Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

Good morning and welcome to another week in the impeachment inquiry of President @realDonaldTrump. Live-tweet of today's evidentiary hearing hosted by the House Judiciary Cmte kicks off at 9AM ET.
Preview for @CourthouseNews here:

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1203844979141095424

There is a dense fog hanging over Washington right now. This feels a bit on the nose. 😉

I have made it inside Longworth and I am stocking up on caffeine now as we prepare to kick off another week of impeachment inquiry proceedings in just under an hour.
@CourthouseNews

A bit of the behind the scenes view as we ramp up for today's hearing. The GOP poster shop is in full swing. Today's offering:

A preview ahead of this morning's hearing is available here:
courthousenews.com/house-investig…
#ImpeachmentHearings

And from my earlier thread on this - some notable aspects of the constitutional grounds for impeaching a president courtesy of majority report on the matter:

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1203847446843068419?s=20

Here are some of today's players:
For Democrats on HJC: Barry Berke, a white-collar defense lawyer who has served as special counsel to the committee since February, will present evidence for Dems.

Norm Eisen, who led questioning last week for Dems, has consulted with Berke on the investigation, fyi. Also: Berke and Eisen, before joining the committee put together several reports outlining the case for Trump's obstruction, available here: brookings.edu/research/presi…

Presenting for Dems on House Intel Cmte: Daniel Goldman. And for the GOP, Stephen Castor presents evidence for both the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees.

My live coverage from inside Longworth will begin shortly. Reporters, photographers and representatives are milling about as attorneys for Dems and GOP file in. Pour yourself some coffee and let's get this underway.

The room has grown quiet as we prepare to begin.

Historically when it is staff counsel that sits in the witness seat, the tone from lawmakers during questioning takes on a sharper than usual edge. Niceties are more fast and loose. We'll see if this holds true today.

Nunes is seated behind the dem counsel Berry Berke and GOP counsel Steve Castor. From my position in the actual room, I cannot see his face. But my colleague, @KlasfeldReports in the press room not far from Longworth may be able to weigh in with observations as we go.

@KlasfeldReports And with a crack of the gavel we are underway.

@KlasfeldReports Chairman Nadler began with an opening statement before a pro-Trump demonstrator interrupted the proceedings. He was escorted out by Capitol police.

@KlasfeldReports Two sets of presentations: 30 mins opening argument from majority and minority of HJC, then 45 minute presentations of evidence from House Intel, then questions from chair and ranking member who yield to counsel for Qs. All staff will have 5 minutes for Qs.

@KlasfeldReports Nadler in a nutshell: If the president puts himself before the country... he breaks his oath of office.
"That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient."

@KlasfeldReports The founders knew that danger to democracy could come from within, from a president who puts his own personal concerns before country.

@KlasfeldReports Abuse of power, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public office - any 1 of these violations of public trust compel the committee to take action on impeachment, possible removal, Nadler says.

@KlasfeldReports Nadler: When elections are threatened by enemies foreign and domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to resolve that threat

@KlasfeldReports If we could drop our blinders, we can agree on common facts, Nadler says:
Trump asked Zelensky for a favor on July 25; it was the request for an investigation "into Trump's political rivals and only his political rivals."

All of this done by Trump while withholding military aid. Evidence shows he withheld a WH mtg from Zelensky as well. Multiple witnesses, diplomats, decorated war veterans all testified to this: Trump withheld aid in order to pressure a foreign gov't for his personal benefit.

The allegations match up with POTUS own words on this. Plus testimony from multiple officials who said Trump intended to hold the aid until the investigation was announced. Officials understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo, Nadler says.

Again, President Trump put himself before country, Nadler emphasizes. He has said this at least 3 times. This is the foundation.

Nadler notes how Trump was invited to participate today, instead, refused. Nadler notes the "continuing risk" posed by Trump, Giuliani, who is in Ukr. now. "investigating" for Trump.

"The president has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people, he has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you will honor yours, I urge you to do your duty," Nadler says to fellow committee members.

House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, a Republican from Georgia, now delivering his opening remarks.

Doug Collins says there is nothing criminal in Trump's acts that anchors the hearing.
This statement ignores the letter of the law in the Constitution which says criminality is not necessary to impeach. It can be the appearance of it.

Collins asks "why are we here?"
Collins contends the "motive" for the impeachment of President Trump is Nov 2020 because Dems lost in 2016.

More about necessity - and lack thereof - of criminality when lawmakers weigh impeachment. Start on pg. 35 of the report available here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6570…

Collins say Dems built their whole case on Gordon Sondland and "we'll hear a lot of that today."

Dems built this case to impeach Trump based on a whistleblower complaint that the ICIG found credible. Again: the Trump admin's own ICIG found it credible.

Collins' speech this morning is rooted in partisan politicking and fails to address any of the tenants laid out and made available to lawmakers when they must consider the U.S. Constitutional framework for impeachment.

Rep. Andy Biggs is requesting that Nadler schedule a minority hearing day.
Nadler has already said, this isn't a proper point of order for today's specific hearing. HJC will weigh the request in the appropriate hearing on parliamentary procedure to come.

We now begin with 30 minute opening arguments from Barry Berke, Dem counsel and Steve Castor, GOP counsel.

Berke: Before he was counsel for this committee, his son asked him "Dad, does the president have to be a good person? Like many questions of young children, it had a certain clarity but was hard to answer."
I said, "Son, it is not a requirement... but that is the hope."

Berke: What *is* a requirement is that POTUS be a person who does not abuse his power and be a person who does not risk national security and integrity of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects.

The founders were concerned about electing someone who would use his power to serve his own personal interest, Berke says. Their remedy - after suffering monarchical abuses from King George - was to ensure that a pres. could not serve his own interests over that of the nation.

Berke: If a president: abused power, betrayed the national interests or corrupted elections - he should be subject to impeachment.
Trump did not violate just one of these but all three, the Dem counsel underlines.

Berke: It is why in debating the Constitution, James Madison warned that because the presidency was to be administered by a single man, his corruption "may be fatal to the republic."

Let's begin with the facts in evidence, Berke says.
To start: understanding why Ukraine is so important to U.S. is critical. Ukr. was already at great risk/under threat of Russia when military aid withheld.

Berke played a clip from William Taylor, acting U.S. amb. to Ukraine testimony when Taylor said that the nature of Ukraine's relationship/and its defense of Russia encroachment impacts not just nat sec of today but nat sec for future generations.

Berke also played a clip from Fiona Hill testimony when she said she was struck by Sondland's emails where it showed he was involved in a "domestic political errand" while nat sec was involved in deploying official foreign policy.

Berke as he hits the main points of Trump's months-long campaign to withhold military aid, plays a clip from David Holmes, U.S. political affairs counselor to Ukraine.
The day after the call, Holmes testified that he heard Trump and Sondland speak on phone.

From Holmes testimony, under oath, this is where Sondland says to Trump, Zelensky "loves his ass" and that Zelensky will do "anything" POTUS asks him to do.

The excuses for Trump's actions make no sense, Berke argues. Here are the excuses:
- The aid was ultimately released and Trump met w/Zel.
- POTUS motivated by general corruption concerns
- Ukraine was pressured
- POTUS says no quid pro quo

Berke: on call w/Zel in July, Trump ignored talking points on corruption, only wanted to talk about 2 things: the two investigations that would help him politically. DoD already certified and released funds to Ukr. who met anticorruption standard for $.

The argument that Trump "never said quid pro quo" - On that count Berke notes how Trump didn't want them to conduct the investigations as much as he wanted an announcement that would help him politically. The "never said" aspect of it doesn't hold water against testimony/records

Berke on abuse of power: the question of whether POTUS engaged in abuse of power has come up before with Nixon. Nixon said, if POTUS does it, then it is not illegal.
That premise was soundly rejected.

Trump suggested the same thing when he said Article II gave him "right to do whatever he wants."

That is false.

Berke on corruption of elections: Framers knew that leaders acting corruptly concentrate their powers to manipulate elections. This is a critical abuse of power. Americans learned last time how dangerous foreign interference can be.

Berke plays a clip from candidate Trump when he says, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 30k emails..." re: Clinton. Russia was listening, Berke notes. Within 5 hours of Trump's invitation to interfere by hacking emails of political opponent, Russia did.

Berke: POTUS really does believe he can act as he is above the law. He really does believe that he can put his personal/political interests over the nation's national security interest, over the integrity of its elections

Yes there is an election coming up, but this is all the more reason we must have this discussion now, Berke explains.

Berke: My son, my grandchildren, our grandchildren, will study this moment in history. They will read your remarks, they will read of your actions, he tells lawmakers. That is not a reason to vote for/against impeachment, for that, you must vote your conscience.

But it is a reason to have fair debate and recognize that Trump's actions are wrong; it is a reason to discuss what is in the country's best interests.
"History, future generations, will be the judge," Berke concludes.

Before GOP counsel Steve Castor begins, Rep Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana claims Berke's comments are disorderly because they "impugn" the President's character and are "unparliamentary"

Opening arguments from GOP counsel Steve Castor now underway.

GOP counsel Castor: Trump's conduct does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. The record Dems provide does not show Trump abused the power of his office.
Castor then calls the inquiry investigation "baloney."

Castor is running down the instances in which lawmakers have said historically that they thought POTUS should be impeached, comments that refer to Trump as "dangerous" to elections etc. He calls this an "obsession" by Dems

Castor says that the Mueller hearing was "underwhelming" and with Russia collusion claims "not working out" they are focusing instead on Ukraine.

Castor claims that the secrecy of private hearings mitigated credibility of the inquiry; says the duration of the impeachment inquiry is based on the "thinnest" evidentiary record.

We are roughly 15 minutes, I'd say, into Castor's opening remarks and so far, he has failed to thoroughly address the president's actions but instead, has focused primarily on process by Democrats

DEVELOPING: courthousenews.com/white-house-ab…

Castor calls the impeachment investigation "abbreviated" and says it has been set on an "arbitrary schedule" foisted upon "ambiguous facts.
Democrats do not have the proof, he says.

Castor also notes how Zelensky has said publicly that he did not feel pressure from Trump.

Again, Zelensky's feelings on this are not necessary to impeach. The question to impeach is about Trump's motives, intent, actions and whether those actions failed or succeeded.

Castor: The evidence shows Pres. Trump faithfully executed the duties of his office - Dems may disagree with the manner in which he governs, but those disagreements are not enough to justify the irrevocable action of removing him from office.

We will soon hear from Dan Goldman, Dem counsel for House Intel Cmte but not before a series of parliamentary orders are made by GOP about whether Berke impugned Trump's character.

Motion to table the GOP objection. And now Dem counsel Goldman will begin opening arguments for House Intel.

Goldman: Trump's scheme of "increasing pressure" on Zelensky to publicly announce investigations helpful to his reelection efforts is why we are here today.

When faced with the inquiry into his conduct, Trump instructed officials to defy Congressional oversight.

"Were it not for courageous public servants doing their duty... and coming forward to testify, the president's scheme may still be concealed today," Goldman says.

Despite Trump's elevation of an "entirely debunked conspiracy theory" that Ukr. interfered in 2016 to support Dems, it has been made clear through irrefutable evidence, it was Russia that interfered to help then-candidate Trump, Goldman says.

This appears to be the mantra from Dems today as this phase of the inquiry inches closer to the final vote in the House: "The president put his own interests above the nation's interests for his own benefit," Dem counsel Goldman says.

Goldman under oath: The investigations were conducted under House rules, incl. in observation of rule against agency counsel being present for depos. "Members of staff from both parties had equal time to ask Qs, no substantive questions prevented from being asked/answered."

Goldman zeroes in on Amb. Kurt Volker's text to Zel aide Andriy Yermak where Volker said "assuming Zel." gives Trump what he wants, the WH visit was on the table.

Goldman drives this pt home: Even before the July 25 phone call - which witnesses described as "unusual or of concern"- Trump had already directed an investigation into Ukr. interference of 2016 election in order for Zel to get the WH visit he wanted.

Goldman: A few weeks before July 25 call, Trump placed the hold - without providing any reason to cabinet members or nat sec officials - on the military aid, despite unanimous support from every agency that Ukraine should receive it.

Goldman: No one in U.S. govt knew of any factual support for theory that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election.

But it did have one supporter.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

Who benefits from this unfounded theory put forward by Trump and his associates? Vladimir Putin.
Dem counsel Goldman quotes Putin in Nov. 2019 interview when he said:
"Thank god no one is accusing us any more of interfering in U.S. elections. Now they're accusing Ukraine."

Goldman repeats what Sondland said to Trump before the July 25 call w/Zelensky & relayed that Trump required a political investigation in exchange for WH meeting. During that call, Trump asked for the favor immediately after Zel. brought up mil $ for Ukr. which Trump suspended

Goldman: At end of the call, Zel made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations and WH mtg Zel wanted. Then, next day, Sondland confirmed by phone that Ukrainians would begin investigations discussed on the call just a day earlier.

Goldman on other Trump-Zel. call (around Zel. inaug) that Trump dubs "perfect:" WH has claimed a readout of this call showed Trump was committed to "rooting out corruption," but like he did on the July 25 call, Trump failed to mention these anticorruption efforts.

Goldman spending several minutes on Giuliani involvement, notes how Volker conveyed a message directly to Zel. in May urging him to reference investigations associated with the "Giuliani factor" when attempting to get the coveted WH mtg.

Goldman notes how Zel's aide Yermak eventually met with Giuliani. This is further proof of the continued pressure campaign by WH to secure the announcements, he says.

Goldman emphasizes the importance of parsing this out: Trump did not require Ukr. to conduct the investigations for the WH meeting, instead, he needed Zel only to publicly announce the investigations.

Goldman: The goal was not the investigation themselves or any corruption that those investigations may have explored, but rather, the goal was to accrue political benefit Trump may enjoy from the announcement of investigations into his 2020 rival and origins of '16 election.

Goldman plays a clip from Mick Mulvaney's Oct. 17 press conference where he says there was "no question" the reason "why we held up money" to Ukraine was based on Trump's ask for investigations into '16.

Goldman: "Trump got caught, so he released the aid."

Trump's actions and determination to solicit foreign interference didn't end with Russia's support of Trump in '16 and it didn't end when "Ukrainian scheme" was exposed in September of this year.

Goldman: The President's scheme is actually quite simple and the facts are not seriously in dispute, he says.

It can be boiled down to four points.

1) Trump pressured Zel. to open an investigation that would benefit his 2020 campaign, not nat'l interest
(continued)

2) Trump uses tools of official office and policy to withhold aid
3) Everyone was in the loop, chief of staff, secy of state, VP

and finally
(continued)

4) Despite the public discovery of the scheme that prompted Trump to release the aid, he has not given up, Goldman says. "He and his agents continue to solicit Ukr. interference in our election, causing an imminent threat to our elections and national security."

We now have a 15 minute recess before we return for chair and staff questioning.

GOP poster shop, newest edition.

Scenes from today's impeachment: From just moments ago. During recess Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. John Ratcliffe and Rep. Devin Nunes confer with heads together.
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Recess is over and we are back right away with opening presentation by GOP counsel Steve Castor.
He says he hopes to provide "context and facts" to add to conversation about chief allegations about Trump pressure campaign today.

@CourthouseNews Castor's summation of charges in impeachment inquiry colored as "bribery, extortion or whatever."

That's it. That's my tweet.

@CourthouseNews Castor says the partial summary transcript released by the WH shows Zel. and Trump engaged in "pleasantries and cordialities" only.

(A member of the public behind me just laughed at this)

@CourthouseNews Castor leans on Zelensky's characterization of the call as "no pressure."
That may be the case that Zel feels that way. But again, according to constitutional grounds for impeachment, how Zelensky feels/felt doesn't bear on whether Congress has authority to conduct inquiry

@CourthouseNews Castor on election interference. The issue is not binary, he says. It is not just Russia, he suggests, but also Ukraine. Emphasizes that "some Ukrainian officials" worked against Trump's candidacy.

@CourthouseNews Castor says the allegation of Ukr. influence in 2016 election was appropriate to examine, noting Ukraine's "long and profound history of endemic corruption."

@CourthouseNews This, in part, explained Trump's skepticism of dealing with Ukraine, GOP counsel Castor says.

@CourthouseNews A thought as I listen to GOP counsel Castor discussing Trump's paranoia over Ukraine: I wonder how much of this testimony Paul Manafort will hear from prison today.

@CourthouseNews Castor noted Fiona Hill testimony re: her confrontation with Gordon Sondland about the investigation request by Trump to Zel. Castor appears to cast doubt on Sondland's testimony by emphasizing today that Sondland's memory of the exchange is "scattered."

@CourthouseNews DEVELOPING: courthousenews.com/white-house-ab…

@CourthouseNews In the days while Ukraine waited for military aid (roughly two months), Castor said Pence pressed Zelensky about reforms in Ukraine. Eventually, Castor argues, Pence helped convince Trump, based on this interaction with Zel, to release the hold.

@CourthouseNews "The impeachment inquiry has departed drastically from past impeachments...," GOP Counsel Castor says. And has exceeded "the fundamental tenants of fair and effective congressional oversight."

@CourthouseNews In closing, Castor says the Dem narrative "ignores any evidence not helpful for their case" and ignores Sondland's testimony that there was no quid pro quo and ignores information shared from Ukrainian officials.

There's been a lot of hyperbole as the inquiry has unfolded Castor says, and then Castor proceeds to say that the whistleblower who filed the complaint essentially mischaracterized what occured and therefore influenced where Dems went with the inquiry.

We are now onto questions from the chair.
Nadler asks Goldman (dem counsel) - did investigations conclude that POTUS used his office for personal gain?
Goldman: Yes.

POTUS acted through his agents/subordinates/conditioned military release on Ukr. public announcement of investigations Trump sought. Did evidence show that Trump undermined the national security of the U.S.?
Dem counsel: Yes, in many ways.

Did evidence prove that Trump engaged in a scheme to cover up his conduct?
Yes, right from the outset, Goldman says.

Did the evidence prove that Trump was a threat to our elections? Yes it did, Goldman affirms.
In fact, based on revelations of Trump's actions, he repeatedly urged foreign govts like Ukr, China to investigate his political opponents.

Nadler says of Trump's request that Ukraine, China investigate his political opponents: "This is a clear and present danger that POTUS will continue to abuse his power for personal political gain."

Dem counsel for HJC Barry Berke was questioning GOP counsel Steve Castor but was interrupted by Rep Gohmert who demands a point of order. Gohmert's contention is that Berke was a witness and is now asking questions.

Gohmert: How much money do you have to give to get that?
Nadler, slamming the gavel, says lawmakers are not to cast aspersions.

Lawyers arguing with lawyers means the rest of this day is going to be a real doozy.

Dem counsel Berke asks Castor, referencing the (incomplete) July 25 call summary from WH below - is this Trump asking for investigations into his political opponent?
Castor describes the language below as "ambiguous"

Berke asks Castor about Jennifer Williams, VP Pence's special adviser who was on the July 25 call.
In Castor's opener, he said the accusations that Trump acted with impropriety were coming from, essentially, anti-Trump people pre-determined to impeach.

Castor says the concern Williams articulated during the course of her hearing was incongruent with the relevant facts.
In the minority report, Castor wrote that Williams testified while she found call to be unusual, she did not raise concerns to a supervisor.

But that's not accurate, Berke says. She didn't just call it unusual.
"She was here for 9 hours in a bunker, so she's said a lot about the call," Castor quips.
Berke says he's happy to read from Williams testimony.

VP Pence aide called it, according to transcript from her public testimony "unusual and inappropriate."

Castor hedged when Berke points this out.
Asks if he left this aspect out.
Castor hedges again.

This is what Berke says Castor has left out of the minority report:

Sensenbrenner and others are claiming that Berke is "badgering the witness."
This elicited groans from some public spectators and to my ears, some lawmakers on the dais.

Meanwhile, the DOJ OIG report is out and has concluded "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page."
The OIG report here: "justice.gov/storage/120919…

Dem Counsel Berke: Robert Blair, who was on the July 25 call, was directed by Trump not to appear, correct?
Castor hedges, says he may have been able to come with agency counsel. His testimony "presented complexities," Castor says.

Berke also deftly works in this Q to Castor: John Eisenberg, the lawyer who Vindman went to after he was alarmed by the call, was also directed not to testify by the White House?
Castor was still answering Qs about Blair and didn't respond to this.

Berke: There was a package prepared for Trump ahead of the July 25 call between Trump-Zel. One of the items to discuss was the anticorruption platform that Zelensky ran and won on.
Goldman: Correct.
Did Trump discuss those points?
Goldman: No.

Berke: Trump told Zelensky he should speak to 2 people: Giuliani and AG Barr.

Is it the case that AG Barr issued a stmt on his role and is it fair to say Barr didn't want anything to do with these investigations sought by Trump?

Berke shares a slide documenting AG Barr's stmt on this. Dem counsel Goldman: Whether AG wanted anything to do with it or not, that's in addition to the fact that the AG *said* he had nothing to do w/Ukraine and there were no ongoing investigations at time of call in Aug.

As for Giuliani, Berke: But Giuliani was more than happy to continue to be involved to get Ukraine to investigate Trump's rival, Joe Biden?
Goldman: Giuliani was involved for several months before and after the call and apparently, just a few days ago.

Berke, relying on the visual below to drive home corroborated testimony: Did all of the agencies involved believe the aid to Ukr. should be given?
Goldman affirms. Everyone believed they earned aid, it should be released and not doing so put Ukr
at risk.

Berke: Was it Rudy Giuliani who said the second draft would *have* to include mention of investigating Burisma and the 2016 elec?
Goldman affirms and also confirms that throughout testimony all but two witnesses told Congress Burisma was understood as Rudy's shorthand for Bidens

We are moving on now to q's from Doug Collins, the ranking member on HJC cmte.
Collins, in his auctioneer style, rattles off his griegances and asks "Where's Adam?"
Collins also asks Goldman if he understands what a quid pro quo is.

Collins is picking up on a thread from Castor earlier that casts doubt on Sondland testimony: How many times do GOP rely on Sondland's testimony?
Goldman notes the size of the report, doesn't know.
Collins tells Goldman Sondland's name appears 600 times.

Collins asking Goldman about subpoenas for call records for AT&T, did they target a single number or not?
Goldman: Only subjects involved in the investigation directly had call records subpoenaed.

GOP has claimed repeatedly that Schiff ordered that phone #s be cross ref'd w/members of media and lawmakers, including Nunes and John Solomon.

After tense back and forth, Collins demanded Goldman disclose investigation technique, Goldman explains what he can about the process.

"You pick an event of significance, you look for sequence & patterns. Then you look at the numbers and try to identify what the numbers are and start to build the circumstantial case," Goldman says.

Collins makes an implication that Goldman a substitute for Schiff, and a poor one at that, essentially. There are insinuations made about how much Goldman has donated to Dems.

Matt Gaetz has an outburst and says the implication is that Schiff should be in Goldman's spot.

This was out of order since Collins had the floor and there is much back and forth, cross talk. Nadler gaveled repeatedly.

FYI - the new face at the dais belongs to Ashley Hurt Callen who at this juncture will ask Qs for GOP on House Judic Cmte. She also serves as HJC chief counsel on oversight and investigations.

GOP Counsel Steve Castor's joke that he "only gets to talk when his wife isn't around" went over like a lead balloon in the room.

From the public spectators behind me: "Are you kidding me?"

We still have staff questions to get to. It's 2:30 PM and Nadler is still going with Qs of his own. Get comfortable.

Collins says we should be going over the DOJ report, "not this."
Speaking of, my colleagues have a developing story up now:
courthousenews.com/doj-watchdog-r…

Collins railing for several minutes about the unfair nature of the inquiry, how Dems conducted the inquiry and claiming Dem counsel has leaked information. Collins says "We have become a perpetual state of impeachment"

Zoe Lofgren, who is no stranger to impeachment proceedings - she served as staffer to HJC during Nixon and sat on cmte during Clinton, begins with questioning.

Lofgren: Is it common to announce an investigation but not actually conduct one?
Goldman explains that it "usually it works in reverse." You don't announce in advance because you want to collect evidence, conduct unprejudiced probe

Lofgren: The announcement of an investigation alone could be "Twitter fodder," she notes.

Lofgren on direct evidence/criticism that this inquiry moves too fast.
POTUS has offered nothing; he won't come forward, she says. If he has proof of innocence, why not bring it forward?

On criticism this is moving too fast: Rep.Lofgren notes how she and Rep Sheila Jackson Lee were both members on House Judic Cmte during Clinton impeachment.
That took 73 days.
Today, Lofgren notes, "we are here on 76th day" of Trump's inquiry.
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews We are back after a brief recess and now hearing Qs from Rep Sheila Jackson Lee

@CourthouseNews Jackson asks about the talking points Trump received re: anticorruption efforts. Goldman notes that POTUS isnt required to use those talking points but what was startling here was that he not only veered off comment but he then used the moment to his personal political benefit.

@CourthouseNews Rep Chabot played the clip of Hunter Biden's interview w/ ABC where Hunter Biden answered "I don't know" when asked if he though he would have been placed on the board of Burisma had he not been Joe Biden's son.

"You're investigating the wrong guy, Mr. Chairman," Chabot says.

@CourthouseNews Rep. Cohen is up and he's underling witness testimony. Witnesses who listened to the call testified they were concerned by it, he says. Asks about Vindman and Morrison reaction.

Goldman reminds the committee: Vindman was concerned with the substance of call and whether it was proper whereas Tim Morrison was concerned about the political ramifications of the call because of its subject nature.

Before he wrapped his Qs, Rep Cohen played back a series of clips from witness testimony where Vindman, Volker, Hill and Taylor each told the committee publicly they thought the call was inappropriate.
An investigation will be done because "this is the people's House," he says

Rep Gohmert is FULL VOLUME right now, it is just deafening if you are in the room because is on a mic.

Gohmert says he takes offense to the suggestion by some that Trump treats America and the WH like his kingdom.

Gohmert on treason, notes how the Constitution says there must be two witnesses to a party to prove treason.
He says all the witness testimony provided to the committee is indirect and hearsay. Here's the thing, there were people who testified that were on the call directly.

Democrats did not accuse Trump of treason in their most recent report, or any report, actually, as Gohmert suggested.
Treason is mentioned in the last report because the report is about the generic elements that can be present when weighing impeachment.

I know this report is not sexy. I know that. But this report is actually very helpful for the public to understand what goes into impeachment, what has gone into it historically. Had the GOP published one just like this, I'd say the same of theirs.
documentcloud.org/documents/6570…

Rep Jim Jordan is up and he says he wants to start where it all began - with the whistleblower complaint.

Jordan is pushing to reveal the identity of the whistleblower and is calling Sondland's credibility into question as other republican lawmakers have done today.
Jordan on Sondland: "The guy who had to file an addendum to his testimony?"

Notable to me is how different the approach to Sondland is today by GOP. At the start of public testimony in Nov., Rep. Devin Nunes said to Sondland "You are here to be smeared" by Democrats.

My how things have changed.
Nunes warning to Sondland, 11/20:

Republican Rep Ken Buck of Colorado brings it back to Sondland again now too. He asks Castor if Castor knows how many times Sondland said "I don't know" or stated he couldn't recollect something in testimony. Over 300 times, Buck says.

Rep. Buck suggested during Qs that Dem staff had contact with Sondland after his deposition. Goldman, for the record in a different round of questioning with Rep. Karen Bass, says for the record, that never occurred.

A reminder that the attorneys testifying today are doing so under oath.

Rep Bass, D-Calif. played a clip where Sondland answered his own question: was there a quid pro quo?
"Yes. Everyone was in the loop," Sondland said.

Sondland also testified that all he ever heard Giuliani or anyone else say was that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations
To that end, Goldman notes Giuliani "not only played a role but served as an agent for the pres. fulfilling his wishes and desires."

Goldman also puts Sondland changing testimony in context. In private, Sondland "admitted only so much" but as more testimony came in Goldman says, Sondland "realized he had to admit to more stuff."

Bass also noted how Trump's engagement with Ukr. should also be placed into the critical context of events unfolding today, i.e. Zelensky's Monday meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Bass: Because of Trump's engagement w/Zel., Zel. is coming to the table from a position of weakness

Rep Ratcliffe (R) says Ds will have to answer for themselves when they cast their vote for impeachment. They will have to reflect on fact that they conducted inquiry without hearing testimony from whistleblower.
(Historically, Schiff has said the complaint is WB testimony)

Please know I regret the typos. Deeply!

Earlier Rep Armstrong asked that IG report released today (FISA report) would be entered into the record. It has been reviewed and it will go into the record, per Nadler.

Rep Collins says Dems are calling Zelensky a liar because they don't believe that Zelensky wasn't pressured.

Dems have not called the U.S. ally a liar. They have questioned the power dynamic between a newly elected political neophyte and the President of the United States

Rep Gaetz is up.

Gaetz first claims polling in support of impeachment for Trump is lower than Muammar Gaddafi's approval ratings and "they killed him in the street," he notes.
Gaetz also pressed Goldman about how much he donates to Dems, how much Berke donates.
Gaetz is putting Goldman on trial.

Gaetz cheerleading for Trump, blasting Dems for being inactive/obsessed w/impchmt.
Dem Rep Cicilline is up and says let's talk about how active this Congress is. This House has passed 400 pieces of legislation, 70 alone this year. What languishes is thanks to McConnell refusal

PSA - It is UKRAINE. Not "The Ukraine."

I used to live in The Texas.

See how ignorant that sounds.

Anyway - back to questioning. (I also smell coffee. Someone has coffee in the chamber and it smells divine.)

Dems gave GOP 8,000 pages to review ahead of today's hearing, drawing GOP ire about process and planning.
Rep Swalwell, right off the bat: If the WH gave you 8K documents, would you have a problem with that?
Goldman says it would be a welcome problem to have.

Who has blocked Congress from having the information necessary to conduct the investigation - whether it vindicates the president or not?
Goldman: President Trump.

Rep Lieu, D-Calif. is up: No one else in American can do what Donald Trump did and get away with. No American official can call up a foreign official and ask for an investigation into a political opponent.
If we did that and got caught, we would likely be indicted, he adds.

Rep Lieu notes that the roughly $400M withheld by Trump as leverage for his own reelection campaign was not "his money." It was the taxpayer's money.
Soliciting foreign assistance for a reelection campaign is "flat out" illegal, Lieu says.

Impound Control Act of 1974 (born in response to Nixon's own preferential policymaking) was designed to prevent POTUS from taking appropriated funds & doing "whatever he wants" w/them.
Lieu, like other Dems, argues Trump violated this legislation.

The violation of Impound Control Act came when Trump took the funds - already approved by Congress for one use - and used them to advance his personal interest. He could have delayed the aid using proper channels, but did not.

Rep Lieu to dem counsel Goldman: Did Trump notify Congress of his intent [to delay aid]?
Goldman: No, he did not.

That's what's notable about this. At any time, Trump could have used all available legal channels to delay aid if concern was about Ukr. corruption efforts.

Even if the DoD had already certified funds (they did) and even if Ukraine had proven it deserved them (they had), he had legal options.
Thread on this from my coverage on Nov 20:

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1197320581697490945

Dem Rep Pramila Jayapal says "we do not have to read the president's mind" on whether he leveraged aid for investigations into the Bidens because Trump is the "first and best witness."

Then, Jayapal rolls a clip of Trump speaking on Ukraine from the lawn of the White House where he said: "I would think if they're honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens."

We know what Trump was interested in based on his words, his actions and witness testimony. The POTUS wanted the president of Ukr. to announce an investigation in his own rival to benefit his own coming election.
This is a grave abuse of power, Jayapal says.

If Trump supports Ukraine and purports to take such pride in doing more than Obama did for Ukraine - why would he withhold this aid for so long, dem counsel Goldman asks

"Everybody counts and everybody is accountable." - Dem Florida Rep Val Demings

The comment elicited light applause in the chamber (and a spectator near me snapped her accolades, beatnik style)

A handy timeline from Dems on Trump's direction to withhold the aid from Ukraine:

"All of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo," Dem counsel Goldman says.

Rep Greg Steube now - and other congressional GOP lawmakers throughout the day - have baselessly accused Dem counsel Barry Berke of having an "axe to grind" over Trump's victory.

Using the history of his actions as my guide - I'd peg President Trump attacking Barry Berke on Twitter by 10:30PM ET.

Dem Rep Ted Deutch asked Nadler for a point of order after GOP Rep Steube referred to Barry Berke as a "New York lawyer"
Nadler said it wasn't a point of order and moved things along.

I'm curious. Did elected Florida Representative Greg Steube mean to suggest Berke was a "New York lawyer" because he is, in fact, a lawyer who works out of New York? Or does the label "New York" mean anything else?

No Schiff testimony, Nadler tells GOP in new letter tonight.

Chairman Nadler writes to ranking member Rep Collins that the request is outside the scope of the inquiry.

LETTER:
documentcloud.org/documents/6571…
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews “With respect to your requests that the Committee obtain testimony from Chairman Schiff as well as '[t]he anonymous whistleblower whose complaint initiated this ‘impeachment inquiry,’' the Committee has previously tabled motions with regard to these matters...

As of Dec. 4, Nadler writes, "I see no reason to reconsider those requests. Moreover, the Intelligence Committee report has adduced independent evidence for its conclusions that do not rely upon the whistleblower in any way."

“Five of your remaining requests were previously made by Ranking Member Nunes during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence impeachment proceedings and were rejected by that Committee…I concur in Chairman Schiff’s assessment," Nadler writes.

Nadler also finds the requests "outside of the parameters of the impeachment inquiry" and adds: "The same is true of your remaining request concerning '[t]he Intelligence Community employee who spoke with Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman about President Trump’s July 25 call"

Closing arguments. Collins goes first. Collins accuses Schiff of targeting Rep Nunes. Collins claims Nadler has disregarded House rules by not addressing his request for minority hearing.
If you destroy the institutional integrity, there's nothing else for us to do, Collins says

Collins says Dems have "no desire to hear anything from our side." Calls it a scam. Now Nadler is up.

Nadler: Trump applied pressure by withholding both a White House mtg and vital military aid. He made a demand directly to Zelensky [for investigations into his political oppponent] and confirmed his personal involvement on the WH lawn.

Nadler: Trump compromised the integrity of our elections for a corrupt purpose.

We know Trump ordered staff not to testify, he adds.
In abusing his office in this manner, we know Trump has put himself before his country.

"I'm struck that my Republican colleagues... have not offered one substantive word in the president's defense and I suspect that is because, at the base, there is no real defense for the President's actions," House Judiciary Cmte chair Jerry Nadler says.

And that ends today's hearing. We are adjourned.

The story for @CourthouseNews will be updated shortly.

STORY: courthousenews.com/white-house-ab…