President s legal arguments in it concluded, we need nothing response to the subpoenas, more than the panel of very theyve said its distinguished professors and the indiscriminate. There was a blanket defiance. Splendid institution of the majority counsel and the i think ive shown that wasnt true. Minority counsel . There were three very distinct we asked some questions, the rationales as to different republicans asked some defects and different subpoenas. Questions. There were letters explaining we heard their answers. Those defects. But there was no attempt by the were ready to vote. House to attempt an were ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. Accommodations process, even though the white house offered to engage in an accommodations what was being said in the process. There was no attempt by the sounds of silence was this. We dont have time to follow the house to use other mechanisms to resolve the differences of the executive branch. It was straight to impeachme
Funds do not roll over to the next fiscal year. This confirmed the fears expressed by coop ersan difficult and others, concerns discussed within the relevant agencies in late july and throughout august, approximately, ultimately 35 million of Ukraine Military assistance, thats 14 of the dod funds remained unspent by the end of the fiscal year in order to make sure that ukraine did not permanently lose the 35 million of Critical Military assistance that had been frozen by the white house, congress had to pass a provision on september 27th, three days before the funds were to expire to ensure that the remaining 35 million could be sent to ukraine. Now, george kent is an anticorruption and rule of law expert. He told us that american anticorruption efforts Prioritize Building Institutional Capacity, support for the rule of law, not the pursuit of individual investigations, particularly of political rivals. Here is how he explained the approach. U. S. Efforts to counter corruption in ukrai
So give us your interpretation of the strategy were seeing. There is the legal background and then what this all means in a political brawl. If you want, bob, ill do the legal and you could do the washington reporting. Ive told viewers in normal legal trials you dont trade relevant witnesses for irrelevant ones as Chuck Rosenberg and i were discussing. If you have the bank teller who said they saw something, you dont let in the cocker spaniel who took a walk. You have to stay relevant. But this is not just a traditional trial. This is something where the senate could come up with whatever works for 51 votes. When you see cruz coming out tonight and saying that, what do you see it sets up in terms of the battle lines . I see the shadow of President Trump hovering over everything. Senator cruz is in close touch with President Trumps legal team and with the president himself and the president is telling allies tonight, i want this trial over with. He knows there are is at least 45 votes f
More than the panel very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both the majority counsel and the minority counsel. We asked some questions, the republicans asked some questions. We heard some answers, we are ready to vote. We are ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. What was being said and the sounds of silence was this. We dont have time to follow the rules. We wont even allow the house judiciary minority members, who have been beseeching us time and again to have their day, just one day, to call their witnesses. Oh, yes, that is expressly provided for in the rules. We will break those rules. Thats not liberty and justice for all. The great political of yesteryear observed that the power of the president is ultimately the power to persuade. Oh, yes, the commander in chief, and yes, charge for the conduct and authority as a guide of the nations Foreign Relations, but ultimately its the power to persuade. I suggest to you that so, too, the houses
Committee . I believe not. I would have to go back and check. I would assure you not. You may not accept this analogy but heres the analogy we proceeded on because here is the first modern impeachment where the fact finder was the house of representatives itself instead of a special counsel or independent counsel. When the special counsel and independent counsel did their work in the nixon and clinton impeachments, all of it was closeddoor depositions because you dont want the witnesses to be coordinating their testimony. Thats how prosecutorial investigations take place. The House Committee on intelligence was our factfinding committee. Thats why they performed closeddoor depositions because they wanted to avoid witnesses coaching each other and coordinating their testimony. We are driving down an interesting hole. Ranking member of the same committee who said early on that if the president saw something he didnt want, he could write us a letter. That was said. Thats how it would be t