[silence]. Now, turning attention to the ron johnson letter, if i may. Yes. On august 31st, Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to the ukraine in september with murphy. Johnson called the president and sought permission to be the bearer of good news. Right. The president said i am not ready to lift the aid. Senator johnson, he writes a 10 page letter. Very detailed. He gives some remarkable details. I would like to read it. Its on page 6. This is Senator Johnson speak. I asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement or ukraine would take action and be
lifted. Without hesitation President Trump denied such an arrangement existed. And he started cursing. He said no way. President trump said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that . And Senator Johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reaction was adamant, ve hement and angry. And as august 31st, the president said you will like my decision in the end. Thats very important context on the president s State Of Mind on august 31st. Right. He fully expected that the aid would eventually be released after the 55 day pause . Absolutely. I want to thank you all for your presentations. Mr. Caster, i believe you have
been talking for approximately 75 minutes. I want to thank you for that. My wife thanks you as well. She likes when i talk when she is not around. Time permitting today, i would like to cover 4 or 5 areas, distinct areas. There is a lot of facts the American People have not heard. There is a lot of contradictions in certain peoples testimony. Is that fair to say, mr. Castor . I would like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador volker. Ambassador sonland and secretary perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people, correct . Yes. And the democrats report
would like us to believe that the three individuals were engaged in some nefarious venture, but thats not true, is it . No. In fact these three people were at all relevant times and even today in the best interest of the American People . Yes, and with the highest integrity. Thats right. I think everyone testified that ambassador volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service. Across the board. All the witnesses talked about integrity that ambassador volker brings to the table. There are a lot of people with firsthand knowledge we did not talk to, correct . [silence]. Now i want to talk about the
president s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid, is that correct . He is deeply skeptical of sending u. S. Tax paying dollars into an environment that is corrupt. Its as good as kissing it goodbye. Is that something new he believes or something he ran on . Something he ran on and implemented policies as soon as he became president. Ambassador hale told us about the review of all foreign aid programs and described it as a zero based evaluation. Right. You took the deposition of mark sandy a Career Official at omb . Correct. And he had some information about the reason for the pause, is that true . I think he had a conversation
with an individual named rob blair. Mr. Blair provided insight into the reason for the pause. Sandy was one of the few witnesses that gave us a firsthand account inside of omb, the reason for the pause related to the president s concern about european Burden Sharing with the region. In fact, in his conversations, the president s conversations with Senator Johnson, he mentioned his concerns about Burden Sharing. I believe he referenced a conversation that he had with a chancellor of germany and in fact the whole first part of the July 24th Transcript he is talking about Burden Sharing and wanting the europeans to do
more. Yes. Senator johnson and President Trump were pretty candid. They believed that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Hmmm. Now i would like there has been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid about Feeling Pressure from President Trump. Isnt it true that he stated over and over publicly he felt no pressure from President Trump. Is that true . Yes, he said it consistently. Said in the United NationsSeptember 25th and 3 more News Availabilities over the course of the period including last
week. I wanted to change subjects and talk about something that Professor Turley raised last week. The partisan nature of this investigation. You are an experienced congressional investigator. Professor turley is no trump supporter. Thats right. He is a democrat. Thats right. But Professor Turley cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned; is that correct . Yes correct. And our Democrat Friends are citing the founders and their intent as part of this impeachment process. I think that goes to whether
this constitutes bribery. You know there is case law on bribery. I am no Supreme Court scholar. There is new case law with the mcdonalds case what constitutes an official act. That hasnt been addressed and Professor Turley mentioned that. And Professor Turley said a meeting doesnt constitute an official act. And the Mcdonald Case goes to that. And turley pointed that out last week. Since this inquirys unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair. Republicans questions has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in lt. Colonels vindemans deposition . We were barred from asking him who he communicated concerns to. Basic things like who, what, when where . And this rapid. We are in day 76. Its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly when the stakes are this high. It takes time for the two sides to stakeout their interest and how they respond. With the Gowdy Probe The First Letter was in october of 2017. In december we finally got a witness. It was the following spring in the gowdy probe, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tugofwar, we reached a deal with the doj where we went down to doj. They gave us access to documents and access north of 800,000 pages. But they made us come down there. They made us go into a skiff and these documents were not qualified. In may or june we started when the investigation was ongoing. Thats disappointing. We all wish there was an easy button. Congressional investigations of consequence take time. Right. It took, i think, 6 months before the first document was even produced. You had to go down there and review it in cam camera and investigate the death of a Border Patrol agent. Yes. They sent subpoenas in february of 2011. We had a hearing in june. With experts about proceedings of contempt. What does it take to go to contempt . That was the first time in june when we got any production. The production was largely publicly available frchltion information. We spent most of the year to get information from the Justice Department. We were also working with whistleblowers who were providing us with documents. The chairman then in october issued another subpoena to the
Justice Department. We talked to whistleblowers and doing interviews to get documents from the Justice Department through that channel. These things take time. Right. Not 76 days. If you truly want to uncover every fact, as you should in an impeachment, you have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas. Here we have a lot of requests for information. Voluntary information. Will you please provide us documents on x, y, z and thats great but you have to back it up, correct . The fundamental rule of any investigation you rarely get what you are asking for unless and until the alternate is less palitable for the respondent. You issue a subpoena. You are trying to get documents. One technique you can use it talk to a document custodian about what documents exist. Chairman chaff his document production status hearings. You would bring in officials to get the lay of the land. They are supposed to be directly responsible. You can sabre rattle about holding somebody in contempt. Oftentimes, witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward, when you attach a Contempt Proceeding to their name, a lot of times that changes the outcome. With a Contempt Proceeding you
have a couple of different steps company raise the prospect. You can schedule a Contempt Proceeding. You can hold the door open for documents or interviews and then push it off. You can go through at the committee level. These are all sort of Milestone Events which historically are less palatable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle. With these times of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, with the gowdy probe we didnt get a witness. Once we got Deputy Director mccabe in, a couple of weeks later we got comeys Chief Of Staff is. Once you get the ball rolling, again, you dont always like 100 of the terms. Sometimes you have to deal with
agency counsel or look in camera. Once you get the ball rolling usually it leads to positive results and historically allowed the congress to do its work. Were any of those things done here . No. In fact, they decided we are not going to subpoena certain people that are important, is that fair to say . We are not going to court to enforce them so these folks that are caught in the interbranch struggle. Thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One concerning thing dr. Cupperman who was described as a solid citizen and good witness. He filed a lawsuit in the face of the subpoena. Judge leon was assigned to it. The issues were different than the mcgahn issues. He is the white House Counsel. Cupperman is a National Security official. Cupperman filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Cupperman was not asking the court to tell him not to testify. He was seeking the courts guidance to facilitate his cooperation. And the committee with drew the subpoena which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead the Intelligence Committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sonland and his system. I think they rely 600 times in their report. I tell you what i did. On this point, yesterday, i
opened a democrat report. I did a controlf. Yes. Sonlands name shows up 611 times. In fairness, it will be double counted because its in a sentence and then in a foot note. Thats two. But in comparison to the other witnesses, sonland is relied on bigtime. Yes. I think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions. The record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns with sonland. Sonland in his deposition he does not share the same view. There is a lot of instances
of that. Where ambassador sonland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another, correct . Sonland as a witnesses an enigma. He said the Security Surveillance was not tied to anything. I call that the pretzel sentence. If that addendum or supplement, he talks to him and her and sonland ends with a presume. It was not any firsthand information. Right. We dont have a lot of firsthand information, stharis that corre . We have a lot of conflicting testimony. We have not been able to get everyones account, but the investigation hasnt been able to reveal firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. We already talked about this. Ambassador sonland would presume things, assume things, and form opinions based on what other people told him. Then he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . Hmmm. It started with his role with the ukraine portfolio. People in the State Department wondered where the ambassador was so engaged with issues with the ukraine. Ukraine aspires to join the eu. There are other reasons and mr. Turner explored this really well at the open hearing. We asked ambassador sonland. He did a tv interview in kiev on the 26th of july is. He said the president gave he a lot of assignments and assigned me ukraine. But when we asked him in his deposition, he conceded that he was in fact spinning. That the president never assigned him to ukraine. He was exaggerating. I think at the public hearings you pointed out in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sonland is not a note
taker. He, in fact, he said i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Lets say it this way. Ambassador taylor walked us through his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He has a notebook on his desk and in the coat pocket of his suit. He showed us. When ambassador taylor recounts to us what happened, its backed up by these notes. Ambassador sonland on the other hand was very clear firsthand he said he did not have access to his State Department records. He said that at the public hearing, simultaneously the State Department issued a statement saying that was not true. Nobody is keeping ambassador
sonland from his emails. He is still a State Department employee. He can go he does have access to his records but he stated he didnt and stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes and he doesnt have recollections on a lot of these issues. We made a list of them. I think at the hearing i called it the trifecta of unreliability. Yes. And, you are not the only person that has concerns about ambassadors sonland testimony and conduct. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct . Yes, tim morrison talked about instances where ambassador sonland was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why sonland was trying to get into the warsaw meeting on september 1st. And dr. Hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses. You are correct. And ambassador reeker and sonland too. Yes, reeker said he was a problem. Yes. And dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said he might be an intelligence risk; is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his Mobile Device and make Telephone Calls which obviously can be monitored. Yes. By the bad guys. We talked about how he was spinni spinning certain things. He admitted that. How he was spinning. He admitted he exaggerated. Also, when it comes to his
communication with the president , we tried to get him to list all of the communications with the president. He gave us six. Then when he was back we walked us each communication with the president. It was a christmas matter and when the president of finland was here. And congresswoman spear asked him the same question and he said he talked to the president like 20 times. The record is mixed. I think my time is up. Thank you, both. Yield back. Mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman. I move to recess for 30 minutes pursuant to clause 1a of 11. The gentleman moved to recess for how long . For 30 minutes, sir. 30 minutes. Thats a privileged motion. It is not debatable. All in favor say aye. The nos have it. Roll call. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Johnson . No. Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Jeffers . No. We will break in here for just a moment. This is dana perino with continuing coverage of this impeachment hearings. This is the second hearing the Judiciary Committee has p is having. Its a Roll Call Vote to decide whether to take a break. Its the Power Dynamics in this hearings. You listened to the counsels from each side. The democrats went first and then the republicans. Questioned staffers under oath. We will talk about that process in just a moment. In the meantime, there was other big breaking news. The Inspector General report on the fbi, the fisa warrant into carter page came out. The bottom line is the ig concluded that the russia probe was warranted and the fbi and the Justice Department will undertake an audit to talk about process and proceedings. The ig found 17 significant errors or omissions with that fisa application. That included a question about whether or not senior people would have signed off on it in the first place. There is an audit. The Attorney General will oversee that and the u. S. Attorney mr. Durham is issuing a statement saying he doesnt agree with the ig report and he will have more to say on that in
a moment. Back to the hearing now with chairman nadler. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 24 nos. The motion is not agreed too. I yield myself 5 minutes to question the witnesses plchlt goldman, can you explain the difference between Vice President bidens request to the ukraine and President Trumps request to the ukraine . When Vice President biden did so with an International Consensus as part of u. S. Policy the entire European Union supported that. And the imf gave the loans he was referring to. He did that as part of the entire International Communitys consensus. When President Trump asked for
this investigation of joe biden, all of the witnesses, every single one testified that had nothing to do with official u. S. Policy. President and Vice President bidens request had no personal political benefit and President Trumps did . Yes, the witnesses testified if the Corrupt Prosecutor General were removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said by removing that prosecutor general and adding a new one, there was an increased chance that corruption in ukraine would be prosecuted relating to the barisma company which his son was on the board. Mr. Goldman, explain what happened to the Phone Records obtained by the Intelligence Committee. I want to set the record straight. This is a basic and usual
practice where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a scheme, investigators seek their records. This is metadata. Only call to, from and length. Its not the content of the calls or the text messages. There is no content. There is no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or attorney client. There are no risks for that. For several of the people we subpoenaed and were alegged to be part of the scheme we got records to see if there were Additional Communications we were unaware of it. We matched the call records up with important events that occurred during the scheme. We looked for patterns. In this case people who were
involved President Trumps scheme were communicating with the president s lawyer who was also involved in the scheme, a journalist and a staff member of congress and another member of congress. We did not at all seek in any way shape or form to do any investigation on any member of congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president s scheme. Everything you did was Standard Operating Procedure for a Well Run Investigation . Every investigation i did for 10 years we got call records. Did white House Counsel make his view clear and what was that view . We never heard from the white House Counsel other than the letter which said we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in any way, shape or form. They never reached out to engage in the accommodation process. It was a complete stonewall. Not only would the white house not cooperate and not respond to the subpoenas but they said they will direct every Executive Agency to defy them. My republican colleagues said that congress hasnt built a sufficient record to impeach the president. You have spent years building substantial case records. What is the strength of the record here . I think we have moved fast and i think the evidence is overwhelming. We have 17 witnesses with overlapping statements. And the committee managed to collect such a compelling record in the face of unprecedented obstruction by the president , correct . Yes. And was the obstruction so pervasive that the evidence pointed to a plan to coverup president ial misconduct . Yes. On october 8th the white house wrote a letter to President Trump. The white House Counsel wrote that President Trump could permit his administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under the circumstances. They were stymied with respect to most of them . There were 12 witnesses directed not to appear and they didnt appear. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I yield to the Ranking Member mr. Collins. Thank you. An interesting thing. We can put pressure on others if we have the International Community behind us. I can extort anybody i want to as long as enough people think its okay . Thats what you just said whether you believe just said. I want to go to the phone
record. The Phone Records hear me clearly i have no problem with the Subpoena Power from congress. My problem is taking the metadata you said there is no content. We had that debate in congress on fisa and other things. This committee should be hearing fisa this week. The ig report just came out and we are doing this. Its interesting to see to me that the calls and the metadata and not the content, the problem i have is this if Rudy Giuliani and nunes were the only Phone Records returned. Where were they released . I want to know who ordered it. The committee made a choice. Schiff who is not here and thank you for showing up. Made a conscious choice to put these records into the report. It was a drive by. You wanted to smear the Ranking Member or these others because they were in the numbers connected to that. I am not saying you knew the contact. You admitted they were simply contacting these people. If you want to do a professional nonsmear report, you could say Congress Person 1 or 2. Reporter 1 or 2. If they didnt contribute to your report, it is nothing but a drive by. Thats the problem i have here. I have no problem with you or the report or the subpoena. Can you pretty it up all you want. That showed the American People for a moment, the schiff report became a partisan smear against other members we dont like because there are other alternatives for you to do. I have a lot of issues with how
this oversight is done want dont make it up and dont not tell me who ordered that. That was nothing more than a smear campaign. To say its not is being disingenuous this committee. The chairman gave you a chance and you made it worse. And a record got leaked to the Washington Post. I dont understand how we can say this is okay. How do we say this is fine . This is how we deinvolved. Member of the majority may be members of the minority at some point. If this is the standard of where we are going with these investigations we for deep trouble. This is another thing that the founders and you and others said earlier. The founders were concerned about a lot of things. One of the biggest they were
concerned about a partisan impeachment because you dont like his policies. You dont like how he said it. You dont like the way joe biden said it but you blew that off. We are a perpetual state of impeachment. Dont come here and be a sworn witness and not answer the question. Adam schiff is doing that fine without you. Dont come here and say i wont say because you know good and well, in some conference or little room, somebody said hey this is interesting because i have devin nunes phone number and that number matches. We will put it in the report not because we think devin nunes is part of this but because he had a phone call with somebody we are investigating. Thats a drive by. Its beneath you and its
beneath this congress. Thats why i have a problem with this. Then you leaked further information. This is the problem here. We can be righteous about trying to get this president or not. This is why people are turned off by this whole thing. Thats the problem we have. Are you could have handled this differently. And you mr. Schiff. I dont blame the chairman. I hold the one with the pen responsible. He ordered this and said put their names in here and he cant come and defend that. Unfortunately he sent you. You have had to take it. Thats wrong and this committee deserves better. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady of from california is recognized. The gist of the question here is the potential of abuse of the president s power to benefit himself in the next election. America is based on free and fair elections. After russia interfered with the 2016 election people the American People want to ensure the next election is free of foreign interference. Mr. Goldman, ambassador sonland testified that according to Rudy GiulianiPresident Trump wanted a Public Statement from president zelensky committing to investigations of barisma and the 2016 election. Isnt that correct . Correct. And ambassador sonland testified as the screen in front. You shows that president zelensky had to announce the investigations. He didnt have to do them. Correct. Mr. Goldman, you are an experienced former prosecutor. Is it common to announce an investigation and not actually conduct the investigation . No, usually it works the reverse. Normally you dont announce the investigation because you want to develop as much evidence
while its not public. If its public, then you run into problems of people matching up testimony and witnesses tailoring their testimony which is part of the reason where the closed deceptions in our investigation were important. What did this evidence about the announcements tell you why President Trump would only care about president zelensky announcing the investigations but not actually conducting them . One whatever the president claims about his desire to root out corruption, even if you assume the investigations are for that purpose as he stated, it undermines that. He doesnt care in the investigations are done. Even if you assume, which i dont think the evidence supports that its corruption. He is not doing the corruption investigations. He wanted the public announcement. The private confirmation was not enough because he wanted the political benefit. This could benefit the president politically because the announcement alone could be twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival. Thats consistent with the findings. President nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election. Then he tried to cover it up just as we have seen obstruction here. Even more concerning in this case, President Trump not only appears to have abused of power of his office to help his own reelection campaign, he used a Foreign Government to do his bidding and used military aid as leverage to get the job done. Now this aid was approved by congress. It was done on a bipartisan basis for ukraine to fight
russia who had invaded them. While this aid was with held, people died while this aid was being with held. Some people argued since the aid was released that there was not a problem. Mr. Goldman, isnt it true that the aid was released only after the president got caught and only after Congress Learned of the scheme to make this life or death aid conditional on this announcement of investigation of his political rivals . There were several things that made the president realize that was coming to a head and could not be concealed. The whistleblower complaint circulated around the white house. The congressional committees announced their own investigation. And then the Washington Post oped linking the two. And the Inspector General notified the committee there was a whistleblower complaint that was being with held by the trump
administration. Correct. I made it clear throughout this investigation that i dont want to be part of a 3rd Impeachment Inquiry but the direct evidence is very damning. The president hasnt offered any evidence to the contrary. We asked and subpoenaed and invited the president. Nothing has come forward if he had evidence of his innocence, why wouldnt he bring it forward . This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the heart of our constitution. Its a concern that we are here, but i heard over and over again that this is too fast. Well, miss jackson lee and i were both members of this committee during the clinton i. That took 73 days. We are here on the 76t day. We need to prosowed. Proceed. We thank you. The hearing will stand in recess for 15 minutes. Now we have a break in the hearing. We have the Judiciary Committee. There are 5. 5 hours in. This concludes our coverage for this fox station. Analysis will continue on Fox News Channel and satellite. I am dana perino in new york. Bret baier and Chris Walls And Martha Maccallum and andy mccarthy. Andy explain the process. How unusual this was. When the latest 2. 5 hours started it was confusing how the republicans questioned how this was set up. Staffers questioning other staffers. Its so peculiar. We had someone who barry burke, it seemed like he was a witness but he was not sworn. There was a motion about him early on where the chairman of the Committee Said he was a witness. Then changed his mind he wasnt. To see him go from the witness chair to back up at the podium where he was asking questions to the other witnesses and you had staffers questions staffers under circumstances where one is under oath and the others are not, its a peculiar proceeding. Its something that would not be allowed to go on in a courtroom where you have rules against people conducting themselves as unsworn witnesses or acting as advocates or witnesses in the same proceeding. Ken starr, you have staffers who were under oath. And Congressman Collins of georgia kept reminding David Goldman the lawyer for the democrats about that. Yes, exactly. Its very unusual. It may be unprecedented. Its another in the long series of things that have been unprecedented in this impeachment process. Beginning with the speakers announcement rather than having a debate on the floor. I would say the one key thing that i think the republicans accomplished today was to say that the record is muddled. The record doesnt point in one direction. Its a rich record with an enormous amount of exculpatory information. People will believe what they want to believe. Another key thing was to identify in the 300 page report that ambassador sonland was in
fact the democrats star witness. I think thats a weak read on which the democrats are relying for the reasons articulated this afternoon. He was a bit muddleed in his system. He changed his testimony and so forth. Hes been proven to be someone who is willing to spin and exageerate his own role. He is not like ambassador volker who is renowned for his integrity and ability. Its been a good afternoon thus far for the republicans. In is a matter of interpretation. You can take the record one way or another way. That means bottom line, there is not a compelling factule case to justice the impeachment of the
president. Going to Chris Walls A next. We will get remarks from President Trump from the white hous house. He committed on the Ig Report Being released with the fisa applications and carter page. Chris, a chance to comment on what you saw in the last couple of hours here in in part of the hearing. The staffers interviewing the staffers and members yelling at staffers on this afternoon. Well, everything has been said but it hasnt been said by everyone so we will continue. I am not sure we accomplished a lot all day. Certainly in the last couple of hours. You could make the argument that in his Opening Statement that dan goldman the chief counsel for the Intelligence Committee laid out the case for 45 minutes for the case against President Trump and the reasons 3 should
be impeached and steve castor the counsel for the Intelligence Committee for republicans made the case why he should not impeached. I hand it to andy and mccann because they saw a lot more in the last couple of hours as to what new light they shed on it. I feel like we know the case against the president. The case in defense the president. I am not sure we are changing any minds here. It seems likule of the democrats every vote here when they have a procedural vote about calling a witness, its 2417. There are 24 democrats on the committee and 17 republicans. My guess is if you said among this group should the president be impeached it would be 2417 along party lines. And Martha Maccallum, we had
Roll Call Votes about whether to go to recess. Everybody wants to be on record. They will come back and there will be 5 minute member rounds. What else do you expect . Thats funny. What other organization say do you want to take a break . The other side accuses them of trying to prolong things so lets take a vote. A lot of americans watch this and checked out to finish up their christmas shopping. I dont think we are seeing a lot of new ground as Chris Wallace said. The reason is this is being rushed through. Collins had a feisty back and forth with goldman. He said this is about the calendar. It appears it is. We know as we were just discussing as we were watching this is not a watergate hearing. You are not seeing the people who were privy to the
president s intent. You dont have the big witnesses who were more privy to the president s thinking. You cant get any further than we are getting right now. We will have a vote over the course of this week. Bret baier, one of the things that the ranking chairman man collins was frustrated about and said to goldman. He wanted to have adam schiff the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the chair Answering Ges but goldman had to answer questions. And goldman at a lot of points didnt have a response and sat there stone faceed. That was some of the collinss best questioning. Specifically on the Phone Records and what was used in the report. This did not come up during the hearings we saw. It came up in the report. It was listed with specific names attacked to the numbers. Not the numbers and to doug collinss point and not to
congress 1 and 2. It said devin nunes and Rudy Giuliani and john solomon. It had a list of the names. You dont have to do that. If you are trying to get the number and the phreakers. Frequency. Thats a point for republicans. We are back to the math. There is no math on this committee that will change. 2417 has been the vote. I think it was 2415 when 2 republicans were in the restrooms. Because they had to take a break. [laughing]. Yes, but that number wont change out of this committee. Its doubtful that number the change in the senate as well. Juan williams a couple of other things happened. We had the ig report from Michael Horowitz and the Justice Department come out saying that the fbi probe was warranted and justiced. Although there were 17 records of errors or omissions. There might have been a break through on the trade deal that the president has been trying to get through. They are talking about the changes there. That might go forward. And the president planing to have an event on paid family leave and child care costs. Yet you have the Congress Spending all of this time and getting all of this attention on this plowing old ground. Your thoughts. One of the arguments that the president and republicans made you have a do nothing congress. They are preoccupied with impeachment and they should be doing the peoples work. Here you have progress not only on the trade pact which would replace nafta with protections for workers in terms of the content of Car Manufacturing and the like. But also change some of the rules for unions in mexico to have real representation of
workers to drive up wages south of the border. You have the u. S. Unions putting pressure on democrats. This is an important deal. Its of value to them. Unions being a key democratic constituency. The overall argument pall democrats are up to nothing looks weaker. On the other hand the political people would say do you want if you are a democrat to give the president a victory which he will tout as his own. Its a political game we are watching but its very important. Maybe more important than what we are seeing right now. Its pretty clear in terms of the votes, the votes are there on the Judiciary Committee for advancing articles of impeachment. After the durham sorry the Horowitz Report you referenced a moment ago, i think there is now
less concern about well, can we expand it . Can there be additional articles of impeachment about what the president testifyed to Robert Mueller during the Mueller Report . In addition to the argument we have seen play over here this morning and afternoon with regard of abuse of power by trying to pressure the ukrainians to investigate former Vice President biden. While we wait for the president s remarks any moment. Sound bite number 7. Andy, this is where Dan Goldman Talks about the issue of obstruction. I want to get your thoughts. It keeps coming up over and over again. Play that please. This investigation moved swiftly as all good investigations should. To the extend that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail
about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that President Trump obstructed the injury and refused to make them available. Andy, you think when they write up the articles of impeachment on the democratic side obstruction will be one of them. Have they made that case . Well, they made the case that goldman outlined. The president instructed people not to testify. They complied with that. Therefore he is responsible for the fact that the committee doesnt have the benefit of their information. I must say, i was struck i dont think much happened today that was note worthy. We are dealing with a set piece and investigators are testifying instead of fact witnesses. I was struck when collins Question Goldman and asked about the manner in which the investigation was conducted and
goldman said i wont tell you. That i wont testify about how the investigation was done and what choices we made. Its odd under the circumstances where they are filing an article of impeachment against the president for refusing to Pride Information from congress and he said if they dont feel like answering questions they will rely on investigative privileges and other privileges. What makes them think that perk is available to a lawyer for the committee but not available to the president of the United States . Chris wallace, how do you think people are viewing this today. Not a lot of change in the polling except for in the
battleground states where President Trump is doing better than in the recent pass. Thats a good question. Which is a bigger Political Risk for democrats . Going ahead with impeachment . Or deciding to back off and not impeach the president . On the one hand, as you point out, there hasnt been big partisan by in. A lot of those key swing states that will be crucial on election day in 2020, the support is now underwater. More people oppose impeachment and removing the president than support the idea of doing that. On the other hand, for the base this are a lot of democrats for nancy pelosi to come out in Mid September and spoken directly to the cameras and said we will proceed with an Impeachment Inquiry and then to take it to the floor and get it passed with two democratic
defection this is week. She stood in the house speakers hallway and authorized the committees to go ahead to write articles of impeachment. I dont know whether in her heart of hearts she or some other democrats think i wish we had not made this commitment in september. I dont see how they can back off of it. I think they are all in. I think it would be damaging for her and the democrats and her standing as the House Democrats for her to say, oops, never mind. Bret baier, what juan mentioned about the other possibilities, for example, the trade deal might have movement in congress. How can pelosi keep that train moving while she does impeachment . Is it possible to do both at the
same time . I think it is. I think there is a lot of want inside her caucus especially in the moderate districts that they get a w. That they get a win sometime. Even if they have to give a hat tip to President Trump and administration they go home with something tangible. I think thats probably going to happen. If you are a democrat and one of those 31 districts, you can go back and say impeachment is important, we have to do our duty, but that doesnt mean we cant also do our job as well. We have one minute before we get to President Trumps remarks. Anything you expect the president can do to show this juxtaposition . I would imagine hes going to try to do exactly that. He will focus on the fact that they are moving closer to this usmca deal. Hes been saying lets get this thing over and move forward, go