Business, the media, across the board, and the president since hes been in office has stoked that in an unprecedented way. The argument that theyre going to make about the fact that hes obstructing certainly matters on constitutional level but does it matter on a who cares level. This is an issue, i think the loss of institutional integrity, because our politics are tribalized and divisive, why nancy pelosi did not want to move forward with impeachment for the longest time, because it would be so divisive and she feels like her hand has been, you know, that theres no choice but to move forward. Whether its i remember during the health care debate, senator dodd said this is a really bad idea to do this on a party line vote. Doing impeachment this way is really hard because it allows one side to cast the other as seeking to legitimize them. Thats what the American People should not want because it undermines our institutions. Were going to hear from three witnesses basically at length today and our viewers
will learn a lot more about barry berke for the Judiciary Committee, steven castor, the minority counsel, Daniel Goldman, majority counsel for the Intelligence Committee and steven castor, also the minority counsel for the committee, they will be testifying and making their arguments. Right. Steven castor will do double duty for the republicans. The democrats will be splitting it. Theres steven castor. They come from three different worlds in the legal world. Daniel goldman is a Career Prosecutor with the Southern District of new york, the federal Prosecutors Office in manhattan. Hes going to be sort of laying out the prosecution case. Steven castor, who is representing the republicans, is a professional congressional staffer. He has worked for the republicans on capitol hill since 2005. Barry berke, who was also representing the democrats, is a very successful criminal defense
lawyer in new york city. So it will be interesting to see how their professional backgrounds inform how they express themselves before the committees today. All three of them are very good. I think they will be able to put the best foot forward for their sides but they will be really pressed here because as we have been discussing, this is a very contentious partisan process and so each one is going to be closely cross examined by the party in opposition. There you see berry berke shaking hands with steven castor. This is ross, youre familiar with these witnesses as well. Yeah. And, you know, weve seen a bit of each one of them before and i you know, i think what were going to see is them sort of honor, you know, their experiences. Goldman is this Career Prosecutor. We saw some very, very crisp,
direct questioning by him. I think we will expect and should expect that hes going to be very crisp and sharp. Same thing with barry berke, experienced Courtroom Lawyer and steve castor has more experience than either of the democrats lawyers with the institution of the house of representatives. But, you know, interestingly, none of them are, you know, sort of elected politicians. It will be interesting to see how they sort of play to the masses, how they play to tv which is not normally what the lawyers are doing. Barry berke and steve castor are the witnesses making their respective cases during the first about hour long session, carrie, and then in the second round Daniel Goldman from the Intelligence Committee, all of
us are familiar with the questioning that he posed, he will join in this discussion and barry berke will leave. Its a challenge for steve castor to have to do both hearings. Barry berke will be able to focus on the report that the House Judiciary Committee prepared regarding the constitutional grounds for impeachment. Mr. Goldman will focus on the facts, the extensive factual record that house Intelligence Committee was able to develop over a period of weeks through witnesses, and steve castor, for the republicans, has to be able to do both and straddle both of those and argue on the law piece and the constitutional precedent for the first part and pivot and move over to the factual records which really, again, i will be curious to see whether he is willing to take on the factual allegations or whether he uses the republican Talking Points that are more of diversions than counters to the factual
assertions. Were just getting this in. I wonder if you know ashley hurt call lon, but republicans say she will be the republican Judiciary Committee staffer asking questions this morning. She normally is assigned to the House OversightInvestigations Committee but shes going to be shes the chief counsel of Oversight Investigations for the House Judiciary Committee and so were going to see a new face today. Yes. Representing the republicans. I think one thing that is unambiguously better about these hearings than earlier hearings in the when the democrats have been in control of the house of representatives, is they have let the lawyers ask the questions for the first 45 minutes as opposed to these fourminute posturings by the members themselves. Just in terms of public understanding, it is a much better thing for a witness
for a lawyer to be able to develop a line of questioning and at least let the witness talk. You know, just for the not even, you know, for partisan reasons, just to tell a clear story, you have to let a witness talk for more than 45 for more than five minutes and thats nothing but good for both sides. One question i have is we watch and witness real time the machinery of impeachment, one upside here is you will hear as jeffrey said, the lawyers make their statements, in effect their arguments, about what the evidence shows. My question is what new evidence might come to light between now and a senate trial . That might be interesting because presumably the Intelligence Committee, as adam schiff has said, theyre still out there trying get more information. This is not the chairman by the way, jerry nadler is now walking in. Hes about to be seated. Once hes seated the photographers, presumably, will leave that center stage and
hell bring this historic session to order. Go ahead. I think thats you just hit the nail on the head. Were talking about the specifics of what were going to hear but as we wait for them to actually start, it is history. Every one of these hearings are a milestone in something few people witness because it doesnt happen that much in history. This is the ultimate of congress using its power to try to put the executive branch, the president of the United States, in check and it is happening in, as you said, tribal partisan times and that is what were likely to witness in this hearing, but it is a moment for all of us to remember. Its interesting, if you see the 30 you see 30 minutes on that clock over there, each side will have an opening 30 minutes, the democrats and the republicans, berry berke on the
democratic side, Stephen Castor, they will make their arguments, on the democrat side in favor of impeachment, the republican side clearly against impeachment. 30 minutes is a long time, actually, for a lawyer to present a matter before congress, having testified before congress and prepared fiveminute statements, 30 minutes is a long time. They do have at least from the majority perspective, a very lengthy report to base his statements on and so hes really going to want to, barry berke, to go through the constitutional grounds for impeachment in depth and it will really be im interested to see how Stephen Castor for the minority is able to counter those arguments on the constitutional basis. Well hear from the democrats side. First the republican side second. Here we go. The chair authorized to declare recesses i object. Objection noted. The quorum is present. We are conducting the hearing into donald j. Trump, presentations from the select committee on intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement. Then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that, we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and minority jerry Nadler Committee [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ]. You are jerry nadler. Youre the one committing treason. America [ inaudible ] maubl treason committed by order in the room. Order in the room. Watch you run an impeachment and remove our vote. We voted for donald trump. Theyre removing [ inaudible ]. Americans are sick of your impeachment theyre sick of the democrat treason. We know it wasnt trump. [ inaudible ]. The committee will come to order. I shouldnt have to remind everyone present that the audience is here to observe, but not to demonstrate, not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or any member of the committee. The audience is here to observe only. And we will maintain decorum in the hearing room. I will say, here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute opening arguments for counsels for the majority and minority of this committee and then 45 minute presentations of evidence from majority and minority counsel
from the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. Followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to counsel for questioning during this period. Finally all of our members will have the opportunity to question and present from the Intelligence Committee under the fiveminute rule. I would note that the president s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today but the white house has declined the invitation. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. To matter his party or his politics, if the president places his own interests above those of the country, he betrays his Oath Of Office. The president of the United States, the Speaker Of The House, the Majority Leader of the senate, the Chief Justice of the supreme court, and the chairman and Ranking Members of the House Committee on the judiciary, all have one important thing in common, we have each taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
constitution of the United States. If the president puts himself before the country, he violates the president s most basic responsibility. He breaks his oath to the American People. If he puts himself before the country, in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath, our promise to the American People, requires us to come to the defense of the nation. That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism, even when it might cost us our jobs, as members of congress. And even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath, i am compelled to honor mine. As we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for the new nation. They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms, that we must protect against them. They warned us against the
dangers of wouldbe monarchs, fake pop miss and Charismatic Demo that it might come from within in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the tinterests f the nation. They also knew they could not anticipate every threat a president might some day pose so they adopted the phrase, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors to capture the full spectrum of possible president ial misconduct. George mason, who proposed the standard, said it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution. The debates around the framing mke clear that the most serious such offenses include abuse of power, the trail of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public office. Any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this committee to
take action. When combined, in a single course of action, they state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office. President trump put himself before country. Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, i believe that there is Common Ground around some of these ideas. Common ground in this hearing room and Common Ground across the country at large. We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious, undertaking. We agree that it is meant to address serious threats to democraticenutio Democratic Institutions like our free and fair elections. When the elections are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official, including and especially the president of the United States, should use his
public office for private gain. And we agree that no president may put himself before the country. The constitution and his Oath Of Office, his promise to american citizens, require the president to put the country first. If we could drop our blinders for just one moment i think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. On july 25th, President Trump called president zelensky of ukraine and asked him for a favor. That call was part of a concerted evident effort to announce an investigation not an investigation of Corruption Writ large but an investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals. President trump put himself before country. The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid, allocated by the United States congress, from ukraine. It also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky. Multiple witnesses, including respected diplomats, National Security professionals, and decorated war veterans, all testified to the same basic fact. President trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a Foreign Government to do him that favor. President trump put himself before country. And when the president got caught, when congress discovered that the aid had been withheld from ukraine, the president took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from congress and from the American People. These facts are not in dispute. In fact, most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today, i expect we will hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the July 25th Call to the Inspector General of
the intelligence community. Let me be clear, every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by democrats and republicans alike. The allegations also match up with the president s own words as released by the white house. Words that he still says were perfect. I also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo, as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all. The record on this point is also clear. Multiple officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal, political agenda, and not related to the Foreign Policy objectives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to
withhold the aid until ukraine announced investigations. Yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit. President trump put himself before country. The president s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair. The record before us is clear on this point as well. We invited the president to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President trump chos