Ambassador sondland says under oath there was no shadow. Were all bad apples, were a whole pile of bad apples, that is a watergate tape with better sound quality. R knowing trumps behavior patterns, it has been especially in new york the loudest voice gets the biggest headline and gets to drown out the truth, a story, or cover something back. He has been the president of distraction and that has really been one of the biggest marks of this presidency in addition to being the president who is the president for themselves and not thees people. What is fascinating here is it is almost like he is going back
to a play book that worked for him towo get elected. It has worked, so i think this is one of the differences with water gate. There was a time when we, the American Public, were getting all of the same information. And inio a vastly different wor now were not getting all of the same information about the facts that we should be. One thing the president is good at doing is creating his
Republican and then what happens . Yeah, and then at that point, any member can simply say they move to offer an amendment. And when they offer an amendment, they have to actually provide the next of that language to the clerk. The amendment could be read aloud before all of the members of The Committee. And then each of the members can simply say they want a chance to talk and to speak about that particular amendment. And as you said, there are 41 members of this committee. 40 are expected to attend one is not, ted lieu because of health issues. Hes not expected to be here this week. But each of those members could speak. That could take time for each individual amendment. When that amendment is voted down which we expect because republicans are expects to offer amendments, democrats are happy with these articles and dont plan to do that. Thats why this is unpredictable how this contentious day will play out, wolf. 40 members now. Ted lieu had some medical issues. We wish him a speedy
kenneth starr and then afterwards had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before the committee. i would also say that during the nixon impeachment inquiry, the examination of witnesses, fact witnesses rather, was conducted exclusively behind closed doors in july of 1974. so unlike both the nixon inquiry, as well as the clinton inquiry, the house intelligence committee s hearings featured testimony from a dozen witnesses in open hearings subject to public examination by republican members and counsel. facts matter. and i hope that each and every one of us could agree at least on that simple point. and with that would the gentleman yield. i d yield to ms. lofgren. i would like to note going back to the analogy to the nixon impeachment, the gentleman is correct that there was really no public presentation in the judiciary committee.
the live testimony of ambassador sondland, lieutenant colonel vindman and so many other public servants over the course of many weeks as millions of americans watched along with us. so again, it is i understand that we re going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry before us and the decision we make on these articles but let us stay true to the facts and let s dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today. i ll also just say, historical context matters. i was not on the judiciary committee in 1999, 1998, but my understanding is at that time, the judiciary committees did not examine any fact witnesses during the clinton impeachment inquiry. i know there are members of this committee that were here at that time, and they will are well aware that they did question,
the live testimony of ambassador sondland, vindman and so many other public servants over the course of many weeks as millions of americans watched along with us. so again, it is i understand that we are going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry that is before us and the decision we make on these articles. let us stay true to the facts and let s dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today. i will also just say historical context matters. i was not on the judiciary committee in 1999 and 1998 but my understanding is at that time the judiciary committee did not examine any fact witnesses during the clinton impeachment inquiry. i know there are members of this committee that were here at that time and they will are well aware that they did question ken starr and then