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
instead focus again on some very farcical process arguments in my view. i m compelled to respond to at least one of those, this notion about the closed-door depositions. because as i understand it from reading these transcripts, many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the intelligence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the government oversight committee. some of those members are actually on this committee. so i struggle to understand the objections in that regard. the idea that the intelligence committee s investigation was not sufficiently transparent in my view also rings hollow because as we know, the transcripts from those interviews, those depositions have been released. i know i ve reviewed them. i suspect many of my colleagues have as well. if you did not review the transcript you surely watched
they played the tape. during the senate trial. why. they chose to. the senate has the sole power to try impeachment case. they can do it any way they want. president trump wants the witnesses to be in person. he made it clear. opposed to having the recordings and depositions. we have not heard the same from republican senators who said essentially they think that could get out of hand. they favor video tapes. republicans have not been making an argument about the evidence. they have been process arguments. by and large. are they going to be continuing to do that?
want. president trump wants the witnesses to be in person. he made it clear. opposed to having the recordings and depositions. we have not heard the same from republican senators who said essentially they think that could get out of hand. they favor video tapes. republicans have not been making an argument about the evidence. they have been process arguments. by and large. are they going to be continuing to do that? it seem hike the president wants them to make actually backing up this was all a perfect call. some soft witnesses the president would want to call would make the case around the idea perhaps there was collusion. if you will. between the democrats and the whistleblower. maybe calling witnesses to prove the president had a point about the biden connection. those don t have anything to do necessarily with the call or the issues that have been raised. they are issues the republicans have raised and don t think have
the way that those who are watching it really closely are thinking about it. sure was a topic around thanksgiving dinner tables. but did people have the same command of the facts and the import of it that those who are watching closely did. they don t want to lose too much more time. once you get into january, then that republican argument which is process arguments, not engaging with the facts but saying why are they doing this in an election year when voters will have a say, let s have the vote versers have a say. defending the president is now defending the president propagating a conspiracy theory about this. retroactively justifying the president on ukraine here. and john kennedy has been at the forefront of this. he s been back and forth so many times, it s hard to keep track. on this network he came back and apologized for this.