Impeachment Manager: McConnell Has “Complete Lack of Honor”

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, the former president has been acquitted, but the evidence brought forward by the nine impeachment managers is still being analyzed in the court of public opinion. Stacey Plaskett was one of those lawyers, the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands stood out during the trial making a bold case against Trump. And here she takes our Michel Martin behind the scenes of that tumultuous event.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN: Thanks, Christiane. Delegate Plaskett, thank you so much for speaking with us. As we are speaking now, it’s under two months that people — you know, there was a mob attack on your place of work. And, you know, now, it has become clear that had any of you actually been located by some of the people in the mob, you could have been killed. And, you know, now, a couple of weeks after that, you are heading up impeachment inquiry. Why do you think your presentation stood out to so many? I mean, there’s evidence by the fact that you’ve been, you know, highly sought after since the proceedings concluded and you have been highly sought after. And I just wonder why do you it is that your presentation stood out so much?

REP. STACEY PLASKETT (D-VIRGIN ISLANDS): I am not sure, you know, because everyone was so skilled. Among the nine of us, we encompass over 100 years of law practice. I am the only person on the team who actually as we used to say spoke Republican, because I had been in the Republican administration. And so, I really directed my argument as well as all of us to trying to speak to all 100 senators, but also really trying to speak to those Republicans to try and bring them over to our side. And so, that was really a mind frame that I had when I was speaking, really trying to be very precise, surgical in the execution of the evidence that we had that was going to bring it out to light, not only for those senators, but illuminate it for the American public in a way that it would not be forgotten in history.

MARTIN: I was wondering what it was like for you when you are seeing this video and you’re seeing how close the attackers actually came to the floor, to getting access to the members physically.

PLASKETT: Right.

MARTIN: You know, that was the first time a lot of people had understood that or seen that. And I wonder what that was like for you when you saw for the first time?

PLASKETT: Well, I think for all of the managers we were really struck by how close came but for the grace of God and the tremendous bravery of capitol police and other law enforcement on that day who were incredibly outnumber and were actually engaged for — you know, you are talking three or four hours in hand-to-hand combat, almost medieval-style combat to keep the individuals out. And there were times in preparation that different managers kind of broke down thinking about this. For me, I talked on the floor of the Senate about how looking some of the evidence really reminded me of the juxtaposition of those Americans storming the capitol to those Americans on Flight 93 who gave — those 44 Americans who gave their lives to ensure that no one could reach the capitol, that our democracy, even the symbol, would not be destroyed. That was very traumatic for me as well.

MARTIN: It is my understanding from just from the reporting of folks who were in the gallery that when the testimony touched on the lawmakers being in danger that the senators were very attentive?

PLASKETT: Yes.

MARTIN: It is my understanding from the reporting that when other testimony was brought in about the other people and how they were affected, congressional staff, the support staff, the janitorial staff, the law enforcement, that they were not so attentive, there were lots of empty seats is my understanding, and I just have to ask, is that true since you were there and how did that strike you —

PLASKETT: Well —

MARTIN: — that they didn’t seem to be focused on that?

PLASKETT: I don’t know if that is entirely true. I think that throughout the portions of myself, Eric Swalwell and Dave Cicilline and Joaquin Castro, that section in there, senators were very attentive. I can recall senators in the Republican side shaking their head in disgust. Some welling up with tears during those portions. I wasn’t speaking about the threat to us as individuals, I saw them doing that during my presentation. And shockingly though, these were the same senators who did not vote to convict the president. So, that’s very telling as well.

MARTIN: What does that tell you?

PLASKETT: I had the sense afterwards. I mean, I had the Republican senators speaking with me in between presentations that we were doing a tremendous job, that we were outlining the facts completely. How do senator — Republican senator tell me that he believed we made our case but he was not going to vote the president. You know, some of them were relying on the justification that they could not — they did not feel that they could indict or convict a former president, but not looking me in the eye when they were saying that.

MARTIN: Well, first of all, that — I mean, that narrative had been disposed of. I mean, that was the first vote to determine, and yes — this is not a criminal matter, let’s just be clear. I think most people should know that by now, it is a political trial. The Senate sets its own rules. But the Senate leadership then led by Mitch McConnell made the decision to only entertain the article of impeachment after the president had left, the former president had left. They determine that timing.

PLASKETT: Exactly.

MARTIN: And then, it was a vote on whether or not — on the constitutionality, that was the first vote.

PLASKETT: Exactly.

MARTIN: So, in essence, they were engaging in a jury nullification.

PLASKETT: That is a great way of putting it. They had made a determination that they were not going to convict the president, and it did not matter how much evidence we were going to put in front of them. You know, I heard so many people, Democrats who I know have a lot of hurt feelings and angst and are frustrated by the process, wanting us to bring multiple witnesses. Well, you know, if you think back and really look at the evidence that we presented, it was overwhelming. We did have witnesses, police officers, speaking about their experience and what it meant to them. We were able to get in the statement of our brave patriotic colleague, Jaime Herrera Beutler, as to what Kevin McCarthy told us, individuals need to also be aware that people do not come up on well of the floor of the Senate, raise their hand and give testimony in the same way that we do in our courts. This would have been a deposition. All the senators would have seen would be videotapes. And we were called that — we’re still in court battling over the subpoena and request for testimony from Don McGahn, from the first investigation of the president that was the first impeachment. And so, it wasn’t evidence, more evidence, more witnesses that we needed, these senators had put in their mind what they were going to do. And I think we were — you know, it is heartbreaking not to have won, it’s heartbreaking not to have shown not only the conviction but the disqualification of President Donald Trump, but we take heart in the notion that one, this is the most bipartisan vote to convict a president in American history. It is the one with the most majority of members of the Senate voted to convict. That has not happened in the past previously. And also, American history, all Americans in the world saw Donald Trump for who he was. How he recognized, encouraged and brought to himself violence. Internalized it and utilized it for himself. Massaged it and inflamed it and then directed it at the capitol to try to stop the certification of a presidential election, to attempt to assassinate his own vice president, the person in line to the presidency, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, the second in line to the presidency, and all for his own personal power and gain. And I think that will disqualify him to the American voter, it’s my belief, for rest of his purported or attempted political life.

MARTIN: I know that you been asked quite a bit in the days since the matter was concluded about the whole question of witnesses, and you just, you know, told us that the result would have been — the result that was achieved anyway, which was statements delivered on the floor and entered into the record, that’s the way it works. So, you have made the case several times over the last couple of days because you have been asked about it repeatedly. But was there some sort of an agreement or a tacit agreement with the White House that you would conclude this matter expeditiously so that you could move on the other business? Did that happen?

PLASKETT: I don’t know that happening. I was not privy to any conversation like that. We were given a green light by Speaker Pelosi that she trusts the team. She assembled a team that she believed was more than capable when we go over to the Senate, we’re going — you know, she did the negotiation with Senator Schumer but that we were — decision making was ours. And as you’ve heard Jamie Raskin say, the decision was his. We believed at the end of our presentation, before the defense counsel went on that we were done, that we had presented a case. And it was not our intention to call witnesses. We had the information about Jaime Herrera Beutler, we felt we had an obligation to try get that statement in on that Friday night. And thus, you saw the negotiations that were going on on Saturday morning, first to call her as a witness to try and open up the ability — that statement in the record. Having been able to do that, we felt that we had done our job more than adequately beyond or even at the criminal level of expectation of beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the Senate was not going to follow that.

MARTIN: But with one day of thinking, everybody there was a witness. I mean —

PLASKETT: But they were not only witnesses —

MARTIN: You could argue that they were all witnesses. But let me just ask you this —

PLASKETT: But they weren’t just witness, they were all victims, right?

MARTIN: Right. Did you honestly think going into this that you could achieve a conviction?

PLASKETT: Oh, absolutely. I don’t enter any fight without thinking I’m going to win, or else you’re not going to give your all. And so, I think all of us, all of us, you know, when people would say, oh, who are the 17 that you are going after? We were going after 100 senators. It was our intention to speak to all of the senators to try and muster up in them the courage and their duty to their country along with the full force of the evidence of that attempted coup of our government on January 6th to get them to convict and then to convict and then to disqualify Donald Trump.

MARTIN: What did you think when you heard Mitch McConnell after the matter was concluded and he gave the speech on the floor, this very forceful indictment of the president’s conduct? He basically made your case. He said that the president — the former president was for all intents and purposes morally and practically responsible, that was your case. So, what went through your mind when he was giving that speech?

PLASKETT: I felt it was disingenuous. I thought that it showed his complete lack of honor. I was enraged. I thought that it was the height of hypocrisy and I thought that he — this is a man who is more interested in personal gain and power and attempting to retain the minority leader and potentially the majority leader than he is in the future of our country, because it is not only about convicting Donald Trump, it’s about sending a message that our country will not stand for individuals who betray their oath of office, who attempt to disturb the peaceful transfer of power for their personal gain. It’s about what the founders of this nation who the Republicans believe so wholeheartedly in would have wanted us to do.

MARTIN: You served in the Justice Department as a political appointee in a Republican administration, the administration of George W. Bush. Do you mind if I ask, were you a registered Republican at that time?

PLASKETT: Yes, I was.

MARTIN: You were. So, what — why did you register as a Republican at that time? Why did you choose the Republican Party? What made you change? What made you leave it at that time? Well (INAUDIBLE) these events.

PLASKETT: Well, you know, I’m a follower. You know, I recall when I was asked by the White House in applying for the political appointee position what type of Republican was I? You know, was I a Rockefeller Republican or, you know, what type, and I said that I was a Malcolm X Republican. That I believed in, you know, small business. I believed in entrepreneurship. I believed in the power of education. I believed in the power of state government and what it can do for individuals. I believe, you know, in those type of values, and the individuals that I worked with. Listen, I worked with Robert Mueller. You know, Chris Wray was the chief of staff on the team that I worked with, with Larry Thompson. You know, I recall Larry Thompson arguing with the White House about the University of Michigan case on affirmative action during that time. And there was dialogue and back and forth and negotiation which allowed the White House to take a position, that did in some ways support affirmative action. I was placed in charge of the RICO case going after the tobacco companies. Those were the type of Republicans that I worked with at that time. And I left the Republican Party because I saw the party moving away from that. I went back to the party that I believed would allow exchanges. You know, I’m considered a moderate Democrat, because the Democrats allow free thought and differences of opinions to be a part of the party.

MARTIN: What about the former president? What should happen next? I mean, do you think that the Justice Department should pursue available charges?

PLASKETT: Yes. Well, you know, I do not pretend to or I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to say what the Justice Department should or should not do, what they should or should not proceed in. I believe that they will look very carefully at criminal charges, the civil rights charges. You know, I look at individuals who have been nominated. I think that Kristen Clarke who has been nominated to be the head of the Civil Rights Division is one of the most brilliant young black women lawyers of our time. I’m sure individuals like her, Letitia James in New York, the attorney general and Fulton County’s attorney general, as well as the District of Columbia, just looking at incitement to violence, will take deliberate — will deliberate on it with full measure and whatever decisions they come up with, you know, I’m they will have our full support.

MARTIN: There is a question of at what point did you pursue these charges, and what is the benefit and the cost? Now, you know, that you have lived through this and you heard all the arguments, what do you think about that?

PLASKETT: You know, I have been ask this question before and my response is, is that I think we’re at the same place in our country — you know, history repeats itself, and we’re immediately after the civil war where legislators had to make a decision what to do about seditionists and traders, individuals who attempted to seed (ph) themselves from the union. And the decision there was made to, you know, let’s shake like gentlemen and let them go back., And these individuals and their soldiers and those with them went back to the south and began to terrorize African-Americans and others, continue to the, you know, 19th Amendment to — well, I’m sorry, the 13th Amendment to build their own wealth, right, utilizing black people and chain gangs to do what needed to be done to grow their own economy. There was no reckoning. There was no accountability. And so, I am concerned that should we not engage in an appropriate reckoning in this instance, that it would embolden those individuals. Do I care that they feel putout and they feel defensive? I couldn’t careless that they feel defensive. What they have to be is accountable for their actions and for those things that fly in the face of our American values and American law.

MARTIN: Delegate Stacey Plaskett, thank you so much for speaking with us today.

PLASKETT: Thank you.