Mean, thats the appropriate way to raise an issue with the ukrainian president , correct . Its appropriate for the Justice Department and the Prosecutor General to cooperate and to exchange information, yes. To the extent the president has concerns and to the extent the Attorney General is having u. S. Attorney durham look into it, isnt it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president zelensky and say youn touch with our official channels . Mr. Castor, i dont know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. Now, were either of you involved with the preparation for the 7 25 call . I was not. I was not. How do you account for that . I mean, you were two of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. If the president of the United States is going to have a call with the leader of ukraine, why
wouldnt you ordinarily be involved with the preparation . Sir, we work for the Department Of State in an embassy overseas. Preparation for a president
An investigation on a political rival . Mr. Morrison . In that hypothetical, no, i dont think he should do that. Yeah. And ambassador volker, im sure you agree. Yes. And the same would be true if it were a governor withholding the budget requests of the state police unless the state police agreed to conduct an investigation on a political rival. You would agree . Correct. Yes, sir. In your view is it any different for a member of congress . Of course not, right . Would you agree that the president has the same obligation as the mayor, as the governor, as the member of congress to not withhold aid unless he gets an investigation into a political rival, mr. Morrison . Yes, sir, i would agree with that hypothetical. I would agree. And were having a debate here both sides as to how to
read whats plainly before us. The president ial phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisers and the National Security council of Talking Points and instead chose to talk about the bidens a
I wanted to confirm a Point Of Order is the rules of decorum. I dont believe the gentleman from florida meant to violate them and i give him the benefit of the doubt. More than once he referred to a new york lawyer. If he could explain what he meant i withdraw my Point Of Order. Thats not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order regarding the schedule. In this case, there is. Will you answer my question . The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable Point Of Order regarding the future schedule. Will you recognize that . No. Mrs. Mcbath is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on one part of President Trumps conduct. I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The Investigative Committees found evidence President Trump
intimidated, threatened and tampered with prospective and actual witnesses in the Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to i
Disregard house rules. For what purposes . Just completelyusrules on not i wanted to confirm point addressing the Minority Hearing today. If i hear t that one more time, of order is the rules of ill address that when were decorum. I dont believe the gentleman marking up impeachment articles. What is the use of a minority from florida meant to violate him andnt i want to give him to hearing day if youre going have benefit of o doubt. To hear evidence of the markup than once he referred if you get the confirmation of to a new york lawyer. If hek is prepared to explain what he meant, i will withdraw the master bedroomrkup yourself. My Point Of Order. Even the most heated development does not know show any way that that is not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order can be theyre. If you destroy the institutional regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order integrity, which again, the staff have talked about today, regarding the schedule. Well, onf this case there
Robert mueller. In his take home forms that his lawyers filled out for him. Yes, and it just continues and the Court Battles involving tax returns, chief Justice Roberts provided a stay for a few days which was really people overplayed that yesterday. That was administrative decision, but a lot coming at this president. A lot coming at this president , and i think a lot coming at the Republican Party this morning. Ari, the testimony of Colonel Vindman, the crossexamination will be interesting to see how far they go in trying to Demean Vindman in front of a national tv audience. I think that is a precarious place for them and if you want to put aside the obvious ethics of it, that these are people
that serve, diplomatic or military, there is also a a problem with going against a witness when is there are not many facts known to the witness. So if you want to look bad by exploding someone. It doesnt buy you much if two or three other people can basically testify to the same material. I t