>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. MOVING THE BALL TO THE SENATE’S
COURT.
COURT. THIS MORNING, SENATOR GARY
PETERS ON THE UPCOMING TRIAL AND
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT WHEN IT
COMES TO TRANSPORTATION?
FORD’S CHIEF FUTURIST IS HERE.
TODAY IS SUNDAY, DECEMBER 22ND,
2019 AND THIS IS FLASH POINT.
>> HI, WELCOME TO FLASH POINT, I
HOPE YOU’RE ENJOYING THE HOLIDAY
AS HANUKKAH STARTS TONIGHT AND
CHRISTMAS ON WEDNESDAY.
THIS PAST WEEK WAS ANYTHING, BUT
FESTIVE.
FESTIVE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED
WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND IN FACT, HE
WAS IMPEACHED WHILE DELIVERING A
CAMPAIGN SPEECH IN MICHIGAN.
IT WAS JARRING AND YET, IT WAS A
PERFECT POLAROID MOMENT.
WE ARE A DIVIDED NATION, DIVIDED
AMONG THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SEE HIM REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND
THOSE WHO CAN’T WAIT TO VOTE FOR
HIM AGAIN COME NOVEMBER.
I DON’T WANT TO SAY WE’VE NEVER
BEEN MORE DIVIDED.
IT’S FRANKLY NOTHING COMPARED TO
ANTITAHAM AND GETTYSBURG.
SOME THOUGHT IT WAS THE
PRESIDENT’S BATTLE CREEK SPEECH
AS HE TOOK AFTER DEBBY AND JOHN
DINGELL AND DEBBY WILL HAVE
THOUGHTS ON THAT LATER ON.
AS THIS MOVES TO THE SENATE, WE
WILL, TOO.
WILL, TOO. AND GARY PETERS, AND FOCUSING ON
JOHN JAMES, DOES HE VOTE THE WAY
HE FEELS HIS CONSTITUENTS WOULD
OR DOES HE VOTE HIS OWN PERSONAL
CONVICTIONS, IF THEY AREN’T
NECESSARILY THE SAME THING?
WE’LL TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT
COMING UP.
COMING UP. AS WE MAKE THE TURN INTO 2020
LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE WITH
SOMEONE WHOSE JOB DEPENDS ON HER
ABILITY TO SEE A FEW STEPS
AHEAD.
AHEAD. SHERYL CONNELLY, THE CHIEF
FUTURIST FOR FORD, ALL TODAY ON
FLASH POINT.
FLASH POINT. ♪
♪ CURRENTLY THERE SEEMS TO BE NO
RUSH BY HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY
PELOSIS TO SEND THIS DOWN THE
HALL TO THE SENATE.
AND GO TO THE 100 MEN AND WOMEN
WHO MAKE UP THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
SENATE. AND ONE OF THEM FROM MICHIGAN,
GARY PETERS.
GARY PETERS. GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE
PROGRAM, SENATOR.
PROGRAM, SENATOR. >> ALWAYS, DEVIN.
>> DEVIN: AND HE HASN’T SAID HOW
HE WOULD VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT AND
THIS PERSON SAID TO ME, WELL,
HE’S THE ONLY PERSON IN AMERICA
WHO HASN’T MADE UP THEIR MINDS.
HAVE YOU MADE UP YOUR MIND HOW
YOU WOULD VOTE?
>> NO, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO
STEP ASIDE.
STEP ASIDE. AS YOU MENTIONED I’M ONE OF 100
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE TO SIT IN
JUDGMENT BASICALLY AS A JUROR.
WE WILL ACTUALLY TAKE A SPECIFIC
OATH, ONCE THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT ARE SENT TO THE
SENATE, WE TAKE A SEPARATE OATH
UNDER SENATE RULES AND SAY THAT
WE WILL APPROACH THIS IN AN
IMPARTIAL WAY AS YOU WOULD
EXPECT JURORS TO DO.
ACTUALLY THE RULES OF THE SENATE
ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THROUGH
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AS WELL.
SO, THAT’S THE WAY OUR FOUNDERS
INTENDED THIS PROCESS TO BE,
WHICH IS A VERY SOLEMN PROCESS,
A VERY SERIOUS PROCESS, AND IT’S
A PART OF THE CHECKS AND
BALANCES OF CONGRESS VERSUS THE
EXECUTIVE.
EXECUTIVE. AND IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE
INTEGRITY OF THE INSTITUTION OF
THE U.S. SENATE AND IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IT’S
INCUMBENT TO ABIDE BY THAT OATH
WHEN I BECAME A SENATOR, WHEN I
TOOK AN OATH IN THE OFFICER IN
THE U.S. NAVY RESERVE.
>> DEVIN: SOME WOULD THINK THAT
THE INITIAL OATH TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTION SHOULD COVER THIS,
BUT I’M CURIOUS HOW FEEL ABOUT
THE GAMEMANSHIP THAT WE’RE
WATCHING IT RIGHT NOW.
WE’RE SEEING IT ON BOTH SIDES.
WE’VE SEEN MITCH MCCONNELL
SAYING WE’RE MOVING IN LOCK STEP
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, A WEIRD
WAY OF LOOKING AT SEPARATION OF
POWERS, BUT NANCY PELOSI SAYING
WE’RE NOT SENDING IT OVER UNTIL
WE FEEL LIKE YOU’RE GOING TO RUN
THIS THE WAY WE WANT IT RUN
WHICH ALSO SEEMS TO BE MISSING
THE WAY THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE SEPARATE FROM
EACH OTHER.
EACH OTHER. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE
POLITICAL NATURE WE’RE ALREADY
WATCHING PLAY OUT?
>> UNFORTUNATELY, IT’S A VERY
PARTISAN, POLITICAL PROCESS, I
GET THAT.
GET THAT. I’M NOT NAIVE ABOUT THAT, BUT
IT’S INCUMBENT FOR US TO SEE
THAT THESE ARE SERIOUS CHARGES
AND IT’S DIFFICULT, AS
NONPARTISAN AND FAIR AS HUMANLY
POSSIBLE IT’S GOT TO BE A FAIR
PROCESS.
PROCESS. WE SAW THAT IN THE IMPEACHMENT
OF BILL CLINTON.
YOU HAD DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS COME TOGETHER TO
CREATE RULES IN THE SENATE THAT
EVERYONE AGREED WERE FAIR AND
YOU’D HAVE A FAIR PRESENTATION,
YOU’D HAVE WITNESSES THAT COULD
COME FORWARD.
COME FORWARD. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD DO
THAT AGAIN.
THAT AGAIN. CERTAINLY, IT’S VERY TROUBLING
WHEN YOU HEAR MITCH MCCONNELL
SAYING HE ALREADY MADE UP HIS
MIND AND HE’S WORKING WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. HOW IS HE GOING TO RAISE HIS
RIGHT HAND AND TAKE THAT OATH OF
OFFICE THAT WE’RE GOING TO HAVE
TO TAKE TO BE IMPARTIAL.
>> REALITY IS, SO MANY AMERICANS
HAVE MADE UP THEIR MIND AND
THEY’VE WATCHED AND WHICH EVER
SIDE YOU’RE ON YOU FEEL LIKE YOU
ALREADY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
YOU NEED AND I THINK SOME WOULD
SAY, YOU KNOW, SENATOR PETERS,
THAT’S PRETTY WISHY-WASHY.
>> NO, IT’S WHAT THE PROCESS IS
ABOUT.
ABOUT. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WHEN YOU
READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AND
OTHER DEBATES THAT WENT ON
DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, A DEBATE WHERE YOU
WOULD PUT IMPEACHMENT?
IT WOULD COME OUT OF THE HOUSE
REPRESENTING THE PASSION OF THE
PEOPLE AS OUR FOUNDERS TALKED
ABOUT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVES. MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD
THEN RULE AND THEN IT WAS
DISCUSSED THE SUPREME COURT ARE
NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
IT WOULDN’T BE IMPARTIAL.
LET’S SEND IT TO THE SENATE.
OF COURSE THE SENATE LOOKED
DIFFERENT THEN.
DIFFERENT THEN. WE WERE NOT POPULARLY ELECTED BY
THE PUBLIC, BUT IT WAS THOUGHT
THE SENATE WOULD BE A PLACE THAT
WAS INSULATED FROM SOME OF THAT
AND IT WOULD REALLY TAKE A
DELIBERATIVE APPROACH AND WE’VE
GOT TO TRY TO.
I LOVE THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE
COUNTRY AND LOVE THIS COUNTRY
AND THE CONSTITUTION HAS KEPT US
TOGETHER.
TOGETHER. WE’VE GOT TO DO EVERYTHING TO
RESPECT THAT.
RESPECT THAT. >> DEVIN: ONE OF MY FAVORITE
QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS
TO BE AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE
IS HOW THEY SEE THAT JOB?
EDMUND BURKE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN
FROM THE 17TH CENTURY SAID
THAT--
THAT-- 18TH CENTURY, RATHER, SAID THAT
AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OWES HIS
CONSTITUENTS NOT ONLY THEIR
REPRESENTATION, BUT HIS BETTER
JUDGMENT AS WELL.
AND THAT HE BETRAYS THEM IF HE
DEFERS IT TO THEIR OPINION.
SO I’M CURIOUS, IF YOU WERE TO
FIND THAT MICHIGANDERS OVERALL
DON’T WANT TO SEE THE PRESIDENT
IMPEACHED, BUT YOU DID FEEL THAT
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. WHICH WAY DO YOU GO?
>> ULTIMATELY I HAVE TO GO WITH
WHAT I BELIEVE IS RIGHT AND I
CAN LOOK IN THE MIRROR IN THE
AND THAT’S BASICALLY HOW I LOOK
AT THIS JOB, AS CERTAINLY, I
HAVE TO BE VERY AWARE OF WHAT
THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN BELIEVE
ABOUT A PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT
ULTIMATELY I HAVE TO DO MY
HOMEWORK AND DO I THAT, I HAVE
TO COLLECT THE FACTS, I HAVE TO
MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE
FACTS, AND LOOK IN THE MIRROR
AND SAY DID THIS BECAUSE I
BELIEVE IT’S IN THE BEST
INTEREST FOR THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN AND THE PEOPLE OF STATE
OF MICHIGAN WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD ME
ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.
ANOTHER. IF I CAN’T BE TRUE TO MY FACT
FINDING AND MY BELIEFS BASED ON
THAT INFORMATION, THEN I DON’T
BELIEVE THAT I’M DOING MY JOB.
I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO BE
AUTHENTIC, AUTHENTICITY IS
IMPORTANT, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN WILL HAVE
THEIR JUDGMENT ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER WHEN YOU’RE UP FOR
REELECTION.
REELECTION. >> DEVIN: WE HAD A STRANGE
MOMENT AT THE SAME TIME
ANNOUNCING IMPEACHMENT, WE WERE
ANNOUNCINGS USMCA, AND WHAT THEY
HOWELLED AND WANTED FOR SO LONG,
IS IT A MARKED IMPROVEMENT OVER
NAFTA.
NAFTA. >> IT IS IMPROVEMENT OVER NAFTA
AND VOTE FOR IT WHEN IT COMES
TO--
TO-- >> VOTE FOR IT.
>> VOTE FOR IT.
I WAS CONCERNED INITIALLY, WHAT
WE WERE PRESENTED FROM THE
PRESIDENT IS NOT WHAT WE’VE HAD
NOW, WE WORKED AGGRESSIVELY TO
MAKE SOME CHANGES PARTICULARLY
IN ENFORCEMENT.
IN ENFORCEMENT. I THINK WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THAT
IN THE PAST ON THE PROGRAM.
IF YOU HAVE RULES YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A MECHANISM TO ENFORCE THE
RULES OTHERWISE RULES ARE
MEANINGLESS AND THOSE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS HAVE BEEN
PUT IN PLACE PARTICULARLY FOR
LABOR PROTECTIONS AND ALLOW
LABOR TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE
FOR WAGES.
FOR WAGES. THERE’S BEEN SOME IMPROVEMENT IN
TERMS OF WAGES THAT NEED TO BE
PAID SO WE DON’T CONTINUE TO SEE
JOBS MOVE--
JOBS MOVE-- >> IN MEXICO THE WAGES THEY NEED
TO PAY THERE.
>> TO RAISE THAT UP ACROSS THE
BOARD, BUT IT’S IMPROVEMENT AND
IT CREATES CERTAINTY.
THERE’S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY.
AND DIFFICULT FOR BUSINESSES TO
PLAN WITH THAT UNCERTAINTY, BUT
I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE.
YOU CAN’T THINK THAT JUST
PASSING THIS NEW AGREEMENT WILL
BE ABOUT STRENGTHENING JOBS IN
AMERICA.
AMERICA. WE NEED TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE
MANUFACTURING POLICY.
MANUFACTURING POLICY. THAT’S WHY I’M WORKING ON A
MANUFACTURING INSTITUTE, WORKING
A LOT WITH FOLKS AT UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN AND THEIR BUSINESS
SCHOOL.
SCHOOL. HOW DO WE REORGANIZE THE WAY
THAT THE FEDERAL CAN HELP
MANUFACTURERS AND HAVE A
MANUFACTURING POLICY IN THIS
COUNTRY AND SOMETHING WE HAVEN’T
HAD IN BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND
REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.
REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS. THERE ARE AMAZING OPPORTUNITIES
WHEN YOU LOOK AT NEW TECHNOLOGY
COMING ON BOARD THAT CAN
ACTUALLY BRING JOBS BACK TO
AMERICA.
AMERICA. >> WE GOT THE NEWTS THIS PAST
WEEK OF U.S. STEEL IS GOING TO
LEAVE ZUG ISLAND THE OPERATION
THERE, THAT’S 1500 JOBS AND I
GUESS THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT
IS THE FUTURE OF WORK,
ESPECIALLY IN MANUFACTURING?
>> WELL, WE HAVE TO THINK THAT
THROUGH AND WE HAVE TO LEAN INTO
IT AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
NEW MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND
PARTICULARLY WITH THE USE OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE
LEARNING, ALL OF THAT IS GOING
TO TRANSFORM THE WORKPLACE.
>> DEVIN: IT IS.
>> IT IS ALREADY AND I’M NOT A
ROBOT APOCALYPSE GUY THINKING
THAT ALL THE JOBS GO TO ROBOTS.
FOCUS ON DAY IN AND DAY OUT,
MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE
UNDERSTANDING HOW IT CAN BE
INCORPORATED IN THE WORKPLACE
AND I BELIEVE WE CAN BRING BACK
JOBS FROM CHINA AND OTHER PLACES
AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE SYSTEMS
IN PLACE AND TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE.
>> DEVIN: I WANT TO GET TO
HEALTH CARE.
HEALTH CARE. WE HAD A JUDGE, A COURT STRIKE
DOWN THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THIS
PAST WEEK AND HAVE AN
INTERESTING THING WHERE AN
ANTI-GARY PETERS AD WAS PULLED
BECAUSE IT WAS MISSTATING YOUR
POSITION ON UNIVERSAL CARE.
WRAP THOSE THINGS TOGETHER FOR
ME.
ME. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE HAPPEN?
WHAT DOES THE RIGHT AMERICAN
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LOOK LIKE TO
YOU?
YOU? >> WELL, THAT’S A REALLY BIG
QUESTION.
QUESTION. >> DEVIN: YES, IF YOU COULD DO
IT IN TO SECONDS?
>> WE’LL TRY TO DO THAT.
>> DEVIN: YOU’RE NOT IN FAVOR OF
UNIVERSAL CARE WITHOUT A --
APPARENTLY BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT
THE AD SUGGESTED.
YU DO BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE
A PUBLIC OPTION, BUT YOU’RE NOT
IN FAVOR OF US GETTING A
MORATORIUM ON PRIVATE HEALTH
INSURANCE, IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> THAT’S TOTALLY ACCURATE.
IF PEOPLE HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE
THAT THEY LIKE, THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO KEEP IT AND THAT’S GOING
TO BE IMPORTANT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT
WE COULD EXPAND THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEDICARE.
I BELIEVE IN FACT, LEGISLATION
OUT AND SAY IF YOU’RE 50 AND
OVER AND YOU WANT TO BUY INTO
MEDICARE, YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT
OPTION.
OPTION. IF YOU’RE IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT AND HAVE A CHOICE OF VARIETY
OF PRIVATE INSURANCES YOU SHOULD
HAVE MEDICARE AS AN OPTION TO
PICK.
PICK. IF YOU HAVE YOUR INSURANCE.
>> THE CORE PRINCIPLE, EVERYBODY
IN THE COUNTRY NO MATTER WHO YOU
ARE, NOTE MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE
SHOULD HAVE AFFORDABLE HESHG
HEALTH CARE.
HEALTH CARE. >> DEVIN: THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN
THE ONLY WAY WITH PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS, AN AMORTIZE THE
SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE INDIVIDUAL
MANDATE, WHICH HAS BEEN STRUCK
DOWN.
DOWN. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT’S WHAT WE’RE SEEING, AN
ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO UNRAVEL
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND TAKE
THAT DOWN WHICH WOULD HAVE
CATASTROPHIC--
CATASTROPHIC-- >> AND VOTED IN ON THE PROMISE
TO DO THAT.
>> IT IS AND WE’VE GOT TO BE
CLEAR, THIS COURT CASE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS BEHIND WOULD
ELIMINATE INCLUDING PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE COULD
LOSE THE--
LOSE THE-- RIGHT NOW THE MOST POPULAR
ASPECT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, EVEN IF YOU’RE SICK, YOU
CAN GET ACCESS TO QUALITY
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE.
UNDERSTAND AFFORDABLE.
UNDERSTAND AFFORDABLE. >> PEOPLE SAY NO, WE’LL ALLOW
PEOPLE WITH PREEXISTING TO GET
INSURANCE.
INSURANCE. IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT, YOU
CAN’T.
CAN’T. HERE, YOU CAN HAVE AN INSURANCE
POLICY, BUT COST YOU $50,000 A
MONTH FOR A PREMIUM.
THAT’S NOT AFFORDABLE.
THAT’S NOT HAVING ACCESS TO
INSURANCE EVEN IF YOU HAVE A
PREEXISTING CONDITION AND THAT’S
WHY WE HAVE TO KEEP IT.
THE AKSES WE’RE SEEING FROM THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND
REPUBLICANS GENERALLY ARE GOING
TO UNDERMINE THE POPULAR
PROVISIONS AND THERE’S NO WAY
AROUND IT IF THEY GET THEIR WAY.
>> DEVIN: LASTLY, QUICK, AN
ELECTION YEAR QUESTION.
WE SAW JOHN JAMES HAVE HAD A
ROBUST CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOUR
FELLOW SENATOR AGAINST DEBBY
LAST TIME AROUND.
AND THERE WEREN’T MANY DEBATES,
NOT IN A PUBLIC FORUM THE WAY
THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE THAT.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE WILLING TO
DEBATE JOHN JAMES?
AND WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THIS
CAMPAIGN TO LOOK LIKE?
>> ELECTION YEAR IS COMING UP
SOON, BUT CERTAINLY, I WILL
RUN--
RUN-- TWO WEEKS AWAY AND WE ARE INTO
AN ELECTION YEAR.
>> I’VE ALWAYS LEANED IN AND
BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE ROBUST
DISCUSSION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN DESERVE TO
KNOW EXACTLY WHERE PEOPLE STAND.
IT’S VERY CLEAR IN MY WORK OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS, PEOPLE KNOW
WHERE I AM ON THE ISSUES,
WHOEVER RUNS AGAINST ME WILL
HAVE TO HAVE THAT SAME
OPPORTUNITY.
OPPORTUNITY. THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHO BEST
REPRESENTS THEM AND CERTAINLY
I’M GOING TO LEAN INTO THE FACT
THAT I’VE BEEN A BIPARTISAN
SENATOR RANKED AS ONE OF THE
MOST EFFECTIVE SENATORS IN THE
U.S. SENATE AND ONE OF THE MOST
BIPARTISAN SENATORS IN THE U.S.
SENATE AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT
THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN WANT.
>> DEVIN: LOCAL 4 WILL BE HAPPY
TO PUT IN THE FIRST REQUEST FOR
THE DEBATE THEN.
THANKS VERY MUCH TO BEING HERE,
SENATOR.
SENATOR. ALWAYS GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON THE
PROGRAM.
PROGRAM. >> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.
>> DEVIN: SPEAKING OF THE FUTURE