Number of significant procedural protections where the president even on the house side, as you know the role of the house is to act as the grand jury and the prosecutor and the actual trial takes place over in the senate, but still, we had significant procedural protections we invited the president and his counsel to attend, we provided the president s counsel the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and object to the admissibility of testimony, and we provided the president s counsel it make presentation of evidence before the full Judiciary Committee including the chance to call witnesses. The president chose not to avail himself of any of those opportunities. It reminds me the president Blockading Witnesses saying you dont have enough people with direct firsthand evidence. First of all, were those rights provided only in Judiciary Committee. Youre not the Principle Committee of impeachment. Youre sort of the final stop. Did the president get those
rights in the Intelligence Committee . I believe not. I would have to go back and check. I can assure you not. Let me explain. You may not accept this analogy but heres the analogy we proceeded on. Heres where the fact finder was the House Of Representatives instead of a Special Counsel. When the Special Counsel and independent counsel did their work in the knicks and Clinton Impeachments all was closeddoor depositions because you dont want the witnesses to be coordinating their testimony and so on. Thats how prosecutorial investigations take place. The House Committee on intelligence was our fact finding committee. Thats why they performed closeddoor depositions because they wanted to avoid witnesses coaching each other and coordinating their testimony. I will give mr. Collins. Were driving down an interesting hole here. I also am Ranking Member of the same committee that said early on that if the president saw
something he didnt want he could write us a letter. He could write us a letter. A couple of these things. The white house has not received all the documents its supposed to have. Were doing impeachment right now and they still havent received the documentps. I still have not received all the documents. I dont know how we get around that. We can pretend and paint pretty faces. Also heres another thing. The staff member they send, mr. Goldman, would not testify or answer questions on the methodology of how they did their investigation. Even in an egregious violation in their report where they named Members Of Congress and their Phone Records, he would not actually say who ordered that, was it chairman schiff or him. Ive always defaulted as i think you would to the member with the pen, mr. Schiff. Mr. Goldman said we would not discuss the methodology of their investigation. This has got to be the most amazing thought when you come to an impeachment when trying to
give due process to the president of the United States and these are ignored. Its just not right. And look you will impeach him. You have the votes. At the end of the day is it worth the integrity of the house. Yonks i dont think so. During the staff presentation of the evidence Ranking Member collins asked how it was conducted resulted in the schiff report never got an answer. Mr. Raskin the house Intelligence Committee, democrat Phone Records, including four phone calls by intelligence Ranking Member new ness, how did they get those Phone Records. I will have to ask Staff Counsel to pass me a note. House counsel didnt answer that . He wouldnt answer the question. Telling us to go ask somebody who didnt answer the question well, i understand that we forcefully represented that no member of the House Of Representatives and no members of the press was targeted with
any investigative resources. Oh, thats really . I mean i respect mr. Raskin, but im not sure he got that statement out without stumbling over everything. You cannot say talk about numbers, at some point, somebody with the Ranking Members phone number had to look for the Ranking Members phone number and look for mr. Solo mons phone number. This is what they dont want to deal with how bad it is screwed up. They want to gloss over process and how they did their investigation because the time and the calendar are terrible masters. This is what were talking about. They wouldnt talk about it. To say that nobody was doing this intentionally, is just not being factually accurate. It doesnt happen on his own. I would ask both of you this question, who specifically matched the Phone Numbers of Ranking Member nunes and what method did they use . I have no idea. If i could say. Certainly. In response to the line of questions, the president of the United States was given the opportunity to call any witnesses he wanted. Any of the 17 witnesses who appeared before the house Intelligence Committee and oversight and Foreign Affairs could have been called by the president and he would have had the opportunity to cross examine any of them. He didnt want to because all of them essentially told different pieces of the same story which is the president execute this shakedown of president zelensky to come and get involved in our campaign at the expense of former Vice President biden. Again, i cant say this enough, goes back to our calendar and clock. How is it possible when i talked to the chairman, sent him letters asking when we were going to get witnesses when he didnt builds the witness day in for ourselves a time to accept one of our witnesses. Dont tell me he would have sent witnesses and he would accept it. It was never on the calendar. These numbers didnt particularly need who
specifically ordered the inclusion of Phone Records in the schiff report . Ranking member, im afraid i cant answer these questions. I dont know. Lets see. Undoubtlely the Intelligence Committee carrying out a vendetta against a member of congress. Any of you think its proper to have individuals call logs who are not the target of criminal investigations . Nothing but a political driveby i brought that out. They could have done it different ways. Number one, person one, they could have done it any other way, but they chose to use the names. It was a political hit job. Opportunity to respond. Do you think it was appropriate for numbers and names to have been released . Again not the targets of the investigations. Just swept up. Yeah. I was not involved in that part of it and so forgive me again. Again, i understand. Will the Gentleman Yield for a minute . We did have testimony on this. Im not going to yield my time. There was testimony. You will have your time shortly. Yeah. The testimony was, im not going to tell you. How many times, mr. Collins, the schiff report or hearsay statements used as evidence . Hundreds. Actually only 54. It may seem when you take off one person talking off another person it goes up. How many times in the schiff report or news reports the only evidence supporting factual assertions . Im sorry. Repeat the question. How many times in the schiff report or news reports the only evidence supporting factual assertions . It would have been the main factual assertion was mr. Sondland, one. 16 different times. Mr. Raskin, its My Understanding Chairman Schiff did not transmit the evidence collected during his committees investigation to the Judiciary Committee until fly, december 6th, does that comport with your
memory . That is correct. So Judiciary Committee majority, did it have access to any evidence beyond the actual report from the Intelligence Committee until the weekend before the Judiciary Committee actually considered Articles Of Impeachment . Well, i dont remember exactly when all of the Deposition Statements were released publicly. I think some of them had been released publicly before that time. We go back and check the exact chronology. There are certain members of the Judiciary Committee also members of other investigative committees. I understand. Its My Understanding Chairman Schiff did not translate all to the Judiciary Committee, is that the case . It is still true to this day. Would you not agree, i ask this of both of you, the house Judiciary Committee should have had the time and opportunity to
review the material collected. Did you vote to have that time and opportunity . We did not. A direct violation House Resolution 660. All i can tell you is that the vast amount of what we ended up getting was elised publicly along the way. The Intelligence Committee made the commitment to release the Deposition Statements publicly. Ive considered it a fair and transparent process. I dont think i got to see a single thing through the Judiciary Committee i was not just seeing come out and being released by the Intelligence Committee. All of it is in the final report. Its there for all of america to see. I dont want us to lose sight of the big picture. We really dont know if its all in the final report. If you havent seen them yourself. No. Thats a statement that is assuming something, facts not in evidence. We dont know what this is the classic case of evidence from a prosecutor to in a
trial. We dont know what weve not seen. Few things have not been transferred but we have heard of other things thats not been transferred and cant be in the report if its not been transferred because we can at least say it was in the report. Let me move on to the articles. In my view weve established the Intelligence Committee process was substantially flawed and procedurally defective. Thats my view. Judiciary committee failed to create a record sufficient to move forward on Articles Of Impeachment. You relied on the Intelligence Committee. Again, where the president was unrepresented. That Vi Lated Rules of the house in my view. The circus has been politically motivated from the very beginning. On the obstruction of congress charge its uncommon for the excuse me, is it uncommon, ask of both of you, uncommon for the Executive Branch to push back against requests for information from congress . Well, no it is not uncommon for the Executive Branch to push back on the production of this or that document. What was breathtaking in its unprecedented and radical nature was this president s determination to shut down all discovery. They did not produce a single document to us that was subpoenaed in this process an the president essentially ordered everyone in the Executive Branch not to cooperate with us. Let me ask i dont want to cut you off. Thats a dramatic escalation in kind and degree over anything thats been seen that includes Richard Nixon who tried to block seven or eight particular requests like the watergate tapes and that in itself became part of the case against him for abuse of power, but, you know, President Trump makes Richard Nixon look like a little leaguer when it comes to obstruction. Mr. Collins, same thing. Do you think its unusual for an administration to push back
against congressional subpoenas . No. Its common. If its pretty common, do you believe its a high crime or misdemeanor to assert privileges in response to congressional requests for subpoenas . I want to go back an give a little history since weve had history lessons. Even in our own committee whats been interesting, theres been a total just walk toward impeachment. What was interesting in our committee we would send subpoenas or sent out letters and stuff and we never followed up on, but also one of the interesting things, we never engaged for the most part with the agencies for documents. What i thought was interesting, mr. Schiff and the Intelligence Committee, while still struggling, mr. Schiff negotiated with the Department Of Justice and got documents released our committee couldnt. Eliot engel one of the quieter chairmans but more effective across the aisle had engaged all
year with administration on ways to get documents. Its a matter of how you go about it. To say this is unheard of is not right. I would ask this to both of you and gets to the point youre making, a normal accommodations process for resolving inner branch disputes between the house and Executive Branch, is that correct . Yes. Okay. And that process really hasnt occurred here, i think mr. Collins, is what you telling me. It doesnt fit neatly into, you know, the speakers impeachment and christmastimeline to borrow your way of looking at it. Weve not gone to court. No, they havent. Were not really engaged. This is a normal give and take where both sides tend to avoid, quote, you know, an exchange where they might go to court an lose something. All that has been set aside and havent had any process like that. No. I will point out something i disagree with. Mr. Mcgahn. A court case weve lost and still being appealed but does show you the process is work, dont work as fast as they want it to work. In fact, even the one that they had that was actually one of the members of the administration contested they withdrew their subpoena and withdrew it from the lawsuit because they didnt want to deal with it. I know mr. Raskin would have a different view and if he wants to respond i would, i will ask you, mr. Collins, this any evidence that the pause on the ukrainian assistance was for the president s improper personal political benefit or could he had other objectives . Thats to you, mr. Collins . Im sorry. I apologize. Its all right. Im throwing a lot of questions at you. Any actual evidence that the pause on the ukrainian assistance was for the president s improper personal political benefit or might he have had other reasons for Withholding Aid . He had plenty of other reasons. Part of it is the law which says
even though the certified the president s call to make sure there was no corruption and where aid is given. Other countries during that time which aid was held. From an appropriator standpoint this aid was not scheduled to go out, had to be done by september 30th. Went out early if you look at it from that time frame. There were other reasons. There was a recent poll just show you, we talk about this from our side, the corruption in the ukraine was so prevalent, 68 of normal every day ukrainians said they bribd a Public Official in the past year. There was reasons for this to be discussed and go at it. I want to point out one last thing on the other issue. Fast and furious, infamous issue with the obama administration. It was seven months from first subpoena to first documents. Seven months. That doesnt fit the timeline here. Right. See, this is an Essential Point that you raise right now. And i think that there is not any credible evidence from any
of the witnesses or anything in the record to suggest that the president was trying to ferret out corruption as opposed to impose a corrupt scheme on the president of ukraine. Start with this. In 2017 and 2018, the president could have raised corruption in withholding military and security assist tons ukraine and never is it. Then in 2019 he did. What changed . Joe biden was running for president and the president ial campaign was much on his mind. The president removed ambassador Yvonne Vi Yovanovitch and we learned from mr. Giuliani he was involved by parnas and fruman to smear ambassador yovanovitch to say there was something wrong with her. In fact, when she was according to all the testimony we had and all the Public Information we had, she was one of the leading anticorruption ambassadors that the United States has on earth. They sabotaged her and undercut her, subjected her to a Smear Campaign that led several of the other witnesses to protest that the State Department was not standing by its own ambassador. They got rid of her as mr. Giuliani said in todays paper because she was getting in the way of the investigations they wanted. What investigations were those . Those into biden, those into the 2016 conspiracy theory. Thats pretty clear. It had nothing to do with core rugs. If you go to the july 25th telephone call, President Trump never raised the word corruption once. But he did talk about joe biden. Three times. We didnt hear corruption, corruption, corruption. We heard biden, biden, biden. That was the favor that we were looking for, right. He wanted the president of ukraine to come over and say he was investigating the bidens. Thats an unrefuted and uncontradicted in the record. If we want to say its okay for
the president to do this stuff lets go ahead and say it. Its not claim that he was involved in some kind of anticorruption crusade at the time. I think america knows we cant take that seriously. This president cut anticorruption funding to ukraine by 50 . The chairman of his Campaign Paul manafort was on the take, he was on the doll for millions of dollars to a former corrupt president in ukraine. President zelensky who was getting shaken down was the reformer. He was the product of the revolution of dignity in 2014 which tried to bring democracy and some fairness and anticorruption efforts to ukraine. Giuliani and his gang that cant shoot straight they went over there because they wanted to take advantage of the situation and go back to the corrupt forces in ukraine. This president had one thing in mind, his own reelection and how president zelensky could help him. You can see that if you look at the Phone Conversation that ambassador sondland had with the president the day after july 25th on july 26th he had this
Phone Conversation that was partially overheard by david holmes in the State Department and he hears him tell the president that zelensky will do whatever you want, hes going to do the investigations, he loves you and so on and gets off the phone and tells him, what. That what the president is interested in is the big stuff relating to president s own political ambitions like the bidens. Hes not interested in the war with russia and i would say obviously hes not interested in corruption. He was interested in the bidens and that was it. Either we think thats an appropriate and proper thing for the president of the United States to be doing or we think its wrong. Some of us believe it rises to the level of impeachment. Want to give mr. Collins a chance to respond. Before i do, president zelensky, any ukrainian official, ever tell you they felt shaken down . Well, theres lots of evidence thats not what i asked. I never spoke to him. Any statement on the record . I dont think so. The record is we wasnt pressured. We wasnt part of anything. I wouldnt be a part of that. Those are the statements from mr. Zelensky. Dont let a chance to respond. There are contemporaneous emails somebody will pass me the language, where mr. Yermak the top righthand man to the president of ukraine says that the president does not want to be treated as a political pawn in domestic american politics. For several weeks they were doing everything in their power to try to get out from underneath the straight jacket of this scheme that was coming, bearing down on them from every different direction. Thats a story right there. Maybe its good were doing this. We have to expand the story to fit our narrative. Theres nothing. If they had something in the phone call it would be in the Articles Of Impeachment they dont. At the end of the day no direct
evidence of what theyre trying to spin here and that there was a pressuring or quid pro quo or however you want to put it to mr. Zelensky. The problem here mark sandy testified there was a wholesale investigation going into foreign aid this year. Quote 2017, 2018, but this year because of the problems there was a wholesale investigation on foreign aid everywhere. President trump raised this with mr. Poroshenko and that was testified by mr. Volker and the former ambassador. Theres no direct evidence of what was said here and to try an then come back and put this into ative sper tech positive, going back to mr. Yermak who said there was no connection between ever discussed between the aid and an investigation. Also if they were trying to get out from understand it so hard i guess if were looking at it, they never did anything to get the aid. They never did anything to get the aid. If they were that scared something was wrong. Ill try to bring this to a conclusion. I know there will be a difference of opinion here. You certainly both can respond. Contrary to my claims, to my friends claims across the aisle, mr. Collins, do you think the democratic majority denied the administration a meaningful opportunity to participate in this proceeding . They isnt effectively, they did. October 30th the rules Committee Held our Jurisdiction Markup on h6 60 and many concerns from our side of the d dias. Republican members were assured, quote, the president has been afforded all kinds of rights before the Judiciary Committee. Weve heard that today. This would be an open and transparent process. Despite the fact that we received the text of the resolution, a mere 24 hours earlier, did not have a single
amendment made in order. Mr. Collins, was the administration provided the opportunity to participate in the Intelligence Committee proceedings . In my mind, it basically sue planted the judiciary as the Principle Committee of impeachment. No. It was put into the record they should have been but the problem is the actual way it played out in the scheduling in Judiciary Committee made it nowhere possible they could if all of a sudden they waptd to, there was no time in the calendar for it. I will end with this. Let my friend respond if you wanted to. Thank you. Youre very kind. The when Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified, he said that this request for a favor was not in any sense a friendly request. It was a demand in the context of the hundreds of millions of dollars held up the request for
the white house meeting and so on. For weeks the ukrainians pushed back on the demand of the president and agents and advised u. S. Officials they did not want to be an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics. Recall the testimony of dr. Fiona hill who said that this was a domestic political errand that the president s team was on in order to extract this commitment from president zelensky to come and give this interview. They had publicly announced, going to publicly announce investigations in an interview that president zelensky had schedule on cnn, but then ukraine canceled the entire after the president s scheme was exposed and military aid released. When the scheme blew up president Zelensky Felt that he could be free from this obligation to say he was investigating with all due respect the president was telling united
states senators in august the aid was probably going to be released long before there was any notion about a whistleblower or anything else. Senator johnson from wisconsin has testified to that effect. And again, with all due respect, i mean the last administration for four years didnt provide any military assistance to ukraine. The idea that 55 days was somehow life and death in this situation, particularly during a period of transition from one government to another, you know, it just pretty thin to impeach the president of the United States on. Mr. Chairman, you know, with all due respect to my friends here, who i admire both and who i think have been very helpful in their testimony and is always straight and forthright, My View Chairman Schiff ought to be the person answering questions in front of the rules question. Its his report. I dont blame the president for passing on the opportunity not to go before the judiciary for
what was clearly going to be perfunctory and provide Woed Dressing of legitimacy to this process. To claim that he was given meaningful or consistent opportunity treated anywhere like previous administrations i dont think holds up when denied an opportunity to participate where the principle action is and given the last minute thing. I will yield back my time and thank both of our distinguished members former and current of the rules committee for coming up here and providing us their insight and testimony. Its great to work with both of you and i appreciate your service to your districts and to the congress and to the country. Yield back. So i want to thank the gentleman for his questioning. I said i would be liberal with the time. You were. Youre going to make me into a conservative by the end of this hearing. Let me just do a couple things
here. One i want to ask unanimous consent without objection to insert into the record october 23rd New York Times article ukraine knew of aid freeze by early august undermining trump defense. I also want to make a couple of comments about minority day witness issue. I did send a letter to my colleagues on the rules committee. We made it part of the record. Mr. Nad hers confirmed he would work with the minority to schedule their hearing day on constitutional grounds of impeachment. Not withstanding the fact when . We did a lot of history, looked at the history of this this whole rule and it was designed to ensure that minority was not shut out of witnesses, they were not completely shut out of hearings as has occurred in the past. The minority did get a witness. I try not to watch the judiciary proceedings as much as i could but i did see him. He was there. But i would just say that, you know, that this notion that somehow that the minority has the super power ability to be able to not only name the witnesses, but set the day and to be able to slow down progress on any bill, if that were the case, having been in the minority eight years, we would have used it to stop most of the agenda that my republican friends have put forward. So i put again, i will make that letter available to anybody who is interested. Mr. Chairman, i have a question. I was you made a statement and im not sure if how you were wording it, i was never promised by mr. Nad her he would work with us on a minority hearing day from now to infinity. He said no, were not having it. He did not. My understanding is he said that in committee. Maybe im wrong, but we can find
out during the break. We had an issue of consultation lately. We will look that up and by the time we get back we will get you that answer. Let me again remind everybody here, why were here today. Its easy to get caught up into the weeds and talk about process. Let me i just was handed it. The statement said im willing to work with the minority to schedule the hearing. I will pass that on. We have consultation issues in our committee and sending that and taking all of our witnesses out is not true and putting it in letter is fine, but its not true. Its what he said though. I will ask that to be part of the record as well. Look, let me remind everybody why were here. As i said over and over again, the president abused his power of office for his personal gain and obstructed a congressional investigation to look into that conduct. We all know how he did it. He tried to shake down the government of ukraine to get
dirt on his political opponent to help him in the upcoming 2020 election. He engaged in a systemic pattern of denying any documents of any cooperation with congress. That is obstruction of congress. Mr. Collins, you kept on something something i agree with, the clock and calendar is important. You know, from my Vantage Point and from the way i look at what has happened here it is important because i believe as mr. Ras kin stated at the beginning of his testimony there was a crime in progress. We have an election in less than a year. And the president is openly trying to encourage foreign interference in that election. I mean that is a that should shock everybody not only in this committee, in the chamber, all throughout this country. It is just wrong. It is so wrong. And so we will continue this hearing. We just had votes and we will
recess and come back at the beginning of the last vote, where we will turn to mr. Hastings. The rules committee stands in recess. All right. Weve been watching the House Rules Committee, i think this might be the first time ive said this on tv, Rules Committee Meekt to mark up the impeachment resolution and establish the rules that will govern the upcoming floor debate expected to take place tomorrow. In less than 24 hours, the House Of Representatives will vote on Articles Of Impeachment against president donald j. Trump. The resolution is expected to pass along party lines which would mark only the third time in u. S. History that a president is impeached. Joining us msnbc correspondent Garrett Haake from capitol hill. Washington post political reporter eugene scott and former counsel to the house Judiciary Committee during the nixon impeachment process, michael
conway. Garrett, explain to us what has been going on in that Committee Room today. Officially the rules committee is debating the rules by which the House Impeachment will go forward on the floor, how long, whether or not there will be amendments loud. Youre seeing some of a Dress Rehearsal for the floor debate with two of the most outspoken members who have been involved in the impeachment process, pushing for the articles or key fending the president against them, doug collins as the Ranking Member defending the president pushing back moving this to the floor and a late substitution, jamie raskin, young congressman from maryland, replacing jerry nad her the Judiciary Committee chairman had to return to new york with a family emergency. Expect to see more throughout the afternoon as these two go back and forth. Something of a colloqu colloquyg Articles Of Impeachment. More and more members whose
political careers may be defined how they vote get a chance to lay their hands on the articles. Despite all of what weve seen here, its been two committees who have handled the articles in open committee when all of the members in the house will have their tenures defined how they vote and what they say on the floor tomorrow. Eugene, what stood out to everything youve been listening to, other than the fact its not just the rules theyre discussing, they seem to be rel relitigating some of the things weve heard in the Intel Committee and going to hear on the house floor tomorrow. Also known as confusing us. Very much that point. Very fascinating to see lawmakers from both sides of the aisle constantly reep enforce the arguments theyve been making since the conversations began and thats in part because there are many voters who perhaps are just tuning in at this point and really want to make the case for why they will vote the way they will, how they
believe the other side of the aisle is processing the entire situation, their motivations and perhaps hopes of all of this and trying to make a case for their eventual reelection, but as we were mentioning earlier, so many careers will be on the line and will be judged and reassessed had this moment. I think right now, weve seen so many lawmakers, especially on the right, play to an audience of one and i think right now, what were seeing is them playing to voters making a case for their own careers. Looking ahead to tomorrow, how are the arguments in the floor debate different from the back and forth we heard during the hearings . Well, i think they will differ in a couple substantial ways. One its going to be a very free wielding, free flowing discussion. The rules adopted in the Clinton Impeachment said a couple important things. One, you can bring up any aspect of the background, family, political, social about the accused, in this case President Trump, but no personal attacks on either a member of the house or a member of the senate. The republicans are not going to be able to make the personal attacks they have against adam schiff and frankly democrats cant say that senator mcconnell or senator graham have prejudged this. One other important thing, each of the Articles Of Impeachment will be voted on separately. A member might be able to decide to vote for one and not the other. In the Clinton Impeachment the house Judiciary Committee sent four Articles Of Impeachment to the floor of the house, two passed, two were defeated. Thanks to all three of you. Michael, eugene and garrett. A dire warning from the only person who has ever as served as the head of the fbi and cia from criticism from President Trump and the attorney general. The 95yearold former federal judge William Web Ser says he thinks the attacks threaten the rule of law and are a threat to american democracy. Nbc news Andrea Mitchell sat down with him in an exclusive interview yesterday about the column he wrote for the New York Times. You have written that you are disappointed that the president has spoken of the fbi as a broken agency. Why does that distress you . Because i know its not true and because i know that it could adversely affect the confidence that the American People have in one of the most important agencies in government. He also spoke of the fbi men and women, personnel, as scum. I hate to use that term. Im shocked to hear that he had used it. Its so inappropriate. You are almost 96 years old. Youre the only person in history who has led both the fbi and the cia. Why does it concern you that they are being disrespected by our top leaders . Because we need them and they have an Important Role in our society which builds trust in our system in our government. This kind of talk, people think well they must know what theyre talking about but they dont. They really dont. Take the fbi for a moment, i dont know of any organization that i have worked with, and ive worked with great many, that tries harder to do the right thing in the right way. You were a longtime friend, you write you were a longtime friend of the attorney general, william barr. Why has he disappointed you . How has he disappointed you . Well, i think that he has read into some of these many reports that people are seeing now, something that leads him to think, im just asoulisuming th that there is a bias, a political bias, and, of course, were all human beings and we all vote, we all take our positions, but i think that these organizations try harder not to let their decisions or recommendations or their behavior undercut the rule of law that were trying to protect. You served understand democratic president s and republican president s. The point of the law that created a tenyear term for the fbi director was to take it out of politics. Exactly. Before that, how many years, 40 years, with j. Edgar hoover, thats a different kind of government than we choose to have. We have a democratic form of government in which leaders change and their subordinates change. We dont want to be talking about something so hostile to the rule of law. The current fbi director chris wray has said hes going to fix the things that went wrong. There were mistakes made by the fbi. Not bias. But mistakes. Hes going to fix that. What we are hearing from the president is a suggestion that he may go after chris wray, the fbi director. From what hes said and i hope im wrong, but i think im right about what he said, is he expects the current he uses
the current director as if hes about to make another change. That tenyear term which you referred was intended to move directorship of the fbi away from political manipulation and to give him an independence that we need him to have in doing the right thing in the right way. Youve also written you were a longtime friend of rudy giuliani. He was in the justice department, he was a moss cuter. Obviously he was a mayor. Youre disappointed in some of the things hes been doing . Well, i hope im mistaken about that because rudy has been a good man in the past and done good things to protect individuals who need the protection of you are laws. His more recent conduct, one appearing in ukraine, moving around in a very difficult,
tenuous area, with no indication hes doing this understand the specific and sanctioned instructions of someone higher than that, and it just didnt seem to pass the smell test. I would like to be wrong, but this is disappointing to me and its part of this confusion thats developed in the way that our laws and particularly with respect to high political issues, are being carried out or neglected would be a more accurate statement. Your Service Starting when you were in the navy in world war ii, your service over decades has been impartial, exemplary, why are you speaking out now . What has motivated you to go public with this strong column in t in the New York Times and come and talk to us . Its not something i want to
do, but something i feel impaled to do because American People are asking now whats happening to our government, whats happening to the people that we trusted and need to trust. Why is all this stuff going on. And i tried to raise that question because it does affect the ability of organizations like the fbi that we love and cherish and the cia thats done so much to gather intelligence for us, it affects their ability to do their job and their willingness to do their job and it shouldnt be. Its not american. Its not our way of life and its not the rule of law. Joining us Now Msnbc Anchor and nbc news Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell. Its on your show that we have for the last few years heard
from former leaders of the cia, of the fbi, of the nsa, various leaders who all have one particular message, they werent all that interested in coming out and talking, but they are worried about the ability for the people in those jobs to do their jobs and to recruit the best people into these agencies in which people are just supposed to do their work but are being pillared by the president. Weve seen from day one when he went to the Cia Headquarters and stood in front of that sacred wall with the stars memorializing those who silently serve and never get recognition because they cant get recognition nor can their families and to start that way and then, of course, its gone downhill since. I think judge webster spoke out because he was concerned that chris wray is about to be fired. He did not like what he heard the president say after the report from the Inspector General and he wants to defend the institutions that he believes are part of the rule of
law and that that is fundamental to our democracy and hes a lifelong republican over decades of service. He doesnt have a partisan bone in his body. Almost 96 years old. He does not go on television very often or do live interviews. But he felt strongly. Thats why he wrote the column in the New York Times and i asked him to come on. He represents a Broad Spectrum of career Foreign Policy and Law Enforcement officials who seem to me dismayed by what they see. Has he articulated how he really sees this as a threat to our democracy or what the consequences could be . I think he has. His language is very strong. In this New York Times on ed which went on line yesterday and print edition today and in this interview hes saying that very nature off you are country is at stake here. He feels that the cia and fbi in particular are threatened by whats happening at the justice
department and youre hearing from someone who is a longtime friend of william barr and respected him. What he said about rudy giuliani. Hes shocked by seeing hard to call this a partisan attack, the president may find some way to do it. Virtually impossible. I dont know another person in Washington Well regarded in both parties as judge william webster. Has he said why he thinks this is helping. The president isnt acting alone. Look at how republicans are voting on the impeachment and bill barr. Secretary of state mike pompeo. Look at those who have enabled this to happen in our foreign service, in all branches of government really. Because you dont have people willing to say no or to challenge whats going on. Why. And the tone has been set by this attack on the deep state. The fbi, cia, State Department, theyve had their flaws. Thats to be expected. These organizations have to reform over time. But the idea that its all political now and its all
politicized and people who sit in these places to undermine the elected officials of government thats the part that plants seeds for the things were seeing today. Thank you for the interview. Thank you. Still ahead, well talk to democratic senator Massey Hirono and impeachment and more. You are watching Velshi And Ruhle live on msnbc. Cologuard colon Cancer Screening for people 50 and older at average risk. Ive heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. Im not worried. It doesnt run in my family. I can do it next year. No rush. Cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92 of colon cancers. You just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. Theres no excuse for waiting. Get screened. Ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. Covered by medicare and most major insurers. Most people think as a reliable phone company. But to businesses, were a reliable partner. We Keep Companies ready for whats next. man we weave security into their business. second man virtualize their operations. woman and build ai customer experiences. second woman we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. Like 5g. Almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. woman when it comes to digital transformation. Verizon keeps business ready. Male anchor . An update on the cat who captured our hearts. Female anchor how often should you clean your fridge . Stay tuned to find out. Male anchor . This years most buzzed about premieres. Female anchor makes it redcarpet official with. Male anchor 50 5star products you can buy online right now male anchor tributes pouring in from fans. Female anchor her hot new album is just one of the things we talked about. Male anchor beats the odds at the box office to become a rare nonfranchise hit. [anchor voices ramp up together becoming indiscernible] you can provide the help and hope that survivors need. And a drumroll, please. [ hisses ]
[ hisses and snarls ] [ bell chimes ] lets dance and now the icing on the cake welcome back to Velshi And Ruhle. The House Rules Committee is
establishing the rules that will goin govern the floor debate about the Articles Of Impeachment. Tomorrow the whole house is expected to debate and vote on the articles and likely make history by impeaching President Trump. If passed the resolution would head addressed the potential trial. The house chose this road. Its their duty to investigate. To meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. If they fail, they fail. Its not the senates job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice. In the coming weeks, every senator will have a choice. Do they want a fair, honest trial that examines all the facts or do they want a trial that doesnt let all the facts come out . We will have votes during this
proceeding, should the house send it to us after voting for it when they send it to us, we will have votes b on whether these people should testify and whether these documents should be made public. And part of the trial. And the American People will be watching. They will be watching. Joining us now, democratic senator hirona of hawaii. Senator, thank you for joining us. Lets start with Mitch Mcconnell. He says hes not going to call the witnesses the democrats want including john bolton or mick mulvaney. Can you do anything about that . Well apparently not according to Mitch Mcconnell, we dont need to call in the witnesses. I think if theres anybody whos desperate to not getget iting t
its Mitch Mcconnell. At the least, we should have mulvaney and bolton, who were there and could shed light on what was going on with withholding millions from ukraine. You could exonerate the president. But can you do anything to make that happen . Isnt Mitch Mcconnell in charnl . Well we would have to have a meeting of the minds to make that happen and i dont know if were going to get to that, but programs our putting it out into the public to say heres the house voting on impeachment without a single document which leads obstruction of congress is part of the Articles Of Impeachment and yet they have witnesses that said the president did what he did. On the other hand, if the president has a defense, he should come forward with that. I am all years for that to happen. Senator, how do you, i dont know that were going to have this meeting youre talking
about because somehow, Mitch Mcconnell has suggest ed that yu heard him saying that trying to get to guilty would not be impartial and yet he has said, he was on fox news the other day, telling hannity. He continues to say he doesnt need witnesses. Lindsey graham says i dont need to hear any witnesses. Ive already decided how this is going to go. So whats the way in which you can press for something that feels like a trial in the senate when mcconnell and other leaders have said not even interested in the fixing or trappings of a trial . As far as im concerned, if we dont get those witnesses, we have other witnesses who have testified the president took down the president of another country for political gain so we have that. We have those stats. Frankly for mulvaney and bolton to come forward to me would be an opportunity for the president to make his case. Let them come forward. But the president doesnt want anybody to testify on his behalf apparently. Sure. That would make sense to you, but Mitch Mcconnell is okay with you not feeling good about his ziss. Look what he did with merit garland. Excuse me, Mitch Mcconnell knows the rules. He doesnt care if hes judged for how he plays thep. Given thats who he is and youve worked with him for year, do you think a meeting of the minds is remotely possible . This is why ive said that without the meeting of the minds with record witnesses, we have enough bases in which to proceed with a trial. Thats what the house has done. We have enough evidence to support those Articles Of Impeachment. Now what im waiting for would
be the witnesses from the president s side who say no, no, had all these other things in mind. The two people there with him, bolton and mulvaney, they should come and testify as well as with two other witnesses who have probably firsthand information as to why the aid was withheld. Senator, good to talk to you, thank you for being with us. I want to be chelear because something just happened and before all you blogs go nuts about that noise, just took a page from her paper and did this. Okay . Just wanted to demonstrate before fox goes and does tests and, it wasnt a mug. Bodily nothing. It was a piece of paper. Just wanted to be b clear. I just want to be clear to you on one thing. If youre mick mulvaney, you want to keep your job. You want to stay in the good graces of President Trump, wouldnt you want to testify . I think your point is better. Why . The senate gets to vote on this. The senate has enough votes not to remove the president. Whos got to convince anybody of anything . On that note. Still ahead, a group of conservatives ban together to oust President Trump from office. In our next hour, well talk about the new superpac. Hour, wek about the new superpac im your 70lb st. Bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. Ahh no, come on. I saw you eating poop earlier. Hey
my focus is on the road, and thats saving me cash with drivewise. Whos the dummy now . Whoof whoof so get allstate where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. Sorry hes a baby so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. Along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. With chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, youll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. When you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. Stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or lifethreatening allergic and skin reactions. Decrease alcohol use. Use caution driving or operating machinery. Tell your doctor if youve had Mental Health problems. The most common side effect is nausea. Talk to your doctor about chantix. How did you find greatgrandmas recipe . Were related to them . Were portuguese . I thought we were hungarian . Grandpa, can you tell me the story again . Behind every question is a Story Waiting to be discovered. The ones that make a truebeen difference in peoples lives. And mikes won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat americas biggest gun lobby, helping pass Background Check Laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. All against big odds you can beat
him. Im Mike Bloomberg and i approve this message