WEEK'S HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT OF
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
THE HOUSE VOTE ON WEDNESDAY
MAKES HIM THE THIRD PRESIDENT TO
BE IMPEACHED IN U.S. HISTORY.
THE VOTE WENT LARGELY ALONG
PARTY LINES.
HERE'S WHAT WISCONSIN 5TH
REPUBLICAN JAMES SENSENBRENNER
SAID ON THE FLOOR DURING THE
VOTE, FOLLOWED BY HOUSE SPEAKER
NANCY PELOSI'S COMMENTS AFTER
THE VOTE WAS TALLIED.
>> THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED A
CRIME.
WE HAVE HAD ALMOST THREE YEARS
OF NONSTOP INVESTIGATIONS.
WE'VE HAD THE MUELLER REPORT,
THE SCHIFF INVESTIGATION, THE
NADLER INVESTIGATION AND THERE'S
NO EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THAT
DONALD J. TRUMP VIOLATED ANY
CRIMINAL STATUTE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
>> SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE HAVE A
SPRING IN THEIR STEP BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR HIS RECK LINGSLESS BEHAVIOR.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND.
>> WHEN WE ASKED U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE RON KIND ON THIS
PROGRAM LAST WEEK HOW HE WOULD
VOTE, HE WOULD NOT DEFINITIVELY
SAY.
HOWEVER, HE STOOD WITH OTHER
WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS WEDNESDAY,
VOTING IN FAVOR.
THE REPUBLICAN DELEGATION VOTED
AGAINST IMPEACHMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT.
THAT PROCESS COINCIDES WITH
ELECTORAL POLITICS, INCLUDING
THURSDAY NIGHT'S DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATE DEBATE.
WE CHECK IN WITH AN EXPERT,
UW-MADISON PROFESSOR OF
JOURNALISM MIKE WAGNER.
THANKS A LOT FOR BEING HERE.
>> IT'S MY PLEASURE.
>> FIRST ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AFTER SO MANY, MANY HOURS OF
TESTIMONY AND DEBATE, REALLY
ALONG STRICT PARTISAN LINES, IT
ALMOST SEEMED ANTI-CLIMATIC, YET
IT IS HISTORIC.
>> IT IS.
WE'VE ONLY HAD THIS HAPPEN THREE
TIMES, ALTHOUGH TWICE IN THE
LAST 20 YEARS.
BUT THIS IS A RARE THING THAT
HAPPENS IN OUR COUNTRY.
AND WHILE THE DEBATES THAT
HAPPENED ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE PROBABLY WON'T BE USED IN
TEXTBOOKS FOR EXAMPLES OF
HIGH-QUALITY DEBATE IN FUTURE
TIMES, THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT MOMENT THAT LAYS DOWN
WHAT IT IS OUR LAWMAKERS THINK
PRESIDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO DO.
ARE THEY ALLOWED TO HELP
THEMSELVES POLITICALLY BY
DEALING WITH FOREIGN NATIONS OR
NOT, WHICH IS KIND OF THE
CENTRAL QUESTION.
AND THE SECONDARY QUESTION, CAN
THEY REFUSE TO TREAT CONGRESS AS
A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,
THE OTHER ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
>> IT SEEMS THAT THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS HAS SERVED TO SOLIDIFY
THE PRESIDENT'S BASE AND
SUPPORT.
HOW IS THAT?
>> SOME OF IT I THINK YOU SAW
FROM THE COMMENTS FROM
CONGRESSMAN SENSENBRENNER, THE
PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO
COMMIT A CRIME.
THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
SO IT'S NOT RELEVANT.
WHAT'S RELEVANT IS WHETHER
PRESIDENT VIOLATED HIS OATH AND
HAS ENGAGED IN HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, WHICH ISING
SOMETHING THE HOUSE GETS TO
DEFINE.
OTHER REPUBLICANS HAVE JUST SAID
DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD IT IN FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE DAY ONE.
THEY SAY IF THAT'S TRUE, WHY
DIDN'T WE IMPEACH HIM ON DAY
ONE?
WE WAITED UNTIL HE VIOLATED THE
OATH OF OFFICE.
THOSE ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS.
IT'S PARTISAN, AK ACRIMONIOUS, AND
THE PUBLIC IS INTERESTED BUT NOT
CHANGING THEIR MINDS IN ANY KIND
OF SYSTEMIC WAY.
I THINK WE'RE SEEING ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT POLARIZES US.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF NANCY
PELOSI SLOW-WALKING SENDING THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE
SENATE?
>> I THINK SHE'S TRYING TO
ASSERT A STRONG PREFERENCE FOR
THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE BEING
SOMETHING THAT'S TAKEN
SERIOUSLY.
I THINK SPEAKER PELOSI WANTS TO
AVOID SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT
THINK IS AKIN TO WHAT HAPPENED
IN WISCONSIN WITH THE SPECIAL
SESSION ON GUNS WHERE THERE WAS
A GAVEL IN AND OUT AND IT WAS
OVER IMMEDIATELY.
SPEAKER PELOSI WANTS THERE TO BE
IN A TRIAL IN THE SENATE, WHERE
THE PRESIDENT HAS TO MAKE A
DEFENSE TO THESE CHARGES AGAINST
HIM.
AND SHE WANTS IT TO TAKE TIME.
AND SHE WANTS THE PRESIDENT TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LAY OUT
HIS CASE AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS
TO LAY OUT THEIRS.
>> IT ALSO ALLOWS HER AND THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO ALLOW THIS
IDEA OF HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT OF
DONALD TRUMP TO REALLY SINK IN.
>> IT ALLOWS IT TO THINK IN,
PERHAPS.
AND IT ALSO IS POLITICAL IN THAT
THE LONGER THIS DRAGS ON, THE
MORE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE EM
BATTLED, THE MORE OTHER THINGS
WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE
COURTS ABOUT WHO WORKS FOR THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY,
MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE DECIDED.
SO IT'S CERTAINLY POLITICAL AS
WELL AS DUTIFUL.
>> DO YOU EXPECT THE IMPEACHMENT
TO HELP OR HURT DEMOCRATS?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND I
THINK THE HONEST ANSWER IS I'M
NOT SURE.
WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IN
OFFICE, HE WAS REALLY POPULAR
DURING IMPEACHMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT GAINED
IN POPULARITY.
HE'S UNDER WATER IN TERMS OF
PUBLIC APPROVAL EVEN THOUGH THE
ECONOMY HE IS PRETTY STRONG.
HE HASN'T HAD THE SAME BENEFIT.
SO I THINK PREDICT A SYSTEMIC
ADVANTAGE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IS
NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE DATA TO
KNOW.
IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.
>> AS FOR DEMOCRATS, ANY SENSE
ON YOUR PART WHO WON LAST
NIGHT'S DEBATE?
>> WELL, I THINK AMY KLOBUCHAR
HAD A GOOD NIGHT.
ONCE THE STAGE WAS SMALLER, IT
BECAME CLEARER THAT THERE WERE
TWO LANES, THE MORE PROGRESSIVE
LANE THAT ELIZABETH WARREN AND
BERNIE SANDERS ARE ON, AND
KLOBUCHAR IS KIND OF VYING WITH
BIDEN AND PETE BUTTIGIEG FOR
THAT CENTRIST LANE.
KLOBUCHAR DID HERSELF A LOT OF
FAVORS LAST NIGHT.
PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE THEIR EYES
TRAINED ON HER BECAUSE OF HER
POSITION IN THE POLLS.
KLOBUCHAR LOOKED LIKE THE
PRAYING MA
PRAYING
PRAGMATIST.
>> WHAT'S YOUR PREDICTION AS TO
WHICH CANDIDATE TAKES THE
NOMINATION?
>> IT'S EARLY STILL.
JOE BIDEN HAS PROBABLY THE BEST
CHANCE.
I THINK ELIZABETH WARREN HAS THE
NEXT BEST CHANCE.
I THINK IT WILL BE HARDER FOR
BERNIE SANDERS TO SUSTAIN THE
KIND OF POPULARITY HE WOULD NEED
TO GET TO THE NOMINATION,
ALTHOUGH HE CAME CLOSE LAST
TIME.
IT'S JOE BIDEN'S TO LOSE, BUT
HE'S TRIED THIS BEFORE AND LOST
EACH TIME.
AND SO -- AND HE'S MUCH OLDER
NOW AND IS NOT QUITE -- DOESN'T
HAVE HIS FINGER ON THE PULSE OF
THE TIMES IN THE WAY HE MIGHT
HAVE WHEN HE RAN THE FIRST TIME,
WHICH LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR
OTHER CANDIDATES.
THAT GIVES PETE BUTTIGIEG AND
AMY KLOBUCHAR A