tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN November 22, 2019 4:00am-5:00am PST
he was being involved in a domestic political errand. and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. >> president's voice was loud and recognizable. i then heard president trump ask so he's going to do the investigation. >> we've got to stop this. they're not going to. >> it undercuts all of the defenses that the president and the republicans have put forward. >> they continue to push these fake, illegitimate proceedings onto the american people. he wants it to go to the senate and he wants a trial. >> no, we're not going to wait until the courts decide. it's obstruction of justice. obstruction of congress. welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the world. this is "new day" and here we are this morning. two historic weeks, 12 public witnesses, a mountain of evidence, hours of testimony all telling the same story. the president was using foreign
policy for his own personal political purposes. a domestic political errand. that is what happened according to witnesses, their testimony, and the evidence. so what now? house democrats are moving forward preparing articles of impeachment. they will likely focus on abuse of power, obstruction of justice, obstruction of congress, and bribery. and if the democrats have it their way, if this goes as planned, a vote to impeachment the president could happen by christmas. >> meanwhile, republican senators are working with the white house on a strategy for a potential impeachment trial. would it be a lengthy trial or a speedy one? "the washington post" reports that president trump is pushing the senate to dismiss the case immediately. so after this incredible week, these two weeks really, which, if any republicans accept the facts as laid out by witnesses under oath? joining us now, cnn political analyst maggie haberman. and cnn chief legal analyst
jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, your thoughts at the end of these two weeks? we know more this morning than we did two weeks ago. >> we know a tremendous amount more. and what's remarkable is how the evidence is entirely consistent. for me the single most memorable piece of evidence was in kiev. right after the infamous phone call. on july 26 when sondland the ambassador to the european union is on the phone with the president at this restaurant in kiev and he hangs up the phone and he says to david holmes, the foreign service officer, like -- the president doesn't give a about ukraine things. he says what do you mean? this is a big deal. there's a war going on fighting against russia. sondland says no, no, no. a big thing to the president is something that affects his
political future. a big thing to him is the biden investigation damaging his political enemies. that's the story. that's the story. and it plays out through all the witnesses. and, you know, we're now going to move into this mode of are the republicans going to move, what's the political future? and i don't know. but i think it's important to marinate a little in the facts of what the -- what came out in the hearings. and then we'll see what the political implications are. >> do you know who told us the president was asking zelensky to, you know, investigate the bidens? >> pick me. the president told us. >> exactly. the president told us. not only is he on the phone call but october 3rd -- do we have s-20? play that. this is october 3rd when the president was asked directly, what did you mean? >> what exactly did you hope zelensky would do about the bidens after your phone call? exactly. >> well, i would think if they
were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the bidens. >> okay. >> and we appreciate that honesty. >> thank you, mr. president, for telling us exactly what you were asking for when you were asking for an investigation into the bidens. this morning you've got new reporting on what the white house wants now. what is that? >> so the white house isn't actually sure what they want. they are not going to make a decision on a senate trial until closer to the time of the actual trial. that's going to depend as one official told me on what the president ultimately wants. nobody is in agreement about where they should go. but actually the president is not as i understand it pushing for immediate dismissal. some people around are pushing for that. the president goes back and forth between wanting it to be over and want people and we know this about him because he keeps saying he did nothing wrong to stand up at a senate trial and say, look. the president was not at fault. there was not an issue here. i don't think that anybody in the white house right now thinks that it's realistic based on
what they're hearing from republican senators to have a 51 vote for dismissal. i think that's what they heard from republican senators yesterday. so we will have a sense, i think, after we know what the articles of impeachment look like. after we know more about who is voting where in the house on what the white house thinks it can get from a senate trial. but they want to be able to put on a case. he's trying to call together documents related to hunter biden. >> can i say one thing quickly? mitch mcconnell's office tells me definitively that an immediate dismissal is off the table. and that is from mcconnell's office. so it's a nonstarter. >> correct. >> why is that? >> and the white house knows it, to be clear. >> why not just dismiss it outright? >> for a couple of reasons. one of which is they don't have the votes. the reason they don't have the votes is there are a number of senators who are worried they'll get back to their districts and be told this was a bad thing.
why wouldn't you hear out the evidence. to the point you both have made for days and days here, what they've laid out in this impeachment inquiry contained a number of pieces of damning emails and testimony. so i think there is a potential risk of blowback for senators who vote for dismissal right away. >> they can't get 51 votes for immediate dismissal. i don't think mcconnell would want that. >> in upside down world, logic doesn't always apply. but that was helpful to hear what the thinking behind it is. jeffrey, you've seen this movie before with impeachment. so what do you think is going to happen next? and i don't just mean process. i mean in terms of the public's appetite in terms of the political risks. >> you know, i make -- i'm very wary of making predictions especially about the future. you know, i don't know. and i think it's important to point out what we don't know at this point. you know, yes it looks at this moment like there are no
republican votes for impeachment. but, you know, once the evidence gets pulled together, we'll see. i mean, there is so much evidence here. and, you know, all these bold republican predictions about we're going to call the bidens. be careful what you ask for. be careful about calling witnesses. because one thing we learned is that it's a lot easier to answer questions when you know all the facts and the questioners don't. and the idea that, you know, they're going to call the bidens. good luck to them calling the bidens. good luck trying to create an alternative narrative that's different from this one that somehow shows the president in a good light. there is no such narrative. >> we've talked a lot. alisyn talked to jen psaki about the risk for democrats going forward in the pros. what should republicans be worried about not just with the process but the portrayal of them saying to the facts either we don't believe them or we don't care. >> that is a risk. and that came up several times
during the hearings. specifically when the republican lawyer was asking questions of the witnesses. and, you know, the mistake you make, the trial lawyers always make in kros examining witnesses is they let them repeat their direct testimony again. and much of the most damaging testimony from fiona hill, the bad ass helen mirren staffer for the ukraine. you know, much of her really damaging testimony for the president came when she was being cross examined by the republicans. and so the idea that if you simply repeat the story and try to put your own spin on it, all you do is repeat the story. and remind people that what this story is about ultimately is the use of taxpayer dollars to get dirt on the president's political opponents. and if they want to defend that, good luck to them.
i just think that story will not wear well with the american people. >> maggie, as we so often see, the white house has a completely different reaction than what is predicted. so here's hogan gidley yesterday explaining how they're feeling. >> one word would be jubilant. i've talked to the president many times today. >> i don't believe that with all due respect to hogan gidley. the white house has tried very hard for the last several days to put forward a face not just of feeling positive but feeling happy, excited. nobody thinks that these were particularly good fact sets for them. they were totally blind side by what gordon sondland testified to the other day. they were pleased he gave -- while he gave this bombshelly opening statement, he spent hours walking it back. i think they were encouraged by that. but they know this is not a great picture that's been painted. they are going to stick to their
line that this is unfair to the president. that this has not been due process. they're looking for the senate to have due process. but the president is not enjoying this. i understand that he's been in a decent mood the last couple of days, but that doesn't matter. i mean, he's not enjoying being impeached. he's been pretty clear about that with any number of people. and i -- jubilant is really quite a word to use in this circumstance. >> and remember, just another word that we heard from the president a lot. that his phone call with the president of ukraine was perfect. he keeps saying over and over it was perfect. have you heard any other republican official, even his supporters, say it was perfect? no one. >> right. i think the only thing i would just say, jeffrey, in terms of the -- talking about the future, you're talking about what voters will care about. we don't know what voters are going to care about. supporters of the president who are the ones that these senators are keeping an eye on, these
republican senators, or people like will hurd the congressman from texas who wants a political future even though he's retiring from texas, that's what they're looking forward. we do not know whether voters are paying attention to this, tuning this out, going to be influenced by this. that's what this will turn on. >> and i thought hillary clinton was going to win the 2016 election. and i always point that out as a surgeon generals warning about any prediction i make about the future. >> beyond politics there's another question here, too, which is what is the long-term impact of saying that a president can ask a foreign country to get involved in a u.s. election? >> it's an important question. >> right? >> it's an important question. i think we're raising all kinds of questions about the type of unadulterated executive power this president believes he should have and members of his administration believes he should have. that has dramatic implications for the future.
>> and i think nancy pelosi did not want to get involved in this. i mean, nancy pelosi did not want to do an impeachment. i think that is not spin. that is a fact. but the facts compelled it. there was no way to take that transcript, the partial transcript of the phone call and simply say, well, we're just going to ignore it and do oversight hearings. it was too dramatic a violation of what we expect from presidents. and, you know, the political chips are going to fall where they may. >> but number one, republicans don't believe them. and two, we don't care. thank you. about nancy pelosi by the way, i don't know if we have a promo. cnn announced we're doing a town hall with nancy pelosi. >> this is breaking news. >> i'm breaking it to you. i believe that's december 5th with jake tapper at 9:00. nancy pelosi will speak about this at length which will be fascinating. meanwhile, what happens next in this impeachment process? what will the mechanics look
so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™. need stocking stuffers? ♪ ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.
- [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.
the intelligence committee and house of representatives, this is still their ball. what do they do with it next in. >> the next big step we're going to see is the house intelligence committee has to draft an issue, a public report setting forth their findings and recommendations. this is going to be an argument. this is really their last best chance to make the case to congress and the american public why this is impeachable. interesting fact, once that report comes out, the minority party the republicans have a chance to issue their dissenting views. will they do it? why give up on a chance to make your case? on the other hand, they may want to hold off and see what the evidence is in the senate before they start committing to certain defenses. those reports then go over from the intel committee over to the judiciary committee. which is headed by jerry nadler. >> yeah. it is interesting. nancy pelosi kept it out of judiciary and jerry nadler's hands as long as she could. >> right. eventually it will have to go back to nadler. he has the option to hold more hearings. will he?
you would think not but they have represented in the don mcgahn hearing they want to call him as a witness. we're going to get a ruling on mcgahn on monday, the court said. after they hold hearings or decide not to, the house judiciary committee drafts and recommends articles of impeachment to the full house for a vote. then we are into constitutional territory. of course, constitution tells us the house shall have the sole power of impeachment. and that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors constitutes an impeachable offense. >> each one. >> exactly. separately. and they can vote some yes and some no. that actually happened in the bill clinton case. now, in the house it requires a majority. how does that look right now? there's 223 democrats. they can lose 15 democratic votes and still pass these articles of kpeechlimpeachment.
if and when they do, we are over to the senate. so in the senate, the constitution tells us the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. there will be a trial in the senate. this will be the third one we've ever had in our history. first, who could forget andrew johnson in 1868. then bill clinton in 1999. this will be the third. a couple of interesting things in the way it works. john roberts will preside. he's going to have to come down and preside over this the way a normal trial judge would. the senators, all 100 of them, serve as your juror. different from their 12-person criminal jury. probably members of the house of representatives. bill clinton had a change of white house counsel. >> he had one of his main people arguing for him. >> when the trial is over in the senate, the senate will vote.
comes out to 67 senators. we've got 53 republicans, 45 democrats, plus 2 independents who caucus with the democrats. there would need to be 20 republicans flipping over to convict. if the president is convicted, he is removed from office and he is disqualified. when does that happen? immediately. the day the vote happens, he's out. the vice president would be mike pence gets sworn in as president. you said i could ask you trivia question. how do you fill the vice president of fwrs? the 25th amendment tells us the new president chooses and it fwoez to congress. you need a majority of both the house and senate. how many times has that been done to fill the spot. >> it was nelson rockefeller. >> and gerald ford right before him too. you get a b-plus. >> all right. just to be clear, the senate trial, who sets the rules for the senate trial? >> the senate is the majority. so mitch mcconnell is going to set the rules. they have roberts there who will be an arbiter.
>> last time daschle did it together. there's every reason mcconnell wants to work with schumer. >> it will be in everyone's interest if this is not just a political circus. >> professor, always a pleasure. thank you very much. despite the evidence that has been presented over the past two weeks, republicans appear ironclad in their support of president trump. will their strategy change as the senate prepares for an impeachment trial? we discuss with two former republican lawmakers. how are republicans feeling this morning? find great gifts at great prices.
. based on questions and statements i've heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is a pucfictional narrativ. >> that was former white house national security official fiona hill accusing the republicans of believing conspiracy their orie. so after two weeks how are republicans feeling this morning? joining us now we have former
fwr gop congressmen. charlie, let me start with you. >> good morning. >> good morning. how are you feeling this morning? what did you hear over the past two weeks that most stood out to you? charlie? >> well, i guess i'd have to say fiona hill's comments yesterday were very powerful. and what struck me most was they all seem to be supporting each other's statements. they've corroborated everything. i mean, it's clear there was a quid pro quo. it's clear the president used his office to solicit a foreign head of fwogovernment to get opposition research. he question is does this rise to the level of impeachment? >> and shawn, were you troubled by the psalm things? or were you troubled by what you heard over the past two weeks? >> listen, i never liked the phone call. i never thought the phone call was perfect. but do i think the phone call was impeachable? i don't. but in regard to dr. hill, i thought republicans did a very good job of saying, listen. we're the one who is came out in the intelligence community and
said, of course, in our report, the russians tried to influence our elections. democrats didn't sign on with that report to america on russian influence. >> i think she was obviously referring to the president doesn't seem to believe it. but more over, sean, what about the -- let's see if we can agree on the facts. let's see if we agree this morning on the facts we've learned over the past two weeks. gordon sondland said yes there was a quid pro quo. gordon sondland said everyone was in the loop. gordon sondland said it was directed by the president. and he had evidence to support that and so did others. is that what you heard, sean? >> well, i heard him say he presumed that it was a quid pro quo. he had no direct knowledge is what i heard him say. >> well, he did talk to the president. he did have that phone call with the president where the president said and they're going to do the investigations, right? you know, i know that republicans seem to be hanging their hat on the presumption thing, but he seemed to have a lot of firsthand experience.
>> well, then they ought to call -- >> but that's what gordon said -- they presumed there was a quid pro quo but there was no direct you give me this and they get that conversation with the president. is that the testimony was. >> you hear that from your republican colleagues, charlie. what's the answer for that? >> there was clearly a this for that. you do this, the investigation, and you'll get that, the $400 million in military assistance and perhaps a white house meeting. i think it was clear. and the fact that gordon sondland, you know, he was carrying the president's water on this. he was having direct communications with the president. you know, holmes overheard the conversation. and if there's anything ambiguity about what was occurring hear, then simply bring in the secretary of state and ask who is running the ukraine policy and what was it. i think we know the answers here. >> go ahead, sean. >> and i'm not arguing the quid
pro quo. you asked agreeable facts. i wanted to go back to sondland's testimony. but there's two prongs to what we look at with -- because quid pro quo is not the issue. it's what was the quid pro quo about if there was one. and we had one prong that said donald trump was using taxpayer money for political gain, personal gain in the u.s. that is one prong. but you have to admit charlie and alisyn that the other prong is we've had testimony that burisma was corrupt, the owners of burisma were corrupt, and joe biden's son worked for burisma, made millions of dollars. had no experience in the ukraine. and his dad joe biden -- hold on. let me finish. >> quickly. >> but the second prong is that the vice president was running ukrainian policy. and is there -- does it smell like potential corruption there and should we investigate it? that's the second prong. i think we have to look at both of them. >> i'm just curious, sean. if that's the second prong that
you believe in, then why didn't president trump want to investigate it in 2017? 2018? why did he only start being interested in burisma only after joe biden got into the race? >> listen, i don't know. i don't know what information the president had in regard to the decisions that he made. but i'm sure that had he known in 2017 or 2018, he probably would have asked for the investigation. >> i doubt it. i doubt it, sean. look. he wanted to investigate the jbs because biden was a candidate. that's why they did it. what hunter biden did, that smells to high heaven. we all know that. it's terrible. that said, we're talking about actions of the president of the united states, not a private citizen hunter biden. it was the president who used his office and its resources to solicit an investigation by a foreign official of his opponent.
and in exchange for that foreign assistance. i was chairman of the ethics committee. if a member of congress had done this, the department of justice would be all over them. we all know it. >> do you agree with that fact, sean? >> well, i think if charlie had a member of congress that had been redistricted together and that member of congress that he was running against was engaging in potential corruption, would charlie seek an investigation? of course he would. because that's his job. so i look at, you know, what's going on with burisma versus personal gain. i think the president has every right to take a look and ask for an investigation. now, i would see the point that he should have gone to the department of justice. that would have been the appropriate path. but is it an impeachable path to say, hey, you should help us out on this potential corruption? absolutely not. joe biden does not get blanket exemptions from the investigations -- >> one more question i have about this. if you're upset about hunter biden making money in ukraine, are you also upset by all the
money rudy giuliani has made in y ukraine? >> i don't know what money giuliani's made -- >> well, he's conducted with lev parnas accused of funneling money into u.s. elections. and you know that parnas and rudy giuliani were working together. do you know that? >> first of all, i guess i haven't spent a lot of time on what those connections are and how much rudy has made. but i think all of us on the panel this morning are opposed to corruption anywhere and everywhere. now, if president trump had withheld a billion dollars to make sure yl giuliani was making money, that's a problem. and joe biden withheld a billion dollars to the ukraine. we all agree ukraine need -- >> you're mixing narratives. that was actual foreign policy. >> at the same time his son was making huge dollars for a corrupt energy company in the ukraine. >> uh-huh. here's what's interesting, sean.
this secretary of defense on may 23rd had looked into corruption in ukraine and whether or not they were worthy of receiving this military aid and these u.s. dollars. and here is what fwrs and this defense department and the secretary of state concluded on may 23rd. i'll read it to you. on behalf of the secretary of defense and in coordination with the secretary of state i certified the government of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining the improvements enabled by the u.s. assistance. so after that, president trump made his own unilateral decision to hold up those dollars. >> by the way, wish i -- charlie and i both understand this. we both agree that money gets held up all the time.
and the real critical point was the end of the fiscal year. the money would have had to go by the end of september of 2019. and so the president was fully within his authority on when the money was released. i want to point out one other thing. ron johnson from wisconsin pounted out in his push to make sure that ukraine got aid. he was in opposition to the president. he wanted the aid to flow. he thought it was important. also it was a late august call he had with the president before there was any investigation going on. the president said i think you're bo i think to like my decision in releasing the aid to the ukraine. i would note that's the way the president talks saying i'm going to release the aid. >> when the investigation began after the whistle-blower came forward after congress began -- >> no, it wasn't. >> yes, it was. >> no. that conversation was in ron johnson's -- no. the conversation that ron johnson wrote in his letter happened at the end of september
before there was any word of any whistle-blower or any investigation. >> if corruption is actually the issue, you know, engaged -- we provide aid to egypt. there's corruption there. is he wanting to hold aid from them? of course not. what about saudi arabia? turkey? pakistan? why ukraine? which is actually a democracy. >> do you have an answer quickly, sean? >> i think the president has noted that the ukraine is one of the most corrupt places on earth. the president doesn't like foreign aid. but -- >> not more than those other countries. >> we can all agree i don't like the way this -- charlie and i don't like the way this has played out. but i think if you look at the way this is playing in american politics, there was just a poll in wisconsin that shows that now only 40% of wisconsinites support impeachment. 53% are opposed. >> to be clear, you don't like
how this played out -- >> chiropractodemocrats -- >> we have to wrap. but you're not comfortable with the phone call. you don't like a lot of this. but you don't think it rises to the level of impeachment. that's what i hear you saying, sean. yes or no? >> so i think -- yes, you're right. i don't luk it. i think there is justification. but i don't think this comes anywhere near like will hurd has gone. >> yep. >> and charlie, you think it is. >> if this doesn' rise to the level of impeachment, i don't know what does. it's pretty bad. >> on that note, thank you both very much for giving us an insight into this. students in syracuse university staging a huge walkout after a string of racist incidents. today we're learning of an arrest but it might not stop the unrest. we have a louvre report ahead.
new this morning, police have arrested a freshman at syracuse university following a series of racist incidents that prompted protests and a sit in on campus this week. polo sandoval live in syracuse to explain what's going on there. this is serious stuff, polo. >> reporter: serious stuff and the university is certainly acknowledging that yesterday we were at that student health and fitness center as these students decided to end that eight-day occupancy of that space, a peaceful protest. but they say they're calling for the resignation of the chancellor. they say even though he signed onto some of their recommendations, they're still not satisfied. they don't have complete confidence in the way he's handled this string of racist incidents. before that announcement was made, we caught up with one university official who said there does need to be changes made and students can expect that in the future. >> there's hate in the world. syracuse university is not immune to that. but i think our student demands
and the solutions that they offered were not necessarily tied to this incident. this was -- they actually went much deeper than that and identified areas that we can help make this place home for all of our students in a better way. >> reporter: with this protest over now, what happens next? students head home for fall break, but they are hoping for even more victories in the future. they are continuing to put pressure on university officials. mainly the chancellor. >> polo, thank you very much for your reporting from syracuse yaufrt for us. now to this horrible story. in less than two hours, a former boston college student will be indicted over her boyfriend's suicide. prosecutors say her abusive behavior coerced him into taking his life. alexander field joins us with more on this. >> reporter: a devastating story. we are talking about a 22-year-old man, a boston college student who died on the
morning of his graduation by suicide. prosecutors have been looking at what happened in the two months leading up to his death. they are now charging his girlfriend, a south korean national, with involuntary manslaughter. that is based on their reading of 75,000 text messages exchanged between the couple. prosecutors say they have seen a clear pattern of verbal, mental, physical, psychological abuse demon strauted by these messages in which they say she was aware of his spiraling depression and suicidal thoughts but she sent messages saying go kill yourself and die. releasing just a smattering of the messages exchanged which seemed to suggest that she also tried to stop her boyfriend on the morning of his death. he writes dpood bgood-bye in a mess and and she said stop.
i'm begging you please i'm almost there. please, please, please. prosecutors still say the pattern of abuse only intensified in the days before his death. his family has said they are respecting the court process. they say they can't say any more app this point because the pain is too fresh. >> thank you for your reporting. back to politics. how are swing state voters reacting to the impeachment hearings? cnn talks to suburban voters outside of philadelphia next. orlando isn't just the theme park capital of the world, it also has the highest growth in manufacturing jobs in the us. it's a competition for the talent. employees need more than just a paycheck. you definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2/3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions. the workplace should be a source of financial security.
keeping your people happy is what keeps your people. that's financial wellness. put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™.
and let me tell you something, rodeo... i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit.
other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too.
trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better. time for cnn business now. chinese president xi jinping says china wants to work out phase -- the phase 1 trade deal with the united states. but it is not afraid to fight a trade war. our chief business correspondent christine romans here with that. romans? >> it's the same, will they get a trade deal with china debate that has gripped markets for months now. the south china market post and reuters report the china post told reporters in beijing, when necessary, we will fight back, but we have been working actively not to have a trade war. time is rung out. tariffs on $115 billion in chinese-made consumer goods are slated for december 15th. in washington, a source familiar with the state of play says the white house is considering two options. the first, the president puts more tariffs on chinese goods
next month and lets the current tariffs stand. the source says to defend american workers from chinese aggression. the second option is a mini deal the source called not skinny, but anorexic. soybean purchases from china and more access to chinese financial markets. that's something wall street wants in exchange for what the chinese wants, rolling back september tariffs and canceling new tariffs scheduled for december. now, none of this is the course correction the president sought at the outset. and this week, he blamed the chinese and seemed to favor option 1, more tariffs. >> china would much rather make a trade deal than i would. >> and why haven't they? >> because i haven't wanted to do it yet. >> and why haven't you wanted to do it? >> because i don't think they're stepping up to the level that i want. >> and the president is said to believe there is room to stand tough on china, partly because talks have been resilient because the trade war started. since trump announced the first tariffs on steel and aluminum exports, the dow is up almost
13%, the s&p up almost 16%. the mood for this morning, hopes for a deal. looking at futures, they had been leaning higher here. guys? >> thank you very much, christine, for all of that. so after two weeks of impeachment hearings, how do voters in battleground states feel? cnn's vanessa yerkavich spoke with the all-important suburban voters outside of philadelphia. >> good morning, everybody. talking a little politics. want to know what you think about the impeachment hearings. >> reporter: the morning rush to philadelphia, with impeachment on the mind. >> it's a big show and i think we're just wasting taxpayers' money. >> no matter their political party, voters here in the suburbs are paying attention. from the airwaves -- >> it would be thrown out in any courtroom, put it that way. >> nothing there there, huh? >> no. >> to the warailways. >> i'm totally convinced he's committed a crime. >> reporter: a narrow victory in pennsylvania helped deliver the white house to donald trump in
2016. democrats here now on offense, with strong voter turnout in local elections earlier this month, helping them score victories in three suburban philadelphia counties. >> now that we are a thoroughly blue county, for the first time in 150 years, that may portend trouble for the president next year. >> oh, there we go. >> reporter: jane young and her friends have been glued to the hearings for the past two weeks. >> for the opening statements, we're not talking. >> that's not going to happen. you invited the wrong person. >> okay, shh. >> reporter: at her watch party in delaware county, four democrats and one independent, all believe the president has committed a crime. >> we're talking about acceptance of law, and we're determining what our laws are now. so are we going to accept this is practice now or not accept this is practice? >> i think that we're ahead of the congressional hearings. we believed it before they walked in the room and produced the witnesses. >> reporter: across town, alexo and valerie bell. >> it's not supposed to be a few people picking the leaders of the country. >> right. >> reporter: alexo, a staunch
trump supporter, his wife, valerie, an independent, who's not a fan of the president. >> have you discussed the impeachment inquiry? >> i know where she stands, you know what i mean? she would like to see him get the boot, you know? and i wouldn't. so, it's kind of a moot point to even talk about it. >> reporter: while respecting each other's opinions is key to their marriage, there's no love lost on their distinct views on impeachment. >> i think the democrats are grasping at straws wherever they can. >> i just think you have to hold the president to a higher standard. and i think it doesn't look good, it doesn't have good optics. >> reporter: now, the vast majority of voters we spoke to in pennsylvania say they do not beli believe the president will be removed from office. they say the 2020 election will ultimately decide his fate. and john and alisyn, we spent a lot of time talking to voters there. we only found one who knows who they'll be voting for, that will be president trump. and the others we spoke to still
very much undecided. do not know yet, even on the democratic side, who they'll be voting for in 2020. >> those might be some of the most decisive and important voters in the country. vanessa, thank you very much for being with us. i appreciate it. to say the president's impeachment defenses have been shifting is an understatement. our reality check team is counting down the dozen we have time for, starting with this. >> was there a quid pro quo? the answer is "yes". >> and with that damning bit of testimony, ambassador gordon sondland killed off one of team trump's biggest talking points. his very presence undercut another defense, because this million-dollar trump donor could never credibly called a never-trumper. but let's go back to the beginning, because it all started with denial. the president tweeting, is anybody dumb enough to believe i would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader? well, yes. and trump's own release of the transcript knocked that one off. so the next move? just clam up. >> did you discuss joe biden, his son, or his family with the
leader -- >> it doesn't matter what i discussed. i don't even know exactly who you're talking about. >> but that couldn't be sustained forever. so it became the perfect call. >> it was a perfect call. >> an absolutely perfect phone conversation. it was perfect! >> and if that's the case, then the whistle-blower had to be wrong, right? >> well, the whistle-blower was very inaccurate -- >> well, i have news, get over it. then there was america's crash course in latin. >> no quid pro quo. >> when it appeared that ukraine didn't know military aid was being withheld, there goes the quote. >> you can haven't a quid pro quo with no quo. >> it turns out ukraine did know, so scratch that. then came the testimonies. the gop complains that they were being held behind closed doors. >> what we see in this
impeachme impeachment. >> what we see is a kangaroo court and chairman schiff is acting like a malicious captain kangaroo. >> captain kangaroo had nothing to do with kangaroo courts. >> this would have been far better off if we would have taken care of this behind the scenes. >> it's all secondhand information, right? >> i've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this. >> then witnesses with firsthand information testified the same wa way. >> so kiss that one good-bye. as long as we're on jim jordan, by the way, call this one the brick tambalin. >> when did that happen? >> never did. >> never did! >> i don't know what we're yelling about! >> when all the testimonies basically said he did it, it was time for this defense. >> attempted bribery isn't in the constitution. >> abuse of power is not a crime. >> okay, that man briefly ran our justice department. and solicitation of bribery is literally part of the statute. so then they tried to let trump off the hook, because he got
caught before he could pull it off. there was also plenty of project and deflect, fixation on hunter biden, and the idea that it was democrats that were colluding with ukraine, to which fiona hill said, this is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated by the russians themselves. >> so back to denial as the official position of the white house, and fox news, at least judging by this giant banner. as this heads to the senate, it looks like there's one defense left. okay, he did it, it's bad, but not impeachable. and anyone who signs on to that defense will be given the green light to all future presidents to use foreign powers to investigate their domestic political rivals. and that's your reality check. >> john avlon, i'm going to say it. >> that was great. and it was more than just loud noises. you know, that was fantastic! >> so no captain kangaroo, but mr. green jeans, very suspicious. >> always very suspicious. >> always. >> thank you. >> no one wears green jeans. just saying. >> thank you to our international viewers for
watching. for you, "cnn newsroom" with max foster is next. for u.s. viewers, the democrats moving closer to an impeachment vote. "new day" continues right now. this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to your "new day." it's friday, november 22nd, 8:00 now in the east. it has been quite an historic two weeks. and we know much more today than we did at the start of those two weeks. >> 12 witnesses providing tons of evidence that president trump tried to use military -- u.s. military aid to ukraine for his own political gain. one of the final witnesses, well, all sides agree on impeachment. >> looking ahead, what
Uploaded by TV Archive on