They were not going to issue that statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma and the 2016 elections there was no white house meeting. It soon became clear to them that the Security Assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. Well, following the 25th call, the July 25th Call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. Giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. Wasnt that right . Yes. And the report say they were closely and then also there were phone calls with the white house around the same time they were working closely do you know what that statement was supposed to say, according to mr. Giuliani and the u. S. Officials. The key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the Biden Investigation and the 2016
ukraine interference. Was there concern about doing the investigations or what . Just make a statement
President for a long time now. In fact, when they took over the house, one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day and really since Inauguration Day many wanted to impeach him. This is really all about in my view, its all about politics. Its all about hurting the president , hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely. As i mentioned the other day they really loathe this president , and theyre trying to hurt his chances in the next election. It may well do just the opposite. One of my real concerns, and af lot of them about this whole thing. I mentioned this earlier today, im very concerned about is that The Democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. Its becoming too routine. Its becoming the new normal. For 200 years in our nation wed had one impeachment, one in 200 years, Andrew Johnson and now in less than 50 years were in our third one this time around. And i really am concerned that from now on in all likelihood when
President zelensky decided that they were not going to issue thatt statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. It soon became clear to them that the Security Assistance was also at risk. And that took on a renewed importance for them. Well, following the 25th call, the t july 25th call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. Giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. Wasnt that right . Yes. And the report said they worked closely and there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they werear working closely. Do you know what that statement was supposed tou say according to mr. Giuliani and the u. S. Officials . Well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equalled theic Biden Investigatn in the 2016 ukraine
interference. But was there concern about doi
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
witness was allotted time in this case but not witnesses. in other words, we didn t get anything in exchange for our right not being exercised, this may have been one reason for the adoption of the minority hearing, it doesn t render meaningless the plain reading of the text. i spent a long time on this but i think it s very important. we simply given something that we think by right we should have added but actually subject this to a point of order. my colleagues also claim chairman nadler is not required to schedule a minority hearing day before the matters reported out of committee. you ve got to be kidding. in other words, we cannot agree that the house intended that the right for the minority hearing date can be fulfilled by scheduling a hearing on a measure after the measures voted out of the full committee. doesn t make any sense. so with presumed passage of these articles of impeachment, as in the minority hearing day now irrelevant?