Trumpism is to have narrative, which means witnesses and hearings and testimony and things read into the record. Will that be included in this commission? And how can Democrats? Because remember, I think, you know, it does still seem like those Democratic guardrails are pretty. mushy. I mean, we got rid of Trump, but it was really, it could have really gone either way.

And I mean, I just think that don't you get the sense that those things need to be shored up? You know, this is, again, it's an interesting question because I think it feeds into the point I made earlier about the structural reforms and statutory reforms rather that I think the Congress can pursue. There are ways in which we can shore up the ability of, for example, the Department of Justice to not become so blatantly politicized as it was under the former attorney general, right? There are ways, as I said previously, that we can strengthen congressional oversight through the subpoena power and other steps that we can take to enhance the powers of the legislative branch, which have been largely abdicated, not just during the last four years,

but it's sort of a long march that accelerated during the Trump administration. With respect to the commission itself, I don't know, you know, the particulars as to whether or not there would be witnesses involved. And, you know, I think I have not seen the final language on the proposal to create the commission. I think it's an important step forward. I think there are a lot of questions with respect to, you know, moving forward prospectively, how we secure the capital complex, how we make sure that people's business can still, you know, be done in a way that is safe in our nation's capital. And so, you know, prising the vulnerabilities within the capital complex and getting to the bottom of that, I think is certainly important. But yeah, beyond that,

I think I'd have to defer to those who were authoring that proposal. So your state was drastically, drastically transformed by marijuana being legalized. And I see that you support taking that nationally. Can you talk about what you've seen and how that could help the country? Yeah. So in Colorado, as you know, the voters ultimately legalized cannabis in 2012. So Colorado has had a regulated form of cannabis legalization for the better part of the last, gosh, you know, six, seven, eight years. It's a regulatory system that has been

refined and improved over time. There were certainly, you know, obstacles in the early days as, you know, we regulators here in Colorado tried to figure out the ways to make sure that it would work appropriately. But I think Colorado has, you know, largely, again, it's not to say that there aren't issues that we continue to grapple with, but at the end of the day, the ability of the state to move forward in that regard has, I think, been something that other states have seen and have used as an example as a benchmark to then pursue their own ballot initiatives or statutory proposals within state legislatures, right? And you see that across the country, both with respect to medical marijuana, but also recreational marijuana. So yeah, in terms of the federal legislation,

as you know, the Morac, which was a bill that Earl Blumenhauer from the state of Oregon and Chairman Nadler and Representative Barbara Lee, who's really been a champion on this particular issue for decades that they led on and a bill that I support. You know, as to its prognosis in the current Congress, again, I think that remains to be seen. But I do think there's some real challenges. You know, when I talk to folks about the need for the federal government to speak on this issue, the perhaps most prominent example that I offer is the issue of banking, because you still have, you know, a regulated industry that is billions of dollars in gross revenue

every year here in Colorado, and of course, the same can be said of other states, that is largely unable to access the federal banking system because of the position that federal regulators have taken, the Office of the Comptroller's currency and others. So, you know, for me, it's a public safety issue, the need for the Congress and the executive to come to an arrangement here on enabling states that have made this decision, as Colorado voters have, to be able to respect their will and do what we can to make sure that it's done in a safe way. So that, you know, in terms of the industry being regulated in the safe way. Well, that's fantastic.

Thank you so much. You were great. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thanks for having me. It's my pleasure. Fantastic. On that note, we'll wrap up this episode of the new abnormal from The Daily Beast.

In future episodes, we'll be talking with smart folks in the Daily Beast and beyond from media, culture, politics, and science. It will help us understand what's happening to our country and the world. We hope you'll subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app and share the show on social media. If you'd like to follow us on Twitter, I'm at Molly JongFast, and he's at the Rick Wilson. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you again on the next episode. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.

Podcast at the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.