The Daily - Pelosi’s Impeachment Gamble

Episode Date: January 8, 2020

John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, has announced that he is willing to give evidence in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The question is: Will the Senate — and the majority leader, Mitch McConnell — let that happen? Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading:Mr. Bolton’s announcement was an unexpected turn that could alter the political dynamic of the impeachment process, raising the possibility of Republican defections.In response, Mr. McConnell said that he had the votes he needed to quickly acquit the president without calling witnesses or hearing new evidence.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, a crucial witness from inside the president's inner circle now says he's willing to testify in the impeachment trial. The question is whether the Senate will let that happen. Julie Davis with the latest on the impeachment. Plus, the Iranian retaliation begins. It's Wednesday, January 8th.

Julie Davis, the last time that we talked about impeachment on The Daily was basically the day of impeachment in the House. What was supposed to happen following that historic vote? After the House impeachment vote, the Democrats went and had a huge news conference. December 18th, a great day for the Constitution of the United States. A sad one for America that the president's reckless activities necessitated our having to introduce articles of impeachment. They talked about the significance of the historic vote. And so I view this day, this vote, as something that we did to honor the vision of our founders to establish a republic.

And everyone expected that they were then going to get a timetable for where this is going next. When are they going to send these impeachment articles over to the Senate? We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment. We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side. And somewhat surprisingly, Nancy Pelosi hedges. We would wait to send the articles until you understand what the Senate's going to do. We'll make a decision as a group, as we always

have, as we go along. She is essentially saying that they're not in any rush to send over these charges. And in fact, maybe it's better to keep them until she can get some assurances from the Senate about how the trial is going to look, whether they're going to allow witnesses, whether they're going to have what Democrats would consider a fair process. All right, joining us now is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is with us. And around this time, Mitch McConnell has been openly talking in interviews and on the Senate floor about how he is planning to quickly move to acquit President Trump. Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. He wants to coordinate and work hand in glove with the White House to essentially clear

the president's name after what he says has been a completely unfair and illegitimate process in the House. Do you see any possible defections? I doubt it. There's zero chance the president obviously would be removed from office, and I'm hoping we'll have no defections at all. And so Pelosi is suggesting. and I'm hoping we'll have no defections at all.

And so Pelosi is suggesting... Leader McConnell has stated that he's not an impartial juror, that he's going to take his cues, in quotes, from the White House. Well, if that's going to be their approach, if they're just going to take what we've just done and essentially throw it in the waste paper basket, maybe I should wait around a little bit and see if I can't get some guarantees about what this process is going to look like before sending it over.

And Julie, to the best of your understanding, what is Pelosi's thinking about how holding up this process changes anything in her favor? Well, there's two issues here. One of them is the issue of a fair trial is important to Democrats, but it's also important to a handful of moderate Senate Republicans who could be key if they were to side with Democrats

in forcing McConnell to change the rules of a trial, to allow witnesses, for example, or to allow some new evidence to be introduced. She's thinking maybe that sort of tweaks the political calculus that McConnell is facing and persuades him that he's really going to have to make some of these concessions if he wants to have his conference united among Republicans on how a trial looks.

The other factor here is that Pelosi knows that the president is extremely eager for the Senate phase of this trial, where he envisions having a parade of people come and publicly defend him and ultimately getting vindicated by the Senate in a quick and decisive vote. So part of this calculation, I think, is maybe the president is going to lean on McConnell to say, let's just get this done. If it's going to take more witnesses, if it's going to take some more concessions from our side, let's just do it because I want this trial to start. So the gamble here is that one way or another, waiting this out will somehow benefit Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party in this process.

I think she calculates that there's no downside to waiting, that there's something to be gained, potentially, and nothing to be lost. And she can just do this, hold the articles of impeachment back from the Senate, pretty much indefinitely? Yes. There is no rule that says that the House, once it has voted to impeach a president, has to send over the articles of impeachment. She could just sit on them. But there is a big risk to that.

The House has just taken what it has characterized as an urgent and historic vote to impeach the president. And for a lot of Democratic members, particularly the ones in Trump-friendly districts, it was a pretty hard vote. It was a pretty politically difficult thing to do. And so having just taken this very high-profile and politically risky vote to do what they said they thought was right, if they then don't follow through with the process, it looks pretty bad. Okay, so then what happens? it looks pretty bad. Okay, so then what happens? So then the House finishes its business for the year and they adjourn without ever sending over

the articles of impeachment and essentially leave the question up in the air as everyone goes home to their districts for the holidays. In a highly unusual step, the Speaker of the House continues to hem and haw about whether and when she intends to take the normal next step and transmit the House's accusations over here to the Senate. And rather than reacting in the way that Pelosi may have thought that he might have, Mitch McConnell seems really gleeful. Some House Democrats imply they're withholding the articles for some kind of leverage. And he's basically taunting Pelosi and saying this strategy that you think you have of trying to pressure me to do something is never going to work.

I admit, I'm not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. So we'll see. We'll see whether House Democrats ever want to work up the courage to actually take their accusations to trial. But then, as everyone goes home for the holidays and is with their families and celebrating Christmas and taking a break, things start to happen that appear to vindicate in some ways Pelosi's decision to wait. Like what? Murkowski, Senate Republican, a moderate, gives an interview where for me to prejudge and say there's nothing there or on the other hand, he should be impeached yesterday. That's wrong. In my view, that's wrong. She says she's disturbed by the fact that McConnell has said that he's going to coordinate with the White House on the trial. that he's going to coordinate with the White House on the trial.

She's sort of suggesting she might be open to this argument that this is not fair or that somehow this is short-circuiting a process. Then, a few days later... Democrats are hoping that new revelations by The New York Times that President Trump overruled his own national security to hold up military aid to Ukraine is a potential impeachment game changer. Our colleagues at The Times published a big investigation about the machinations inside the Office of Management and Budget, the White House Budget Office, around President Trump's decision to withhold this military aid from Ukraine that's at the center of the impeachment saga.

And in response to all of this... This news story shows all four witnesses that we Senate Democrats have requested. Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffy, and Robert Blair were intimately involved and had direct knowledge of President Trump's decision to cut off aid in order to benefit himself. Democrats like Chuck Schumer, their minority leader, are basically saying this is exactly

why we are saying we need to have witnesses, we need to have the ability to review and admit new evidence in a Senate trial. Simply put, in our fight to have key documents and witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial, these new revelations are a game changer. Because the argument is that impeachment charges themselves are based on obstruction of Congress. The fact that the president and the White House directed all of the administration not to testify to the House in the impeachment inquiry and not to give documents that would be evidence.

We don't know how these witnesses will testify. We don't know what the documents, if we get them, our hands on them, will say. Maybe they'll be exculpatory of President Trump, or maybe they'll be further condemning President Trump's actions. We don't know, but we should see them, regardless of what they say.

So this unexpectedly eventful holiday season seems to be proving Pelosi's strategy right to some degree. It's making her case that you moderate Senate Republicans, you Senate Republicans who maybe are facing reelection next year, you may want to think twice before you just snap to and follow Mitch McConnell's lead on how this trial is going to go. So, Julie, by the time the holiday break comes to a close, has anything really changed? Well, a little bit, but it's only after everyone gets back from the break and the Senate reconvenes that something happens that really reshuffles the picture. We'll be right back. So Julie, what is this development that, as you said, starts to reshuffle this picture?

Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm John King. We begin the hour with the just-breaking major news related to the Trump impeachment inquiry. the former White House national security advisor, who has been one of the figures that Democrats have most wanted to hear from throughout this impeachment inquiry, puts a statement up on his website saying, he's now willing and ready to testify in a Senate impeachment trial. I would be willing to testify if, if the Senate issues a subpoena demanding his testimony. Let's get straight to the state. And Bolton is a person who left the White House last year under pretty tense circumstances. He broke with the president and everyone has been wondering what Bolton has to say. Bolton has until now been complying with the White House's

directive not to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry. And while the White House is downplaying the significance of Bolton's announcement, Democrats see him as a potentially key witness. His lawyer has indicated in the past that he actually has a lot to say, that he has knowledge of a lot of conversations and meetings that would be relevant to the House impeachment inquiry. But he hasn't shown up even after the House Democrats asked him to. So Democrats are in this position where they know he has information that's material, and they can't get it. And all of a sudden, he goes public and says, actually, if the Senate wants me to talk, I will talk.

And Julie, why do you think that John Bolton, who we have long regarded as a very loyal Republican figure, I mean, all the way back to George W. Bush, he is a foot soldier in the kind of Republican national security apparatus. Why would he suddenly say, I am willing to testify in a way that could hurt Trump? willing to testify in a way that could hurt Trump? Well, that is the million-dollar question that everyone immediately began speculating on as soon as he came out with this statement. And there's a few theories. Democrats' favorite theory is, ironically enough, that this person who they have detested as a super hawk and a loyalist to Trump might actually be the hero who has really damaging things to say about the president, who will be the one who had direct conversations with him in a way that could tie President Trump to what he is accused of in the impeachment articles. Because remember, during the impeachment inquiry, they were not able to get access to any of the people

who had direct conversations with the president about linking aid to investigations or any of the other key accusations that they were making. So Bolton could do that. There's another possibility, too, which is that he, having been a part of the National Security Council at the White House, is very keen to make it clear that he did not agree with some of these decisions that the president was making, particularly with regard to withholding military aid from Ukraine. And since we already know from our colleague's own reporting that he actually had meetings with the president trying to talk him out of freezing military aid to Ukraine,

he wants to essentially flesh out that picture that the president was going in one direction and he couldn't stop it. But there's another possibility here too, which is that John Bolton is loyal to President Trump and perhaps he wants his day in the Senate to say things that are going to exonerate the president. Julie, given that we don't know exactly what Bolton would say if he testified,

what does this turn of events mean for Pelosi's strategy of holding back the articles of impeachment, this gamble that she took, in order to ramp up pressure on Republicans to hold the kind of trial that she wants them to have? Well, I think it really sort of proved out her thesis, which was there is no downside in waiting because as it turns out, the pressure has mounted. Now, instead of sort of a theoretical discussion about what if we wanted to call witnesses, senators are faced with the prospect of an actual human being who a lot of people want to hear from as a witness actually coming forward and saying, yes, I will appear if subpoenaed.

So it's a more concrete thing that they're facing, and that makes the negotiation that still has to happen between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell about the terms of this trial a lot more complicated. So let's talk about those negotiations and what we expect to happen in the Senate. How are members of the Senate responding to this development and to all the other developments that you described as happening over the holidays? Well, not surprisingly to anyone who has followed Mitch McConnell.

Well, hello, everyone. Happy New Year. He has completely dug in. I wanted to make sure you understood that we have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun. And on Tuesday, he announced that he plans to move forward with this impeachment trial, even without an agreement on whether to call witnesses

or whether to admit more evidence. What's good for President Clinton is good for President Trump. We'll get around to the discussion of witnesses. We got around to the discussion of witnesses after we got through phase one 20 years ago. And the Democrats are where they were, which is protesting and complaining and saying they don't want to go forward with a trial until they are assured of at least the possibility that they are going to get to call witnesses and possibly ask for new documents as well as part of this process. But it's also put the moderate Republicans and some of the folks who were up for re-election under intensified pressure because while they are willing to go along, it seems for now,

with starting a trial without committing to witnesses, it's not at all clear what they're going to do when they're faced with the actual question, which they will be at some point, of should we subpoena John Bolton or not? Should we issue subpoenas for other people or shouldn't we? And that's a question that will really affect what kind of a trial President Trump has in the Senate. So you're saying that even if the Republicans come up with rules for a Senate trial that does not commit them to having new witnesses, that it's still somehow possible that someone like John Bolton might get called in the middle of his trial? Right. So how it would work from here on out is that at some point, Nancy Pelosi would send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

The trial would begin. Each side would give its opening statements. And then at any time, a Democratic senator or one of the Democratic impeachment managers from the House could move to call a witness. And that would lead to a vote. And that is a vote that could put a lot of moderate Republicans, or rather the few moderate Republicans there are in the Senate, in a really tight spot. And who are those moderate senators? and how many of them are required to vote to have someone like John Bolton end up testifying? Well, this is a tricky question.

It would take four Republicans to side with the Democrats who control 47 votes in order to make the majority that would be necessary to do something like this. And that's because normally in the Senate, you have the vice president who breaks ties. But in an impeachment setting, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over a Senate trial. So there's no tie break from the vice president? No. And what's needed is a simple majority. So if four Republicans were to side with the Democrats, they could control the process.

The Republicans who are in play here are Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, who has been very clear that he wants to hear from Bolton. I'd love to hear what he has to say. He has first-hand information. And assuming that articles of impeachment do reach the Senate, I'd like to hear what he knows. But has also said that for now he's content to start a trial without an upfront commitment that that will happen. Susan Collins of Maine, who's up for reelection, has already said that she would be open to witnesses potentially. There are a number of witnesses that may well be appropriate, of which he would certainly be one. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who, as I mentioned, has expressed some discomfort with the way that Mitch McConnell has talked about this trial. And then the question is, who's the fourth?

And that's a real question. And that is one of the things that when Bolton came forward, we all wondered whether there would be sort of a groundswell among Republicans for hearing from someone who they know well and who clearly has something to say and is making it clear that he's willing to say it. So far, the dam isn't breaking, but it would just take four Republican votes to side with the Democrats to force someone like John Bolton to come and testify and furnish information that could totally change the course of the trial. So for now, it seems like this strategy is working. Well, at the moment, it's looking like it panned out pretty well. It might produce some new revelations in a trial that we never really expected to produce much in the way

of new revelations. This has been a very predictable process from start to finish. In the House, everyone knew that the House was going to vote on the articles of impeachment, and then the Senate was going to quickly move to acquit President Trump with no muss, no fuss. And now it looks like, well, the acquittal is not really in doubt, but the path that gets you there is a lot more windy and a lot more uncertain. And that is a place that did not look likely even a couple of weeks ago. So you could say that this has paid off for the Democrats because it's at least opened the door to a bit more of a thorough process than they thought they were going to get.

But the longer you wait to start a trial, the less control you have over the events surrounding what else is going to be going on in the world when the impeachment trial unfolds. And that was really demonstrated last week when another issue that has nothing to do with impeachment began to overshadow all of this. And that was the strike that President Trump took against Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general in Iraq. And that has totally rejiggered the conversation, reordered the priorities for the moment on Capitol Hill. So even if things are not going to change very much

on the fundamentals of the trial, I think Democrats are in a place now where they recognize it's time to move forward. And the articles ultimately are going to have to move to the Senate. Julie, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Tuesday night, Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles

at two U.S. military bases in Iraq in an act of retaliation for the U.S. killing of General Qasem Soleimani. In statements after the attack, Iran was quick to say it did not want war with the United States, and it discouraged further escalation. There were no immediate reports of U.S. casualties from the attack, which came on the second day of funeral services for General Soleimani. Those funeral services ended in tragedy on Tuesday when a procession in Soleimani's hometown

triggered a stampede that killed more than 50 mourners and injured hundreds more. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bavaro. See you tomorrow.