Instruments of oppression. I said that and believe its true. So finally, mr. Kent, for as long as i can remember. Policy predicated on principled interest in Democratic Values notely freedom of speech, pre and fair and other elections in the rule of law. Mr. Kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those Democratic Values . I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic
representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. How is that, sir . Well, theres an issue of credibility. They hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. Ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir. I would. Is there anything youd like to add how it mike mate it more difficult for you to do your job, sir . Our credibility is based on a respect for the United States, and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility
if everybody in the country can see the phone call, and you have all of the witnesses before interprocess that is unfair could not tell you one thing that s impeachable, john ratcliffe asked the question of their top witnesses, namely one thing that is impeachable. i think for those bipartisan, the republicans and the democrats who stood together like she stood for the constitution and said no, we should move forward, i m not fearful of that. i think history would be very kind to those who took that standard for those that alexander hamilton warned us about, i don t think history would be that kind. i think adam schiff will have to answer for a great deal. one, when he told the american public that he told dominic had proof beyond circumstantial. two, when he said he wish he knew over the whistle-blower was, and how hard he was going to fight to bring that whistle-blower forward. lo and behold, he won t let that person come. and when adam schiff said he
believe the whistle-blower to come before the committee. but the vote i think i ll get to the vote in a second. but the democrats said we want to table this motion that would force the intelligence community whistle-blower to come and testify before the committee and republicans voted no and democrats voted yes because the votes wanted to table this vote. so there were 13 ayes, democrats voting to table and nine noes and republicans voting because they wanted to vote and bring the whistle-blower forward. that is just what happened and then we have adjourned for the rest of the day. let s go back to what we re talking about because something that was interesting i thought is the degree to which republicans are talking about the whistle-blower and focusing on we need to bring the whistle-blower forward because this is all i think the general argument from nunes, which is contradicted by many witnesses but the general argument is this is all just made up. and peter welch had the
covered by the hatch act. that doesn t mean they don t have an opinion. the real question at the end of the day is has the whistle blower s allegations have they been validated by a stream of other witnesses? clearly they have been. it s going to go on and on and on and on. it s only going to get worse for the president, the longer he keeps up this troeb about bring the whistle-blower forward. it s going to decrease his credibili credibility. the attorney for the whistle blower says his client is offering written answers to republicans. the president and some republicans say the answers are not sufficient. the plain fact of the matter is, i would not have advised
themselves. bring the whistle-blower forward. if there s something out there we don t know, i m willing to life to the whistle-blower under oath. i would say to my friends in the house, 31 democrats voted with republicans to open an inquiry, impeachment inquiry into president clinton one month about the election. so i m challenging nancy pelosi to have a vote on this. moderate democrats are hiding behind her. if you really believe this is an impeachable offense, vote on it. we did this in 1998. reporter: in 1999, you said this is about the integrity of the white house, this isn t about this is not the same thing, sir. if the president was colluding earlier, whether or not what the mueller report said, isn t it i feel good about what i did. bill clinton lost his law