tv House Intelligence Committee Chair Schiff on Impeachment Inquiry... CSPAN November 4, 2019 2:21pm-2:39pm EST
it's all hands on deck and i do believe that we need to continue to trump the message that this is an issue that has to do with the foundation of our democracy. >> host: professor sinan aral, when will we see an update from you and mr. eccles? >> guest: great question for anytime we have movement we will update the public. if we get access to data and hear a denial in terms of not getting access to data as a social science one either progresses i'm happy to talk about that as well and we intend to be public whenever we feel that would push the issue forward. >> host: sinan aral is a professor at mit in his article is in science magazine and you can find him on the mit website, maggie muller is with the hill. thank you both for being on "the
communicators". all communicators are available as podcasts. >> the health impeachment panels starting to release transcripts from their investigation and today it was former u.s. of exeter to ukraine, you can find the entire released transcript online at c-span .org. "after words" house intelligence committee chair adam schiff spoke to reporters in the capital about the impeachment inquiry and he told reporters of those who failed to appear would be considered further evidence of the white house obstructing congress and its impeachment probe. >> good morning. today we had additional scheduled depositions with the top lawyer for the national security council as well as mr.
blair from the office of management budget and i will work closely with mick mulvaney. both of them defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear for their scheduled depositions. as has been the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. this will be further evidence of an effort by the administration to obstruct the level and constitutional duties of congress. i would also say we expect the witnesses who had been subpoenaed to come in this afternoon at the white house instruction to be no-shows. this will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. indeed, in the nixon impeachment there was an article impeachment based on the obstruction of congress that itemized age of the subpoenas the white house defied big to date we have for additional subpoenas to add to the list with the potential
charge involving the president and his obstruction of our constitutional duties. these witnesses are significant and based on the testimony the committees have received we know these witnesses are those that were in the law office of the national city council and those who worked for mulvaney beaver in the chief of staff for budget but they are first-hand witnesses to serious misconduct. vis-à-vis the suspension of military aid and the effort to use that aid as a lever to get ukraine to do these political investigations to help the president's reelection campaign but also in efforts to potentially hide the evidence of the president misconduct by placing that record in a classified system that would be beyond most individuals access and a system in which the record did not belong.
pertinent testimony and very relevant to the other witnesses who have come forward and we may infer by the white house obstruction here that their testimony would be further incriminating the president. i will say this, it's quite obvious, we expected this and is seen a series of shifting ever changing rationales for this campaign of obstruction. first there was the argument that we will not comply and do not have to comply to there's a formal vote. we had a formal vote on the house floor and then it was we don't have to make these witnesses available because they are senior officials and given absolute immunity even though no court has upheld the claims of absolute immunity but the only one to reach a decision on a involving. myers ruled there is no such thing as absolute immunity. it's been the uniform position of democrats and or publicans that we do not respect any fallacious claims of absolute immunity. then when people who are subpoenaed and little or no
interaction with the president and cannot be even a colorful claim of some immunity the explosion shifted once again to we will not let them come forward because you will let agency lawyers present. again, that would violate the house rules and it would also violate the practice used by both democrats and were publicans for depositions in the past and when there are concerns that agency lawyers art representative resenting agencies that may have engaged in wrongdoing or may use facts gained in the investigation to prejudice other witnesses in the investigation. this was the practice for the current members of our investigative committees and people like jim jordan during ben ghazi and mike pompeo and milk -- mick mulvaney all participated in depositions of senior agency officials without the presence of agency counsel. if they join the president's
objection here they do so in fashion, that is directly contradictory to the practices when they were in the majority. today we also are beginning the process of releasing conscripts of our depositions and this morning we released the depositions of ambassador mckinley, ambassador jovanovich i will leave you all to review those chains gives and there are a few things that became clear. the first is contrary to the claims of the president and his accolades on the health of these have been proceedings in which the republicans have not been able to be present or ask questions but in fact, rebellions were present for all depositions and they had equal opportunity as democrats to ask questions. they took full advantage of those opportunities. you will see in ambassador testimony what a dedicated public servant she is.
this is someone who served the country with distinction for decades and someone who also is one of the witnesses to this irregular back channel that the president established with rudy giuliani and the damage it was doing to america's national security and foreign policy interests. how it worked in opposition not in support of u.s. policy objectives and ambassador yovanovitch had a well-earned reputation as a fighter of corruption and she was working with ukraine to get grain to fight corruption but what does this back channel section by the president do? it seeks to remove someone fighting corruption in ukraine. by employing a vicious smear campaign in which the state department at the highest levels had no merit what so ever. that smear campaign orchestrated
by this irregular channel was successful in removing a u.s. ambassador. they tarred her reputation. of course, you see the president's comments about the ambassador in the record. we also released the testimony today of ambassador mckinley and other career diplomat and public servant, someone asked to come back and assist the state department at a difficult time for the department. what is so striking about the testimony is the degree to which he sought to get the state department to issue a support for its own ambassador. how those repeated efforts were rebuffed. but you also see in reading his transcript, his growing alarm at the degree to which the apparatus of the state apartment itself was being used to seek political information for a political purpose by the president of the united states and others you see that these
are two of the possible reasons that caused this career public servant to decide that he must resign his office, as he did. we will release further transcripts tomorrow. we are scheduled to release the transcripts of ambassador [inaudible] and we will continue to release the transcripts in an orderly way and we continue to allow witnesses the opportunity to review their transcripts and continue to make reductions for private information or personal identifiable information and we continued to release the transcript and we will although i can't give you the timetable will move to open hearings as well and i'm happy to respond with questions.
[inaudible question] >> we are not going to delay our work. that would merely allow these witnesses and the white house to succeed with their goal which is to delay, deny and obstruct. the lawsuit the doctor file is on its face with merit. if someone gets a congressional subpoena they do not get to sue in court to avoid the subpoena. undoubtedly there will be the case with the lawsuit will be dismissed for lack of standing but the whole point of it is to delay. i would say this to those who would use litigation like the white house or others for purposes of delay to avoid their duty which is the congressional
subpoena and they should follow the example of the courageous people that have come forward. people who work for doctor kopelman and john bolton and those in there's careers more at risk have shown the courage to come forward and not hidden behind litigation or hidden behind the white house as the witnesses today have. they shown in norma's courage and patriotism and i would urge others to follow their example and not followed the corrupt example out of the white house which is seeking to obstruct this invitation spirit some individuals say -- [inaudible question] >> it has been the consistent house rule that we do not permit agency counselors particularly when we have concerns about those agencies. the statement part for example and in this you will also see in the transcripts if it's in the transcripts yes, it's in the
mckinley transcript that state department representatives made the claim to their employees that they were being bullied by the congress and in fact state department employees were concerned about being bullied by their own state department. and that that bullying was being missed or presented to congress. these are the same agency personnel that these witnesses want to bring in and sit in on that definition -- depositions. it is not just the decisions the chairs are making but trey gaudi made as chair and jim jordan made in his participation in the benghazi information and make mulvaney when he was conducting investigations and this has been the foreign practice of the house. >> when it comes to yovanovitch in mckinley -- do you anticipate bring them back for a public hearing? >> at this point i will not comment on who the witnesses
will be in the open hearings but we will endeavor to make the decision about the most important witness are and try to provide testimony in an orderly way which the american people can understand the nature of the allegations and the facts involving the heart of this investigation and that is the president's abuse of his office to coerce an ally that is fighting off russians in our national security interests and it's in our interest and their interest as well and to withhold vital military support and to withhold a vital meeting from the president of that nation as leverage to get that nation to engage in the corrupt act of these investigations the president believe would help his reelection campaign. we are obviously looking at allegations that there may have been an effort to cover up these activities. and so the witnesses that they
are most likely on those issues are those we want to bring in. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible question] >> well, i thank you will see as we release more transcripts that there may have been others involved in those discussions but one of the reasons we want mr. eisenberg to come in is to find out what his role was and what the role of others was and why a transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system that is meant for some of the most secretive intelligence activities that is covert action activities why would a call
record that the president would have the country believed was perfect why would it be hidden in this classified system? clearly, the white house does not want him to testify or the american people to know why stir eisenberger and others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason they do not want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to cooperate allegations against the president but that is the reason we want to bring him in and of course we are concerned that he is a top lawyer in the administration would engage in the lawless act of appeasing to abide by lawful process. thank you. [inaudible question]
>> @c-span .org we are making it easier to watch c-span coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administration's response. if you miss any of our live coverage go to our impeachment inquiry page at c-span .org -- impeachment for video on demand. we've added a tally from the associated press showing where each house democrat stands on the impeachment inquiry against president trump. follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage at c-span .org -- impeachment. it is your fast and easy way to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage anytime. >> brookings institution is hosting a discussion on impeachment, foreign interference and how best to say guard the 2020 election. c-span will have live coverage today starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern. this afternoon here on c-span2 former democratic national committee chair donna brazile and mercedes slap will talk
about the country's divisive political, and how to restore civility. you can see that live today starting at 6:30 p.m. eastern. this evening president trump holds a campaign rally in lexington, kentucky. live coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and watch all these events live online at c-span .org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> campaign 2020, watch live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020. it's your unfiltered view of politics. >> democratic presidential contenders spoke over the began at the iowa democratic arty's annual liberty and justice celebration dinner in the states capital of des moines. you'll hear from pete with a judge, joe biden, andrew