At one point during the show, correspondent Carol Costello at least poured some water on the impeachment idea as she pointed out the lack of legal grounds, but still managed to include loaded language in referring to "what critics see as the President's arrogance and disregard for Congress." The story included a soundbite from liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who argued that the Framers of the Constitution "did not want a President impeached because he simply is a bad President or he does bad things or stupid things."
The impeachment issue was first raised at about 4:20 p.m. during the regular Cafferty File segment, as CNN's Jack Cafferty asked viewers to email him with an answer to the question of "what it means to President Bush" for Hagel to bring up impeachment. Blitzer responded: "It means it's not good for President Bush, to put it bluntly. It's one thing for some on the fringes to be talking about impeachment. It's another thing for a senior Republican Senator from Nebraska to even mention the 'I' word." Shortly before 5:00 p.m., Blitzer asked Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and conservative Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey about the issue.
At the top of the 5 p.m. hour of the show, Blitzer again hyped Hagel's comments in the teaser. Blitzer: "It started with whispers in quiet corners. Now, as Jack just pointed out, the 'I' word being spoken out a little bit louder. Even some Republicans talking about impeachment. Where is Senator Chuck Hagel going with this?"
At about 5:30 p.m. came Costello's report undermining the legal premise for impeachment, followed by an interview with former Republican Senator and former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen during which Blitzer opened the interview asking about the issue. Blitzer then interviewed Democratic Senator Dodd and, after asking about the Alberto Gonzales controversy and other issues, soon asked how he felt about impeachment. While Dodd tried to pour water on the possibility by saying that "I don't want to see us jump to this right now" and "At this point here, I wouldn't go that far," Blitzer was interested in the possibility Dodd could change his mind. Blitzer: "What I'm hearing is you're not completely ruling it out."
During the 7:00 p.m. hour, as he plugged the upcoming replay of the Dodd interview, Blitzer again hyped the possibility of a Bush impeachment:
Dodd clip from interview: "I would be very cautious about jumping to that, to that procedure here of impeachment."
Blitzer clip from interview: "-you're not completely ruling it out?"
Dodd clip from interview: "Well, again, you never want to rule those things out."
Blitzer: "Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd leaves the door slightly open. It's a door with a lot of political land mines. He'll be joining us here in The Situation Room."
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Monday March 26 The Situation Room on CNN:
4:20 p.m.
Jack Cafferty: "On another front, there is a very powerful Republican Senator who is suggesting that President Bush may be impeached. Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said in a television interview that some lawmakers who complain that the President is ignoring Congress and the public with his Iraq policies are considering impeachment as an option. Hagel, who's a frequent war critic and a potential presidential candidate himself, and that's important to note, stopped short of calling for Mr. Bush's impeachment himself. But in an interview in Esquire magazine, Hagel said this: Quote, 'Bush is not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes,' unquote. So here's the question: What does it mean if Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is using the word 'impeachment' when it comes to President Bush?"
After Cafferty recited his email address, he turned the discussion back to Blitzer:
Blitzer: "It means it's not good for President Bush, to put it bluntly. It's one thing for some on the fringes to be talking about impeachment. It's another thing for a senior Republican Senator from Nebraska to even mention the 'I' word."
Cafferty: "And a consistent critic of President Bush's. This isn't something that suddenly reared its head because he's considering a White House run. He's been firmly opposed to the war in Iraq and the reasons for it for a good long while. So this is really nothing new as far as the posture of Senator Hagel. But that's a really big word to come out of his mouth."
Blitzer: "You're absolutely right, Jack. Thanks very much."
...
4:50 p.m.
Blitzer: "Let me read to you from Chuck Hagel's interview in Esquire magazine. Referring to the President and oversight, 'The President says, "I don't care." He's not accountable anymore, which is isn't totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes.' To hear Chuck Hagel even raising the impeachment word, even though he's not calling for impeachment, and, certainly the Democrats, at least Nancy Pelosi and the leadership are not calling for impeachment, but you do hear it from fringe elements. It's another thing to even hear it from Chuck Hagel."
Terry Jeffrey: "Well, I think Senator Hagel was engaging in hyperbole there. And, by the way, I think he was talking in the context of the Iraq War. And the truth is, the President has constitutional authority and the Congress has constitutional authority. And, ultimately, if the Congress wants to take the funding route to try to affect the President's policy on the Iraq War, the Constitution gives the President a veto, which he's vowed to use. And, in all of those circumstances, Wolf, the President is acting wholly within his legitimate constitutional power. No possible basis for an impeachment there."
Blitzer: "And a lot of rank-and-file Democrats out there are upset that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, they've taken impeachment off the table, that the mainstream, the leadership of the Democratic Party, and the Democratic presidential candidates are not even discussing it."
Donna Brazile: "Well, they're focusing on the other 'I,' which is, they are investigating the Bush administration to look at excesses, abuse of power, eroding civil liberties. So, while the other, the big 'I' word is not on the table, now, look, the Democrats are focused on getting things done for the American people. They have accumulated a great record over the last 100 days. And I think we need to just wait and see what happens with this attorney general purging."
...
4:56 p.m.
Blitzer: "Even some Democrats are refusing to use that 'I' word about President Bush, the impeachment word. So what does it mean when a Republican uses that word in discussing President Bush? Jack coming back for the Cafferty File right after this."
...
5:00 p.m.
Blitzer, teasing the 5 p.m. hour: "It started with whispers in quiet corners. Now, as Jack just pointed out, the 'I' word being spoken out a little bit louder. Even some Republicans talking about impeachment. Where is Senator Chuck Hagel going with this?"
...
5:18 p.m.
Blitzer: "And coming up, a top Republican lawmaker hinting -- hinting, merely -- at the possible impeachment of President Bush. But does he have a legal leg to stand on?"
...
5:30 p.m.
Blitzer: "They used to be just quiet conversations about impeaching the President. Now they're getting a little bit louder and you won't believe who's been doing some of the talking. CNN's Carol Costello is joining us now live with more on this story. Carol?"
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Any President who says I don't care or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed, if a President really believes that, then there are, what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that. This is not a monarchy."
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: "And you think that would be appropriate in this case?
Costello: "Though there are times when Mr. Bush's outlook seems downright royal."
George W. Bush: "But I'm the decider."
Costello: "But decisions people may disagree with doesn't make a President impeachable. Reality check!"
Jonathan Turley, George Washington University: "The Framers did not want a President impeached because he simply is a bad President or he does bad things or stupid things. But once a President starts to violate federal law, then he gets into a realm of impeachable offenses."
Costello: "Turley says it is not an impeachable offense to, as the President's toughest critics charge, mislead the American people into war with Iraq. Or, as another presidential hopeful claims, to threaten another country, like Iran. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, in a statement from his Web site on YouTube-"
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation. Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United States."
Costello: "Reality check!"
Turley: "If the President were to truly ignore Congress, if Congress put restrictions, for example, on money, then we would be getting into dangerous territory."
Costello: "To sum it up, the only way President Bush can be impeached is if he violates the law. That's right. The Constitution makes it very clear, you can dislike a President all you want, but the only way a President can be impeached is if he's found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Wolf?"
Blitzer: "Carol, thanks very much. So does this impeachment talk represent a major shift in the political landscape, or what is it? Joining us now, our world affairs analyst, the former Defense Secretary, William Cohen. He's chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group here in Washington. Look, Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table, the Speaker. Harry Reid, says it's not on the agenda. What do you make of this discussion?"
William Cohen, Former Defense Secretary: "I think it boils out of the frustration of members of Congress who feel that the administration is not listening to them, or taking their concerns into account. I would only take issue with the notion that a President could only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. We went through this. It doesn't necessarily mean a crime as we define a felonious crime, but rather it could be an abuse of power, as was one of the impeachment-"
Blitzer: "Because you were involved in the impeachment proceedings involving Richard Nixon when you were a young member of the House, there you are right there, right behind you, a little less gray."
Cohen: "Exactly. But high crimes and misdemeanors is something that has been developed in terms of the concept of it that requires something very, very serious. If there was a total abrogation of, or accumulation of power by the President ignoring Congress, ignoring any limitation placed upon the President by Congress, then you get into an abuse of power. Then you might have a situation. Absent that, the notion that you're talking about impeachment at this point for political differences, I think, is off the base."
...
5:50 p.m.
Blitzer: "Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from Nebraska, has caused somewhat of a stir in an interview in Esquire magazine, raising the 'impeachment' word involving President Bush. I'll read to you from the Esquire interview. 'The President says, "I don't care." He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes.' Where do you stand on the issue of impeachment and President Bush?"
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): "Well, I listened to Bill Cohen, your previous guest, I think sort of expressed my views on this. I don't want to see us jump to this right now. It seems to me this is getting ahead of ourselves. There have been calls already, various people have raised that as a suggestion here. I'd rather see us try and resolve some of these outstanding issues we have here. We've got an awful lot of issues at home and abroad to try and work our way through. At this point here, I wouldn't go that far. Others have raised those concerns, but I'm not there at all yet, Wolf."
Blitzer: "Well, but I, what I'm hearing is you're not completely ruling it out."
Dodd: "Well, again, you don't want to rule those things out, but it seems to me we're getting ahead of ourselves here. I thought Bill Cohen explained it pretty well here. We've got a lot of issues to grapple with here. The American public are wondering when we can get beyond the 51-49 divide in this country. We need to try to work through, we've got a lot of issues at home and abroad that require much more cooperation. I've been down this road, I spent that foolish effort to impeach Bill Clinton that took so much time and so much effort here. I would be very cautious about jumping to that, to that procedure here of impeachment having been through it once already."
Blitzer: "Senator Chris Dodd is a Democratic presidential candidate. Senator, thanks for coming in."
Dodd: "Thank you, Wolf."
...
7:10 p.m.
Blitzer: "Coming up, might Democrats change their minds and consider impeaching President Bush?"
Dodd: "I would be very cautious about jumping to that procedure here of impeachment."
Blitzer: "-you're not completely ruling it out?"
Dodd: "Well, again, you never want to rule those things out."
Blitzer: "Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd leaves the door slightly open. It's a door with a lot of political land mines. He'll be joining us here in The Situation Room."
...
7:22 p.m.
Blitzer: "Up ahead tonight here in The Situation Room, a Republican goes where even some Democrats won't. Senator Chuck Hagel's impeachment talk, should President Bush feel threatened?"
