[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. The House of Representatives will vote later today on a resolution calling on Mike Pence and the cabinet to remove President Trump from office on 25th Amendment grounds of being unfit to serve. We will have live coverage of those House proceedings at six o'clock here on WNYC. That is likely to fail, however, without much Republican support expected. Then, a second impeachment debate and vote is considered likely tomorrow or Thursday. We'll have live coverage of that on the station that will preempt the show beginning tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM, the expected new impeachment proceedings.

The single article of impeachment that's been drafted accuses President Trump of incitement to insurrection and may use his evidence. This from the White House news conference in September when a reporter asked a straightforward question.

?Speaker: Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

President Trump: Well, we're going to see what happens.

Brian: Then there was this question from Chris Wallace of Fox News in the presidential debate a few days later, still in September.

Chris Wallace: Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period not to engage in any civil unrest and will you pledge tonight that you will not declare victory until the election has been independently certified? President Trump, you go first.

President Trump: I'm urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully.

Brian: There was this famous moment from the president in that same debate on the topic of political violence.

President Trump: What do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name. [crosstalk] Go ahead. Who would you like me to condemn? Bad boys, stand back and stand by.

Brian: Then at the DC rally that became the Capitol riot, Donald Trump Jr, supporting his father, said this.

Trump Jr: We're coming for you and we're going to have a good time doing it.

Brian: Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said this.

Rudy Giuliani: If we are wrong, we will be made fools, us, but if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail.

[cheering]

Rudy: Let's have trial by combat.

Brian: Well, Trump may need that trial by combat lawyer for another impeachment trial, but evidence notwithstanding, Republicans are not likely to vote to remove him a second time, much more than they did the first time. The president spoke publicly this morning for the first time since last Wednesday's events and he said people are saying what he said was appropriate and he called the new impeachment proceedings another witch-hunt. What could impeachment accomplish? We'll discuss that and more now with USA Today Washington Bureau chief, Susan Page. Hi, Susan. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Page: Hey, Brian. It's great to be back with you.

Brian: How is this 25th Amendment resolution going to be introduced and debated first?

Susan: Well, we expect a long day in the Capitol tonight. We expect that to come up on the floor tonight, but this is not what I think people and supporters feel is really the important legislation because of the unlikelihood that Mike Pence is going to step forward and get rid of his boss. Instead, I think the attention is really on the impeachment resolution which could get voted on tomorrow.

Brian: Why are Republicans, before we go on to the impeachment proceedings, opposing this at this point, calling on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment given everything they know? You can tell me, as a Washington Bureau Chief, everything they're probably saying in private about Trump's state of mind.

Susan: Well, most of them taking the Republican side which would be to defend the president to say it's not necessary to push him out of power just eight days before his term is going to be up. During the discussion, I saw Tom Cole make this point that the Constitution doesn't really give Congress a role to ask Pence to do this. The Constitution gives the power to the vice president to convene the cabinet and get a majority vote that would declare the president unable to fulfill the duties of his office. Congress is trying to offer a little encouragement that is not necessary into the constitutional system.

Brian: Assuming they do go on to impeachment proceedings tomorrow, how quickly will this happen? We remember the detailed presentation of evidence and arguments by both sides in the impeachment hearings over Ukraine.

Susan: Don't blink because it's going to be really fast. The Democrats are almost entirely united that House Democrats, the passage of the impeachment resolution is the right thing to do. Of course, they have the numbers to pass it since Democrats control the House. One thing we're watching is how many Republicans might join them. No Republicans joined them last time around with the first impeachment. Now, Liz Cheney, that congresswoman from Wyoming, number three in the Republican House leadership has said this is a matter of conscience so that Republican members can [unintelligible 00:05:33] vote their conscience. There's not a party line under that language.

We're watching to see if she will vote in favor of impeachment. We know that some others will. Current thinking is maybe 10 to 20 Republican members of the House will vote in favor of the president's impeachment. That's not most of them, but it's still a sign of the fracturing we're seeing in the GOP right now.

Brian: What are the politics of that for those Republican members and their districts as you say no Republicans in the House voted for impeachment the first time around? What's changed for them as individuals?

Susan: Well, some may be voting their conscience. They may be feeling that things have changed in the wake of the assault on the Capitol, the insurrection that we saw last Wednesday. Some from districts that are more swing districts, more purple districts may think this makes political sense to put a little bit of distance between them and the president. The attack last Wednesday was shocking to almost everyone who serves in Congress. That was shocking I think not just to Democrats, but also to Republican members.

Brian: They would need 67 votes in the Senate to convict and thereby remove the president from office. Around 17 Republicans there, any chance given all we know this time around?

Susan: Not much chance. We certainly haven't seen the wholesale defection of Republican senators that would be necessary for that to happen, but we think we will see potentially more Republican votes for impeachment for conviction than we saw last time. Especially Democrats in the House are making the argument that even if conviction is highly unlikely, it is important, they feel, for them to take a stand and say, "This was unacceptable. It deserves history's rebuke."

Brian: Listeners who has a question or a comment on the new impeachment proceedings expected to begin tomorrow morning or anything else going on in Washington six days after the insurrection for Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today, 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280, or you can tweet a comment or a question @BrianLehrer. Susan, let me ask you to go deeper on your last answer.

What did Democrats think they'll gain from another impeachment very much along party lines, even if not as completely as last time as you were describing and another failed trial in the Senate rather than just avoid the binary yes or no votes on these things and letting the president's reputation sink on its own weight with arguably fewer Republican defenders without an impeachment binary?

Susan: I think that House Democrats would say to you that impeachment is the fiercest, strongest reaction available to them to say to this president and all future presidents that this behavior is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and must be responded to in the strongest possible way. The House can't control what the Senate does. That was a point that Speaker Pelosi made last time around, that the decision about whether the House would move forward to impeachment did not depend solely on whether it was likely they could get the Senate to vote to convict.

The House is its own body. This is the strongest thing they can do to what many see as the worst offense by a president, at least since the Civil War, maybe ever. I think we are still digesting just how dramatic and perilous and historic and alarming Wednesday's activity was, sinking into many of us. Apparently, not sinking into the president judging by his comments in the last hour in which he took no responsibility for what happened. Insisted he had done nothing wrong and said that his incendiary comments in that rally before those rioters marched up to the Hill were seen as appropriate by everyone to a T, that is not a statement that is accurate.

Brian: Not a statement that is accurate, but is it a statement that you think a lot of Republicans will find themselves digging in on along the lines of, "Well, he told people to go to the Capitol, but he didn't tell them to break into the Capitol."

Susan: Some Republicans are now openly critical of the president. Many others are silent. It is really hard to find defenders of the president right now among Republicans on Capitol Hill. I think there is an acknowledgement that even Republicans who offered a defense of the president along these lines, he's appointed conservative jurists. He had a strong economy up until COVID-19 hit. He helped change US policy toward China.

Even when they point to things they see as big accomplishments, they do not defend or even really excuse what has happened in the months since the election, since he has refused to accept the outcome of a democratic election and ended in violence last week. Some are silent, but there are very few defenders. I can't actually think of the defender at the moment.

Brian: Though a majority will vote against impeachment, it sounds like a majority of Republicans. There is reporting that House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy opposes impeachment, but says he holds the president partly responsible for the insurrection last week and might support a central resolution. Can you confirm any of that?

Susan: Well, I cannot confirm that, but based on my own reporting, we do have an account in Axios this morning of quite a remarkable phone call between Kevin McCarthy and the president. Axios reports that Kevin McCarthy tried to push back to the president's assertions that he won the election. McCarthy told him according to this account that he had lost it. When the president said, "It wasn't my folks who are doing the violence, it was Antifa," McCarthy pushed back on that as well saying, "It wasn't Antifa, it was MAGA. I was there."

Brian: It's amazing that the president would even say that at this point and it goes to his state of mind either that he's just lying even to Kevin McCarthy, or that he's really diluted himself to that degree.

Susan: Yes, and that is an alarming question, especially for someone who will continue to be president with all the powers of the office for eight more days.

Brian: Where are the Democrats on Center, by the way, if they could get something bipartisan on that rather than impeachment?

Susan: There was talk of Center last time as well, but my reporting indicates that most Democrats find that not enough. Center doesn't have the historic force of impeachment. There's some centrists in both parties who find center a middle ground that, as you say, would be more bipartisan, it would be quicker, it would be less disruptive to the first days of Joe Biden's presidency.

I think at this moment, when you look at the death of a Capitol Hill police officer, when you look at the apparent efforts by some of the rioters to take members of Congress hostage, that's the reason we think they brought zip ties with them to Capitol Hill. I think the idea of making some compromise on Center, whether impeachment, it's hard for me to see that flying. There are no signs that Nancy Pelosi is thinking that would be good enough.

Brian: Rita in Somerset, you're on WNYC with Susan Page. Hi, Rita.

Rita: Hi, Brian. Hi, Susan. My thing is I think there is an amendment called 14th Amendment which would bar President Trump from running for public office. I understand that that would be by a simple majority, not just two-thirds. Wouldn't that be easier? The second point would be what about the financial implications? Why should the taxpayers be liable for all the damage that was done to the Capitol to get it fixed, as well as extra hours that we have to do manpower for people to come and rescue the people, the Capitol Police? Why not sue the Trump campaign for all the money that was being spent?

Brian: Rita, thank you very much. What about the 14th Amendment aspect and whether that could be done in a simple majority rather than requiring two-thirds of the Senate?

Susan: Fortunately, I'm not a lawyer. I've seen some discussion of the 14th Amendment. Nancy Pelosi mentioned it, actually referred to it in her interview with 60 Minutes, but I think that this was a provision that was directed at people during the Civil War. Is that right? I'm not sure how it works. Those who are talking about what to do on Capitol Hill, I haven't heard much talk about the 14th Amendment, but I would really refer you to constitutional lawyers instead of journalists.

Brian: Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which says, no elected official "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion." More words from that, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress made by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Wow. There's a lot of double negatives and stuff in there, but what I think it says is that nobody who's engaged in insurrection may be elected again, and Congress would have to absolve them of that by a two-thirds majority. Of course, that means that he would need to be charged with insurrection in some other form.

Susan: Yes. We know how he can get out of it, two-thirds vote of Congress, but who imposes the penalty would be the question to me that I would have.

Brian: Here's another two-thirds of the Senate question that a few people on the board have. I'm going to allow Magda in Brooklyn Heights to be the asker. Hi, Magda, you're on WNYC.

Magda: Good morning. How are you?

Brian: Good. Thank you.

Magda: Oh, good. From something I saw on TV the other day, I believe that it doesn't have to be 67 senators as long as it's two-thirds of the Senate. If a lot of the Republicans happened to call in that day, coincidentally, call in sick, that they would then have all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans which would be more than the two-thirds. Is that correct?

Brian: Are you suggesting that it would be a way for Republicans to support the removal of the president without having to say so?

Magda: That seemed to be the implication from what I saw on TV a couple of days ago.

Brian: Susan, any chance?

Susan: It sounds a little too cute by half, in that if a Republican senator chooses to say, "Gee, I'm caught in traffic. I can't make it to the impeachment vote," no one in the Republican Party or in the electorate is going to believe that. It was a way not to have to cast a vote. They would have all the political penalty of having not sided with the president and none of the character, none of the praise that some would give them for standing up to the president. That just seems unlikely to me. Although I've been frequently wrong in the past, who knows, Magda. Maybe that'll turn out to be what happens.

Brian: Let me ask you about the sudden resignation of acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf. It comes, of course, as the FBI is warning of these threats of armed demonstrations at every state capitol as well as in DC. Why did Chad Wolf resign?

Susan: We can see why he said he resigned which was recent events, including lawsuits to question whether he was appropriately named to the job. It bakes a question a bit because we had seen other officials, of course, including two other cabinet officials resigned basically in protest of the events of last Wednesday, but that's not the reason that Chad Wolf gave in his resignation letter.

The timing does seem unfortunate, given that we're about to have these big events in Washington that have now shut down downtown. We're going to have 15,000 National Guard troops. They're encouraging people not to come to town. This is going to be quite the scene in Washington for the next nine days. It would seem like a good time to have somebody in charge of the Homeland Security Department.

Brian: Who was minding the National Security store without him?

Susan: I believe the head of FEMA is now the acting head of that department.

Brian: Maria in Hurley, New York, you're on WNYC. Hi, Maria. Thanks for calling.

Maria: Thank you, Brian. You've led up to a lot of the things that you've fueled what I've said when you talked about the 14th Amendment. I definitely believe in impeachment. I think this man has to be reprimanded for his rebuke of the Constitution. I definitely support removal, but I think this is a very surgical tactic. We need to go beyond Trump and get at all of the senators and House representatives that made this thing happen, either they promoted it or they were at the interaction. They took oath. You just sat there.

I have to go back to Matt Gaetz dorming the secure room during the impeachment. He was not on the committee that was eligible to be in that secure room and yet, he blatantly just cavalierly went in and broke security.

Brian: Maria, I'm going to leave it there because we're going to run out of time for the show in 30 seconds. If they're going to hold Trump responsible for some of his language, what about people like Paul Gosar, congressman from Arizona who tweeted, "Biden should concede. I want his concession on my desk tomorrow morning, don't maybe come over there," or Mo Brooks who was at the rally and said, "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking blank." Are they next?

Susan: Well, there's a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about what to do about some of these members. One possibility that's being raised is referring it to the ethics committees for investigations. I think that's just one of the things we're going to have to see what happens once the impeachment of the president is over.

Brian: Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Susan, thanks a lot.

Susan: Hey, thank you, Brian.

Brian: One more time, we'll have live coverage of the 25th Amendment resolution debate beginning at six o'clock tonight and we are expecting to be preempted tomorrow for live coverage of the impeachment proceedings beginning at 9:00 AM.

Copyright © 2020 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.