tv Intelligence Chair Schiff Rep. Jordan GOP Lawmakers on Impeachment... CSPAN October 8, 2019 11:41am-12:04pm EDT
from the justice, education and health and human services department. posted by the heritage foundation, that starts about 20 minutes. jobr, a man fired from his as a child welfare services coordinator. a plaintiff in a case before the supreme court today. live coverage at 1:00 eastern. thealks about his case at national press club on c-span. c-span's campaign 2020 coverage as president host a rally in minneapolis, live thursday at 8:00 on c-span. watch it on c-span.org and listen free wherever you are with the free c-span radio app. adam schiff is the chair of the house intelligence committee
. he spoke about the trip administration blocking u.s. ambassador gordon -- from testifying at an impeachment inquiry today. that, republicans give their response as well. >> good morning. we were informed an hour and a half ago by the attorney for the investors the state department would refuse to allow him to testify today. this was after conversations well into yesterday afternoon and evening with the state department legal advisor where there was no indication the ambassador would be a no-show. not only is congress being deprived of his testimony, the people are being deprived of his testimony. hasre aware the ambassador text messages or emails on a
personal device which was provided to the state department, although we requested this in the abbasid are, the state department is withholding those messages. messages are deeply relevant to this investigation and the impeachment inquiry. i want to explain for the public the significance of this witness and significance of the decision evidently by the secretary of state and president or both to withhold this key witness testimony today. messagesrom the text the investor was in discussion with ukrainian counterparts, with fellow diplomatic personnel in the president. president, as well as a u.s. senator. personnelplomatic raised concerns with him, that
military assistance was being withheld to secure assistance from ukraine and the president election campaign. we know the investor had one discussion with a fellow diplomat on that subject of why assistance was being withheld. the investor was a key player in efforts to obtain a commitment from ukraine to investigate a bogus conspiracy theory about the 2016 election, as well as joe biden and his son. we know the abbasid are as relevant evidence -- the ambassador has relevant evidence that ukrainian was being conditioned on these investigations the president believed would help his reelection campaign is hard to oversee the significance of not just the testimony of the
documents, but the testimony of others as well. the failure to reduce this witness, the to produce these yetments, we consider additional strong happens abstract should not the of congress, hey coequal branch of government. there are four issues we are looking at, i'll go to the heart of national security. by preventing us from hearing from the witness and obtain documents the president and secretary of state are taking actions that prevent us from getting the facts needed to protect the nation's security. clear looking into whether the president solicited ford help -- ford help any presidential election again. we are looking into whether a meeting ukraine test really sought with the president at the
white house was being conditioned on the willingness of ukraine to investigate this focus conspiracy theory about 2016 and investigate the bidens. we are looking at whether ukraine was given a reason to believe that military assistance it needed to fight off the russians was being withheld until the make commitments to do these political investigations for the president. we are looking into the question of whether there has been an effort by the president and secretary of state another's to cover up -- and others to cover up misconduct. the ambassador is an important witness on each of these subjects. please not the only important witness. -- he is not the only important witness. we have had members flying in from around the country to hear the testimony, as well as withholding of the ambassador's documents and efforts that may
be made to discourage or have the effect of discouraging other witnesses from coming forward to to bey as a great to, further accented obstruction of a coequal branch of government. this is one of the few impeachment inquiries in our country. he goes to the core of whether the president abused his office to seek political help in his reelection campaign, and did tell her to the detriment of our nation's security. did so by effectively coercing a country that has been invaded by rivalo t investigate a and condition the relationship between this country and that country on whether they're were willing to play ball. the gravity of the issues we are investigating and the inquiry is looking into. it is hard to imagine a set of facts more damaging try standing
in the world but more of a fundamental breach of the president's oath of office. the american people have the right to know that the president is acting in their interests, with an eye towards national security and not his narrow personal political interests. they have a right to know. the american people have a need to know. this inquiry we are determined to find the answers. thank you. [indiscernible] contact with the whistleblower? um, we understand the reason the state department decided not to have the ambassador appear today. unfair and on the partisan process that mr. schiff has been running.
think about what the democrats are trying to do. impeach the president 13 was prior to an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge with a biasing is the president. the guy running the process, chairman shift, did not tell the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower filing the complaint. adam schiff, the way he treated the investor last week -- ambassador volcker in the interview last week, that treatment is the reason why the administration said we will not --ject investor psalm one ambassador sonlan to the same treatment. we thought he would reinforce what ambassador volcker told us. when give a speaker who says we need to strike while the iron is hot, whenever chairman so vice so biashis president --
against the president -- this is a pattern with mr. schiff. he did the same thing. ohen.el c he met with them for hours before testifying. class offi -- last summer, he met with mr. simpson. this is a pattern. we were hoping to hear from the ambassador today. we understand what the administration and state department chose to say if it's going to be this kind of process, selectively leak text messages, 67 pages we had. they take a handful and release it to you and not give it full context or transcript, we understand why they made this decision. sonlan saysbassador he is disappointed. >> we wish he would've been able
to testify but we understand what administration made the did.ion they when you have a chairman release certain parts of what was said in a closed-door interview and not release the entire transcript and give a context, you can see why they didn't want him -- expose the investor to the same kind of treatment. reporter: is net more reason why he should be allowed to testify in answer questions? >> ambassador volcker was clear. why not release the transcript you can see what investor volcker told us? he was completely no quid pro quo. ic chairman said no quid pro quo. have thistinues to bias against the president.
we will get to hear from the ambassador but only when there is a fair process. this is not a fair process. we spent more time with ambassador volcker than adam schiff did. you may have noticed he cannot hear to the press. he gave his benign thing and raced off to a fundraiser. process.to be a fair when you have a press release being drafted by our democratic colleagues cherry picking text messages when the fulltext of ambassador volcker's testimony would have been exonerated this president, let's release it. i'm all for bringing the ambassador in, but only after we release the -- >> the president asking a foreign government to investigate joe biden, and the president saying china should
investigate joe biden. do any of you have concerns about that? >> the president is doing his job. the harden tax dollars going to afford governmentm th, the president will do his job, his duty as the president. i don't have a concern about. -- about it. reporter: [indiscernible] >> we will see. >> we would like to see the volcker testimony release before we continue the depositions and interviews. we see a kangaroo court. chairman shift is acting like a malicious captain kangaroo -- chairman schiff is acting like a malicious cap to get
your. -- malicious captain kangaroo. we would like to unpack the last out,. lies reporter: [indiscernible] >> we think there are real concerns. we think there are real concerns that hopefully over time they murky people will be able to see. we can't get really into that but we have real concerns. reporter: [indiscernible] >> i think the american people have a right to know. reporter: by with the state department cancel this deposition a few hours before it was set to begin, after
ambassador sondland had already flown here? >> the hope we would have the volcker testimony released. >> the max amount of time to release the testimony from last week. we know in good faith they will release the testimony for the wrecking people to see as opposed to parsing out little pieces that support their narrative that if they are willing to do that, administration is willing to do more. moving forward. it will be a one-sided deal -- >> you guys are journalists. his single journalist here the doesn't want to see the full transcript of ambassador volcker's testimony? i agree and the american people agree with you. let them judge for themselves. that is what we need to do. reporter: [indiscernible] >> you mean adam schiff made the argument? reporter: there's an argument
against releasing -- >> i have not heard that argument. >> there is an argument against transparency? hold on a second. there was an argument in favor of cherry picking selective releases of texts. there's an argument in favor of only telling the american public what is best in the interest of wanting to take out a sitting president. maybe you should ask what was said inside the deposition. during his interview with regards to adam schiff's fairytale quick quote pr -- quid pro quo charge that united states to the ukraine was being released with the investigation to the bidens. what did investor volcker say about that? the reason the question was so important for you to ask is because he was in this room for several hours. during several hours of testimony he talked about president zelinski had no idea -- ambassador
volcker testified at the readouts of the phone call made him, he asked there was nothing about there being a hold on .s. or a quid pro quo. i am glad we were having this discussion. ambassador volcker met with president a lens key -- zelinski. there was no reference to a quid pro quo, or president zelinski having any idea there was a hold aid decree. makes no reference two a hold on aid or quid pro quo. the aid was getting released. guess what happened. aid got released. there was no new investigation
created. this whole thing is a fairytale. adam schiff is misleading you and you are playing along with it. many of you are anemic and public is getting deceived. what adam schiff said that president trump was asking president zelinski to manufacture dirt on the bidens, investor volcker testified that was apple the untrue. that is what we call an inconvenient fact narrative. hem schiff has been saying had no contact with the whistleblower. he would like to but he did not have contact. he lied. when he gave his opening statement before the acting director of national intelligence as to what was what the transcript interview said -- going back to ambassador volcker's interview in the process, we were here ready to do our part. if anyone is going to testify behind us closed doors we will
make sure we are there to ensure the other 99% of the stories being told. if you were not there last thursday, you would have no idea of everything ambassador volcker the charge.terate if they don't ascend invested or sondland here --don't want to send ambassador sondland here, minority does not have any rights for subpoenas. because the president does not have the right to, counsel, ask questions for subpoena power, to present evidence. this is a political charade, a clown show. we are ready for whoever is testifying, but we have to be here because adam schiff is not going to tell you. all yesterday was release a transcript interview because he will not -- he destroys his narrative. it blows it up. that is what we heard over the course of several hours.
they are basically saying gerry connolly did not hear jim jordad they heard and they have this back-and-forth basically dumbing down their audience. what is not pointed out in that back-and-forth is that jerry connolly was the last person to show up. the first one to leave. instantly. he was not there for any of it. what is important is that we are here. i could -- we could answer any question you want as far as what ambassador voelker testified to, professionally, but you are not asking any of the most important questions. some of you are. many of you are not asking questions such as what did you hear last thursday that we do not know about? adam schiff won't answer that but he should. house haste
repeatedly refused to hand over documents. now the administration is blocking a key interview. doesn't that imply that there is something there trying to hide? >> no it implies what mr. dash said. i don't think anyone could say it better than least at it. towould you encourage people defy subpoenas? >> we are not saying that. we would encourage adam schiff to run a fair process. >> which americans would go on trial without their counsel? ? would you support on -- of vote on the house floor? is the one who wants to strike while the iron is hot. >> i would vote against that. >> [indiscernible]
>> does that impact the credibility of the whistleblower? >> absolutely. there has been reporting, i know there has been reporting. >> [indiscernible] >> i think that is a big problem. was a preliminary investigation done by the inspector general. if the whistleblower is not being forthcoming, it would be a big problem. americani think the people have the right to an over the whistleblower is. if we are talking about the impeachment of the president, that is important. saying is i think it is appropriate for the american people to know who the person is behind this charge that the democrats are pursuing removing the president of the united states 13 months before an election. >> [indiscernible] >> it is important to point out that you will know -- the
american public all nosed now more -- all nose now more than the whistleblower does. i'm telling you they now know less than what you all know. we should be talking about what we know now and how to go forward. talk about kangaroo court. you note jim pointed out? without -- was how when we showed up, adam just started with the ground rules that this was going to be a staff led interview. it was not until jim pushed back that adam schiff said he would allow members to ask questions. it was discouraged. he was discouraging members to ask questions. >> until it been so bad for adam schiff that he jumped in for 25 minutes and that his voice is cracking. when they look at this, why? ambassador voelker was not giving them the answers that they were leading ambassador voelker to conclude. that this isyou nothing more than