Reynolds, Brookings Institution government studies senior fellow, here to talk about impeachment from a Historical Perspective and give us an idea of what the process has looked like and what it could look like in the future. Obviously a lot of similarities and differences between now and, lets say, the most recent one, lets say, the most recent one, president clintons. In this stage of the process, how would you compare it to the clinton impeachment . Guest so i think the most important thing to remember in comparing where we are now to the clinton impeachment is that in the clinton impeachment case, this stage of the process, this gathering of evidence, was largely done actually not by congress. The factual material on which the impeachment inquiry was based largely arrived to the house of representatives in hundreds of boxes from ken star, his investigation at the independent counsel. And so Congress Needed to do much less of its own investigative work. So when we hear about depositions and interviews that are happening on capitol hill, that piece of the process that the house itself is doing this time is really its just a very different set of circumstances than what we had during the clinton impeachment. Host you wrote a couple of weeks ago, as this process is in the early stage, in the new york times, an opinion piece, this truth that the white house letter just laid bare. This is the letter that the white House Counsel sent to Democratic Leaders on the hill. This is before the house passed its impeachment resolution of last week. What was that truth you were getting at that it laid bare for this process . Guest yeah, so i was really trying to make clear that the process arguments that were hearing many republicans make are really meant not to necessarily make substantial changes to the process, we have seen some of those happen since then, but really to pass the issue as one of fairness and one of kind of what are the president s rights, what are congress rights, and to really shift the political terrain. Because fundamentally at the end of the day, impeachment is as much a political process as it is anything else. Host and that resolution that passed last week, sort of setting the standards, laying out the path ahead for the impeachment inquiry. Do you think it cleared up some of those questions . It addressed some of them. One of the major criticisms we had heard from republicans before that resolution was adopted was around the ability of the Minority Party to request subpoenas. That was clarified in the resolution, questions about public hearings, depositions. But at the end of the day, since last week, weve seen different process arguments being made. And i expect well continue to see a lot of the criticism levied at democrats from republicans on those process grounds. Host the arguments youre hearing from both sides this time around, did we hear arguments on the other side 21 years ago that are similar . Guest so i always like to say theres very little new under the congressional sun. So we do we have heard a lot of sort of repeat arguments come up. Its also worth noting that there are differences in the way the house works now than it did 21 years ago. So 21 years ago, most House Committee chairs didnt have the ability to subpoena witnesses on their own. Now they do. We had different sets of rules and procedures around depositions. So there are things that have changed procedurally and certainly lots has changed politically in 21 years, that means that were in pretty different territory now than we were in 1998 and 1999. Host Molly Reynolds is our guest to talk about impeachment and give us a Historical Perspective, particularly versus the clinton impeachment effort of 1998. We welcome your calls and comments. 2027488000 is the number for democrats. 202 7488001 for republicans and for independents and all. Thers, 202 7488002 you can also send us a text at 2027488003. The constitution says very little about it. Article one, section two, clause five. The house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment and, yes, thats how they spelled choose back in those days. So how did the body of knowledge or rules around impeachment grow from that point . Guest yeah, so frankly, like much of house rules and procedures, its really developed over time and they sense that we have expectations about what is likely to happen this time. Its based in part on what weve seen in the past. But we have very few cases to look at. And particularly when we think ahead to a possible senate trial, we know some things about what that might look like but there a lot that we dont know, in part because the way that this has played out in the past has really involved kind of the two leaders of the two parties and the Senate Sitting down and working out agreements around a lot of the details. So its just really difficult to know a lot of the details of where we might be going. Host what does the president and his many of his supporters have criticized the lack of due process in the democrats effort. What do the rules, what does the constitution say about due process in the case of impeachment . Guest so i think its important to remember that the stage of the process that were at right now in the house is still this informationgathering stage. Were getting ready, i think, to move to a stage of presenting and considering the evidence. And thats the place where historically, weve seen many more of these Due Process Rights afforded to the president as part of an inquiry and one of the things that the resolution that was adopted last week did was provide for some of those Due Process Rights for the president , when the process moves to the house Judiciary Committee. Which is the panel that has responsibility for considering articles of impeachment before they would go to the floor. So we see things like the president and his counsel would have the right to attend hearings. The president s council would have the right to question witnesses, would be able to propose consideration of new evidence or additional witnesses. And so in that way, that part of the process looks quite similar to the procedures set out for use during both the nixon case and the clinton case. Host its been pointed out that one of the articles of impeachment that didnt pass the house in the clinton impeachment was the article against obstruction. That the president , president clinton, failed to respond to written questions by the house Judiciary Committee. I wanted to play you comments of adam schiff yesterday, monday, and his view on subpoenas and how the administration, in his view, in defying subpoenas could be an obstruction of justice. Adam schiff. [video clip] we had additional scheduled depositions with the top lawyer for the National Security council, as well as mr. Blair from the office of management and budget and someone who worked closely with Mick Mulvaney on both of them, defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear for their scheduled depositions. As has been the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. This will be further evidence of an effort by the administration to obstruct the lawful and constitutional duties of congress. I would also say, and we expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed to come in this afternoon at white house instruction also to be noshows. This will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. One thing we are still learning about is what the House Democrats strategy is on what the articles might look like. We have seen a lot of focus on what happens with ukraine and as mr. Schip indicates, there is an emerging sense there is potential grounds for an obstruction of congress charge. We have seen, as you mentioned, a number of witnesses refused to comply with subpoenas recently. We have seen that throughout the year. It is not a new development in the past several weeks in the ukraine inquiry. We have seen other instances where members of the administration have refused to comply with congressional requests for subpoenas or information. Thinking about congress institutionally, i think there may be a lot of interest in the part of members on trying to exert some of their authority and power by making clear it is not acceptable for a president to completely stonewall congress. Host what is your understanding of the process in terms of will the Intelligence Committee just create a report and not recommend articles of impeachment . Leave that up to the Judiciary Committee . Guest that is my understanding. The resolution provides for one more open hearing by the Intelligence Committee to discuss some of the material they have uncovered doing these depositions over the past couple of weeks and other investigative work. There are other committees who are doing investigative work which may air on potential articles. Six committees have been working on the inquiry in total. For,e resolution provides those committees will transfer material they have collected to the Judiciary Committee which then will be responsible for determining what articles of impeachment might look like. Host as far as we know at this point, those committees, they focus their investigation, still the ukraine, the phone call and issues around ukraine aid . Guest thats been the primary focus of late. The question of whether an ultimate set of articles will include any other issues, including obstruction of congress, but perhaps material from the mueller report, that sort of thing, i think will that is something that will unfold over the next several weeks. Host lets go to calls. We go first to our democrats line. Burleson, texas. Tony, good morning. Youre on with Molly Reynolds. Caller good morning. First off, i want to say, thanks to washington journal. It seems to be our only way of talking to the world. I want to put it out there that im very concerned about our president. I think we need to bring our soldiers back because i think that theyre holding our president hostage and his family to make him do things that he dont want to do as a president. Such as mess with iran and north korea and russia and the such. Im very concerned about that. I think we need to surround the president with our soldiers and make it totally safe for him and first prove to the world that hes not being held hostage by the deep state. Host thats tony in texas. Well go to kevin in brownsberg, indiana. On impeachment. Good morning. On the independent line. Caller hey, how are you doing . Host doing well, thank you. Game, i know in the drug when theres an informant, they never reveal the informant for the safety of the informant. People keep arguing about the process being behind closed doors at first. If they wouldnt have done it that way, it wouldnt have came out. I believe hes the ambassador of the e. U. Who changed his statement. If they would have been public from the getgo, they would have been able to corroborate their statements and we wouldnt have gotten this far. Another thing is, people keep attacking the process. But not saying anything about the crime that possibly was committed. To me thats where the substance is at. If we dont protect this whistleblower, people will not come forward. With the way this president acts and the way please excuse me, i dont want to put everybody in a jar, but the people that follow him, i really believe that if the whistleblower name comes out, that they will do something to this person or this persons family. Thank you for taking my call. Host ok. Molly reynolds. Guest the caller points out that one of the reasons that we have seen democrats conduct with republican participation, to be clear, republicans on the relevant committees, intelligence, oversight and Foreign Affairs have been invited to and in many cases participated in the depositions, asking questions. One of the reasons to do those interviews behind closed doors is to prevent witnesses from trying to coordinate their stories before the interview. Another reason is that there are often cases where individuals are simply less willing to share information if theyre doing so publicly. The idea of using private get itions in private to information from congressional witnesses is not unique to this inquiry. It can be a pretty routine part of congressional investigations. So, again, its worth kind putting whats been happening in context of how congress frequently operates when they are trying to get to the bottom of Something Like this episode with ukraine. Host to be clear on the clinton investigation, clinton impeachment, the star investigation was completely done behind there werent public hearings. Guest absolutely. Again, that material and what ken star found in that investigation is really what established most of the factual basis for the impeachment. There were some hearings in the judiciary hearing after the star materials were turned over to congress. But by and large, most of the factfinding part of the clinton impeachment process was done not by congress itself but by ken star. Host well remind our viewers and radio lessnessers that have we have linked on the website to the testimonies that have been released. So far you can find that on our impeachment page at cspan. Org. Rory is next. Republican line in california. Caller i have two questions. First, is schiff making up another whistleblower or somebody that doesnt exist . And second, on the impeachment itself, i dont believe its going to be done, but if it was, i think its only good for these four years. In the 1960s they had somebody impeached not at the president ial level, they were impeached, thrown out, and then the same people voted him back. Now, is there the law hasnt changed since the 1960s. If he gets impeached, trump, he could be voted back and his impeachment would not go on from there. Thats it. Guest so, its worth remembering there are two stages to this process. Theres the part that happens in the house, where the house considers a vote first in committee and then potentially on the floor, one or more articles of impeachment. If thats approved, one or more articles of impeachment, the case goes over to the senate for a trial. Like the constitution being largely silent on house rules for a trial, its largely silent on senate rules as well. But one thing that we do know is that it takes 2 3 of the senators present to convict and remove the president from office. In a situation where they did do that, after having heard the evidence, chose to convict the president , there is the option to have an additional vote that would disqualify the president from holding future federal office. But we wouldnt get there unless we got to the point where there was a conviction in the senate, to get to the point where we have a senate trial, we would first have to have articles approved in the house. Host President Trump tweeting about some of the testimony thats been released so far. Tweeting this this morning host to catherine in cleaves, ohio, on the democrats line. Caller good morning, cspan. Host good morning. Caller im a 71yearold woman. Who am shocked, simply shocked, that republicans in this day and age have thrown out constitutional law, rule of law, and high moral standards. Im shocked because these are the people that used to look you in the face in a camera and tell you that these were what they stood for. And the question i would like to have, but before i ask the question i would like to say this, that all you trump supporters, former trump supporters, we will welcome you back into the american open arms willingly and love you and just act like it was a mistake that you made, now youve come to your senses and now youre going to be an american again. And my question is, why would men and women in the house and in the senate give away their good name for this president . He does not protect anybody but himself. Hes never stood by anybody, he has fellow friends that are now in prison. He has some that are on trial that will probably go to prison. And yet he stands for nobody. So the people in the senate, in the house, you need to take a quick look in the mirror. Hes not going to represent you. Hes not going to be there for you. He stands for nobody but himself. Host thats catherine in ohio. Molly reynolds, let me ask you about going back to president nixon and president clinton. President trump has asked that members of his administration not not told members not to testify, did president s nixon and clinton invoke executive privilege at that time . Guest executive privilege played a role at various points in both the nixon and clinton impeachments but its still an area where we dont have great settled law from the federal courts around sort of what the boundaries of executive privilege in that case of, frankly, most congressional oversight, but impeachment specifically, and so i think thats one big open question. For this inquiry going forward. One challenge there is that the timeline on which courts tend to operate in adjudicating so adjudicating some of these questions, versus the timeline that House Democrats say they intend to operate may not be compatible. The courts are much slower moving than congress. So the question of whether we get any of these cases around executive privilege issues or things like congressional access to the mueller grand jury material, whether those are resolved on a timetable that makes that information useful to the impeachment inquiry i think remains to be seen. Host so you could have those unresolved. Potentially the house drawing up an article on obstruction of justice, etc. , and the issue of executive privilege not having been decided upon by the courts and likely ultimately the Supreme Court. Guest right. Even if you think about one example, case, which is the case involving an individual who worked for, i believe, john bolton, on the National Security council, who was asked to federal court for a ruling on whether he needs to comply with a subpoena, that case is, i believe, scheduled to be argued the first or second week of december. And some of the reporting weve seen on when the house would like to bring articles to the floor is, you know, the third or fourth week of december. So the idea that we could get to a point where some of these legal questions are unresolved but the house is moving ahead with its articles anyway i think is a real possibility. Host we had one of the managers of the clinton impeachment process on our program yesterday. And he was asked about the possible lack of due process in this impeachment effort. Heres what he had to say. The assumption is the due process clause in the nstitution applies process clause in the constitution applies to everybody and everything. But as far as anything explicit, nothing. The basic thrust of it is that the house has the power, the congress has the power, of impeachment. And the rules are set by the house. So while i may be sympathetic and i am to the president s concern that hes not being treated fairly, that hes not being treated the way that a citizen privately would be in a courtroom, if he were being charged with a crime, thats not clear whether or not the u. S. Supreme court would ever find there was due process required here the same way. Because, again, the constitution gives this power of setting all the boundaries to congress. On the other hand, its silent as to procedures like this. And inherently in american history, due process has been accord. So i think thats what this process is right about now. The president rightfully claiming that hes not being given the same kind of opportunities that were given to president clinton or in the past to president nixon, and hes now saying, hey, this is not right. I should have had an opportunity to present and had a chance to cross examine and its clear that theres discretion, maybe theyll give it to him in the future, under the rule that was passed last week on the floor. But its not mandated, its not directed. Host Molly Reynolds, weve covered some of this ground already so far, but what did you hear from congressman mccollum . Guest the point that he makes about the constitution being largely silent on many of these specific procedural questions is absolutely right. As is the observation that the federal courts in the past have been quite deferential to congress and Congress Power to set its own rules, including in the context of impeachment. So, the idea that the federal courts might step in and say, you know, try to dictate impeachmentrelated procedures, i think would be a break from past precedent. On this question of whats actually likely to happen with the exercise of the Due Process Rights that the resolution adopted last week, grants the prets dent, that for me is a big precedent, that for me is a big open question. One of the more interesting parts of that resolution was a provision that says that if the president and his legal team are unlawfully not complying with requests, that that the Judiciary Committee chair would be able to deny the president s request for witnesses and participation in the hearings. We have very little idea of how that might actually shake out. I think there are, as the congressman observes, i think there are a lot of open questions on what exactly this could all look like in the coming weeks. Host to your knowledge, has the Supreme Court ever ruled on a case involving the impeachment of any federal official, judge or otherwise . Guest we have some federal precedent on some of these questions. I think on this question of the ability of the house and senate to set their own procedures, theres a case that involves a federal judge named nixon, not to be confused with president nixon. Where the judge said. That because the senate had used a committee for part of its impeachment trial as opposed to a full deliberation by the full senate, that that was in violation of the constitution and there again the Supreme Court said no, that this is a situation where the congress ability to set its own rules and procedures has takes precedence over the specifics of what happened in that case. Host well go to j. D. Next in maryland. Republican line. Caller thanks for having me on. Molly, good morning to you. Guest good morning. Caller just a quick history lesson. A federal judge by the name of judge fortius from louisiana was impeached a few years ago. Jonathan turly pled his case before congress. But thats another story. It seems to me you and catherine from ohio take the selective moral high ground, especially when it came to attorney general holder who received a congressional subpoena and he didnt comply with that. Whats your opinion with that one . Did you [indiscernible] when he chose not to comply with that subpoena . Guest so, as you point out, the question of noncompliance with congressional subpoenas isnt a new one. We have seen a lot of these disputes crop up during this year. But there are other high profile cases, the one you referenced involving former attorney general eric holder, there was an earlier high profile case during the george w. Bush administration involving white house chief of staff, josh bolton and white House Counsel harriet miers. One lesson that we sort of take away from all of these cases is that, again, to the extent that congress has come to rely on the federal courts as one of its tools to try to compel cooperation from the executive branch with requests for testimony and information is that the timeline on which the federal courts proceed really is just not often compatible with the timeline on which congress is trying to do things. So, we get when Congress Tries to use its powers, using the other branches, that can really limit in the end its ability to do things in a timely fashion. Host democrats line in colorado. Caller good morning. Good morning, america. Host youre on the air. Go ahead. Caller my friends call me branson. Im a disabled american. Served in the vietnam war. Born in mexico. More patriot than draft dodger donald trump. Im a graduate of San Diego State university, from the school of social work. Im an activist. I speak on a denver Radio Station twice a week. Largely speaking on corruption n both sides of the aisle. Americans should unite, our corrupt president should be impeached on both sides of the aisle. By refusing to impeach, you are encouraging corruption in government at the highest level. President s do not walk on water. Threeparty system, we have a threeparty system. Wow. Wake up. This is a classic example of divide and conquer. Host Molly Reynolds, going back to the clinton impeachment. This last vote on the resolution for impeachment was largely party line. There were a couple of crossers, but largely party line. Was that the case in the vote on articles of impeachment in the house in 1998 . Was it Party Line Vote . Guest it was largely but not exclusively a Party Line Vote. We saw some members cross the aisle in 1998. I think the thing to remember when we think about the kind of partisan dynamics at play in the vote, at play in kind of the callers comments is that even since the late 1990s, the degree of partisanship and polarization in congress has increased significantly. So when we look at the political dynamics that were at play in the clinton impeachment, theres just a lot thats different about our political system now than there was then. I think a lot about how at the start of the clinton impeachment trial in the senate, the initial set of detailed procedures for how that was going to work were agreed to unanimously by all 100 senators. And the idea of us seeing something similar to that should this make it to a trial stage in the senate, because its really difficult for people to imagine, so i think its really important to remember that even just looking, you know, 21 years is not that much time, but the amount of change that weve seen in the political system and the partisanship and the polarization i think has real consequences for what is likely to happen here. Host nbc news has a piece thats titled, what is impeachment, how does it work, 10 facts to know. They write that the house has impeached 19 people. Mostly federal judges. Two president s, Andrew Johnson and bill clinton were impeached, but the senate voted not to convict either of them. Nixon resigned after the Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, but before the house, the full house voted on them. And they write further that the constitution provides that a president can be impeached for, quote, treason, bribery or other gh crimes and miss demeaners misdemeanors. The constitution does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. Do we have any idea what the founders meant by that term . Guest i dont think we have a great sense. I tend to subscribe to the theory of former Vice President and president gerald ford who said that an Impeachable Offense is whatever the majority of the house of representatives decides it is at a given moment in history. I think that really emphasizes the degree to which impeachment is at its heart a political process as much as anything else. And that where we end up with articles is really about, you know, what does the house of representatives, who has the sole power to do this, decide theyre going to look like . Host heres barbara, oak bluffs, massachusetts, on the democrats line. Caller first of all, great job, molly. Really giving us the facts and the context. I got a couple of questions for you. First is, if the house impeaches and the senate acquits, is there anything to prevent the senate from turning around and censuring President Trump as an alternative to convicting him of the impeachment . Thats number one. Number two is, im confused about the whole issue about the timeline and the proximity to the 2020 elections. Were constantly hearing in the coverage that its a problem for rolls s if the process over into 2020. And it gets nearer and nearer to the election. Based on the notion that, ok, were going to have an election, so the whole country will get to vote in november of 2020, obviously. But somehow i have the feeling that were mixing two issues up that we need to distinguish. Because leave the issue of the proximity to 2020 election aside , the process of impeaching and convicting or acquiting still nonetheless it seems to me should go forward regardless of the proximity to november, 2020. And im wondering what your thoughts are about that. And lastly, cspan, while i have you, could you please do a whole morning on National Security . What is National Security . Because its a highlevel be a strax and i believe most americans dont have a sense of what that is. We know what national is, we know what security is, but National Security, do us some programming on how the concept rose and einvolved over time because were in a globalized era. What does nation mean now versus what it first meant . Host good suggestion there. Ets let molly respond to you. Guest theyre good questions. On the question of censure. This is something we heard talked about during the clinton impeachment inquiry. The possibility of censure as an alternative to conviction. I think that that is a possibility. Theres nothing that would prevent the senate from doing so. It would censure a resolution would be subject to the same kinds of usual procedural hurdles that we see many things in the Senate Running to. But its certainly something that, as a procedural matter, we could see politically. I dont know if the support would be there for even taking the vote. But that remains to be seen. On the question of 2020, i think there are sort of two pieces. One is the political piece, which is what the caller spoke to. But second, frankly, is a scheduling piece that involves the fact that if we have a trial in the senate in early 2020, there are a number of current members of the u. S. Senate who are running for the president ial nomination and their Constitutional Responsibilities to participate in an impeachment trial would have them here in washington for large chunks of time, potentially in january and february of 2020. Majority leader mcconnell has mentioned this challenge a number of times in recent days. And so for me thats actually the most approximate and soonest consequence. Host this is ralph in palm harbor, florida. Republican line. Good morning. Caller hi, good morning. Host youre on. Go ahead. Caller i have a little different view of whats happening here. I understand impeachment must meet the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors. That bar was established as something thats interpretive. What does high crimes how is it defined . How are misdemeanors defined . I look at the situation with the whistleblower, that is merely the shadow for the substance. The real substance here is whether or not the president of the United States and the United States government has the right, before providing money to any country this the world, that they are not corrupt, that they are favoring freedom and independence of their people. That is the critical thing. If a democrat if the democrats really believe that theyre going to build an impeachment clause or articles of impeachment on that article, that will crash and burn. The discussion that has been eld showing the content of President Trumps discussion with the ukraine prime minister, i think his name is citizensky, indicates that there was no zelensky, indicates that there was no quid pro quo. If you look at the idea of quid pro quo is determining whether or not we should give a corrupt country money versus not giving it, im in favor of quid pro quo. Host well let you go there. Molly reynolds, any response . Guest again, this goes back to the issue of what is a high crime and misdemeanor and how do we determine at any given moment in time what rises to that level . Again, at the end of the day, thats a task given to the house of representatives by the constitution to figure out what that means. And this, you know, specific set of house members will have to do that. Again, what exactly they decide that might go in a set of articles of impeachment, whether theyre just about what happened in ukraine, whether they also include obstruction of congress, whether they include other things, other conduct by the president and his administration, well have to see. But this is one of the thorny questions at the heart of any impeachment inquiry. What does it mean for something to be a high crime and misdemeaner . t on twitter were at cspanwj. Host michael on our independent line. Morris, illinois. Go ahead. Caller good morning. I hope youll give me the same amount of time that you have given to some of these other people. I have a comment and a question for ms. Reynolds. The comment, i voted for trump, i voted for obama in 2008, i voted for a third neart 2012. Now, party in 2012. Now, it seems to me, and ms. Reynolds commented on what gerald ford said, that this is really whatever the house of representatives calls it, so my real question is, this is nothing more than political theater. The there really value in exposing of these corrupt acts by trump . Because i support him on shipping out the illegal aliens but i dont support him on refusing to answer subpoenas from congress. It seems to me that i mean, its not going to go anywhere in the senate with these politicians who have no morals whatsoever on either side. But there is some value, i think, in exposing the utter corruption that were awash in in washington. So i want ms. Reynolds to comment on the value of this process as educational to the american voters. Host appreciate that. Go ahead. Guest i think thats one of the most important functions of congressional investigations generally. Not only in the context of an impeachment inquiry, but, again, thinking about the efforts by congress, this congress, previous congresses, to get information and witness testimony and documents from the executive branch about what the executive branch is doing, thats one of congress chief responsibilities under the constitution in our separation of powers system. And part of what were seeing now in the impeachment inquiry is a sort of advancing of that goal. In this case, the house may decide that this rises to the level of impeachable conduct, but at the end of the day, a lot of whats important about this is uncovering the information and sharing it with the public. Host lets get one more quick call here. We go to elizabeth in turner falls turners falls, massachusetts. Caller good morning. My question is about what to do about ignoring the subpoenas. It seems the general consensus of opinion, and you confirmed it yourself this morning, is that to turn to the courts would take too long. But ever since this has started, ive been wondering about Susan Macdougal and the white water hearings. She went to jail right away, if i remember correctly, and i was wondering what process that led to her going to jail right away and why that cant be implemented with so many people ignoring the subpoenas. Thank you very much. Host ok. Guest i dont recall the details of that case specifically. One thing thats worth noting, though, about kind of where we are in this struggle between congress and the executive branch over witness testimony is that we actually have seen over the past several weeks a number of witnesses comply with congressional subpoenas and eye peer for depositions appear for depositions. I think one of the major consequences of the shift in focus in the inquiry to what happened in ukraine specifically is that that has meant that members of Congress Want to hear from a set of people who are more whose incentives arent as closely aligned with President Trumps, as some of the individuals who have chosen to stonewall and to defy subpoenas. So weve actually seen over the past several weeks the process work a little bit more like it has historically. While also seeing some witnesses just continue to refuse to comply. Host Molly Reynolds, senior fellow in governance at the announcer house Intelligence Committee chair adam schiff gave an update earlier on the impeachment inquiry. He tweeted, next week, the house Intelligence Committee will hold open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry. On wednesday, november 13, 2019, we will hear from William Taylor and george kent. On friday, november 15, 2019, we will hear from marie yovanovitch. More to come. Congressman schiff also spoke to reporters briefly. Mr. Schiff good morning. We are in the middle of a deposition involving ambassador hale, the thirdmost senior at