tv Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer CNN July 16, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
speaker nancy pelosi of breaking the rules. no apologies. new efforts by mr. trump and his aides to defend attacks on four congresswomen sparked new controversy as kellyanne conway presses a reporter on his ethnicity and says the four congresswomen represent, i'm quoting her now, a dark underbelly in this country as the white house digs itself deeper into a racially charged quagmire. no justice. the police officer accused of choking eric garner that was caught on camera. why did the attorney general william barr go against the recommendation hoff his own civil rights dejiegs and women speak. they say they were sexually abused by jeffrey epstein, some when they were minors. and there's a new mexico
rant. visit the scene of more misconduct. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're "the situation room." the breaking news tonight, high tension in the house of representatives, which is about to vote on a resolution condemning president trump's racist twitter attack on four democratic congresswomen, fueling the tension, the president and his top aides continuing defend his remarks along with a growing number of top republican lawmakers. we'll talk about the breaking news with congressman don myer of the ways and means committee. first let's go to our chief white house correspondent jim acosta. jim, republicans are circling the wagons around the president as the backlash against his racist tweets clearly is growing.
>> the wagons have circled, wolf. president trump is not backing off of his racist tweets. he's claiming they were not racist. that is not true. they, indeed, were. meanwhile other top republican officials are jumping to the president's defense and digging deeper into the howl. kellyanne conway took a shot at one reporter who took up the president's racist tweets and she asks the question, what's your ethnicity. after the racist tweets on four democratic women of congress telling them to go back to where they came from, president trump is offer nothing apologies. >> it's up to them. they can do what they want. they can leave, they can stay, but they should love our country anned work for the good of the country. >> the president seems to relish it. he says i don't have a racist bone in
my body and the squad can get lost. our country is free, beautiful, and very successful. if you hate our country or are
not happy here, you
can leave. one squad member, alexandria ocasio-cortez fired back. you're right, president trump, you don't have a racist bone in your body. you have a race iist mind and a racist heart in your chest. >> which countries was he referring? >> what's your ethnicity? >> he said, go home. why is that really vanlt? >> because i'm asking a question. my ancestors are from ireland and italy. a lot of us are sick and tired of this country of america coming last to people who swore an oath to office, sick and tired of our military being denigrated, sick and tired of the border anze kuk toms protection people who are overwhelmingly hispanic, by the way. >> she tweeted later, this is no disrespect.
she took her own jab describing the lawmakers as dark. >> they represent a dark underbelly in this country of people who are not respecting our troops, are not giving them the resources and the respect that they deserve. they voted against the military aid. >> ben carson praised the president as doing god's work. >> would you rather have a nonpolitician who speaks his own filter, who gets a lot of stuff done or somebody with a silver tongue who gets nothing done. as i told you before, i think god is using you. >> thank you very much. >> most republican lawmakers are not troubled by the tweets. >> they probably are devicive. i think if you broke down america on the tweets right now, the people that absolutely despise the president or aare offended by the tweets and the people who support the president don't have a problem with the tweets. >> they say it's another example of the gop excusing mr. trump's
rhetor rhetoric. >> if there's anything said about having a racist bigoted president, it's seeing the collapse of the republican party. >> the president tried to make light of the situation with the squad joking the press can leave the country if they want too. >> it's like i said the other day, i don't mind. if you want to leave, that's your option. you can leave any time you want. >> the president also defended the administration's detention facilities from those who call them concentration camps. also said they're well run. that's not the assessment of the homeland security's inspector general. that report quoted a senior official at one of the facilities who described the overcrowded conditions there as a ticking time bomb, wolf. >> jim acosta at the white house. thank you. let's go to capitol hill where a floor fight has broken out. our congressional correspondent
phil mattingly has the latest. phil, we just saw some very heated moments. >> no question about it, wolf. in moments the house is supposed to vote on a resolution, but the drama isn't justly. ed to that vote. in fact, for more than two hours the floor came to a general standstill as they went back and forth on whether to strike the words of house speaker nancy pelosi. there are house rules which say you can't impugn the integrity or motive of congress or the president himself. the speaker appeared to counter that in her speech, and the reaction to that not just from the speaker, not just from republicans, but also from a democrat who sat in the chair and responded by slamming down the gavel, well, just take a look. >> these comments from the white house are disgraceful and disgusting, and these comments are racist. how shameful to hear him continue to defend those offensive words, words we have
all heard him repeat not only, our members but about countless others. >> we don't ever, ever want to pass up, it seems, an opportunity to escalate, and that's what this is. i dare anybody to look at any of the footage and see if there was any unfairness, but unfairness is not enough because we want to just fight. i abandon the chair. >> and, wolf, i've been up here for 11 years and have never seen anybody abandon the floor. i've seen people work on the floor for decades and they haven't either. he wasn't the only one to abandon the chair, his colleague butterfield did also. they didn't want to be in the chair and rule nancy pelosi's comments out of order. now the effort to strike those words ended up failing on a voting line vote. all of this back and forth even before that dramatic roll call
vote just underscores the tension here on capitol hill, the tension related to the tweets, tension related to the bipartisan that are clearly boiling over at this moment, wolf. >> phil, republican leaders are trying to keep their leaders in line for this vote. how are they doing? >> what you've seen bachingly over the course of the last 24 hours is republicans circling the wagons. you saw them denounce the president's tweets, asked him to take the tweets down that. has started to shift and it's shifted in large part because of house leadership. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell tried to calm things today. he wasn't willing to call out the president. neither were others. take a listen. >> the president is not a racist. i think the tone of all this is not good for the country. >> were the president's tweets that said go back racist? >> no, and i do not believe the speak e of ter of the house was when they claimed she was racist
either. i do not believe that. i believe this is about idolology, socialism versus freedom. it's very clear in the debate what's happening. they talked more about impeachment than anything else. >> and, wolf, the republican leadership efforts particularly in the house to counter the attacks on the president or the effort to call out the president for those comments have extended beyond just their public statements. behind the scenes over the course of the day, they've been making clear to the rank-and-file members they want to vote on a resolution condemning the president's tweets and i've been told to this point they've been very effective. they do not expect to lose many republicans at all, a handful. the reality is everybody's gone to their respective corners, despite what the president says or tweets or what it all means, the republicans are in trump's party and the republicans at least for this moment are staying behind trump. wolf?
>> phil mattingly, thank you. congressman, thanks so much for joining us. as you know, the house is preparing to vote any moment now on a resolution condemning the president's comments. do you believe any republicans will join you and the democrats in supporting this vote? >> well, wolf, i don't think they will now. over the weekend we had a handful of republicans decry the president trump's comments, but it's pretty much lined up right now by party. however, you know, it's streamed as a partisan fight and the fight over the rules certainly is, but the original rejection of the president's comments was a rejection of the president's comments, not a rejection of the republican party. we would weekend as many republicans as possible saying, look, you know, telling four women of color to go back to their own countries was clearly not appropriate. >> what are your republican colleagues saying to you privately. >> well, the same -- i haven't had any conversations with them today, but, wolf, the big
picture over the last 2 1/2 years is even what when they disagree with the president, he's so popular with the core of their base, that if they come out and criticize him, they run the risk of losing the primary in 20. he's still the leader of their party. he's destroying their party, but it's the only party they have right now. >> i want to show the viewers, congressman, how you reacted to president trump's comments. you posted this pier and wrote, and i quote, only one of these members pictured below was born outside of the united states. it's me. also the only one not the subject of a racist tweet today. all of those including illian omar and me were born elsewhere are proud americans. why did you decide to respond to the president that way? >> it was just so redid liidicu that three of the women born here in the u.s. go back to
their s-blank, countries. i read today there are 29 members of congress that were born elsewhere, but every one of us is committed to our country and this notion of socialism versus freedom is garbage, every one of us including swaud are deeply in love with our country. >> in the face of all the criticism, the president has only coed hintinued his attacks. he said these women hate america and are pro-terrorists. does he see a political advantage? >> he may, but his words don't make any sense. once again, not truthful. there's no terrorism there. i wish my friends were as outrages with what's happening at the border as they are with nancy pelosi's comments or others. >> what does it tell you that some of the republican leaders are defending the president's racist remarks. >> it's very disappointing because i don't want this to be a bad president. he keeps saying outrageous
terrible things. even nancy pelosi, she talked about his racist comments, avoiding the personal, but, you know, i wish we could come together again. this is the most divisive president the country has ever had and we're seeing again what it's leading to, more and more hurt feelings and tensions and things that do not make us a more perfect union. >> your colleague al green is offering articles of impeachment over the president's racist comments. he may do it beginning tonight. will you support the impeachment process? will you be supporting congressman green's effort. >> no, i will not be supporting congressman green's effort. i have supported nancy pelosi. if we ever get to impeachment, it's got to be due to other things. it doesn't raise to that level. >> green notes it's an on -- not
obstruction of justice. it's racism. >> well, i'm not a constitutional lawyer, but i'm not sure -- i think there are a lot of other things you could build a successful impeachment inquiry on, but not the racial comments no matter how onus they are. >> thank you. >> thank you, wolf. do you -- these are live pictures you're seeing right now. the debate is going on. you do expect any republicans go along with the democrats? >> you know, as phil mattingly reported, not many. maybe a handful. maybe someone like justin amash who voted with democrats in terms of what happened with pelosi's words, but listen. you have -- listening -- >> he's now an independent by the way. >> yes. thank you, thank you. he left.
there were several republicans, chip roy, mike turner from ohio who came out and said they didn't like the president's tweets. they're racist. >> will hurd was here yesterday. >> they'll see if they decide to take it that far. >> what do you think? >> i totally agree with jackie. i think this is going to end up being very partisan and just the way that it unfolded on the house floor during the debate the way the republicans tried to turn the whole notion of the word racist against democrats was very telling, that they tried to stop this whole thing and they tried to stop the house speaker from saying what she said, calling the president a racist, saying that it is unbecoming, it is against house rules because it's unbecoming of a member. you're not supposed to say personal things about somebody else whereas what she was trying
to do is describe in a way that the resolution plays out what the president's words were. >> listening to some of these -- particular lly mccarthy decry t lack of decor on a day by basis throws out norm. >> there's that. that's a very good point. but the other point she was trying to describe the terms and the words and the sentiment that the president used in his tweet, the very sentiment that they're trying to condemn on the house floor. so what else is she supposed do? yes, the term "racist" is tough, but it's apt. >> i want to bring in cornell william brooks, the former president of the naacp who's now a professor at the harvard kennedy school. you know, cornell, the president not only doubling down, tripling down, kwads rupeling down, e h it say they hate our country.
i want your analysis of what we're seeing right now here in washington. >> what we're seeing is racism weaponize in order toen sure the president's re-election. but let's be clear. the president has demonstrated through his policies, through his tweets, through his conduct that he is an unapologetic, unreconstructed racist to his machiavellian cord. he's willing to do anything to stay in office, particularly using race as a weapon. so where we have seen, going back to the campaign, hate crimes correlated with his appearance at rallies around the country, according to the "washington post," we have seen him again and again divide and pit americans one against the other. and so we're at this moment where the house is voting on a resolution to condemn the president's speech, speech that
has weaponized and that has an impact on americans across the country. in fact, the house is simply putting on paper in polite terms what americans know to be true, which is that the president of the united states is, in fact, a racist. >> so have you seen anything like this before in all your years watching american presidents and the discussion of race and all of that? have you ever seen anything like this before? >> no. i mean we have seen variations of the southern strategy, we've seen racial code and using political speech to advance a partisan agenda using race. we have not seen the volckerization of race, race as an obscene weapon in the way this president has used race, and so his twitter feed literally is an arsenal being deployed against this american
democracy rngs a democracy, and, in fact, he's turning the 20 presidential election into a referential on hate in which he wants americans on the basis of the animosity toward one another and animosity toward people who don't look like them or don't come from the countries that they think they come from to vote for him. it is a referendum on hate, but i believe americans have to vote against hate and as a consequence vote against him. this is unusual. this is not commonplace, this is not anything we've seen in a modern president in recent memory. >> they're making closing statements right now just before this vote on the resolution, david, that would condemn the president's words. we're getting closer and closer to the actual roll call. this is a dramatic moment that we're watching unfold. >> it is. and i think what's more dramatic
in my view, wolf, is less wrangling of racist. as dana pointed out. at the end of the day, what's more stunning to me is that republicans off of the house floor have not been able to come to terms with what the president said on sunday morning. again, this referendum is not about whether the president himself is a racist, period, capital r. it's whether the tweets were racist. i think it's a credible argument. >> kellyanne conway doubled down on this. way want you to watch this exchange she had with a reporter at the white house. >> if the president was not telling these four congresswomen to return to their four supposed countries of origin, which
countries was he referring? >> what's your ethnicity? >> he said go home. why is that -- >> i'm asking you a question. my ancestors are from ireland and italy. >> my ancestry is not relevant to the question i ask. >> we're tired, sick and tired of many people in the country. forget these four. they represent a dark underbelly in this country of people who are not respecting our troops, are not giving them the resources and respect that they deserve. they represent a very dark element in this country that seems to not respect the military, not respect the veterans, not vote for humanitarian aid. why is that? >> at one point she said these women represent a dark element, at another point, a dark underbelly. she asked this reporter about his ethnicity. what do you think? >> trying to personalize it with this reporter wasn't right and good for them for pushing back.
the ujds tone is they're not like us, they're different. it's the "us" against "them" that we saw the politics of division and we saw the president fuel in 2016 and we're seeing him trying to start up the hearth again for 2020 because he thinks it's good politics. politics of resentment. >> they're about to vote. go ahead. >> i totally agree with jackie. to my understanding, this is not a grand campaign. this is something he wanted to came up with. it's something he came up with when he woke up sunday morning for whatever reason. depending what he was watching or who he talked to, he sent out the tweet. but it's not a grand strategy. however, it is in keeping with the reality that he understands and his campaign understands it's going to be very hard to get independence back into the
fold. they have a huge war chest, over $100 million, and they're going to make sure every last single trump supporter and hopes that that trumps, so to speak, the base. >> let's go to phil mattingly. he's on capitol hill monitoring the roll call that's about to begin for the resolution condemning the president's words. update our viewers where we stand right now. >> well, wolf, you saw the gavel come down and the voting is starting. this is day three or four of house tensions. it wasn't just nancy pelosi. eric swalwell, the democratic congressman from california went onto the floor and read some of president trump's remarks, called them racist. again, house rules say you cannot impugn a member of congress or their intentions or the president of the united states. the rules were read once again. eric swalwell once again
rescinded the words like nancy pelosi so they didn't have the long drawn out fight like they had with nancy pelosi, but it's been back and forth. it's gotten bigger than just the tweets. it's gotten bigger than just the four members of congress. it's turned very much into a partisan battle. i think one of the interesting things over the last 48 hours or so is the difference from yesterday to today where you saw a handful of republicans come out and make very clear they had problems with the president's tweets. they believed the tweets should have been detracted. that's where republicans started to voice their opposition. that has shifted today. it has turned into a very, very political back-and-forth where republican leaders have made clear they're behind the president. they believe what democrats are doing with this vote, with this resolution, is an attack on the president and they're sticking together. wolf, i'll tell you, when you look at the screen, look at the
second line, the democrats, how they vote on this resolution. they wrote about it because they thought that might draw republicans that haddishes with those tweets onto their side, draw them over to vote yes. throughout the course of the day in talking to republicans and republican aides, it's very clear that did not work. they want them to stick behind the president to vote against this resolution and you can look at the screen right now. obviously numbers trickling in. you see zero in the yes cull um for the republicans. it's going to be a small number. this has turned into a partisan every go into their corners fight when it comes to a resolution and you have seen the republicans circle the wagon. it's something they've seen over the course of time in office. it's not changing today despite the pushback, blowback, the outrage what the president tweeted out sunday, doubled down
yesterday, tripled down later than that, a and what his aides have been talking about. that's the dynamic playing out right now and you'll see that during the vote tally, wolf. >> you mentioned the statement of eric swalwell. let me play that clip and watch the reaction. >> it is racist. saying a mexican judge can't be fair because he's an immigrant is racist. saying immigrants are rapists is racist. saying there are good people on both sides in charlottesville is racist. calling african countries shithole countries is racists, and telling four members of this body to go home is racist. do you think it's not racist. >> the gentleman will suspend.
>> the gentleman will suspend. >> is that -- >> gentleman -- >> you can say that. >> order, order. >> the gentleman from california is out of order. the gentleman -- >> orders, order. >> the gentleman from cal shall suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> phil mattingly, we saw that with the speaker earlier in the day as well, congressman collins going and saying that her words were not part of the decorum of the house of representatives. we see the same thing involving congressman swalwell. >> even a little more aggressive regarding congressman swalwell. the house is a body ruled by precedence. democrats were warned this morning about the danger of going too far because of the house rules and eric swalwell did not care. he was willing to go furyker and even challenge doug collins who we did not see. it, again, underscores the
intelligences out there right now about the people frustrated on both sides that it's gotten to this point, and it doesn't seem like it's slowing, stopping, or ebbing any time soon, and to be frank, i don't think it is at any time, wolf. >> stand by. i want you to stnd and by. the voting is continuing. 62 of democrats voting for the resolution. 52. there's no split at least not yet. we'll see if any republicans if any decide to go along with the democrats. cornell, if you read the resolution, the house of representatives. >> these words strongly condemns president dew point donald trump's racial comments that have increased fear and hate tread of new americans and people of color and then it goes on to elaborate. you've watched this very closely, and i want to get your analysis of what's going on. >> i think what we have going on is a legislative body, the house
trying to within the confines of its rules speak to the rank racism of the president's tweets, bearing in mind that you can have members call words be stricken from the record, that members act in accord with house rules, but also bearing in mind that the president's tweets and language cannot be stricken from the record or the memory of our children, can't be stricken from the conscience of our country, can be stricken from the contemporary history of our country. so they're doing what they can do in the context of the rules that they have. so this is a measured and thoughtful resolution that should enjoy bipartisan support because there is in this country among the citizenry, a bipartisan consensus that racism
is strong. so the resolution is worded well and is worded in a way that should allow and enable and empower republicans to get on board in terms of condemning that which is manifestly obvious, that the president's tweets coupled with his policy in his tweets and conduct are racist. >> you know, dana, you covered capitol hill for a long time. explain to our viewers what we're seeing right now. >> what we're seeing is not a big debate which is almost always partisan on policy where people have philosophical differences. we're seeing something as raw and as partisan and as emotional as we have seen in such a long time. they ared ad hominen attacks saying they should go home and democrats are responding in kind, calling the president a word that, yes, historically
speaking is not supposed to be used on the house floor, but historically speaking, some of those rules were put in place by them. so you have to put it in context of where we are today. one thing i want to say to give you a little bit of context. as we're speaking, we're getting -- and i'm sure you're getting this too -- from the republican arm of the committee that helped elect house republicans and they're saying member after member after member, democratic member who is in a little bit of a danger seat is deranged. that's the headline. kind is deranged. on and on and on. they voted to protect nancy pelosi that they allowed her to say the president is racist, saying that even about women of color. this is going on as we speak. it really crystallizes and illustrates how political this
is. you know, of course, we've seen political fights before, but at this level in this day and age, it's pretty deep. >> jackie, congressman al green wants a resolution going further, introducing articles of impeachment against the president not because of any conspiracy or collusion or obstruction of justice but citing racist. >> al green, i believe this is the second time he's wanted to introdu introduce resolutions of impeachment. forgive me if it's been more than that. it doesn't seem like democrats are there yet because they know -- you heard the congressman before we came on talk about how they want to build up a case if, in fact, they do decide to go there. nancy pelosi, i doubt this will tip the scales because she knows the politics of impeachment are -- if not -- i mean you really
can't compare how load and emotional they are -- this s but it will also create another problem for democrats. but i want to step back and remind everyone where we were before the president inserted himself. we saw the debate shift back to this bipartisan warfare we've all become too accustomed too. >> if you look at the roll call, we have it up on the screen, one republican has decided to go with the democrats. i document know who that republican is, but that republican can clearly change his ore her mind but one republican is with the democrats. right now it's 103 to 95. >> whoever that run republican is, if they're tonal one,
they're going to have a business night. you hear the congressman. he called the president's comments racist, so i wonder if it's him. we obviously don't know. can i go back to the point jackie was making for a second. yes. one of the things that was so galling when kellyanne conway sads in that gagel, they started out with the clip saying so many are tired of this, but it's the president himself who inserted racial tweetss in what was an intramural squabble between democrats. on saturday i was stalking to the press secretary and she was saying i want to remind everybody that this kboes back to a situation. it did get a little personal. >> on friday there was a tweet. >> it got very personal among democrats.
they let it get out from behind closed doors, but she was saying, look, we let -- this was about policy. we let it get a little policy, but we want to make itten policy. sunday morning coming and the president comes out. as dana pointed out, staff didn't look at this as a strategy, although i think it was a strategy. >> he definitely thought so for sure. >> right, right. so we agree. >> yes. >> and turnet this into a racial thing. >> if you take a look at the roll call, it's 125 democrats in favor of the resolution, condemning the president, 105. mostly republicans 1. 07. one republican joining the democrats. we'll see if others decide to do so as well. they go on to condemn what the president says, and i'm quoting from the resolution about our fell low americans who are
immigrants. that shoulds. go back to their country. they're invaders. these are painful words. >> it's very painful words because the president invoked a trope -- a racist trope of calling into question moral legitimacy and citizenship, one's right to be here, one's right to call this country your country. so going back to 1857 when dred scott, a slave was told by the supreme court that his race disqualified him from being a citizen to where we are in 2019, a president asserting four congress women and a nation of immigrants that one's race, one's color, one's ethnicity can disqualify you from citizenship, can disqualify you from being
able to assert that this kun abouttry is, in fact, your country and our country, is, frankly, shocking. and so the resolution speaks to our history, it speaks to a racist trope, and speaks to the racist predicameament we find ourselves in. these are not merely offensive tweets. they're tweets that contribute to a climate that imperil's people's lives. in other words, when the hate crime rate has gone up over the course of the last three years, we saw it correlate with the 250-plus-percent increase in hate, words have consequences. words have effect. the house resolution speengs to, yes, the racist tropes, speaks to this long legacy of calling into question one's right to be in this country, but also speaks
certainly by implication the danger he puts people in. >> i want to go back to phil matlely on capitol hill. it looks like two drepublicans have joined the democrats. do you know who one of those is? >> one is will hurd. the other who's not voting, justin amash. they both fall into the same line. will hurd not pulling any punches saying the comments were racist. now following up those comments with a vote in support of the democratic resolution, you see the numbers starting to change. one republican voting yes pulls his vote off. this vote is open and people may change their votes throughout the day. i can tell you will hurd, the republican and justin amash, the independent have voted. at least as it currently stands,
those are the only two nondemocrats. >> let me play a clip of will hurd. this is will hurd. take a look now before we play the clip. three republicans now. they could still change their mind. three republicans are voting with the democrats, we believe one of them being will hurd, the republican congressman from texas. here's what he said to us here "the situation room" yesterday. >> i think when you say racist things often, then, yes, you become a racist. how many racist things you have to say to become racist, they were indeed racist and an arphobic. >> they always give them a little extra time to come and vote, right? >> it's a 15-minute vote. this was a vote that wasn't back to back, so they're going to take some time to get from their
office to get this. what will be interesting is those republicans who were weighing yes or no. there weren't a lot of them. i was a small number of people, but a lot of times on votes like this, you'll have people sitting in the back of the chamber staking their time before they decide to cast their vote. you see republicans still casting their votes to see who those republicans are. again, my understanding going into this vote was to expect somewhere between four, six, eight, at most, a very high level. we'll have to find out who those republicans were. they spoke out very force pli against president trump. there's a small number and those who come from swing house districts. they're perhaps coming from districts that are at least purple, more blue than red, these are the williams. they're likely the ones who would vote for the resolution.
keep in mind, they made very clear to members along with the president that they should vote against this resolution and that's why you don't see the numbers. we're not going to see them line up behind democrats in a major way right now because this has very much become a your team/my team type of situation, so we'll see how much that number grows. again, it's a single vote, so members are taking their time coming from the office. we'll have to see how that number grows over thing next couple of minutes. >> the president earlier in the day warned the republicans in a tweet saying republicans should not show weakness and fall into their trap. i can only imagine how he's going to react to the five republicans who vote to condemn his racist tweets. >> probably not well, but as we talked about.
there aren't me moderate republicans left because a lot of them were defeated by the democrats when they came in and took over the majority, but there are some. will hurd who you spoke to yesterday, who we now know voted yes is one. there are others from michigan. there are a few left from pennsylvania. and it would not shock any of us if they were the ones who voted with the democrats on this because i'm not saying that it's not something that they believe that they might agree ideologically and philosophically and morally with the democrats if the president's remarks on twitter were racist, but it also is politically savvy for them if they want to get voters because independent voters, suburban voters, i'm guessing many of these republicans -- i guess i shouldn't say many because there aren't that money, but the handful of republicans probably represent that kind of number.
>> you know the hill well, dana. we're told will hurd, the republican from texas, upton of michigan. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. susan brooks, republican of indiana at least as of now those are the four republicans. justin amash used to be a democrat. >> brian fitzpatrick is exactly the kind of republican i was describing. there aren't many left because most of those swing districts that are held by moderate republicans are held by mott rat democrats but he's a classic suburban philadelphia district where they are -- you know, the people there look at this kind of rhetoric from the president and say are you kidding me and expect the representatives to take the moral high ground in addition to voting on the policy issues and policy prescriptions that they support. >> two members, jackie, from
michigan, justin amash and upton. >> michigan is a state that wants to win again in 2020, but it will be interesting to see if the president decides to turn his eye to these members that voted against him. this is not just a vote against the president. this is personal for him. he told them to vote against this. and it's i. we've seen him in the past where they back a party to the party's detriment base they had a grudge. think of mark sanford, for example. it's not unprecedent for your them to do that. as david said earlier, they're going to have a busy night if the votes stay or this. >> they'll have a busy night but they'll all sleep well. clearly that's not a vogt of convenience. maybe hurd because of the makeup of his district, but the other four, i dodge think, had a political incentive to do this.
this is a moral decision, and, again, i think i agree with dana 100% whether you're in a moderate or staunch district. it's a moral issue. >> it should be. you mentioned susan brooks. she's retiring. she's got nothing to lose politically. she's got everything to lose with regard to her morality and conscience. she's free. she's got the political shackles gone and free to vote the way she wants. >> she's free to vote the way she wants but it's still an act of courage because you see paul ryan who's out of politics and i don't think will have a career in politics but is a major figure and hasn't said anything about it, which i think, frankly, is cowardly. >> when you hear the president say to these four democratic women, these congresswomen, all of whom who are of color, you
hear him tweet f you hate our country or are not happy here, you can leave, what does that say to you? >> what it says is how long do you have to live in this country? how many lives have to be sacrificed in war for this country? how much do you have to contribute to the culture of this country in orders to be considered an american on an ongoing and morally permanent basis as opposed to being called on -- your legitimacy and citizenship being called. in terms of birther richl, the president's latest tweets, what he did with the central park five being exonerated, in other words, constantly and continually having your legitimacy called into question. so for the first act -- for america's first african-american president to have his legitimacy called into question before and after he was elected by now
president trump speaks to an old practice of literally calling people of color out of their names as? oust their citizen ship. the bigger issue -- or not the bigger issue, but the issue here is for us to assert back. you, sir, called into question the moral legitimacy of your t citizsit s extendship. when you look at their right to be here underthe constitution and our conscience, you call into question the values that go with american citizen. in other words all of this race-baiting, zee nxenophobia t imperils not just the legitimacy but their physical well being. bear that in mind. look at the hate crime across the country.
look at children bull yg one another and adults brutalizing one another based on this hateful rhetoric. yes, he's called it into question. he's called into question, in fact, his own moral legitimacy and standing as a president. all the republicans who refuse to call this out who's been stricken with a form of moral laryngitis, they literally call into question their leg sassi. they call into question their moral legitimacy as members of congress, the members of the body that's supposed to represent the whole of the country. >> i want to go back to phil mattingly on capitol hill. you see the rain. you see -- it obviously passed 237 in favor. all of them except four democrats, one independent, four republicans voting in favor. one with independent justin
amash voting in favor. 185 nay votes. tell us what's going on. >> this is a 15-minute vote, but to give a brief house explainer, when you have a series of votes, not back to back to back, voters will often take their time coming to the offices. their offices are a subway ride away or a walk as well. they don't have to gavel in right at the 15-minute mark. you'll see the zooes at the bottom. . it's not officially closed until the democrat. you see there are six, seven, eight votes. they have enough to pass this resolution. you have four republicans that have voted with democrats, one independent that has voted with democrats as well and dana and others have laid out perfectly why they are.
susan brooks, not only is she retires but she was the campaign arm. her decision to retire really jolted the party to some degree when it actually fred upton comes from a district where he received a serious democratic challenge. brian fitzpatrick as as dana noted coming from a swing district always target of democrats as and will hurd in the same boat. that's the definition of why they vote how they vote. there are the morals issue as well. they all made clear they had issued with what the president sated. if you want to into know why the republicans and one independent are voting how they are. that's the sprangs. if you want to know why the republicans are not, they've made clear they are standing with the president. whether they have issues with how the rchls was ordered they have issues with the president who told them not to vote for this and house republican sleerdship he cancos the president throughout the course of the date. >> six no votes at least so for,
all of them republicans we'll see if that changes over the next few minutes. and dana let's step back for a moment and see what the house of representatives is doing right now. the house of representatives in the words of in resolution is strongly condemning president donald trump's racist comments that have legitamized increased fear of new americans and people of color by saying fellow immigrants that are immigrants and may look to the president like immigrants should go back to other countries. >> yeah, it's very specific. and david you said it so well earlier. it -- although the president -- i mean, excuse me, the speaker used the word racist on the floor in describing those words that the president used in his tweet it is not saying the president. >> hold on one moment. let's listen in. >> laid on the table.
privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is as follows. impeaching donald john donald trump, president of the united states of high misdemeanors, resolved, that donald john trump, president of the united states, is unfit to be president, unfit to represent the american values of decency and moralfy respect vifl and civility, honesty and propriety. repent ability and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made america great, unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as extolled in the pledge of allegiance, is unfit to defend the american ideal of all persons being created equal
as exalted in the declaration of independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble of the united states constitution, is unfit to protect government of the people, by the people, for the people as lose gaited in the gedttysburg address. and is impeached for high misdemeanors that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the senate. article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states, in the name of itself, of the people of the united states, against donald john trump, president of the united states.
in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as president, constituting arm harm to american society, to the manifest injury of the people of the united states, article 1. the house of representatives on july 16, 2019, strongly condemned president donald trump's racist comments that have legitamized and increased fear and hatred of new americans and people of color by saying that our fellow americans who are the immigrants, and those who may look to the president like immigrants, should go back to other countries. by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as invaders and by saying that members of
congress who are immigrants are those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants do not belong in congress, or in the united states of america. >> we're listening to representative al green of texas introducing a separate resolution -- resolution of impeachment. phil mattingly, explain the process, what's going on following this other vote condemning the president's racist tweets, 240 in favor, 187 oh opposed, four republicans voting in favor. one independent voting in favor. >> you saw saw two things back-to-back both relatinged to the president. obviously the democrat resolution to condom the tweets that is passed 240 yes votes now you see al green introduced privileged articles of impeach letment. here is what it means. this is in the lawmakering of an impeachment inquiry. s in what 81 democrats signed on
to this is al green who has done this before made clear he believes the president should be impeached. he does this on a privileged basis. what coast that mean with house rules? that means within two legislative days the house has to take up the resolution of impeachment. what are the option sns necked have up and down vote on the impeachment of president trump. try and table the impeachment -- those impeachment articles or they can try and refer them to the judiciary committee. the bottom line is this. house democratic leadership does not approve of what al green is doing right now. they want to go through their own process. speaker pelosi made clear she is not in favor of impeachment up to this point. what any will attempt to do is remember it to the committee. or table the resolution. they have tabled past rlss of al green. ner likely considering this are referring this to the judiciary committee. however they will be a vote on that. it's procedural not up or down vote on kbeep are impeachment. up or down vote on whether to table or move to the judiciary committee. this is not up or down vote on
impeachment. what al green did right now is not what the democratic parties or at least 80 members have been calling on him to do. it's an individual effort he has pursued before because he believes pass the pathway the house needs tp it's opposed by house leadership wanting to take a more step by step process to impeachment inquiriy, a full judiciary committee hearing and investigation. if that's the right now they go. speaker pelosi made clear she is not there yet. that's what's happening now. no immediate vote. but democratic leaders have to figure out how to handle that in the next two days. >> dana, the house of representatives voted to strongly condemn president trump's comments that increased and legitamized fear. this is an irrelevance historic moment. it doesn't happen every day. >> it's historic. and it would be the headline. and it will be a big headline. but the fact that -- that vote was gavelled down in an unprecedented way and she didn't even put the gavel down before a
member of the house democratic caucus brought up the i. word, a word and procedure that divides the democrat li democraticic caucus on a day they wanted this a unified message, a very clear message to the president and to the country. >> and it gives republicans something to talk about. seizing on the articles of impeachment introduction. i mean that's what's going to happen and try to by pass the racism conversation at all. >> well o wolf i want to underscore one thing. all but four republicans voted against a resolution condemn racist statements made not just about anybody but the four members of the very body taking the vote. >> the al green resolution, jackie, not going anywhere but symbolically significant. >> it's the thid time he has introduced something that has to do with what the president has said about -- that's racially continuinged. >> all right we are watching this closely. once again, the final vote on
the house of representatives floor, 240 representatives voting in favor of condemning the president, 187 opposed. four of those in favor were republicans, including one independent. our special coverage will continue right now with erin burnett outfront. outfront next breaking news. condemning president trump, tensions erupt on the house floor lawmakers just voting on a resolution to denounce the president's racist attack on congresswoman and we sit down with with tame came la harris what you whie she says president trump he is offensive comments hit too close to home let's go outfront. >> and good evening i'm erin burnett outfront tonight. the breaking news denouncing donald trump, live pictures from washington. the house just voting on a resolution condemning president trump's racist rant about