(tense music)
- [Jenna] Tonight, willimpeachment divide Democrats?
The latest in the party pushing
to impeach the president.
Plus, a citizenshipquestion on the 2020 census,
the case being arguedbefore the Supreme Court
that could impact politicsfor the next decade.
And how some lawmakersare weaponizing religion
to stop political appointees.
All this and more,tonight on Faith Nation.
(perky music)
- The threat of impeachmentlooms over the president
as Democrats weigh how to move forward.
Welcome to Faith Nation.
I'm John Jessup.
- And I'm Jenna Browder.
The speaker of the Housewalking a political tightrope,
calling for furtherinvestigations into the president,
all the while trying to keep Democrats
from jumping onto thatimpeachment bandwagon.
- CBN Capitol HillCorrespondent Abigail Robertson
has more on Pelosi's pushamid a Democratic rift.
Abigail, the issue seemsto be coming a hot topic
for 2020 hopefuls.
- That's right, John.
And as calls to pursue impeachmentin a Democrat-held House
spill onto the campaigntrail, the Democrats' dilemma
is front and center.
- I think the American people would like
to move on from this.
- [Abigail] SenateRepublicans could shoot down
any House movement toremove the president.
- The worry for Democrats,that pursuing impeachment
would bring unintended consequences.
- All that the Congress is talkin' about
is impeaching Trump andTrump, Trump, Trump,
and Mueller, Mueller, Mueller.
What I worry about, is thatworks to Trump's advantage.
- [Abigail] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
in an hour-long conferencecall with Democrats,
urged caution for that very reason.
- He's not worth it.
- [Abigail] Presidentialcandidate, Amy Klobuchar agrees.
- President Trump shouldbe held accountable.
- [Abigail] Still,impeachment fever is spreading
along the 2020 trail.
- This president and his administration
engaged in obstruction of justice.
I believe Congress
should take the steps towards impeachment.
- [Abigail] CaliforniaSenator Kamala Harris
is joining Senator Elizabeth Warren's call
to impeach the president.
- There is no politicalinconvenience exception
to the United States Constitution.
- [Abigail] As for a subpoena by Democrats
to provide Congress with thefully unredacted Mueller report
a Republican privy tothe less redacted version
called the move unnecessary.
- Nothing that was went any further
except we had no collusion after a long
and thorough investigation.
We had no obstruction that was charged.
There's nothing there, nothing per day
changes those results from last week.
- [Abigail] Georgia's DougCollins called upon Democrats
to look for themselves.
- To not come here and take advantage
of the attorney general and his offer,
to me, says that they're not more worried
about what's in the report.
They're more worried
about actually scoring political points.
- And today, MassachusettsCongressman Seth Moulton
became the latest Democratpresidential candidate
to call for impeachment.
And the rift is sure to grow deeper
as candidates continue on their way
down the 2020 campaign trail.
- And no doubt.
Abigail, the HouseJudiciary Committee today,
issued a subpoena for former
White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify.
What are Democrats looking for here?
- Well, Don McGahn is reallyemerging as the chief witness
in the Mueller report.
And he's already cooperatedwith the special counsel
and it's unclear whatmore could be derived
from his testimony that's notalready in the Mueller report.
But Democrats want tospeak with him directly.
They want to dive deeper.
They want to ask him todescribe some of the instances
that we see in the Mueller report.
And right now, PresidentTrump's current lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani, they'retrying to cast doubt
on some of the thingsthat Don McGahn has said.
They're saying that hehas different variations
of things that he told Muellerduring the investigations.
But, House Democrats wannabring him here on the Hill.
The wanna to talk to him themselves.
And they want to see if there's anything
that he says that could possibly be
an impeachable offense by the president.
- Alright, Abigail Robertson,for us on Capitol Hill.
Thank you.
- Well, joining us nowis Republican strategist
and political analyst, John Brabender.
John, you just heard Abigail's report.
What are your thoughts onall this talk of impeachment?
- Well, I can't help butfeel like the Democrats
are Charlie Brown and the football.
Every time they thinkthey have the president,
they've got him, and all of a sudden,
footballs pulled away andthere's nothing there.
But they're not gonna give up.
And here's the problem.
I don't think NancyPelosi wants impeachment.
I think she thinks, for the House,
it'll be a political nightmare,will hurt them in 2020.
But she can't control the messaging
because the messaging on the left
is gonna be by thepresidential candidates.
Their first big debate is June,you know, whatever they say.
And they're trying toout position each other
for the progressive left,who is gonna determine who,
likely, is gonna be the nominee.
So, almost all of them havecome out for impeachment.
The problem is, it'ssuch a ridiculous story.
What they're basically saying is,
okay, the president wasn'tguilty of obstruction
but aha, he was guilty of trying to stop
the very investigation
that proved he wasn't guilty of collusion.
And so it makes absolutely no sense.
Plus, talking about Don McGahn,
you know, he's his lawyer.
The president said,here's what I want to do
and Don McGahn said, no, we can't do that.
He didn't fire Don McGahn.
The president moved on.
And so, I don't reallyunderstand what case
they could properly have, other than
they're trying to make this political.
- Does this take you back to the 1990s
when Republicans were goingafter President Clinton?
Do you think Democrats here, John,
could overplay their hand?
- Yeah, look, in Washington a lot of times
people wake up drinking thepolitical Kool-Aid of the day.
And I will be first to saythat our party was probably
guilty of that in the '90s,particularly starting 1994,
we were gonna take out Bill Clinton.
And I think some bad decisions were made.
I think that the Democrats right now,
are making horrificdecisions for this country.
Here's the real interestingthing, is if you talk
to the Democrat presidential candidates,
they will admit nobodyon the campaign trail's
asking them questionsabout the Mueller report,
they're asking them much bigger
more important questions for America.
- What about all theseother investigations
Democrats are pursuing?
They might not ultimatelytry to impeach the president,
but there's definitely gonna investigate
the heck out of him.
Do you think that's goingto appease the base?
- Yeah, you mean thelegal firm of Schumer,
Pelosi- Pelosi.
- And Schiff?
Yeah, exactly.
Look, that's what they want to do.
They think if they do this slow drip
of saying, oh now, we're gonna subpoena
this person, now we're gonnaaccuse the president of this.
But here's the interesting thing,
I think they are startingto overplay their hand.
I think the American people are smarter
than they're givin' 'em credit for.
And understand that they have no intention
of moving America forward,
they have no intention ofworking with this president.
They're just worriedabout the 2020 election.
- And 2020 Democratspretty split on whether
or not they should call for impeachment
or whether or not theyshould move on from it.
John, what would be your adviceto a lot of these candidates
who are in the race?
- Well, I think some ofthem, like Bernie Sanders
came out and said, no, no,no, we shouldn't do this.
Why?
He actually wants to look statesmanlike.
He wants to look likehe could be a president.
And so it's gonna be a tough question
for those candidates running.
Do I make my base, the far left, happy?
Or do I look presidentialby doing the right thing,
the reasonable thing to do?
And they're gonna have thatconflict and that paradox
to try to solve.
- So, what is it specifically,that you think Democrats
in 2020 should be talking about?
- Honestly, I think thatthey should be figuring out
how to help middle-incomefamilies afford college better.
I think that they shouldfind a healthcare system
that isn't socialism,doesn't take your right
for private insurance,doesn't lead to rationing
and long lines, but instead, tell America
how we're gonna improve Obamacare
because of the rates went up so high.
I think that they should talk about
if they wanna have a strongforeign national policy.
What is their differenceswith Donald Trump?
The truth of the matteris, I think they've come
to the conclusion that theydon't have a big enough
distinction or positive movement
among voters on issuesand that their only way
to probably win 2020, see if they can
take this president down.
- Yeah, what issues doyou think President Trump
and his campaign should be talking about?
- Well, again one of the things is
I think everybody's a mistake not talking
more to Millennial andGeneration Z voters.
They are gonna make up almost40% of the vote this time.
And I think both sides have to understand
that they're engaged, they're showing up
and they're willing andfluid to vote for either.
And I think they wantto know, how is America
gonna be good for them, how are they gonna
be able to afford jobs and ahouse and all these things?
And I don't think that'sbein' addressed by anybody.
- Final question for you, John.
Should the president betalking about impeachment?
'Cause this seems to rally his base.
- Yeah, my argument all the time,
is that I think the presidentsteps on his own message
in the sense that, I thinkhe gets so infuriated,
and I understand, if you'reaccused of something falsely,
you wanna fight back.
But unfortunately, it keeps it alive.
- Alright, John Brabender,
always good- Thank you.
to get your insights.
- Always a pleasure to be here.
- Thank you.
Well, to the Supreme Court, where all eyes
are on a case that couldshape the political landscape
for the next 10 years.
It all centers on UScitizenship and the 2020 census.
Amber Strong explains.
- The Supreme Court heardopening arguments Tuesday
about whether a citizenship question
should be included on next year's census.
The Trump administration wants to add,
"Is this person a citizenof the United States?"
Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley says
the question is importantto the president.
- He wants to know who's in this country.
And I think as a sovereignnation, we have that right.
- [Amber] Last year CommerceSecretary Wilbur Ross
stated the DOJ asked for the change
to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.
- Can you tell me whetherthe Department of Commerce
plans to include the citizenship question
in the 2020 census?
- Department of Justice has, you know,
initiated the request for inclusion
of the citizenship question.
- [Amber] Immigrationgroups in various states
sued the government, however,arguing that's not the reason.
Court documents indicate the request
was initiated by Ross, not the DOJ.
Three federal judges struck down
the administration's proposal too,
calling it unconstitutional.
Before the case could go to appeals
the Supreme Court stepped in.
New York Attorney GeneralLetitia James says
Tuesday's battle was an important one.
- Adding that particularcitizenship question
could lead to theundercounting in communities
across America, particularlyin immigrant communities
and Hispanic communities.
In the interest offairness, in the interest
of upholding thisquintessential American promise,
we are obligated to ensurethe most accurate count
in the 2020 census.
- Defenders say most countries
ask similar questions and that the heart
of the matter goes backto the founding fathers.
The census is importantas it affects things
ranging from the number of representatives
to electoral collegevotes to federal funding,
so it's clear the impactfrom this decision
will be felt well beyond 2020.
Now, based on statementsfrom Tuesday's arguments,
the conservative justices seem
to support the administration.
But we should know adefinite answer by late June,
so that the census can be printed on time.
Amber Strong, CBN News, Washington.
- Mike Gonzales is a senior fellow
at the Heritage Foundationand he joins us now for more.
Mike, thanks for joining us.
- Thanks a lot for having me on.
- What do you think, Mike?
Do you think adding a citizenship question
would keep some fromparticipating in the 2020 census?
- I haven't seen anyevidence of that as the case.
The evidence that the groups on the left
and some of their alliesin the census bureau
have produced has been very inconclusive.
In fact, about two monthsago, there was another study
which showed that theimpact would be negligible.
So, I don't think thatwhatever loss of responses
there are, if there are any,because it is not a certainty
there would be any of any significance,
outweigh the positive aspectsof thinking of Americans
in terms of citizens rather than groups.
- What about the issueof accuracy, though.
People are concerned that ifpeople aren't participating,
of course, how can we get a good count
of who's actually here?
- I just addressed that.
There's isn't any evidence,real any hard evidence
that they will be an erosion of accuracy.
What there is, is a lot of complaining
and huffing and puffingby groups on the left.
But when you ask 'em for hard evidence,
any studies that shows thatthere would be an undercount
they don't really have the goods.
- So you're saying that they're,
the people who are saying this are lying?
- I didn't say they are lying.
That shows intent.
I think that what they, forall I know, they do think
that there will be an undercount.
They just lack the evidenceto show that there will be.
- The US, Mike, used tohave a citizenship question,
really, up until, Ithink it was the 1950s.
Why did they get rid of that?
- You know, JusticeGinsburg asked that question
of the Solicitor General, Noel Francisco,
and he didn't have a good answer.
What I would surmise isthat it was around that time
when the share of the foreignborn of the population
became smaller and smaller and smaller.
It was after 1950 becauseof a very restrictive
immigration law that passed in 1924.
So, with the vastly overwhelming majority
of the US population being native-born
and thus citizens, becauseof the 14th Amendment,
I think the question lost its relevance.
That's just my conjecture.
But I would imagine, thathad something to do with it.
Today, of course, we are again
at very historical levels,close to what we had 1910
and 1900, which was a historichigh of the foreign born.
- Real quickly, Mike, what wouldthe Supreme Court's ruling,
what could it mean for future elections?
- Well, nothing really for the2020 election, for example.
I think that it does open the possibility
that districts and statesand state legislatures
may want to apportion and redistrict
with citizenship rather thantotal population as the base,
which they're allowed tounder the Constitution.
The last time that this was looked at,
which was the Evenwold Case
which I think was, 2015,
the court didn't expressitself on that issue.
Said that states andin fact, Justice Thomas
said that states could usecitizenship if they wanted to.
So it could conceivablyaffect future elections.
I don't think it's gonnaaffect the impending elections.
- Alright, Mike Gonzaleswith the Heritage Foundation.
Thank you.
- [Mike] Thank you.
- Well, today marked anational day of mourning
in Sri Lanka after a wave of bombings
killed more than 320 people Easter Sunday.
People across the country joined
a moment of silence this morning.
They also prayed for thoseaffected by the attack.
Meanwhile, ISIS today,confirmed responsibility
for the bombings.
The government says a localIslamist militant group
is responsible butbelieves it received help
from an international terror group.
Sri Lankan officials say the bombings
were in retaliation for the attack
on the Christchurch, NewZealand mosques last month.
Well, the United States is offering
up to $10 million in a quest to find out
who's financing Hezbollah.
The State Department'sRewards for Justice Program
aims to end the terror group's activities
by targeting their source of money.
And Uncle Sam's willingto pay big to anyone
who can help do that.
- What sort of information are we seeking?
We are welcoming anyinformation that leads
to the identification, the disruption
of Hezbollah's financial mechanisms
and individuals whomanage or facilitate them.
The Rewards for Justice Program has been
an effective law enforcementtool in our fight
against international terrorism
since its inception in 1984.
- The State Department saysit's looking into things
like names, bank records, customs receipts
or evidence of real estate transactions.
- Using religion againstjudicial nominees.
Up next, the tacticssome lawmakers are using
against political foes.
(tense music)
Welcome back.
Well, Fox News plans to host a Town Hall
with Democratic presidentialcandidate Pete Buttigieg
on May 19th.
Today's announcementcomes as the 2020 hopeful
continues his appeal to voters of faith.
In a CNN Town Hall Monday,the South Bend mayor
was asked how he plans to unite Christians
with different political leanings.
- And I get that one ofthe things about scripture
is different people seedifferent things in it.
But at the very least, weshould be able to establish
that God does not have a political party.
- And Buttigieg pointed to his own faith
and interpretation ofthe Bible to highlight
the difference betweenhim and President Trump.
Specifically, pointingto how he views the poor
in America, saying theadministration acts as if
poor people have it easyand the he views things,
quote, "radically different."
- Well, the Constitutionspecifically forbids
religious tests for public office
but lately this tactic,is cropping up in Congress
with Democrats challenging appointees,
claiming their beliefsdisqualify them from office.
CBN News CorrespondentCaitlin Burke is with us now.
Caitlin, how are some of these Democrats
using the practice ofweaponizing religion?
- Right, John, so anew line of questioning
from Democrat senators iscoming up far too often.
And it has churchleaders warning lawmakers
to tread carefully.
They say religion is beingused as a disqualifier
for public office.
- The weaponization ofreligion means the use
and exploitation of faithfor partisan political ends,
in terms of political warfare.
- [Caitlin] In DecemberDemocrat Senators Kamala Harris,
now a presidential candidateand Hawaii's Mazie Hirono
questioned a federal judicial nominee
about his membership inthe Knights of Columbus,
the well-known Catholicservice organization.
They asked Brian Buescherwhether he shared the group's
quote, "extremist values"and if he would be able
to judge certain cases fairly.
- They were taking shots at Catholics.
Didn't have to be the Knights of Columbus.
They were taking shots at Catholics
regarding pro-life and theirviews on marriage, right?
That's the bottom line.
This was a case of clearideological bigotry.
It was unfair and it ispart of a larger problem
that exists in this society.
- [Caitlin] Reverend Eugene Rivers,
the founder and directorof the Seymour Institute
for Black Church and Policy Studies
says members of all faithsshould defend religious liberty.
- I should be free to believe in my God
or to believe in no God.
But in either case, Ishould not be subjected
to some ideological test that is used
as a criteria or the basisfor assessing my right
to engage in public life.
- [Caitlin] In 1960,Democrat John F. Kennedy
worked to convince Americansthat he could be both
a good Catholic and a good public servant.
- If this election is decided on the basis
that 40 million Americanslost their chance
of being president on theday they were baptized,
then it is the whole nationthat will be the loser
in the eyes of Catholics andnon-Catholics around the world,
in the eyes of history and inthe eyes of our own people.
- Reverend Rivers saysthat if certain senators
refuse to see the goodcontributions from people of faith
they should at least committo uphold the Constitution.
It states in ArticleSix, "No religious test
"shall ever be required as a qualification
"to any office or public trust
"under the United States."
The Senate passed aresolution at the beginning
of the year, saying itwould be unconstitutional
to consider membership inthe Knights of Columbus
a disqualifying criteriafor public office.
It passed unanimously.
- In this, we are simply reaffirming
with President Kennedy, andwith countless other Americans
across 230 years, Protestant and Catholic,
Jew and Muslim, Hinduand Buddhist, agnostic,
atheist and more, we aresimply reaffirming the idea
that America is bigenough for disagreements.
- [Caitlin] In 1960, thencandidate Kennedy responded
to bigotry with the warningthat Dr. Rivers echoes today.
- For while this yearit may be a Catholic,
against whom the fingerof suspicion is pointed.
In other years it has beenand may someday be again
a Jew or a Quaker or aUnitarian or a Baptist.
Today I may be the victim,but tomorrow it may be you.
Until the whole fabricof our harmonious society
is ripped apart at a timeof great national peril.
- Caitlin, how have nominees responded
to these kind of religious test questions?
- Well, so Brian Buescher,the nominee mentioned
in that story, saysthe Knights of Columbus
official views could neverrepresent each of their
two million members.
And so he basically justsaid, that if he felt
like a case came up wherehe couldn't be impartial,
he would recuse himself.
But really, he says his involvement
with the Knights ofColumbus has to do with
their charitable workand community projects.
- Caitlyn, if you look at recent incidents
of this line of questioning,oftentimes it centers
around nominees who have a Catholic faith.
What have Democrats, what kind of insight
have the given on why they have this
line of questioning?
- So really, it's notjust about Catholic faith.
It's about faith in general.
Democrats are worriedthat a nominee's faith
is going to shape their legal thinking.
And we've seen this come up specifically
regarding abortion and gay marriage.
But as Brian Bueschersaid, if there is something
that pops up where he feels he's unable
to be impartial, he would recuse himself
and we've heard that echoedfrom other nominees as well.
- Alright, Caitlin Burke,thank you very much.
Good to see you.
- [John] Well, comingup, a royal invitation
for President Trump.
The details when we come back.
(tense music)
- President Trump is gearingup for a royal visit.
- That is right, BuckinghamPalace announced today
the president will head to Britain
for his first official statevisit since taking office.
The three-day tour willtake place in early June.
His trip marks only the third state visit
from a US president.
Only George W. Bush and Barack Obama
received the officialinvitation from the Queen.
The visit is expected to befull of pomp and circumstance.
Those two previous state visits
included horse-drawn carriage rides
and banquets with theQueen at Buckingham Palace.
I think they'll also have high tea.
- Oh, I hope so, it's fun to watch.
- Well, that's gonna wrap it up
for tonight's Faith Nation.
- Have a great evening.
(friendly music)
