PBS NewsHour full episode, Jan 21, 2020


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The most important question
is the question you must answer today. Will the president and the American people
get a fair trial? JUDY WOODRUFF: The impeachment trial of President
Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate opens the next phase of its historic
session. We break down the day’s highlights. Then: A world away from Washington, President
Trump arrives in Davos, Switzerland, touting the U.S. economy and denying the risks of
the climate crisis. Plus: amid a humanitarian catastrophe, a fragile
life for those who survive — heartbreak and hope in Northern Syria. GIRL (through translator): In my village,
I used to play with my friends at school. My friends were killed in an airstrike, and
I survived, then came here. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: It has been all impeachment
all afternoon in the United States Senate. The lawmakers have spent hours now debating
the rules that will govern the trial of President Trump. Nick Schifrin begins our coverage. NICK SCHIFRIN: For the first time this century… JOHN ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court: You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you
God? NICK SCHIFRIN: And only the third time in
150 years. MICHAEL STENGER, U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms:
All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Senate launched a presidential
impeachment trial. White House counsel Pat Cipollone: PAT CIPOLLONE, White House Counsel: The only
conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong, and that these
articles of impeachment do not begin to approach the standard required. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lead House manager and House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff: REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Conduct that abuses the
power of his office for personal benefit, that undermines our national security, that
invites foreign interference in our democratic process of an election, it is the trifecta
of constitutional misconduct, justifying impeachment. NICK SCHIFRIN: At question, whether President
Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations into the 2016 election
and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden by withholding nearly $400 million in
military aid that Ukraine needs in its conflict with Russia, and whether President Trump obstructed
Congress by refusing to hand over documents and blocking senior officials from testifying. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: The president places himself
beyond accountability, above the law, cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. It makes him a monarch, the very evil against
which our Constitution and the balance of powers it carefully laid out was designed
to guard against. NICK SCHIFRIN: Four thousand miles away, President
Trump joined world leaders in Davos at the world’s premiere economic forum. He predicted his exoneration. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
And I’m in Europe today because we’re bringing a lot of other companies into our country
with thousands of jobs, millions of jobs in many cases. So, that whole thing is a total hoax. So, I’m sure it’s going to work out fine. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senators voting on the trial
rules. Originally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
wanted each side to present for 24 total hours across two days. Under pressure from some moderate Republicans,
he changed that to 24 total hours across three days. He also allowed the House impeachment investigation
to be admitted as evidence. The rules allow for several initial trial
stages, opening presentations for each side, senators’ written questions, and then a vote
on allowing additional evidence and witnesses. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It sets up a structure
that is fair, even-handed and tracks closely with past precedents that were established
unanimously. NICK SCHIFRIN: That was echoed by President
Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow. JAY SEKULOW, Attorney for President Donald
Trump: So, we believe that what Senator McConnell has put forward provides due process, allows
the proceedings to move forward in an orderly fashion. NICK SCHIFRIN: In 1999, at this stage of President
Clinton’s impeachment, senators approved the process 100-0. This time, the vote is expected to be partisan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused
Republicans of manipulating the Clinton trial rules. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Now Leader McConnell
has just said he wants to go by the Clinton rules. Then why did he change them in four important
ways, at minimum, to all make the trial less transparent, less clear and with less evidence? NICK SCHIFRIN: Democrats tried, but failed
to amend McConnell’s rules to allow senators to subpoena administration documents and interview
witnesses blocked from House investigators. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: We’re ready. The House calls John Bolton. The House calls John Bolton. The House calls Mick Mulvaney. Let’s get this trial started, shall we? We are ready to present our case. NICK SCHIFRIN: President Trump’s impeachment
was the fastest in history, and Republicans accused Democrats of a rush to judgment against
a president they always wanted impeached. PAT CIPOLLONE: They’re not here to steal one
election. They’re here to steal two elections. It’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous
articles of impeachment. They want to remove President Trump from the
ballot. NICK SCHIFRIN: The trial’s jurors are the
100 members of the Senate. It would take two-thirds of them to convict
and remove the president from office. They cannot speak inside the trial. So, they visited microphones outside. Democrats said the Senate should hear witnesses
who didn’t testify under oath to the House and might criticize President Trump. SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): And I haven’t seen anyone
under oath who’s defended him. A lot of people have defended him not under
oath. But let’s put some people under oath, see
how they do. NICK SCHIFRIN: Most Republicans criticized
the House of Representatives’ investigation and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Because we’re going to
be fair. We’re going to do our job. Let me say it again. The House proceedings were rigged, and Speaker
Pelosi rigged them. They were as rigged — I have said they were
as rigged as a carnival ring toss. NICK SCHIFRIN: But a handful of moderate Republicans
indicated they might be willing to hear from witnesses, including former National Security
Adviser John Bolton, who reportedly called President Trump’s Ukraine policy akin to a
drug deal. SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): Well, I think its important
to hear from John Bolton and perhaps other witnesses, obviously, from both the defense,
as well the prosecution. The right time for that vote, that decision
is after the opening arguments. That’s how the process was carried out during
the Clinton impeachment. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senators are expected to debate
into the evening, and the Democrats are expected to begin the first of their three days of
arguments tomorrow. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: For views now from both ends
of Pennsylvania Avenue, I’m joined by our White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor,
and Lisa Desjardins, who is still at the Capitol. She was in the room today. Hello to both of you. So, Lisa, to you first. Nick was reporting, of course, on this change
that the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, made early in the afternoon in the rules governing
the trial. What is that going to mean exactly going forward? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, it’s very significant
in terms of the calendar. But, first of all, let’s just go over really
quickly what the change does exactly. It moves from up to — it allows each side
up to three days of presentation. It was just two days. And that meant those were going to be two
very long days, possibly going into 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. in the morning. Now that will shorter days ending in the evening. Also, that change meant that any previous
House-gathered evidence will now be admitted as evidence for this trial. That was something that McConnell was going
to require a vote for. Now that evidence, which includes, as you
know, almost 4,000 pages of witness testimony, will be entered into the record as part of
this trial. So, what does it mean for all of us watching
this trial? Well, it means the trial could be a little
bit longer. Let’s look at the schedule going ahead. If they wrap up the rules debate today, as
we expect, we believe this now means the next three days will be when the House managers
and Democrats present their case for removal of the president. Then, Saturday is when we expect the White
— or the president’s team would begin their defense of the president. They could have up to three days. We’re not clear if the White House team, the
president’s team, will choose to have three days. If they do, that will go into the middle of
next week. After that, as Nick reported, senators can
ask written questions. That could take a couple of days. Judy, the bottom line of all this is, now
we have a better idea that this trial could, in fact, wrap up next week toward the end
of next week. But that’s only if they decide not to call
witnesses. And that is very much an open question right
now. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, Lisa, much of — getting
back to what your reporting was all about, much of today was about whether new evidence
should be admitted or whether they’re going to depend on just what the House was able
to determine in its investigation. How is all that turning out? And talk about the precedent for that. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. It’s very important. Both sides are going to say that they have
their case based on precedent. But when you look at this question of witnesses,
one thing that is unique about this trial is the fact that House Democrats would have
liked to have gotten testimony from several White House witnesses and were unable to because
the president blocked them. They are now arguing that he has that privilege,
as an executive. However, the issue here, Judy, is the content. They believe these witnesses, especially John
Bolton, the former national security adviser, and also Mick Mulvaney, acting chief of staff,
have information about what the president was doing. They want to get it. They believe the Senate can compel that testimony. Now, is there precedent for a Senate trial
bringing in new evidence that the House was not able to get? Yes, there actually is that precedent. And what’s more, Judy, when you look at the
rules, it’s very clear that Senate — the Senate 100 years ago, the Senate 40 years
ago said that each Senate determines if they want to call witnesses or not. The question is whether that’s fair and appropriate
here. But, clearly, the framers, the rule makers
for hundreds of years have said the Senate has the right to decide this as it will. New evidence or not, it’s up to each Senate. JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally to you, Lisa, there’s
something you could see there in the Senate chamber that we watching on television or
online couldn’t see. And that is the faces of many of the senators. How were they reacting? What were they doing during this entire thing? LISA DESJARDINS: It’s so unusual to watch
such a silent, completely silent drama from all 100 senators sitting there. You could see, Judy, that this was something
senators took very seriously. All the senators were alert, certainly at
the beginning. I’m told by Daniel Bush, who is now in the
chamber, that, actually, there are many more yawns as the day goes on. But it stood out that some senators are taking
copious notes. Those are some of the swing senators, including
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, also Senator Lindsey Graham. You can tell who’s paying attention the most
alertly. And I think that that’s going to bear out
throughout the trial. We’re going to see questions next week. And how these senators handle this is going
to make a big difference. It is an unusual scene, for sure. It’s hard to describe, but I think it’s most
like sort of watching a church service from afar. One senator said that they thought they would
be OK with 12 hours of listening to this testimony, before they actually had to sit in the chamber
for two hours. And they said they actually think maybe shorter
sessions is going to be better. JUDY WOODRUFF: Huh. All right. Well, we will certainly see in the coming
days. And quickly to you, Yamiche. With this change in the resolution around
how this trial is being conducted, all the push for Democrats, by Democrats, for witnesses,
for evidence, how’s the White House reacting to that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, Democratic aides are
casting this as a major concession by the White House, because they’re so connected
and working so closely with Republicans and Mitch McConnell. This idea now that there’s going to be automatic
evidence taken from the House process and put into the Senate trial means that a lot
of the things that the White House has been saying is unfair and was not part of due process,
thought is all now going to be given as evidence to the Senate. And the other thing to note, as Lisa said,
John Bolton is really figuring out to be a very key person here. And there are reports that the White House
is making — is making plans in case John Bolton does plan to testify or does get to
testify. He said that he would testify if subpoenaed
by the Senate. And that would mean that the White House might
push for John Bolton to testify behind closed doors. But it might also mean that the White House
is, of course, going to continue to try to block witnesses and possibly try to block
John Bolton in another way. But this is a big deal and a big change on
the White House’s side. JUDY WOODRUFF: Separately, Yamiche, we did
here today from the president’s legal counsel and from the deputy legal counsel. We heard from his personal attorney. What are we learning from that about the strategy
that the president wants to put forward here? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: What we learned today is
that the White House legal strategy is going to be really elongating the same defense that
President Trump has been putting up on social media and in interviews. And that is that this was all a perfect call,
that he did nothing wrong, and this is really all about Democrats wanting to both undo the
2016 election, but also wanting to make sure that he doesn’t get reelected in 2020. It was also really interesting to see Pat
Cipollone, the lead White House attorney, up there talking on the Senate floor, because
House Democrats are pushing for him to recuse himself. They say he’s, in fact, a fact witness and
he shouldn’t be involved in the actual trial. The White House has been pushing back on that
idea. And they have also been pushing now that Representative
Adam Schiff, who is the lead Democrat in this trial, that he should actually be recusing
himself. Now, let’s listen to what Marc Short — he’s
the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence — had to say about the process. MARC SHORT, Chief Of Staff to Vice President
Mike Pence: We find the enormous hypocrisy that in the House Intelligence Committee,
you went through a process in which this White House was denied opportunity to have counsel
present, denied opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, denied opportunity to bring their
own witnesses, all because we were told this has to be rushed through as quickly as possible. And yet what you hear from Democrats today
is that Senate Republicans are moving too quickly. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So, a fact-check there. They’re saying that the White House didn’t
have an opportunity to present witnesses or to cross-examine. In fact, the White House decided that they
did not want to be part of the Judiciary Committee process of this. So they’re really mad about the way that the
process went. But they did, in fact, have some input in
the House side. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins,
thank you both. And joining us now is Robert Costa of The
Washington Post. He’s also host of “Washington Week” on PBS. So, hello, Bob. I know you have been talking to folks on both
sides, the White House and the Hill, about this big debate over witnesses, who’s going
to be called, who isn’t. What are you learning? ROBERT COSTA: Beyond the proceedings today,
the real debate on Capitol Hill right now is about witnesses, and will Democrats or
Republicans make any concessions at this point? For now, there’s no agreement. Senate Democrats have proposed they want some
top Trump administration officials, current and former, like John Bolton, to testify. But, so far, Republicans are only moving forward
with floating the idea of trading, for example, Hunter Biden for John Bolton’s testimony. But Democrats are very resistant to this idea. They do not believe Hunter Biden is relevant
to this trial. And they have so far not engaged in talks
with Republicans. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, right now, a standoff is
what — is what it sounds like? ROBERT COSTA: It’s a standoff. But I just filed a story for The Post and
working on a story about how some Democrats may want to start to think about maybe cutting
a deal with Republicans on witnesses. And one thing to pay attention to is, could
Democrats engage on a deal, if not Hunter Biden for John Bolton, some kind of arrangement
where Republicans would get a witness they would want from the Democratic side, Hunter
Biden, Joe Biden, someone related to Burisma in the Ukraine matter, or not? And that’s a choice both parties are going
to have to make. JUDY WOODRUFF: So interesting. And that brings to mind, of course, Joe Biden
himself, who’s in Iowa campaigning right now, while several of his leading rivals in Iowa
are, frankly, stuck in the Senate for this trial. What are you — you have been talking to the
Biden campaign. What are they saying about all this? ROBERT COSTA: Talking to the Biden campaign
in the last few hours, it’s clear they feel good about their standing in Iowa. While some senators are in Washington, Vice
President Biden is in the Hawkeye State talking to voters. They see him moving up in the polls there. even though Senator Sanders and Senator Warren
have done pretty well in recent polls, like the Des Moines Register poll. They’re not paying too much attention to this
witness discussion. They don’t think Republicans are negotiating
in good faith. And so, until this becomes a real possibility
of a Biden family member testifying, they’re not going to engage with it in any serious
way. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Robert Costa reporting
for us, and right now from The Washington Post, Robert, thank you. ROBERT COSTA: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we turn now to several
individuals who have extensive experience working in the Senate and in the House. Martin Paone, the Democratic Senate secretary
from 1995 to 2008, he is a 30-year Senate veteran who sat beside Senator Tom Daschle,
who was then the Senate minority leader during President Clinton’s impeachment trial. He’s now a — currently a senior adviser at
Prime Policy Group here in Washington. Elizabeth Chryst, she was the Republican Senate
secretary from 1995 to 2001. She’s a 26-year Senate veteran. She sat beside Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott at the time during President Clinton’s trial. She’s currently a principal at Congressional
Global Strategies. Margaret Taylor worked on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee from 2013 to 2018 as deputy chief counsel, then as Democratic chief counsel
and deputy staff director. Margaret Taylor was also an attorney at the
Department of State for 10 years. She’s currently a governance studies fellow
at the Brookings Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare. And John Hart, he worked for Congressman Tom
Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, during the Clinton impeachment trial. He’s currently a GOP consultant for Mars Hill
Strategies. He works on congressional campaigns, and he
works for corporate and nonprofit clients. And hello to both — to all of you. You have been here with me during our live
coverage today. We appreciate your sticking around. I know you’re going to be here on into the
evening. But what I want to get a sense from you — and
I will start with you, Marty Paone — right now is, what do you think was accomplished
today? We saw the majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
pull back a little on the rules that he had wanted to employ. What did we learn from that? And does that — is it going to materially
change what unfolds? MARTIN PAONE, Former Democratic Senate Secretary:
Well, time will tell. I mean, Senator McConnell is extremely pragmatic. And he realized he had to make those changes. Probably heard from a number of his colleagues
that he needed to make those changes, and if he did, that they would be OK. So — and you then went on to the first vote
today, and it was a strictly party-line vote. So, right now, it looks like he’s in good
control. We will see how the votes go today and maybe
into tomorrow. But then the key votes will occur next week,
after people have had a chance to give their arguments, both sides, and we will see if
enough Republicans vote with the Democrats to call witnesses. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are you taking away, Elizabeth
Chryst, because it is the case we saw Mitch McConnell pull back a little bit? Then we saw the vote on whether documents
should be subpoenaed from the White House, and the vote was right along party lines,
as Marty Paone just said. ELIZABETH CHRYST, Former Republican Senate
Secretary: I think we expect to see several more of these, unfortunately or fortunately,
depending on how you want to look at it. And, presumably, they will all be party-line. And then, eventually, prior to the close of
business today, hopefully, we will get to see the actual vote on the rules that will
outline the next handful of days, leading up to and including the questioning period
of the senators. And I think it’s important for the viewers
to know that the last time they did this in the Clinton impeachment, there were 150 questions
from various senators. So that’s important to get to that, not just
the statements between the two lawyers and the legal team, to have the senators ask the
questions. And maybe, at that point, is there a need
for more evidence? Is there need for more witnesses? That’s the way it went during the Clinton
trial. And that’s really what the majority leader
is trying to get through today, as long as the day will be. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. And, Margaret Taylor, we’re waiting. We know that they’re trying to settle the
rules questions today. There was another — they were debating the
last time we were able to pay attention to the Senate floor. They were debating another motion — or, rather,
amendment by the minority, by the Democrats, asking for a subpoena of State Department
documents. We expect that’s going to go along a party-line
vote as well. At the end of the day, if it’s all party-line,
what does that tell us? MARGARET TAYLOR, Senior Editor, Lawfare: Well,
it tells us that this proceeding is really turning out along party lines. Just as, you know, in the House, it was largely
a partisan process, it’s looking like it’s now going to be largely a partisan process
in the Senate as well. It’s, I guess, hard to say exactly where we
will be at the end of 24 hours, potentially, of argumentation by both sides, questions
— 16 hours of questions from senators to the parties. It’s hard to say. But, right now, what we what we learned today
is that both sides are really kind of drawing the lines of where — where they are, what
their arguments are going to be, previewing some of their arguments that I’m sure we will
see again. So I think, in addition to being a an argument
about process, it was also a preview of the substantive arguments we’re likely to see
going forward. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, John Hart, party-line so
far, as far as we can see. And yet, as Elizabeth was just saying, there
is going to be an opportunity for questions. Could that tell us something different? JOHN HART, Mars Hill Strategies: Well, it
could conceivably. But I think it’s important to note that the
vote that already happened was 53-47. So, that means they’re 20 votes short of removing
him from office and then about four votes short, because there’s — in a tie, it doesn’t
prevail — of having additional witnesses. So even if Mitt Romney and Susan Collins vote
for additional witnesses, that motion still wouldn’t carry. So we haven’t — we have not seen any movement
or shift from where we were at the beginning of the day. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, to call additional witnesses,
you need how many votes? JOHN HART: You would need 51. JUDY WOODRUFF: You need 51. It’s possible. We know that’s possible. A few — it would take a few Republicans to
join with Democrats for that to happen. We know it’s a possibility. JOHN HART: It’s a possibility, but I think
it’s — at this point, it’s probably unlikely. And there’s been a lot of focus on John Bolton. Well, John Bolton is a wild card as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: This is a White House former
national security… JOHN HART: He’s a former national security
who’s been allegedly at the center of this — of this matter. And he may not say things that are favorable
to Democrats, necessarily. And he may come at a cost of having someone
like Hunter Biden or Joe Biden testify as well. So, it’s not a clear-cut win for Democrats
to get more witnesses. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to talk to all of you
— or ask each one of you about some of the issues that have come up today. And one of them, Marty Paone, is executive
privilege. I mean, you hear — you heard it from the
president’s attorneys, that we’re not — we don’t have to share information. It’s within the president’s prerogative to
keep confidential, privileged conversations privileged and confidential. So how much of a role do we see that playing? MARTIN PAONE: Well, every administration always
tries to wrap themselves around executive privilege to protect themselves from intrusive
Congresses. But, as Mr. Schiff pointed out, the Supreme
Court in the Nixon trial ruled that the body politic — the good of the country was over
— overwhelmed that. So we will just have to see. I mean, I don’t think much will change. As John and Liz has — and everybody has pointed
out, the votes are there. But if — it will be interesting if three
Republicans vote for witnesses. Will the chief justice want to hear witnesses? At that point… JUDY WOODRUFF: If it — you mean if it’s a… MARTIN PAONE: If it was a tie vote. JUDY WOODRUFF: If it’s a tie, and then if
you went from 47 — I mean, from… MARTIN PAONE: Forty-seven to 50. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. MARTIN PAONE: But — anyway, but executive
privilege, Margaret is far more intimate with that subject. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Excuse me. I want to ask you, Margaret, about that. MARGARET TAYLOR: Yes. So, for the viewership here, you saw a lot
of argumentation back and forth on both sides talking about the term executive privilege. And I saw the parties sort of talking past
each other almost. Executive privilege, it is a constitutionally
based privilege, even though it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized it. But it is a limited privilege, as the Supreme
Court has also said. So it’s qualified. It’s limited. And what the House managers are saying here
is, this president has asserted such a sort of broad notion, such an absolute notion,
almost, of executive privilege, so as to obstruct the work of the Congress. And that is really the basis for article two,
the second article of impeachment. And so they’re — they’re talking about it
in a different way on both sides. It’s a little confusing, but that’s sort of
the heart of it, is, the House managers are saying, no, it’s not such an absolute privilege
that there’s no documents and no witnesses. It’s a limited privilege. And that’s how other presidents have used
it, as a limited privilege. This president is using it in an unlimited
way, and that’s unacceptable. JUDY WOODRUFF: Elizabeth, how much of a — how
much of a debate, of a question do you think that is likely to be in coming days? ELIZABETH CHRYST: I’m guessing not much of
a real debate, because there is — they talk past each other, and many of them are not
lawyers. I think it’s just going to basically come
down to, is it fair? Is this process fair? You say it’s not. I say it is, and basically break it down. That’s the way today’s debate has basically
gone. JUDY WOODRUFF: Speaking of fairness, John
Hart, the Democrats keep saying, wait a minute. If you’re saying that we’re going to — we’re
going to have the arguments, and when the arguments are over, then we’re going to have
a vote on whether there should be evidence of witnesses, some people would say that sounds
like putting the cart before the horse. JOHN HART: Well, I think what Republicans
are saying is, it’s the House’s responsibility. When they bring impeachment to the Senate,
they need to bring their case. And what the White House lawyers argued repeatedly
today is that it is not the Senate’s job to redo and relitigate what the House failed
to do. And so that’s — so — and Republicans are
making the point too that Nancy Pelosi withheld the articles of impeachment for 33 days, which
undermines her argument that this is an urgent threat against the Constitution to have President
Trump in office. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Marty Paone, what about
that, I mean, this cart before the horse, if you want to characterize it that way? MARTIN PAONE: Actually, in ’99, the resolution
that was adopted 100-0 pretty much lined it up the same way. You had the 24 hours. You had the 16 hours. You had a Byrd motion to dismiss. And then a House manager made a motion to
call witnesses. And so, McConnell, Senator McConnell is correct
in saying he’s done — he’s tried to replicate that as far as they’re concerned. And so we will see how that goes. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you’re saying that’s not
a strong argument for Democrats to make? Elizabeth — how do you see that, Margaret? MARGARET TAYLOR: So, I think, for Americans
watching this, it’s — the important thing to keep in mind is the respective roles of
the House and Senate. So the House has the sole power of impeachment. And, as lawyers, we think of that as sort
of the indictment phase, gathering enough evidence to say, has something happened here? There’s enough to really think something has
happened here. Then the trial phase, generally — so the
Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment — that would normally be where witnesses
would be called and fleshed out. So I think, intuitively, how the — it’s — someone’s
going to have to reconcile how we think of what a trial is here. If the president’s team and Republicans are
going to say, we can’t have any new witnesses, because that’s not the Senate’s role, it’s
really at odds with what we think of as a trial in the Senate. And I think that Republicans and the president’s
team haven’t quite explained why it is that it’s improper to call witnesses or get new
documents. MARTIN PAONE: Also, in ’99, in the Clinton
impeachment, even the president himself had sat down for depositions. Like, the Starr report, everyone at the White
House had sat down for depositions. In this case, you have the White House stonewalling
subpoenas, whereas, in the Clinton administration, they all went out and witnessed. ELIZABETH CHRYST: Well, let me just add to
that a little bit, that this is the fastest trial in history that — I think other people
have said that, the House trial. I think it was 78 days, the House had — had
their play in this. And all but the last six, the president couldn’t
call witnesses. He couldn’t cross-examine anybody. He couldn’t ask for documents. That’s the polar opposite of what happened
during the Clinton trial in the House of Representatives. His legal team was involved every single day. So, it smacks as a little bit of unfair coming
from the House coming over here. And then you have Senator McConnell literally
mirroring — mirroring exactly how the Senate resolution was done previously. And it was 100-0. So that’s where we are with all of it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Different set of circumstances,
but some similarities. ELIZABETH CHRYST: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we’re going to continue
to thread our way through those in the coming days. ELIZABETH CHRYST: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you all, John Hart, Elizabeth
Chryst, Marty Paone, Margaret Taylor. Thank you. And we will see you again tomorrow. And you can join our ongoing coverage of the
Senate trial for the remainder of this evening. Check your local listings for that. And you can watch online on our Web site or
YouTube, and then again tomorrow, Wednesday, when the trial resumes at 1:00 p.m. Eastern. While the impeachment trial dominates the
spotlight in Washington, the president turns his focus to touting the American economy. He flew to Europe for the annual meeting of
the world’s business and economic elite. “NewsHour” special correspondent Ryan Chilcote
reports from Davos, Switzerland. RYAN CHILCOTE: High in the Alps and 10 months
away from the election, the president took his campaign to Davos, Switzerland. QUESTION: Mr. President, with your trial now
getting under way, why is it better to be here in Davos than in Washington, D.C.? DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Well, we’re here meeting with world leaders, the biggest, most important people in the
world. And we’re bringing back tremendous business
to the United States. And they’re all here to see. The other is just a hoax. It’s the witch-hunt that has been going on
for years. And it’s — frankly, it’s disgraceful. But we look forward to being here. RYAN CHILCOTE: President Trump addressed just
over 1,000 of the World Economic Forum’s delegates. DONALD TRUMP: When I spoke at this forum two
years ago, I told you that we had launched the great American comeback. Today, I’m proud to declare that the United
States is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen
before. RYAN CHILCOTE: Mr. Trump spent most of his
speech touting his administration’s economic achievements, arguing they’re bring about
a blue-collar revolution. DONALD TRUMP: In just three years in my administration,
3.5 million people have joined the work force; 10 million people have been lifted off welfare
in less than three years. RYAN CHILCOTE: Before the president arrived
today, news crews were already on the prowl, but not for him. Making her second appearance at the World
Economic Forum, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg stole some of the limelight today,
warning participants, not much has changed since she addressed them last year. GRETA THUNBERG, Climate Activist: Our house
is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the
hour. And we are telling you to act as if you loved
your children above all else. RYAN CHILCOTE: In his speech, President Trump
appeared to take aim at the 17-year-old. DONALD TRUMP: To embrace the possibilities
of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of
the apocalypse. RYAN CHILCOTE: This is the 50th year the world’s
rich and powerful have gathered for the World Economic Forum in Davos. Most of them, by definition, are globalists,
supporters of free trade. Today, the president met and discussed trade
with three of them from Pakistan, Switzerland and the European Union, with whom the president
said he’s confident he can strike another deal. If he doesn’t, he said he will look at slapping
tariffs on European cars. DONALD TRUMP: We expect to be able to make
a deal with Europe. The European Union, we met with, as you know. And we had a very good talk. But if we’re unable to make a deal, we will
have to do something, because we have been treated very badly as a country for many,
many years on trade. RYAN CHILCOTE: The United States’ trade truce
with China last week relieved many here, but they find the prospect of more trade wars
unsettling. Some, like Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph
Stiglitz, also disagreed with the president’s portrayal of the economy. JOSEPH STIGLITZ, Professor of Economics, Columbia
University: While the unemployment rate is low, the employment rate, the fraction of
the working age population that is actually working, is much lower than here in Europe. So, the mischaracterization of the state of
the American economy and how well the typical American is doing was very strong, stark. And given all that, it’s not a surprise. I have been going to Davos for 25 years. This was the most lukewarm reception to a
major public figure that I have ever seen. RYAN CHILCOTE: And in an unusual twist today,
a local newspaper reported, Swiss officials had uncovered an apparent spying operation
by two Russians posing as plumbers in Davos, who they suspect intended to bug the forum. Russia called the allegations absurd. When the president returns to the World Economic
Forum tomorrow, reminders of his troubles back home won’t be far away. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, who
the president is accused of trying to pressure into providing dirt on former Vice President
and presidential candidate Joe Biden, will also be here. Ryan Chilcote, for the “PBS NewsHour,” in
Davos, Switzerland. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: An
outbreak of viral pneumonia in China spread to the United States. Federal health officials confirmed a Seattle
area man brought the virus back from Central China. He is now hospitalized in good condition. Washington State Governor Jay Inslee urged
the public not to overreact. GOV. JAY INSLEE (D-WA): There isn’t a risk level
that would suggest people should be doing anything differently than they normally would. Like I said, this is not a moment of high
anxiety. We should all do exactly what we always do,
which is, this is flu season, so we wash our hands, we cover our mouths when we sneeze. JUDY WOODRUFF: Airports in several major American
cities are now screening arrivals from China. Meanwhile, in China, the death toll grew to
six, with nearly 300 confirmed cases. In Wuhan, where the outbreak began, city workers
sprayed disinfectant, and the mayor pledged to contain the virus. North Korea is warning that it no longer feels
bound to refrain from testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. The regime today blamed Washington for ignoring
a year-end deadline to make progress on a nuclear deal and ease sanctions. A North Korean official at the U.N. said that
his country may seek what he called a new path. In Iraq, fresh street battles broke out in
Baghdad between protesters and police. At least two of the demonstrators were killed. Security forces fired tear gas and rubber
bullets, as crowds demanded the government’s resignation and an end to corruption. Similar unrest flared in southern cities. A member of Iran’s Parliament has now offered
a $3 million bounty to anyone who kills President Trump. The lawmaker represents the home province
of Qasem Soleimani, who was the general killed in a U.S. airstrike this month. But, in Geneva, the American ambassador to
a Disarmament Conference dismissed the threat. ROBERT WOOD, U.S. Special Representative to
the U.N. Conference on Disarmament: It is just ridiculous, but it gives you a sense
of the terrorist underpinnings of that regime. And that regime needs to change its behavior. Its behavior is what has got them to this
point. And, again, we hope that they learned their
— learned a lesson by what’s happened recently. JUDY WOODRUFF: Iran’s government gave no indication
today if it supports the threat on President Trump’s life. A new caravan of migrants has been stopped
along Mexico’s southern border. Hundreds waded a river from Guatemala on Sunday,
but Mexican troops blocked their way. Families waited there today, monitored by
police in helmets and body armor. Most were sent back to their home countries. Back in the United States, the Democrats’
2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, went after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,
her former rival and now a leading 2020 contender. She told an upcoming Hulu documentary that
— quote — “Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done.” Clinton wouldn’t say if she would campaign
for Sanders if he won the nomination. The U.S. — or, that is, the U.S. Supreme
Court has put off a new challenge to Obamacare. The justices declined today to grant a fast-track
review, preventing any decision before the November election. A lower court had ruled the entire law was
invalid after Congress gutted the individual insurance mandate. Two major auto recalls are in the works in
the U.S. Toyota says that an electronic glitch may prevent air bags from deploying in 2.9
million vehicles going back to 2011. Honda wants to replace potentially dangerous
air bag inflators in 2.4 million older vehicles. And on Wall Street, stocks fell on fears that
the viral outbreak in China will hurt economic growth there. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 152
points to close at 29196. The Nasdaq fell 18 points, and the S&P 500
slipped eight. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: heartbreak
and hope amid the humanitarian tragedy of Northern Syria; and how the humble Polaroid
camera predicted our Instagrammable world. The war in Syria has waged for almost nine
years and claimed millions of lives. Northwest Idlib province is the last refuge
for many Syrians opposed to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, in the Northeast, Kurdish forces
are dealing with a new reality that includes far fewer American allies. Nick Schifrin is back with this update. NICK SCHIFRIN: In this camp in Idlib province,
the mud is thick. The morning walk to get water is through what
seem like permanent puddles. Life here is defined by the mud. It’s where boys will be boys, and where little
girls in flip-flops try not to slip, hanging onto tents that have become their homes. They are the displaced families who’ve fled
to Idlib because it was the last place to flee to, the displaced children who’ve seen
things no adult should ever have to see. This is Ahlam. GIRL (through translator): We were displaced
to this camp because of the airstrikes and the missiles. There is too much mud. There is no school. In my village, I used to play with my friends
at school. My friends were killed in an airstrike, and
I survived, then came here. NICK SCHIFRIN: In this camp, children become
caregivers. And they heat their hands on a blackened outdoor
tea kettle. This family has been living here since May. MAN (through translator): It is very difficult
to walk because of the mud. The tent doesn’t weather the cold or the storms. We don’t have proper stoves for heating. And, as you see, the conditions are terrible. My children are always sick because of the
cold. NICK SCHIFRIN: Nearby, this woman tells us
she fled her home as it was bombed in the middle of the night. WOMAN (through translator): It is too much
cold and mud here. I am getting sick all the time. I pray that we won’t be flooded because of
the rain. My fear is that we will get flooded and drown. I hope that I won’t drown and die in the flood. DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL, President, MedGlobal: I have
been going to Syria multiple times in the past seven, eight years. This is the worst I have seen in terms of
the inability of the international community to accommodate to the needs of the displaced. NICK SCHIFRIN: Zaher Sahloul is a doctor in
Chicago who regularly returns to his native Syria to help. These scenes were all filmed by him. The Kafr Yamhoul camp has more than doubled
in population in the last six months because Russian and Syrian jets followed refugees
to Idlib. There’s supposed to be a cease-fire, but the
airstrikes are relentless. In December alone, at least 65 children were
killed or injured. And they’re trapped between the regime and
Russia from the south and the closed Turkish border in the north. Hundreds of thousands are settling close to
that border, but Turkey already has four million refugees, and its doors are locked, says Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): This cease-fire must be conducted in a way to prevent 400,000 people from reaching
our borders. NICK SCHIFRIN: And for those people still
in Idlib, they need to survive both the airstrikes and illness. In the camp, Sahloul treated whomever he could. DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL: Everyone had some respiratory
issues. Some of them had asthma. Some of them had infections. Some of them had pneumonia. Of course, everyone had psychological trauma
because of the recent displacement. NICK SCHIFRIN: Many families have been forced
to flee the airstrikes multiple times. A local humanitarian group set up tents under
a stadium’s grandstand. And in a nearby former school, children with
American superhero backpacks walk where the walls are full of holes, and where, outside
the windows, playgrounds have long been abandoned. DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL: Every deserted building, every
old school, every mosque were converted to temporary shelters. It was very cold in the building. There was this old piano that the children
were trying to play with, but it was a scene like you are in a horror movie. NICK SCHIFRIN: A thousand miles away, in Northeast
Syria, the map is very different. The American footprint has dropped from 1,000
to about 500. They’re deployed with the mostly Kurdish Syrian
Democratic Forces. But since Turkey’s incursion in November,
things have become more complicated. GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON, Council on Foreign Relations:
You have this casserole of flags. Within several hours driving, we saw a Syrian-regime-flagged
a vehicle. We saw a Russian-flagged vehicle. And then we saw a U.S. convoy. NICK SCHIFRIN: Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and visited the region just before Christmas,
her eighth visit in the last few years. She says there’s a tenuous stability kept
by the mostly Kurdish SDF. GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: It is a remarkable testament
to the ability of the SDF, who fought ISIS alongside the Americans, to keep in place
a very fragile, pretty endangered, but still very real governance structure, keeping a
level of security and stability in place. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the SDF is distracted from
their fight against ISIS by the incursion of Turkish forces, who consider them terrorists,
and a displacement crisis. GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: If the forces who are
fighting ISIS now also have to defend themselves, and to deal with roughly 200,000 or so who
are estimated to have been displaced by the incursion, you can imagine that the fight
against the Islamic State doesn’t become secondary, but it is competing with survival in terms
of priorities for these folks. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lemmon met with SDF Commander
Mazloum Kobani, who spends much of his time negotiating with the multiple militaries deployed
to Syria. GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: So far, it looks like
a lot of deconfliction and a lot of discussion with Russia. There’s a lot of conversation going on. I think that Mazloum no longer has illusions
that the Americans are going to protect the Syrian Kurds or their gains. But he does ask that the Americans stay, right
— he was very clear in our conversation — until a political process is in place. NICK SCHIFRIN: But that political process
is stalled. And so Idlib’s displaced children spend every
night around the campfire. Sahloul is with them, trying to find light
in darkness. DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL: We have children of this camp
who have been here for about a year or so, and they are all beautiful and cute. NICK SCHIFRIN: They sing a song called “My
Homeland” about survival and happiness. And this is where, in their innocence, these
children find resilience. To draw pictures, they use the mud that defines
their camp. They use mud to leave their handprints and
turn their hardship into hope. DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL: Most of the children adapt
to their situation very quickly. And they laugh. They smile. They play. They sing. They dream of future. NICK SCHIFRIN: But they still live in Syria,
where most of those dreams are nightmares. And while the adults try to distract the children
with shadow boxes, the monsters here are all too real. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight: When it comes
to photography, we’re all pretty much living in the Insta world. We want our pictures now or never. Many think it was Polaroid that set us on
that path with its first revolutionary camera dating back to 1947. The museum at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology is now telling the story of how the Polaroid era began, and the artists
who were there to make it happen. Special correspondent bow Jared Bowen of public
media station WGBH Boston reports. It’s part of our ongoing series on arts and
culture, Canvas. JARED BOWEN: For Ansel Adams, it answered
the call of the wild. Chuck Close used it to get up close and personal. William Wegman thought it was horseplay. It was the Polaroid camera. And when it came to photography, it changed
everything. WILLIAM EWING, Curator, The Polaroid Project:
You can see around me on the walls all kinds of surfaces and all kinds of ways of manipulating
the materials. I think, probably, it drove some of the engineers
at Polaroid mad, because the artists were just ignoring the rules and just making it
up. JARED BOWEN: Here at the MIT Museum in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, just a few blocks away from where the Polaroid camera was invented, are
decades of Polaroids. Virtually from the day it was born, artists
were given cameras and film to experiment, says curator William Ewing, starting with
Ansel Adams. WILLIAM EWING: He was the bait. Ansel gets very excited at times. He said, oh, you should use it. They should use it in the theater. You should use it in astronomy. He gets really excited. JARED BOWEN: The Polaroid camera bypassed
the entire process of developing film. For the first time ever, artists had an immediate
look at their work. WILLIAM EWING: It was a very small thing you
could hold in the hand, but you had to participate in the making of the picture. The thing whirred and clicked. The picture came out and developed slowly. And that was described as magic. DEBORAH DOUGLAS, Director of Collections,
MIT Museum: I’m going to take a picture now, Jared. JARED BOWEN: Do you want me to pose for you? DEBORAH DOUGLAS: Yes, please. OK. (CAMERA CLICKING) DEBORAH DOUGLAS: OK. And it’s going to take probably 20 full minutes,
but that blue sheet is the opacification, and in a couple of minutes, this will emerge. So I’m going to take… JARED BOWEN: Twenty minutes? DEBORAH DOUGLAS: I know. It’s not an instant at all. (LAUGHTER) JARED BOWEN: Deborah Douglas is the purveyor
of Polaroid at the MIT Museum. The pioneer, though, was Edwin Land, owner
of an innovation lab who conceived of an instant camera in 1943 and launched it into top-secret
development. DEBORAH DOUGLAS: It’s called SX-70, S for
secret, X for experimental, and 70 because that’s the number. It could have been 68, 69, 71, 72. JARED BOWEN: The camera was an ingenious combination
of mechanics and chemistry. DEBORAH DOUGLAS: All the little molecules
are going around, and it says, oh, I need a red one here, a yellow one here, a blue
one here, and just like your television that can combine red, green, blue on your screen
and miraculously create the full spectrum. JARED BOWEN: The first Polaroid went on sale
in Boston the day after Thanksgiving, 1948. It sold out in hours. DEBORAH DOUGLAS: Land didn’t actually believe
in marketing. He was even skeptical of his own company’s
efforts in that front. He said, you just have to have a feel for
this. This proved, by the way, very influential
to a generation of entrepreneurs, most notably, Steve Jobs and Apple. JARED BOWEN: Well we’re sitting on this floor
right now that we would all recognize, wouldn’t we? DEBORAH DOUGLAS: Yes, there’s a rainbow stripe. And so it’s not coincidental that the first
Apple logos are rainbow stripes. That is an intentional homage to Edwin Land. JARED BOWEN: Of course, the cool quotient
came from the artists, who were given cameras and film to take the technology wherever they
wanted. TOM NORTON, Artist: It freed you up from all
those chemicals and the processes in the labs and everything else. You could control it all yourself. JARED BOWEN: Artist Tom Norton had his go
at Polaroid in the early 1980s. TOM NORTON: It’s a vertical format. And I didn’t want that. I want dancers to be jumping left-right. And so the only way to do that is to have
a mirror system, so I made a mirror system that the camera was actually facing sideways. JARED BOWEN: Elsa Dorfman would use the Polaroid
for portraiture. With Polaroid, Andy Warhol could be even more
prolific. And Barbara Crane could revel in color. WILLIAM EWING: These people felt they were
part of a community. They weren’t alone. So, you didn’t just do your photographs, bring
them to Polaroid, and forget about them. They would enter into the collection. JARED BOWEN: As we see here, in a history
and appreciation that’s still developing. Do we have to do something? Do we have to shake it? DEBORAH DOUGLAS: No, you don’t have to shake
it. In fact, the engineers hated that. (LAUGHTER) JARED BOWEN: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jared
Bowen in Cambridge, Massachusetts. JUDY WOODRUFF: And on the “NewsHour” online:
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s decision to renounce their royal titles has sparked
conversations about the current state of the British monarchy, as well as race and identity
in the United Kingdom. We take a look at why Megxit marks a crossroads
for that country. All that and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. Tune in starting tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. Eastern,
as our special live coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump continues on PBS. And if you’re not by a TV, join us online
at our Web site or on YouTube, also tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *