Nancy Pelosi launches formal impeachment inquiry, Trump responds to announcement
Nancy Pelosi launches formal impeachment inquiry, Trump responds to announcement Nancy Pelosi launches formal impeachment inquiry, Trump responds to announcementAnnounced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump Tuesday. The decision to make an inquiry comes after months of caution by Pelosi. She said a whistle-blower complaint about this week. The president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The action of the the actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonourable fact of the day: betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the Integrity of our elections. Therefore, today I’m announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. The house speaker is referring to a whistleblower complaint that brought intense scrutiny to a call the president made with his Ukrainian counterpart. It involves concerns. Mr. Trump may have made an improper promise during that conversation, no more about what was said, because the President says he’ll release a transcript of it. The president’s call coincided with a delay in military aid to Ukraine. After Trump says the funds were withheld. Today he denied claims it was done to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Biden family with respect to Joe Biden was Joe Biden, did for the sun, that’s something they should be looking at assisting his son. He used to be on the Port of a Ukrainian gas company. No evidence has surfaced to support with their Trump’s claim. The transcript of the call is expected to be released as early as Wednesday. It is the same day mr. Trump will meet with the Ukrainian president at the United Nations. The acting Director of National Intelligence is expected to testify Thursday about the whistle-blower complaint. The house intelligence committee chairman says he could bring the Whistleblower directly to Capitol Hill as soon as this week. Here is how Republican leadership responded to Pelosi the announcement. She is launching the inquiry inquiry made no difference of what’s been, it’s no different than what Natalie has been trying to do. It’S time to put the public before politics. Google is with me here on said, he’s a CVS in Kearny for New York’s eastern district. Now that we know that there will be a formal impeachment in Kuwait, can you lay out for us exactly how the impeachment process work is already investigating me constitutes High crimes and misdemeanors? Remember that’s a constitutional standard for impeachment will continue their work Under the Umbrella of an impeachment inquiry. Now, if Congress decides hatch actually have a boat to place that show umbrella term legislatively over those six committees that will invest the House Majority with more power to carry out some of the legal wrangling. It’S carried out with his administration, in other words, enforcing subpoenas that they’ve been patient, has ignored or fought in court. But what century was the speaker has laid out is a process that goes forward largely as it has been going on so far with this one added detail, what she mentioned and refer to repeatedly in her prepared remarks that this particular newest Encounter of the house Democrats With this Administration over the Director of National Intelligence inspector General’s refusal to provide the Whistleblower account, the Congress is, in the speaker’s words, a violation of Law, and that lawlessness she said is what is now brought this to a Tipping Point and change the underlying politics and The house democratic quickly change the politics for the speaker, who has been, if anything, a publicly reluctant voice along the road of impeachment inquiry. She is no longer elected she’s, not putting the full weight of the speakership behind that it is worth pointing out writ large. The entire Democratic party, if we can talk about what constitutes an impeachable offence, they’re being investigated number one, whether there was a quid pro quo, which is something the president denies. There was number to whether he was asking a foreign leader to investigate two doing that which of those two things is worse in the eyes of the law. So the Constitution talks about treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors as what is an impeachable offense, for which a president can be removed from office, raise High crimes and misdemeanors we’ve all heard before, and it is something with a very broad definition. It’S really imported from English common law by the founders at the time that the constitution was adopted and what that really means that the core it means abuse of office in a way that hurts the public, and so the question really becomes. I think in these circumstances he is the president using his office for personal political gained in an improper and corrupt way, and so the notion that Nancy Pelosi just mentioned it. They got the notion that the president would seek assistance from a foreign Nation to get himself re-elected, very problematic, the Constitution and the the removal Provisions in the Constitution to startle quasi-political and quasi-legal bribery and SSI. I think we’ve seen with the Mueller investigation, the framers didn’t necessarily make an impeachable offense, something that depended honest on a crime on the existence of a crime. It’S a political offense for some of this conduct. I think it would be very difficult, or there may be – a defense is trying to fit President Trump’s conduct into either an extortion or a bribery or campaign Finance violation, but really it’s a political all right. I just want to interrupt for a second to point out that the president has tweeted, not surprisingly in response to Nancy Pelosi. He is here in New York at the UN and he tweeted saying such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news. Witch Hunt garbage so bad for our country. I suppose not surprising that he would have a rapid Twitter responds, so no president has ever been removed through impeachment Mollie. What do you expect to happen next? Traditionally, the house judiciary takes up the impeachment inquiry so to speak and conduct, invest in your investigation, subpoenaed Witnesses hold hearing and then Mark stop, essentially the charges. The articles of impeachment referred back a recommended back to the house floor, after which the house would vote on each individual articles of impeachment, essentially a charge. What was the individuals charged with and and given that Pelosi is saying all six committees are going to continue down the same path of their on? Essentially, it’s really unclear how they are going to conduct or or move forward with impeachable offenses are or articles oven, which is ultimately what what an impeachment inquiry culminates in and so, and so I think that there will be from what I understand among Democrats and there’s A bit of a Turf War, because after this year, but there’s been some disagreement between the way that Jerry Nadler is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has handled impeachment. Hearings like the one last week was Corey Lewandowski and the way they that to have gone, and so again, I think that those committee chairs are going to look for a little bit more Direction, but as to the timeline, and then we would see articles of impeachment. It’S just unclear call will be released tomorrow. What can we expect it to come out of that and what kind of Defense can we expect the president to mount a witness that before we say this was some frequency and just because we say it with some frequency? Doesn’T mean it’s true and doesn’t mean we ought not to pause and say to ourselves and take may be kind of a slightly deep breath and say we really haven’t seen this before. So we have an alligator before the entire country that a present United States might have used. The strong arm of the American presidency together, potentially helpful political dirt on a emerging political rival with a foreign country. That’S a pretty heavy accusation. Then we have the president say: no, I didn’t do any of those things are all jumping to conclusions, Rob leaving the worst about me and to prove it. I’M going to give you a transcript of my private conversation with a new, be elected foreign leader. I know of no modern president for either the accusation or the transcript emerging in public. So when you say what should we expect, I don’t have the foggiest idea what we should expect, except maybe the president has indicated a conversation full of praiseworthy comments from the president receiving them in a praiseworthy fashion from the Ukrainian president, newly elected and then a lot Of things that people on both sides of the aisle May read differently, I think it’s important today, just hours before this conversation and her appearance before the cameras, Nancy Pelosi said, and we ran the Sound by briefly. There doesn’t need to be an obvious quid pro quo in that phone conversation transcript for this to be a transgression of our institutional understanding of the powers of the presidency and how they should be used. That’S her conclusion. I am relatively calm. Wouldn’T most Republicans are yet to embrace that conclusion. They may look at the transcript and says, looks fine to me says what the president said. This is just another Democratic over-reaction ization of the process of what does pray it is or what he has been or what he’s alleged to do have to have done, and they may leave it alone until we see the transcript we can’t know, but that the president Is releasing it and has ignored some of his advisers who said, look whatever the intensive that call! Mr. president, however, honest you think it makes you look it’s a bad precedent for the institution of the presidency and you ought not to do it well, it’s clear this. President is not as interested in the president, the presidency, as he is in his own narrative and he’s going to advance his narrative as he described it tomorrow violated his office. If this is a political process and it comes down to votes essentially so let’s discuss the lawmakers, we know who have come out in support of impeachment by our count. At least a hundred and seventy Democrats are in favor of an inquiry. Opening Somali isn’t the make-or-break issue for Democratic lawmakers, especially those moderate, who stayed out of the impeachment Fray. That’S far Kratz the freshmen, who won in Trump majority District, this last election in 2018, who wrote an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post today. These Democrats, Allison spanberger former CIA analyst, and we have military veterans who also join in this and they weren’t particularly concerned about the Ukraine call and again the perception and and the appearance of abuse of power going to Major point. The president, using his strong strong Army. Another country, but using the fact that he’s the president United States, you don’t necessarily need to explicitly asked for a few quid pro quo paid for you. But you know what is Joe Biden going and you don’t seem to pick up what you’re putting down? If you don’t I’m saying and Democrats, those moderates are particularly concerned by that abuse of power, and I think that there needs to be a little bit more clarity and how these six committees are going to proceed because, again, just because they’re investigating and holding hearings. We don’t know what the specific charges are, that would come to the house floor and each and the will vote on those each specific charge. One may be related to obstruction of justice. The other might be related to on this Ukrainian phone call. It really depends – and I think that you’ll see more Democrats in favor of an article that is related to the first step to this perceived abuse of power on the Ukrainian issue. So thank you for joining us publicans at this point. Those who will support the president through thick or thin or those who may see the writing on the wall looking there might have been some detectable at the very, very finished margins. When the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today, did not offer any Stout defense of the president, but only said in questioning put to him by our colleague Nancy that he inquired several times about this. Ukrainian assistance, passed by Congress, signed by the president that was being held up for what he described, is unknown reasons he kept asking. Why is this this lethal military aid being held up and he never got a response? That’S all he would say today he didn’t condemn the present, but he didn’t suggest it was nothing there there, and this was a matter that had been resolved to his satisfaction, is add an insight into some level of discomfort that the Senate Majority Leader May possess. Could that be reflective of discomfort that Republicans are feeling, but not yet publicly expressing? I would only say about that: stay tuned with this release of the transcript tomorrow, there will be a I guarantee, you declaration from the White House, of Maximum transparency, but really that’s not at the heart of this matter. What’S at the heart of this matter and what the speaker of the house just referred to is The Whistleblower account and the Inspector General summary thereof, and we have been told and Reporting on this suggest that that whistleblower and the inspector-general looking at that information, send the Ambit of the law, which means I need to do something with it – was not only about Ukraine but other matters as well, so we’ll that every surface and if it doesn’t surface you might have the White House saying hey, we were trans. Another thing you were all concerned about 4, not on the other thing, but the other thing might be the real matter. Is it possible that we can learn more about what you just brought up through some lie, because this happens too often in our current atmosphere on Twitter, but the house intelligence committee, chairman Adam Schiff, said it appears that this whistleblower is moving closer toward a testimony of Some kind of Senate intelligence committee on a bike basis is moving toward getting to these underlying facts of alarm The Whistleblower in the first place and what the Inspector General thought was equally alarming sufficiently alarming to raise concern. What’S the details, you know my superiors. If there is a process to follow the process of the law, why to avoid the accusation that you’re a whistleblower in essentially partisan, and that’s why you’re motivated you’re, not whistle-blowing, to save the country or the live up to the disagreement legal counsel? The legal counsel is always the same, follow the process, trust in the process and follow it and that’s what we are led to believe. The whistle-blower has done moving outside of that process, but I’m not predicting anything going for, but at this moment The Whistleblower, whoever he or she is not comfortable with and wait and see where the process takes. He or she major, certainly corrected that holding tight will provide a whistleblower with the maximum amount of protection. If you step outside that process, you’re potentially violating the secrecy, laws potentially could lose your job, this individual or he or she, whoever they may be so to the extent that they can put together a process. That’S within the guard rails. They’Re, certainly going to want to try to do that, just a follow-up on what major said earlier, though, about the trance one thing that I would want to keep my eye on. Is this transcript that we’re hearing described? Theoretically? That’S being that’s a written summary of something else, and so the question that I have is: is there a tape to the UK? Have a tape of this conversation? Does the White House have a tape of this conversation, which is I don’t want the transcript? I want to record it and the reason why I want the recording is because of all the new ones, all the yelling, under understanding that you can gather from from the recording that you can’t get from the flat text. And so you know, when major talk about transparency, I would really, if I was going to claim train, never want to release all of this stuff and finally, is even better and to the degree I have gotten to know the way the Donald Trump operates will has A candidate and as a president, I do know this. He loves the telephone. He uses the telephone as a way of taking the measure of the person who and to the point that was just made. He raises and lowers his voice moves in with intensity backs off to take not just a measure the moment for the person who he’s dealing with and trying to figure out an intuitive way, and maybe doublespeak weighs what he’s driving at and what he may be able To expect in a reciprocal response, those kinds of things would be much more evident, I believe, and it recording than a transcript. So the did not say recording. He said transcript, Declassified transcript, not a recording, but I think the point is incredibly well taken. The listening to it would be much better and more revealing and more clarifying then reading it. I want to ask you, though, legally, is this question of withholding USA, which we found out happened about a week or so before this phone call took place. The president us alone, giving the Ukraine so much Aid and wanted more money to come from other party. You are or whatnot at the end of the day, what his motivation for withholding that Aid matter. Look at this alleged conduct, it’s all alleged as major says in as I think we need to remember right now. It’S all alleged, but it comes back to you – want to analyze it in political terms or in criminal terms. So if you Analyse it criminal terms of the State of Mind, does matter, is there an innocent state of mind about whether or not you simply wanted to prompt your allies to Pony up more or whether you using it as a cudgel to have Ukraine help you In your re-election effort that state of mind would matter very much in a criminal case in a political sense. Is the president using the massive powers of the presidency to Aid himself in Accra whack? That is a different set of questions that I think the Congress would be investigating and the Senate would have to consider in an impeachment trial. Exactly what someone State of Mind is correct. We don’t have an MRI machine that can look into somebody’s mind and and tell us what they were thinking weeks or months ago. We don’t have that the prosecutor’s meat and potatoes work day in and day out is listening to things if they exist, like the tape recording if it exists, that will be very powerful evidence. You look at the circumstances. You look at the other communication. You talk to the people around the president. What was the Vice City accept it? Did he reject it? What were people’s reactions you can put together and in case based on his 10th through circumstantial evidence? That’S typically the way prosecutors. Do it yes remind ourselves of something that happened in broad daylight and his part of I have to acknowledge another networks, Archive of news information regarding President Trump ABC News for some George Stephanopoulos and George Stephanopoulos stood right next to the United States, Donald Trump sitting at The Resolute desk do we remember what the president said. He said yes out loud on camera and he also said I don’t think I take it. It’S not like. I would be doing anything wrong if it was. I just said, and I would say in that context you have to ask yourself well in this conversation: do those things matter? Are they contextual who is the president desires, motives or inklings that happened in public not too long ago? You so much. Thank you. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump Tuesday. CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett, CBSN legal contributor Keir Dougall and CBSN political contributor Molly Hooper join “Red & Blue” to discuss.