it is unprecedented. the page than to conclude that. the lawyering there for the and in fact pursuant to president trump s order, 12 rest of the country is to show executive branch officials refuse toec testify as part of e one type of answer or nonanswer house impeachment inquiry. and compare it to another. ten of whome defied congressiol the public will decide what they make of that. subpoenas. another contentious part of this am i right? bp yes. given the president s hearing came when republicans sweeping directive not to hit on something that is more cooperate with congress, did the potentially legitimate than all investigative committees believe that there was any chance that the ukraine conspiracy theories, other administration officials and this is doug collins pushing would come forward if subpoenaed? the democratic counsel daniel no, it became clear that the goldman about a revelation that president wasle trying to block seemed both important but also potentially cont
assistants, catherine croft these four were legally investigated according to donald trump s own justice department. and donald trump s hand picked testified and it was rather startlinging piece of testimony. attorney general, mr.ed barr, shete was asked whether kent s meanwhile, weighing in in a way notes would be reliable. that is unusual to say the sort of a typical question. least. he claims today the evidence presented didn t justify the everyone expecting the answer to be yes, except she said no, i russia investigation which don t think kent s notes would be reliable.ai presents these duelling so i think that s important to put onso the record that, you statements. hers here s the actual facts know, there is evidence that from the justice department. perhaps mr. kent felt some no evidence of political bias and here s mr. barr opposing his emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least own justice department s report. according to onees state department officialco mig
offered not one substantive word article from politico into the in the president s defense. record. without objection, mr. t stanto. thank you, mr. chairman. i suspect that is because there is at base no real defense for we ve heard today from some the president s actions. suggesting that this process has been somehow unfair. mr. goldman, let s clear up that record. president trump put himself before his country. minority members on the there is a constitutional remedy investigative committees had for c a president who undermine access h to all witness depositions. is that correct? yes, and all the documents. our national security and our elections, who puts his own and were they allowed to ask interests before those of the country. that remedy is impeachment. questions of every witness? the minority was given equal the facts are clear. time to the majority for every the danger to our democracy is clear. single interview, deposition, or hearing that we did. and our duty is clea
that correct? . that is what ambassador sondland said or actually, that s what president trump ambassador sondland said to president trump. apologies. you testified earlier that evidence shows that the ukrainians in fact did know that the aid was being withheld. my colleagues continue to say and their witness continue to say thatue there couldn t be leverage because theyat had no idea that the aid was being withheld, yet there has been evidence that shows that they knew. is thatt at correct? well, i think it s important just for a second here to take a step back. it doesn t matter when they knew as long as they knew at some point. then theyso realized at that pot that the investigations were dependent on the aid. but in addition, there is a lot of evidence a that they knew before it t became public on august 28th. and you re right. it doesn t matter. if you re about to be held up at gunpoint by a u burglar, it doesn t matter whether yourg kn ort not. the intent is still there
republican congresses. it was used in benghazi. not all have seen all of it. it was used by a number of this cosm abid the new ig report committees for the past decade or so. and s for clarity, president which i ll get to soon with a trump has received all very special guest. but before i turn to all of, proceduralce protections afford that and we have that covered for everyone, what do you see as to other presidents facing the key takeaway, as the impeachment, is that correct? thatac is right. in the judiciary committee he advancement of a hearing that to has had all of the options. those who have been following it closely was picking back over a our inquiry was not the lot of meat that we have seen judiciary committee s from the intelligence report? investigation that is where the yeah, i think the key president s ability to present evidence. of course, if the president wanted to present evidence in the intelligence committee,wa h takeaways were really, one, that could have pr