Number of significant procedural protections where the president even on the house side, as you know the role of the house is to act as the grand jury and the prosecutor and the actual trial takes place over in the senate, but still, we had significant procedural protections we invited the president and his counsel to attend, we provided the president s counsel the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and object to the admissibility of testimony, and we provided the president s counsel it make presentation of evidence before the full Judiciary Committee including the chance to call witnesses. The president chose not to avail himself of any of those opportunities. It reminds me the president Blockading Witnesses saying you dont have enough people with direct firsthand evidence. First of all, were those rights provided only in Judiciary Committee. Youre not the Principle Committee of impeachment. Youre sort of the final stop. Did the president get those
rights in the Intelligence Commi
of the witnesses or anything in the record to suggest that the president was trying to ferret out corruption as opposed to impose a corrupt scheme on the president of ukraine. start with this. in 2017 and 2018, the president could have raised corruption in withholding military and security assist tons ukraine and never is it. then in 2019 he did. what changed? joe biden was running for president and the presidential campaign was much on his mind. the president removed ambassador yvonne vi yovanovitch and we learned from mr. giuliani he was involved by parnas and fruman to smear ambassador yovanovitch to say there was something wrong with her. in fact, when she was according to all the testimony we had and all the public information we had, she was one of the leading anti-corruption ambassadors that the united states has on earth.