involved in the hearing. congressman we appreciate your taking the time this morning. thanks for having me on. how do democrats not just the impression but the vote along party lines. republicans saying this is a partisan impeachment investigation hop. how do you fight that argument. it s disappointing no republicans voted for it. what they were asking for is moving to public phase with transparency here and that s what the vote was about. setting the parameters moving to public phase and that s what they wanted they should have voted for it. look at the numbers here at new abc washington post poll pulled out some concerns signs for democrats. look at the independents. independents leaning within the marj j. error but split against impeachment and removal. look at the split there. 82% republicans no, 82 democrats. you know as well as i do. to move forward, particularly going towards removal in the senate you have to convince a large bloc.
non-democrats. independents and republicans you are not doing that. having sat in the depositions and listen to career foreign service officers, national security folks lay out what they saw and alarmed them. i do think moving to the public phase and letting the public and media hear that testimony and hear the witnesses will start to shift some of that. i don t think we should jump to the conclusion that this will lead to articles of impeachment. obviously it looks like it s heading in that direction. but we re still in the investigation now it s a public investigation. you re saying and i don t want to violate any confidential testimony that you have seen or heard. have you heard sufficient evidence today for an article of impeachment against this president for abuse of power. sure. i think there is plenty of evidence in the public domain as well suggesting impeachable offenses. let me ask you this. because tim morrison, president trump s top russia appear europe and expert
forth whether his testimony helped or hurt your case. the republicans say it helped their case. i think they are zeroing in on the line from opening statement after which he said, listen, a lot of stuff i heard wasn t right. politically dangerous et cetera but not illegal. based on what you heard in there, does he stand up the argument that there is abuse of power or undermine the argument? well, he corroborated a lot ofway we heard from ambassador taylor, harold veinederman and corroborated this was a president who was withholding funding in order to push ukraine to do an investigation into political opponents. you re saying he corroborated the charge there was a quid pro quo? yes. and in my mind that is an abuse of power. do we proceed with articles of impeachment on that? do we move in that direction? we ll see after we do the public hearings. okay, i want to ask you on a different topic because we have elizabeth warren one of the presidential candidates. a exact like yourse
a president any president to ask. i think i think andy mccarthy and other constitutional scholars are coming out now and saying, saying this whole concept much not even not making your foreign aid or military assistance contingent on acts. i will do not understand which republicans will not answer that question. any president asking another president to investigate my rival and i ll give you aid, is that okay. not rival a constitutional officer at the time thap that s what the investigation american. you have no problem. american involvement in corruption in either china, ukraine or anywhere in the world should be investigated. all right. i would love to come back and walk you through the evidence on china and the ukraine. all right. well nobody is presented real evidence. steve bannon i appreciate it. thanks very much. i really do appreciate it. anderson cooper with the president s former chief strategist president trump says impeachment or not he will win
few colleagues mo stood up said he was open to impeachment stood out to them and he was on this broadcast a few weeks ago and described what happens afterwards. at this point you are not ruling out the possibility that this is an impeachable offense for the president. i don t think you can rule anything out until you know all the facts. every time one of the people testifies we get more information about what was going on over there. what happened in the horsepower after that? he was attacked by republicans in his district around the country and within 24 hours he was no longer running. is that is fear driving republicans to stand in line with the president, charlie? i think that is certainly a big part of it. no doubt about it. we have seen this on many issues during the trump presidency. but i would also say yesterday s vote, i think many republicans viewed it as procedural rather than substantive vote. i don t think they should have done that. frankly a member can stand up