i m not sure in light of this letter that we could get a unanimous consent request and these seedings and break for a cup of coffee, never mind, i just want to stay for the record because i think it s important that i think the house has engaged in a fair impeachment inquiry process. democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate. members both parties have been involved in every step of this process and closed-door depositions to questioning witnesses and open hearings, the committees have more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from seven key witnesses, held seven public hearings which included republican requested witnesses, produced a 300 page public report that laid out their findings and evidence, the judiciary committee then took that report and conducted two public hearings evaluating the evidence before reporting that
report? as a committee we have been talking about the substance of it for a long time now. we have been talking about the substance of the report. we didn t have the opportunity to question the person who authored the report. i see what you mean. either formally or informally, to my knowledge. again, the console for the intelligence committee came over to discuss the factual findings in the intelligence committee s report. he is not the principal author of the report. he s the counsel for the committee. by the way, a fact witness as well in many ways. if i could respond to this general line of attack, house resolution 660 had a number of significant procedural protections for the president,
television rather than the result of a transparent thorough bipartisan investigation and also worth noting, this is a really odd thing for us because judiciary committee is the main committee of impeachment, that has historically been the case. is clearly not the case here. the committee on intelligence is the main committee. is there any counsel there? to work on impeachment. we got at the end to finish it. there s a difference between window dressing and substance. two or three hearings at the end where you don t even question the author of the report, you are not allowed to question the author of the report on which impeachment is based, the president never had representation there and the president was there, he could ask questions but the main place for all of these things come out, the president was
in four law school professors, two staff members and that s the only hearings you have to provide any opportunity for the president to question. i ve heard from my majority colleagues, and as a former defense attorney i think it s funny. if he s innocent, tell him to come prove it. one is that every part of what we should be doing here. i don t think any of my civil libertarians, they ought to be laying awake at night thinking how can i be associated with this. no owner what you think, there s a way to do it fairly. they have been trying to do it for three years. mr. raskin s, did you have any conversations with chairman schiff about the contents of the report? i am certain i have along the way, yes. really? no one evidently on our side had any conversations. to your knowledge, did chairman nadler have conversations with chairman schiff about the contents of the reports? you mean the substance of the
assertions? and what explanations did chairman schiff provide when asked why hearsay was incorrectly presented as evidence? despite its his own making up the phone call to start with but also he has not really provided it because he didn t come testify in my committee. did you ask chairman nadler to invite chairman schiff to come testify? i did. just to be clear, you are asked to vote on articles of impeachment against our commander in chief based on a report full of unsubstantiated allegations in hearsay and you are not permitted to ask the author of the report any questions? that is correct, all they got was a staff member. i would like to note for the record that chairman schiff refused to discuss the report with the minority when he was more than willing to appear on n fox news sunday just two days ago, unfortunately abundantly clear the report is made for