I wanted to confirm a Point Of Order is the rules of decorum. I dont believe the gentleman from florida meant to violate them and i give him the benefit of the doubt. More than once he referred to a new york lawyer. If he could explain what he meant i withdraw my Point Of Order. Thats not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order regarding the schedule. In this case, there is. Will you answer my question . The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable Point Of Order regarding the future schedule. Will you recognize that . No. Mrs. Mcbath is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on one part of President Trumps conduct. I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The Investigative Committees found evidence President Trump
intimidated, threatened and tampered with prospective and actual witnesses in the Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness before congress, is that right . Yes. Theres a little bit more to it but thats the gist. Am i correct President Trump publicly attacked witnesses before, after and even during their testimony . That is correct. Id like to quickly go through some examples. On twitter the president tried to smear ambassador bill taylor, a former military officer who graduated at the top of his class at westpoint, served as an Infantry Commander in vietnam and earned a bronze star and medal for a d device for valor. He was attack for doing his duty by telling the truth . He did his duty by testifying, yes. President trump also attacked other Administration Officials who testified before the Intelligence Committee including Lieutenant Colonel alexander s. Vindman, the director for ukraine on the National Security council and jennifer williams, the special advisor of europe and russia with the office of the Vice President , am i right . The hearat is right, yes. Another troubling part of this is the president s treatment of ambassador yovanovitch. When you questioned ambassador yovanovitch, you asked her about the president s remark that she would, and i quote, go through some things. She told you that that remark sounded like a threat, is that right . Yes. In the july 25th call, thats
when President Trump said that. Ambassador yovanovitch is a Career Professional who served in republican and democratic administrations. She was once caught in live crossfire during a coup attempt, and heres how she described that experience in her very own words. I later served in moscow. In 1993, during the attempted coup in russia, i was caught in crossfire between president ial and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries. Me without a helmet or body armor to get into a vehicle to go to the embassy. We went because the ambassador asked us to come. We went because it was our duty. It was our duty. Even under such duress, this is a Public Servant who did her duty. As she testified before you and the Intelligence Committee, the president tweeted yet another attack against her, is that correct . During the testimony, yes. At a rally, the president further attacked ambassador taylor and Deputy Assistant secretary of the state, george kent, Foreign Affairs official with decades of bipartisan service. I have to say i am so deeply saddened our president has attacked our brave Public Servants. These attacks are an abuse of his power and they betray our national interests. My republican colleagues until now have agreed with me that this behavior is not okay. That in america we protect witnesses and people who tell the truth. We want people to come forward. We protect witnesses in our community. I myself am no stranger to these kinds of attacks. They are not okay. I want to read a partial statement by Lieutenant Colonel vindman, in his open statement to the Intelligence Committee, mr. Vindman said, i quote, i want to say the Character Attacks on these distinguished, honorable Public Servants is reprehensible. I ran for congress because i care urgently about healthcare, gun violence prevention and our veterans. Those are the urgent policies for me and many of my colleagues. But these witnesses, these Public Servants stood up and courageously told the truth, and i must be courageous and stand up for them as well. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back the balance of her time. A few minutes ago, it was asked
to admit a political article into the record. Mr. Stanton. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We heard from some suggesting how this process has somehow been unfair. Mr. Goldman, lets clear up that record. The members of the Minority Committee had access to the records, is that correct . Yes. All the documents. Were they allowed to ask questions of all the witnesses . The minority was given equal time to the majority for every single witness and majority we did. The minority were able to call their own hearings . They did. They got three witnesses and allowed to call their own witnesses for the depositions. They chose not to do that. The only witness they chose was chairman schiff, who is not a fact witness. Why did the Investigative Committees decide to conduct initial depositions Behind Closed Doors . The best investigative
practice doing a factfinding information is to keep the information closed. The reason is exactly what i described earlier with ambassador sondland, first of all, the day before his deposition he spoke with Secretary Perry about his testimony. That is the type of tailoring that can happen when people are engaged in misconduct and they try to line up their stories. If you keep the information closed they cant line up their stories. I think frankly part of the reason why ambassador volker and Sondlands Public Hearing Testimony was so different from their Deposition Testimony because the initial depositions were in closed session before we then released all the transcripts to the public. This is unprecedented because in the nixon and Clinton Impeachment hearings there were not closed depositions before the hearings. Yes. It was passed by republican
congress and used in benghazi and a number of hearings for a decade or so. For the record, President Trump has received all protections for the impeachment committee. Thats right. Our inquiry was not the Judiciary Committees investigation. That is where the president s ability to present evidence. If the president wanted to present evidence in the Intelligence Committee he could have provided documents or witnesses we asked for him but he obstructed rather than cooperated. The president has been invited to participate in the houses Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. He declined the invitation . Thats my understanding. Twice . Yes. And he has not only refused to participate but tried to stop congress from obtaining evidence. Isnt it true he tried to stop any evidence or response to the inquiries, subpoena to the white house . Yes. Not single document. And refused agencies to produce documents . That is also true. Based on the president s order, federal agencies have ignored more than 70 specific requests for records from the Investigative Committees, is that correct . If i could just add quickly, please. This would ordinarily be a document case. If you were prosecuting this case youd be basing it on the documents. The fact the documents are being withheld is quite significant and remarkable we built the record we have on the witnesses. Not just the documents, at the president s direction, witnesses also refused to testify, is that right . Thats correct. In total, more than a dozen members of the administration declined lawful testimony and documents you see on the slide . Testimony and documents, is that correct. Isnt it true when they
testified they were given the documents they needed to prepare for their testimony . For some of them, thats correct. But i also must acknowledge this process has been challenging. In many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my Phone Records, state Department Emails and many many other State Department documents. And i was told i could not work with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. These documents are not classified, and in fairness, and in fairness, should have been made available. The State Department has collected all the materials in response to the september 27 subpoena that may contain facts relevant. To my testimony. I have no such documents or materials with me today. The president was not denied the right to participate, quite the opposite. The president has chosen not to participate and he has chosen to obstruct the Impeachment Investigation to insure no one chooses to testify against him and to keep the American People from learning the truth. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, please. What purpose is the gentleman asking . Can i Say Something for five seconds . No. Ne gentle lady, miss dean is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldman, some have argued we should wait, were moving too fast, we should try to get more evidence. Lets examine why these arguments are without merit. President nixon stated during the Senate Investigation said all members of the white house staff will appear voluntarily. When requested by the committee, they will testify under oath and answer fully all proper questions, end quote. During the investigation of
president clinton, ken starr interviewed white house staff. President clinton provided responses to 81 interroygtorys. Unlike the president , President Trump has stone walled the investigation at every turn. As far back as april, the president expressed his intent to stonewall. Were fighting all the subpoenas. More recently, on october the 8th, white house counsel, Pat Cipollone offered this sentiment in a letter that all official Branch Officials not testify in this Impeachment Inquiry. Are you aware have that letter, mr. Goldman . Yes, i am. Is it fair to say President Trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek to completely obstruct an Impeachment Inquiry undertaken by this house . That is correct, it is unprecedented. In fact, pursuant to
President Trumps order, 12 executive Branch Officials refused to testify as part of the house inquiry and 10 who defied Congressional Subpoenas, am i right . Yes. Given the president s sweeping directive not to cooperate with congress did the committee believe there was any chance other Administration Officials would come forward if subpoenaed . No. It became clear the president was trying to block everything and block everyone and eventually they came up with an alternative reason to write an opinion to prevent people from coming, which is quite an aggressive view that they took. It was quite clear they were trying to block every single witness. Some say the Investigative Committee should have gone to court. Did you decide not to go to court . We thought about it a lot because obviously there are additional witnesses and we want this to be a thorough investigation. You can see from the Deutsche Bank case and the other case, it takes months and months to go to the appeals court. Thats what the president wants, to delay this as long as possible. Lets talk about that case, mcgahn case, on december 22nd, th this judiciary served a subpoena to testify and he refused. And on the 7th, it was compelled. It was another 3 1 2 months before judge jackson found the constitution does not allow the president to Kneecap Investigations because as the judge wrote, i put up on this screen, quote president s are not kings. As you know, mcgahn has now appealed and a hearing set for January 3rd Of Next year. As we sit here today, eight months since we issued that
subpoena, do you feel it is likely there will be months to come . It is quite likely and then the Supreme Court. Exactly. Mcgahn may appeal 20 to the Supreme Court and could take another month or years or more . Could be next term or pushed to the next term. And would you agree if we go to court to enforce the Investigative Committee subpoenas we could face another month or years long delay to hear testimony . Absolutely. Theres an ongoing threat because the president is trying to cheat to win the next election. Its not something that happened in the past, its continuing in the future. We cannot delay and wait for the courts to resolve this when the reason we have to go to the courts is because the president is obstructing an investigation into himself. The urgency is not just our investigations, the National Security . That is a critical component
to it. Let me end with this. What is plain is we cannot wait. Wait means never. We must not let this president disregard, defy and delay justice. This president has shown he repeatedly abuses the power entrusted by the people. Every moment we wait is another time to chip at the constitution, so carefully crafted by our founders. I yield back. I yield to the gentle lady. Thank you, mr. Chairman and mr. Goldman and mr. Kappa. Id like to ask unanimous consent in my Questioning Statement of emergency defense policy. Without objection. And the call dated without objection, mr. Armstrong. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Castor. Its been a long day and a
long couple months and youve been in the middle of this and i know you wanted to Say Something. Thank you. I resisted my willingness to be the athletic here in the afternoon. I want to say a few things. First of all, the republicans on the Intelligence Committee submitted a number of subpoenas. We never got a vote. There was a motion to table, disposed of them publish Ranking Member nunes sent a letter on december 8th, asking for witnesses and representative collins sent a letter asking for members and it would have touched at the heart of the issue our members were concerned about. That is, were ukrainians trying to interfere in our investigations. They investigated it and to the extent it happened in the u. S. , we ought to investigate it. To the extent that hasnt happened, republicans have
attempted to do that during this process. Id like to say that. I have a couple other things, mr. Armstrong, if i may. Ambassador sondland is relied on. He went from a witness who was not very favorable to very favorable at his hearing. One of the remarkable statements at his hearing was everyone was in the loop. He types up this email to pompeo, to the secretary, and the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone was in the loop are not conclusive at all. Talks about this statement that was going back and forth during the early part of august. First of all, volker said all along he didnt think the statement was a good idea. Volker and Yarmach Toyed around with the statement and both sides decided it wasnt a good plan. They didnt do it. The fact that sondland is emailing the secretary, talking about this statement and so forth, this doesnt show everyone is in the loop. Ambassador hale testified, people at the State Department, they dont just email the secretary. The secretary gets email but its not like this. Theres a whole secretariat that filters his email and its not emailing the Secretary Of State is not quite as simple as i think ambassador sondland made it seem here. I wanted to address that. We talked a couple times about the reliability of george kents notes. One of ambassador volkers
assistants, kathryn croft, testified, a rather startling piece of testimony, she was asked whether the notes would be reliable, a typical question and everyone expected the answer to be yes, except she said, no, i dont think kents notes would be reliable. I think thats important to put on the record there is evidence perhaps mr. Kent felt some emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least according to one state Department Official in fact might not be reliable. The cnn interview theres been discussing about, there was discussion about possibly doing a statement that was canned or discussion of a cnn interview, we did not really get to the bottom of that. That was this fact that was out there and ambassador taylor testified he was worried it
would happen. We didnt really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur, you know, in the cnn interview, and whether president zelensky was actually going to do it. If you look back at the Statement Yarmach and volker were talking about, yarmach wasnt comfortable doing it. It is possible yarmach would say what they thought he was going to say. Im sorry, mr. Armstrong. You worked hard and deserve it. Because you cannot prove a bribe, the chairman went on tv and said they would get a conviction in three minutes. What crime . The mueller 0 obstruction fell flat, Campaign Finance is a nonstarter, victim of conspiracy and bribery and extortion says hes not a victim. Because you cant prove all of
it means you cant prove it and that is no way to proceed with impeachment. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Miss powell. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to come back and highlight what i think is the biggest National Security threat, foreign inference into our elections. I can tell you in florida we are extremely concerned about the interference of our elections by Foreign Governments, especially russia. Florida, my home state, was a victim of russian hacking in 2016. Theres every indication theyre trying to do the same thing right now. Our country was founded on the premise our elected officials are elected by the people. President trump doesnt share these ideas, he has demanded for inference into our elections. He doesnt want the american
people to decide. Hes inviting foreign interference and allowing Foreign Governments to decide. Its been inferred mr. Trumps campaign actively sought russia interference in our 2016 elections, correct . What Secretary Mueller said was that they hacked the emails and welcomed the inference and utilized it. In 2016, trump said, russia, if youre listening, and within five hours, russia against targeted the emails of trumps opponent. In october 12 of 2019, when asked what he hoped zelensky would do about the bidens, this is what president said. I would think if they were honest about it they would start a Major Investigation into the
bidens. How do these company likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens. Let me just point out the president doesnt mention corruption, does he, mr. Goldman . No, he doesnt. It became quite clear of the comments and witnesses that any corruption or anticorruption was really a euphemism for the investigations. Trump is not only asking President Trump excuse me is not only asking ukraine but also says china should start investigating his political opponents. The president s pattern of behavior is incredibly disturbing, russia, ukraine, china, hes inviting three countries to help him in his reelection campaign. I dont see any reason he wouldnt ask any other government, for example,
venezuela, correct . At this point, he has shown not only a willingness to do it multiple times but more importantly for all the members consideration, hes also shown a lack of contrition, a lack of acknowledgement what he is doing is wrong and that it is wrong. If you dont recognize that it is wrong there is no reason why you wont do it again if youve already done it. Exactly, we saw guiliani in ukraine a few days ago. Last night, i want to point out the Washington Post released an article saying Rudy Guilliani has been now advising how to open a back channel between President Trump and so im very worried about that. I dont think we have any time to wait and see if any countries will take him up on the offer to help him in his reelection campaign. Mr. Goldman, did the Investigative Committees reach any conclusions about the ongoing threats, continuing risk
the president poses . Yes. For the same reasons we just discussed. I think the june Television Interview with George Stephanopoulos this year, where the president indicated he would once again welcome foreign inference is another data point to understand where it is. And i was just saying that hes got such a great record and they just dont want him to win, if that is the case, why does he need to cheat to win the election . Exactly. Why cant he go on his own platform. I think the constitution demands the president follow the rule of law and fight to keep our elections free of interruption and free of russia inference excuse me, foreign inference. I know i was elected by the people of florida and while im in office i will not let anyone
interfere while im in office. The continuing pattern of behavior, the people should understand it is the beginning of a dictator i have seen in Latin America inviting foreign inference and checks on their power. The constitution has no partisan allegiance. We cannot allow this behavior on this president or any other president. Our democracy depends on it. The gentle lady yields back. I recognize mr. Jordan for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you. The majority witness was wrong when he said we were able to i want to enter into the record the two letters sent to Chairman Nadler without objection the material will be entered into the record. Miss escobar is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman and the two witnesses who have stayed with us. The republicans have said their own witness, mr. Castor investigation have indeed produced direct evidence, direct evidence any observer in my opinion would be overwhelming. That is the president solicited foreign inference in the 2020 election and pressured president zelensky for unfounded investigations, conditioned a white house meeting. The president conditioned a white house meeting and 390 million on the announcement of the investigation. Then, the president covered up his conduct and obstructed the investigation. Those findings reflect a serious abuse of power by the president. We are being asked to ignore what weve seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears. Mr. Goldman, id like your help responding to some of the claims my republican colleagues have made today. Happily. The president and his allies say there was no quid pro quo. In other words, they claim the president Wasnt Withholding the aid in exchange for the manufactured political investigation. Isnt it true the aid was withheld and there has been no logical explanation for the withholding of that aid . Theres common sense that leads one to conclude the aid was withheld from the investigations, and then direct evidence from the president s own words to ambassador sondland said the same thing. President trump knew he had leverage over president zelensky. In fact, david holmes testified that ambassador sondland told President Trump president Zelensky Will Quote do anything you ask him, is that correct . Thats what ambassador sondland said excuse me, what ambassador sondland said to President Trump. Apologies. You testified earlier, evidence shows the ukrainians did know the aid was being held. My colleagues and their witnesses continue to say there couldnt be leverage because they had no idea the aid was being held yet there has been evidence they knew, is that correct . Its important for a second here to stake a step back. It doesnt matter when they knew as long as they knew at some point. They realized at that point that the investigations were dependent on the aid. In addition there is a lot of evidence they knew before it became public on august 28th. Youre right. It doesnt matter. If youre held up at gun point by a burglar the evidence doesnt matter to the criminal
about to commit the act. A lot was said about the money being released. Isnt it true it wasnt released until the president got caught . It didnt get released until that fiscal year and you in congress had to pass another law to allow the money to get to ukraine. Earlier today, mr. Castor tried to explain the president s arrest in our election by claiming three things. The president was concerned about ukraine corruption and number two, about burden sharing with europe. Number three, he brought in the debunked Conspiracy Theory about ukraine election interference, by the way, the last point is a russian Talking Point. Did the Investigative Committees consider those three
explanations and if so what kdi the evidence show President Trump was motivated by this . A good question. Two questions. One is evidence and one is assertions and opinions. Based on evidence, there is no evidence to support any of the three things you just mentioned. No evidence to think the president acted towards ukraine because of his concerns about corruption. Thats not the motivating factor. No evidence giving enough money motivated him. Certainly no reasonable belief, given all the evidence, ukraine did during the 2016 elections. Thank you. Id like to ask you what our scholars said last week, about why all of this is so important. Drawing a Foreign Government
into our elections is a serious abuse of power because it understands mines democracy itself. Undermines democracy itself. If we cannot impeach a president who uses his position for his own advantage we no longer live in a democracy, it is a dictatorship. If what were talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable. Thank you. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. This concludes the five minute questioning and i recognize mr. Yatsin. Id like to introduce a statement by the late Elijah Cummings in his first hearing which is claiming Prescription Drug prices. It was not about Michael Cohen acertified earlier. Without objection i now recognize the Ranking Member for any concluding remarks he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It does matter when they knew and didnt know because when there was a meeting between two officials in the United States. It does matter. The reason it matters, if there is no understanding being withheld, there is no quid pro quo and the State Of Mind of mr. Dell lenski, im not being pressured and the aamazing part of this majority that continues to call him a liar. Amazing we continue to propagate that myth. What did we learn today . Unprecedented in the Hearing Earrings talked about, staff not members gave testimony and questioned each other and got into very heated debates with each other. This is not what the Judiciary Committee should be doing and held. The reason it is, mr. Goldman handle himself very well but
hes not mr. Schiff, he is not wearing a member pin. We took Phone Records and went on a political endeavor. No one will takes responsibility about the numbers or put the smear job in the report. We will assume that is mr. Schiff since i do hold a member accountable. We found out today the staff can determine whats relevant or not, members of congress. Its interesting the staff told members of congress that is relevant or this is not let and interesting we have members to talk about this and the chairman disregards house rules, completely blatantly disregarding house rules. If i hear One More Time i will address that when im marking up impeachment Articles Bhapt is the use of an evidence day when you get confirmation at the
markup itself. Even your most heated debate on this president does not show where that is fair. In the end, both parties are in the minority. If you destroy the institutional integrity, there is nothing else for us to do. While we were here and discussing whether to impeach the president over a call he had with president zelensky and a look at how it happened in 2016. Democrats are trying to impeach the president over that and seeing the Russian Investigation play out over our eyes. The playbook is the same thing, a bunch of individuals to insure they get him and blowing out every principle in fairness and honesty to insure they get him in time. What happened here . The inspector gerchlnerals rep and hurricane investigation. Some of the top findings. The fbi included inaccurate information in the fisa investigation. The fbi failed to include information in the fisa and did not include all the information in the fisa and chose to debrief candidate clinton, not candidate trump. It was going directly to the clinton campaign. They altered email to mislead carter page or intelligent source upon the page fisa should never have been obtained. If you dont have the page fisa you dont have a republican election and if you dont have that you cant hamstring the president s first two years. I could go on but mr. Durham who has already weighed in with the next batch. This will undoubtedly be our last hearing because we have no desire to hear from the minority from any side. I want to thank mr. Castor and callum and they have together 50 years in this house. What they opt usually do, yelled questions from democrat donors and those miss castor and others usually work for. Im sorry today the majority chose to highlights those investigators and over these Public Servants. Im sorry to choose this is where were at. I would like to thank them for their work today and our behalf. If you look around the room, this is whats happening by the American People. By the end of the day, Media Members are begging to go somewhere else. One thing that keeps getting amazingly said the facts are undisputed. The very nature of the fact i say i disagree and you say you dont is a disputed facts. These are disputed facts. It will be the first impeachment partisan on facts not agreed to. We have become a rubber stamp, just as the chairman predicted almost 20 years ago when we willingly accept from someone else a project or report we dont investigate ourselves. With that, that this is problem we have an far as called the Judiciary Committee impeachment scam today. I yield back. I now recognize myself for concluding remarks. After hearing the testimony today we now know certain things with certainty. We know the president was at the center of a scheme for pressure into the president s political
rivals. He did that with a white house meeting and vital military aid. He did that with president zelensky and confirmed his personal arrival on the white house lawn. We know there are no excuses for this conduct. It is no excuse President Trump eventually released the aid after his scheme was introduced to the public. There is no excuse only after his scheme was releld to the public. We know the National Security and alliances and safety at risk. We know the president compromised the integrity of our elections for a corrupt private political purpose. We know President Trump in an unprecedented act of obstruction, ordered everybody in the Executive Branch to defy all Congressional Subpoenas for
documents related to the Impeachment Inquiry. We know his attempts to solicit a political favor to the government of ukraine fit a pattern when he attempted to sa solicit from russia. That undermines our security and free and fair elections. In abusing his office in this manner and the investigation that followed we know President Trump has put himself before this very. I am struck by the fact my republican colleagues have offered no serious scrutiny at hand. They talked about Everything Else but talked about no substantive word in the president s defense. I suspect because at base, there is nothing to offer. Undermining our own National Security and elections, there is a remedy, and that remedy is impeachment. The facts are clear, the danger to our democracy is clear and our duty is clear. President trump violated his oath to the American People and placed his own private interests ahead of our National Security and constitutes a threat to our election and government. It is impeachable. This committee will conclude accordingly. This concludes this hearing. Without objection all members shall have five days to present additional materials for the record. Without objection the hearing is adjourned. Im wolf blitzer in the
situation room. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Youve been watching the second day of the house judiciary meeting probe. Theyve been talking about whether the president made an impeachable act and democrats saying it subverted democracy for personal gain and republicans say they pushed him out of fear. Dana bash, these are fiery words coming from democrats and republicans. Thats right. From witnesses we have seen in public and red with regard to depositions, all coming together all day long, more than nine hours, i believe, this hearing took and coming together for the lawyer for the intelligence
committee, democratic side, two of them, and here on the republican side, presenting their cases. You could see and feel, almost palpable, frustration and partisan tension we know exists and see and hear exists come through in kind of a personal way. With a lot of this questioning. The key thing to remember, this is a formality. They didnt have to do it. This is expected of the Judiciary Committee to present their case for impeachment and now the real work begins or continues because it has been going on behind the scenes, actually drafting Articles Of Impeachment, the injury chair, jerry nadler the judiciary chair, jerry nadler, said could happen by the end of the week. Jerry nadler wants to go forward quickly with Articles Of Impeachment against the president. He does. You talked with him about the pattern. Is that part of it Going Forward . What you saw at the end with the ranking minority statement, thats the disputed fact because thats what we say it is. It actually is not. It is reasonable to disagree. No one has been able to undercut the very clear facts laid out. It has not been the sexiest of hearings, i will admit that, but no one undercut the statements. Can i say as someone who tried to watch it all day long. Since 9 00 this morning. As a friend of mine from texas said, thats a hot mess. We have hearing fatigue. We watched extraordinary hearings with incredible witnesses and we saw people yelling and pounding the table, frequently confusing the issue. I dont think either said did much good today. It was hard for democrats to sum up and fighting over requesting a vote for recess and yelling for adam schiff. I think if average voters watch this today, this is why they dont like washington. Let me say what the democrats accomplished today, what the republicans accomplished today, this is about putting things on a particular type of record saying weve done this investigation and moving it to the judiciary, these are the facts represent to the Impeachment Inquiry. We are having a little bit of hearing fatigue, that work is really really important to lay that kind of foundation. I do think one thing we saw today was democrats presenting a coherent case what they believe happened. On the other hand, we saw republicans talking about process of arguments and adam schiff not there to testify and talking about the whistleblower. What we didnt hear much of was even a substantive defense of the president s conduct. We saw the minority, steve castor present an Opening Statement and did the best job anybody could. When it came to the members questioning, it fell apart. They didnt even try to suggest the president hadnt done something wrong. Instead, a game of distraction and disinformation and telling people, dont look here, look over there. Is happy hour over yet . This is a serious moment. The president asked for a favor related to a political
adversary. Theres not a question. He clearly asked for a favor, he said the word. This is such a disappointing afternoon. How Many Democrats asked the republican witnesses questions, how Many Democrats asked republican witnesses questions. This is not a validation, i want you to hear from my partys prosecute respective instead of a u. S. Citizens perspective. Im glad i started out as a dishwasher at the holiday inn. That was disappointing. They were there to present the investigation already taken place. Sure but there was not much questioning. It was effective. They were there to do that. I dont know how many people watched very much of this
because of all the yelling. Part of the reason for that is remember theyre not fact witnesses. A fact witness is somebody who has first hand observation what went on. Their role was to be attorneys and present evidence. They did that. The where is adam schiff and that refrain coming in, also not a fact witness and the value how these have gone down, they did not testify, they gave a report in the watergate hearings. Theyre now saying the process is so unfair particularly when the president of the United States has been invited to participate and still has declined to do so. It is hard to have a straightfaced argument to say you were unfairly treated. To her point, who wasnt there. The white house wasnt there. We have seen from start to finish republicans yell about process and not being fair. We have yet to see a white house defense. The key question, are any democrats going to shift their position as a result of 9 1 2 hours testimony today or are republicans . It will certainly be along party lines a vote to impeach the president. The honest answer is we dont know. What we do know, based on everything weve seen and heard from members of congress and both parties, no, it is not likely to do that. To susans point, this is a very grave, very unique effort that the house of representatives is going through, the impeachment of a president of the United States of america. They have to do this. It isnt willynilly legislation. This is a nobrainer they have to go through these incredibly important motions. Theres still a lot thats tbd. Most importantly its how broad these Articles Of Impeachment will be. Whether or not theyre going to stick to what the democratic lawyers pretty much tried to focus their evidence on when they presented it. President abused his power with his call to ukraine and allegations of the quid pro quo and obstruction of congress. The Open Question is whether or not well have Articles Of Impeachment and Obstruction Of Justice based on everything that happened in the second part of Mueller Report which Didnt Exonerate Him but laid out examples of Obstruction Of Justice and thats a very real debate right now that is continuing to go on. The suggestion from jerry nadler and others was that theyll talk about mueller has a pattern if they dont stop him. Almost everything today was strictly involving ukraine. Everybody stand by. I want to bring in congressman eric swalwell. Hes a democrat taking part in todays hearing and serves on the house Intelligence Committee. What do you think democrats accomplished with todays hearing . We showed the country facts that the president got caught cheating. This wasnt asking someone to help him cheat in his election. He asked a Foreign Government and he used 391 million of your Taxpayer Dollars to try to do it. I laid out facts that are not in dispute. We may not know everything the president said but there are about 12 facts, key facts that are not in dispute here. Any fact we dont know, its only because the president has blocked us from knowing. Was today the last Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment . We dont have any other hearings scheduled. What will happen next . We will contemplate the evidence, consider what the constitutional scholars told us last week what the president is exposed to. When will that happen . We will be meeting later this evening to go through the evidence and make next steps. Ill leave that to the chair and the speaker. You think the house Judiciary Committee will vote on Articles Of Impeachment by the end of this week . Im not going to put a time line on it but we want to move fairly and with the urgency of a crime spree in progress. The president s lawyer was over in ukraine. They are emboldened to believe they can continue this cheating scheme. We have to make sure the elections are pure and held with integrity. Theyoull vote this week and next week it will go to the house floor to debate and discuss. Is that still the game plan . Again, move fairly, move swiftly but also make sure that we do it with the urgency of an upcoming election. We want to get it right because of whats at stake. During the course of today there was strictly almost completely focus on ukraine. Nothing really coming up during nine and a half hours of testimony involving the Mueller Report. Do you think the Articles Of Impeachment will focus in on ukraine . It will include the pattern of conduct that a leopard doesnt change its spots and this president has asked Foreign Governments to help him cheat and obstructed investigations into his conduct. He did that with the russia involvement in the last election. Hes done that with ukraine nap will be shown to the American People. As you and your Committee Members draft these Articles Of Impeachment during the next 24, 48 hours, are you taking into consideration something your fellow democrats, moderate democrats who flipped seats back in 2018 who were elected in districts that President Trump carried in 2016 would might be vulnerable going into the 2020 election as a result of this . We want every member to
defe defend. The republicans who won 2018 might become vulnerable and you could lose the majority going into the next election. I would credit many of those vulnerable democrats for the position were in today. National security democrats that had served in the military or Intelligence Community came forward expressing out rage and concern about what the president asked the ukrainians to do and they thrust us with a unified caucus to hold the president accountable. They in part helped us get here and we will do everything to make sure that we all can defend. Thanks so much for joining us on this busy day. Historic day indeed. If we take a look at the dilemma these members of the house and
if it goes to the senate, they have. They have some serious issues. They got to debate within their own selves. Absolutely. The republicans on the house side think they are holding the votes. They do not think that anything today changed and they feel pretty confident they will hold the republicans on party lines. We have a different question for the democrats because some of them are in districts that are trump districts and the question will be nancy pelosi, as dana is good at counting votes. She will see where those are. I imagine she will give some people some hall passes who she feels need to vote. The other thing i think will be interesting to see is whether some of those democrats will vote for some counts and not for others. Someone might vote for
obstruction of congress and not on the others. The reality is nobody knows exactly how the politics are going to play out. When ever you dont know how the politics will play out you might as well just do the right thing. The decision about what articles to include, whether to include, proceed to fall vote, these are really important questions for the future of our democracy. For the future of the office of the presidency, for the balance of power. I do think one thing we are seeing in the shifting of the tone of prominently democratic members at this point is really moving into a recognition of the seriousness of the task before them and the task now is not necessarily to count the vote or try to analyze the politics but determine what does the Instituti Constitution require them to do. I buy half of that. When youre adam schiff and people give you a standing
ovation, i got to step back and say nancy pelosi wants me to say the caucus is somber about this, a Standing Ovation for this process is completely unacceptable. When members of the party sit back and say ive decided to impeach before ive heard a hearing, unacceptable. I think the charges are serious. The president needs hearing but for the democrats to say we meant from day one to consider this as a somber exercise, that doesnt smell right to me. Some of them meant to say ive already made a judgment and i Dont Carry Whe what the hearin are. It looks as if theres Articles Of Impeachment that pass this week. They go to the floor of the full house, all 435 members can vote. It will pass the house of representatives setting stage for a trial in the senate where the president will not be contacted and removed from office. It doesnt look like thats
feasible. Unless something changes in the senate trial which is possible. Somehow they can compel john bolton to testify there. Its a republican controlled body as opposed to the house. I wasnt at the house caucus meeting. I dont know exactly why adam schiff was applauded. There is support for him in the way he conducted the hearing. Correct. Not necessarily for impeaching the president. Im not so sure thats the case. Hair where youre coming from. Everything is looked at through a partisan lens. I dont buy the Talking Point that says this entire exercise was about a predetermined outcome. Thats been said over and over again. I do think that the its not an impeachment in search of fact pattern. I think the fact pattern presented itself through the ukrainian call and there was a call to duty. I understand the idea and the notion you must be somber when you exercise the authority but you have a constitutional obligation to investigation the matter and they are doing that