This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/impeachment-hearings.html

The article has changed 16 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 13 Version 14
Impeachment Hearing Updates: Chairman Denies Republicans’ Requests for Witnesses Impeachment Hearing Takeaways: Democrats Allege ‘Brazen’ Trump Scheme While Republicans Lament ‘Unfair’ Process
(32 minutes later)
Democrats and Republicans who squared off at Monday’s impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee had one remarkable point of agreement: Both said that there are four key facts at the heart of the debate about whether President Trump should be impeached by the House and removed from office.
They just offered two completely different sets of facts.
Daniel S. Goldman, the chief investigator for the House Intelligence Committee, said during his presentation to the Judiciary Committee members that the Democratic case against the president can be “boiled down to four key takeaways.”
He said that Mr. Trump “directed a scheme to pressure Ukraine into opening two investigations”; that he used his office to withhold “an Oval Office meeting and $391 million in security assistance to pressure Ukraine”; that “everyone was in the loop”; and that “despite the public discovery of this scheme, which prompted the president to release the aid, he has not given up.”
When Republicans had the microphone, several offered their own four-part assessment of how best to understand what they viewed as the failure of Democrats to make the case.
Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, offered them in his usual, rapid-fire fashion: He asserted that Mr. Trump’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine did not show evidence of pressure or a quid pro quo; that Mr. Zelensky has repeatedly denied feeling pressured; that Ukraine did not know the security aid was held up; and that the aid was eventually released without any announcement of an investigation that Mr. Trump wanted.
Democrats take issue with those four points, asserting that they are factually wrong or a questionable interpretation, just as Republicans challenge the four Democratic points. Together, they underscore how far apart both sides are in terms of agreeing on a common set of facts in the impeachment inquiry.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, denied requests for Republican witnesses, including the appearance of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, or the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint focused on the president’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine.Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, denied requests for Republican witnesses, including the appearance of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, or the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint focused on the president’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine.
“The committee has previously tabled motions with regard to these matters at its December 4, 2019, hearing, and I see no reason to reconsider those requests,” Mr. Nadler wrote in a letter to Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.“The committee has previously tabled motions with regard to these matters at its December 4, 2019, hearing, and I see no reason to reconsider those requests,” Mr. Nadler wrote in a letter to Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans have repeatedly demanded a hearing to feature their own witnesses, including the whistle-blower, Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; and Mr. Schiff, who they accuse of running an unfair impeachment investigation. Mr. Nadler has said for days that he would respond to their request.Republicans have repeatedly demanded a hearing to feature their own witnesses, including the whistle-blower, Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; and Mr. Schiff, who they accuse of running an unfair impeachment investigation. Mr. Nadler has said for days that he would respond to their request.
In the letter, Mr. Nadler noted that Republicans had previously asked for the same witnesses to appear during hearings of the Intelligence Committee. “I concur in Chairman Schiff’s assessment and also find that these requests outside of the parameters of the impeachment inquiry,” Mr. Nadler wrote.In the letter, Mr. Nadler noted that Republicans had previously asked for the same witnesses to appear during hearings of the Intelligence Committee. “I concur in Chairman Schiff’s assessment and also find that these requests outside of the parameters of the impeachment inquiry,” Mr. Nadler wrote.
Under the rules of the impeachment inquiry, Republicans have the right to request a meeting of the Judiciary Committee to consider an appeal of Mr. Nadler’s decision, though because Democrats control the committee, it’s all but certain that the committee would support the chairman’s decision. In the letter, Mr. Nadler said he was willing to call such a meeting if the Republicans request it.Under the rules of the impeachment inquiry, Republicans have the right to request a meeting of the Judiciary Committee to consider an appeal of Mr. Nadler’s decision, though because Democrats control the committee, it’s all but certain that the committee would support the chairman’s decision. In the letter, Mr. Nadler said he was willing to call such a meeting if the Republicans request it.
Republicans seized on a new talking point Monday, accusing Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee of improperly revealing phone records of members of Congress and journalists during their investigation of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. House Democrats are likely to use the testimony in Monday’s hearing as they begin drafting later this week the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump amid an intense debate about how expansive the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors should be.
Representative Doug Collins of Georgia angrily demanded that Mr. Goldman, the chief Democratic investigator for the Intelligence Committee, tell the lawmakers who made the decision to reveal the names of the journalists and lawmakers after their numbers were identified as part of subpoenas of phone company records. Democrats appear poised to accuse Mr. Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to help him incriminate Democratic rivals while withholding American security aid. They are also expect to charge him with obstructing the congressional investigation by defying subpoenas, blocking witnesses from testifying and denying documents.
“Who ordered it? You or Mr. Schiff?” Mr. Collins asked Mr. Goldman, referring to Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Goldman declined to say that anyone had specifically ordered the numbers be revealed in the report. It is less clear whether Democrats will include charges of obstruction of justice for trying to impede the Russia investigation by Mr. Mueller, whose report last spring included evidence of 10 instances of possible obstruction.
Mr. Goldman tried to explain that such identifications occur in the normal course of the examination of phone records during an investigation. Republicans seized on a new talking point on Monday, accusing Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee of improperly revealing phone records.
The information was collected when Democrats subpoenaed the phone records of several people being investigated as part of the impeachment inquiry. The telephone numbers of the journalists and lawmakers — including Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee — were included because they were talking to the people targeted by the subpoenas. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia angrily demanded that Mr. Goldman tell lawmakers who made the decision to reveal the names of journalists and lawmakers in the Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report after their numbers were identified as part of subpoenas of phone company records.
But Republicans sought to make an issue of the Democratic decision to reveal the names of Mr. Nunes and the others in the committee’s public report, saying that the decision amounted to an “abuse of power” by the Democrats. “Who ordered it? You or Mr. Schiff?” Mr. Collins asked Mr. Goldman, referring to Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Goldman declined answer but tried to explain that such identifications occur in the normal course of the examination of phone records.
Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a former Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also lashed out at Mr. Goldman, accusing him of smearing innocent people by revealing the names of the people discovered by the phone records. The telephone numbers of the journalists and lawmakers — including Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee — were included because they had been talking to the people being investigated as part of the impeachment inquiry.
“Folks, you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said, adding: “This is a major step in the surveillance state getting out of control.” But Republicans said the decision amounted to an “abuse of power” by the Democrats.
Call it the clash of the lawyers. After several hours in which both sides spent more than an hour presenting their cases, largely undisturbed, Barry Berke, the Democratic lawyer, took aim at Stephen Castor, the Republican lawyer from the committee, grilling him aggressively. “Folks, you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker,” said Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a Republican and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “This is a major step in the surveillance state getting out of control.”
In one testy exchange, Mr. Berke accused Mr. Castor of mischaracterizing the testimony of Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Berke noted that the Republican impeachment report said Ms. Williams thought the call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine was “unusual.” Monday’s hearing began with both sides presenting their cases largely undisturbed. But once questioning began, Barry H. Berke, the Democratic lawyer, took aim at Stephen Castor, the Republican lawyer from the committee, grilling him aggressively.
“Isn’t it a fact that she said the call struck her as ‘unusual and inappropriate’? Isn’t that what she said?” Mr. Berke insisted. In one testy exchange, Mr. Berke accused Mr. Castor of mischaracterizing the testimony of Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, by writing in a report that she found a July 25 call between Mr. Trump and the president of Ukraine merely “unusual.” Mr. Berke noted that she actually called it “unusual and inappropriate.” Mr. Castor denied misquoting her, saying it “wasn’t a block quote.”
“It wasn’t a block quote,” Mr. Castor said, grimacing and scowling several times as Mr. Berke pressed him for an answer. The back-and-forth between the two lawyers caused Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a former Republican chairman of the committee to accuse Mr. Berke of “badgering the witness.” Mr. Nadler slammed his gavel. “He’s not,” Mr. Nadler said.
The remarkable back-and-forth between the two lawyers for the committee sparked more procedural objections from Republican lawmakers on the panel, who repeatedly tried to object to Mr. Berke’s questioning of Mr. Castor. The headline from Democrats at Monday’s hearing was from the opening statement by Barry H. Berke, the top lawyer for Judiciary Democrats, who told the committee that Mr. Trump’s actions were “so brazen” that there was no question that he had abused his power to advance his own political interests.
“Point of order, he’s badgering the witness” said Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a former Republican chairman of the committee. Mr. Nadler slammed his gavel, refusing to concede the point. “The evidence is overwhelming,” Mr. Berke said, repeating the phrase to counter Republican arguments that the impeachment inquiry had been rushed and inadequate. He said the facts were “uncontradicted” and “cannot be disputed.”
“He’s not,” Mr. Nadler said. Mr. Goldman later said that the president had tried to distort next year’s election with false allegations, pointing to his weekend statements to reporters that Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer, would make a report to the Justice Department about Democrats.
In what amounted to the opening argument in the effort to impeach President Trump, the lawyer for Judiciary Democrats told the committee that the president’s actions were “so brazen” that there was no question that he had abused his power to advance his own political interests over those of the nation.
“The evidence is overwhelming,” said Barry H. Berke, the lawyer, repeating the phrase to emphasize the point countering Republican arguments that the impeachment inquiry had been rushed and inadequate. The facts assembled in recent weeks were “uncontradicted” and “cannot be disputed,” he added, as he played video clips from witnesses who testified last month before the House Intelligence Committee.
Another Democratic lawyer, Daniel S. Goldman, the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee that gathered the evidence being presented on Monday, said that Mr. Trump continued to try to distort next year’s election with false allegations, pointing to his weekend statements to reporters that Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer, would make a report to the Justice Department about Democrats.
“President Trump’s persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security,” Mr. Goldman said.“President Trump’s persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security,” Mr. Goldman said.
Mr. Berke placed the president’s actions with Ukraine in the context of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election on his behalf, as investigated by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Berke played a video clip of Mr. Trump that year publicly calling on “Russia, if you’re listening,” to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, and another of him as president telling reporters he wanted Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Berke placed the president’s actions with Ukraine in the context of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election as investigated by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Berke played a video clip of Mr. Trump that year publicly calling on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, and another of him as president telling reporters he wanted Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Rather than leave the matter to voters next fall, as some Republicans have argued, Mr. Berke said the House had to act now because Mr. Trump was trying to corrupt the 2020 election. “That’s not a reason to postpone this discussion,” he said. “That’s a reason we must have this discussion.” Rather than leave the matter to voters next fall, as some Republicans have argued, Mr. Berke said the House had to act now because Mr. Trump was trying to corrupt the 2020 election.
The Republican presentation to the committee is focused more on the actions of the Democrats than on Mr. Trump’s, arguing that the president has been the target of an illegitimate, partisan witch hunt. During Monday’s hearing, Republicans focused more on the actions of the Democrats than Mr. Trump’s, arguing that the president has been the target of an illegitimate, partisan witch hunt.
Stephen Castor, the lawyer representing Republicans on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, devoted the majority of his prepared testimony to how the Democrats have conducted their inquiry and, in his view, distorted the facts to fit their preconceived narrative. Mr. Castor devoted the majority of his prepared testimony to how the Democrats have conducted their inquiry and, in his view, distorted the facts.
“This unfair process reflects the degree to which Democrats are obsessed with impeaching President Trump by any means necessary,” Mr. Castor told lawmakers. “The Democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president — the emoluments clause, the president’s business and financial records, the Mueller report and allegations of obstruction there — before settling on Ukraine.” “The Democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president — the emoluments clause, the president’s business and financial records, the Mueller report and allegations of obstruction there — before settling on Ukraine,” he said.
Mr. Castor maintained that Mr. Trump was not pursuing his own interests, but was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine. “He was asking for assistance in helping our country move forward from the divisiveness of the Russia collusion investigation,” Mr. Castor said. Mr. Castor maintained that Mr. Trump was not pursuing his own interests, but was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine. And he noted that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said he did not feel pressured, saying that “if President Trump was truly orchestrating a pressure campaign to force Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden, one would think that Ukraine would have felt some pressure.”
He noted that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said he did not feel pressured and Mr. Castor asserted that he did not know at the time he talked with Mr. Trump on the telephone on July 25 that the president had suspended American aid. A central theme pushed by Republicans during Monday’s hearing was the blame-Ukraine defense, in which they contended that Mr. Trump was justified in asking Ukraine for investigations because had genuine concerns about corruption there.
“If President Trump was truly orchestrating a pressure campaign to force Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden, one would think that Ukraine would have felt some pressure,” he said.
Mr. Castor embraced the blame-Ukraine defense, contending that Mr. Trump had genuine concerns about corruption there when he suspended American aid and was justified in asking for an investigation into supposed efforts by Ukraine to influence the 2016 election against him.
“Democrats dismiss these as conspiracy theories to suggest that President Trump has no legitimate reason — other than his own political interests — to raise these issues with President Zelensky,” Mr. Castor said. “The evidence, however, shows that there are legitimate questions about both issues.”“Democrats dismiss these as conspiracy theories to suggest that President Trump has no legitimate reason — other than his own political interests — to raise these issues with President Zelensky,” Mr. Castor said. “The evidence, however, shows that there are legitimate questions about both issues.”
Mr. Castor did not explain, however, why Mr. Trump never mentioned the word “corruption” in either of his phone calls with Mr. Zelensky if that was his concern but instead mentioned only Mr. Biden and issues associated with Democrats. And intelligence agencies and former advisers to Mr. Trump have warned against advancing claims that Ukraine interfered in the election, attributing them to an effort by Russia to shift responsibility after its operation to tilt the 2016 election. Mr. Castor did not explain, however, why Mr. Trump never mentioned the word “corruption” in either of his phone calls with Mr. Zelensky if that was his concern. Intelligence agencies and former advisers to Mr. Trump have warned against advancing such claims, attributing them to an effort by Russia to shift responsibility after its operation to tilt the 2016 election.
“Let me say very clearly that election influence is not binary,” Mr. Castor said. “I am not saying that it was Ukraine and not Russia; I am saying that both countries can work to influence an election. A systemic, coordinated Russian interference effort does not mean that some Ukrainian officials did not work to oppose President Trump’s candidacy.” “I am not saying that it was Ukraine and not Russia,” Mr. Castor said. “I am saying that both countries can work to influence an election.”
The White House refused to participate in Monday’s hearing, arguing that it was tilted against Mr. Trump and part of an illegitimate effort to overturn his election. But that did not stop Mr. Trump himself from participating — at least via social media. Monday’s hearing provided another venue for Republicans to lodge repeated complaints about the way Mr. Nadler is running the impeachment process, raising parliamentary points and forcing party-line votes.
After posting or reposting nearly 100 messages on Twitter on Sunday, most of them complaining about the impeachment effort and assailing Democrats, the president began lobbing digital missiles on Monday as the hearing progressed. Republicans pressed Mr. Nadler to schedule a hearing day that they would be allowed to organize, including calling witnesses of their choice. Later in the day, Mr. Nadler denied the request.
The House Judiciary Committee opened a new phase in the impeachment inquiry on Monday as Democrats accused President Trump of violating his oath of office by pursuing his own political interests above those of the nation. They objected to the content of Mr. Berke’s presentation, arguing that it violated the committee’s rules of decorum against making disparaging remarks about the president. Mr. Nadler shut down the criticisms.
“President Trump put himself before country,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said, repeating the phrase five times during his opening statement as the panel prepared to hear evidence. Republicans also complained that the lawyers making the opening presentations had not been sworn in under oath and that committee Republicans had not received until last weekend 8,000 pages of information from the House investigation.
His Republican counterpart, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, said the Democrats were out to get “a president they don’t like” from the moment he took office regardless of the evidence. “They spent two years trying to figure out what do we impeach him on,” he said. They also used the moment to jab at Mr. Schiff, for not presenting the evidence his panel gathered himself, prompting Mr. Collins to say: “Instead he is sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess that’s what you get when you’re making up impeachment as you go.”
Republicans have lodged repeated complaints about the way Mr. Nadler is running the hearing and the larger impeachment process, raising parliamentary points and forcing party-line votes.
Among other things, Republicans pressed Mr. Nadler repeatedly to schedule a hearing day that they would be allowed to organize, including calling witnesses of their choice. Mr. Nadler said he would think about it, but made no commitment.
They objected to the content of Mr. Berke’s presentation, arguing that it violated the committee’s rules of decorum against making disparaging remarks about the president. Mr. Nadler shut down the criticisms, noting that those rules do not apply to staff lawyers.
Republicans also complained that the lawyers making the opening presentations had not been sworn in under oath and that committee Republicans had not received until last weekend 8,000 pages of information from the House investigation, giving them little time to digest them before Monday’s hearing.
Republicans also used the moment to jab at Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for not presenting the evidence his panel gathered himself.
“The author of the Schiff report is not here,” Mr. Collins said. “Instead he is sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess that’s what you get when you’re making up impeachment as you go.”
The hearing may be an important factor in shaping the articles of impeachment that House Democrats are drafting against Mr. Trump amid an intense debate about how expansive the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors should be.
Democrats appear poised to accuse Mr. Trump of abuse of power and bribery for pressuring Ukraine to help him incriminate Democratic rivals while withholding American security aid. They also expect to charge him with obstructing the congressional investigation by defying subpoenas, blocking current and former administration officials from testifying, and trying to intimidate those who have.
Less clear is whether they will include charges of obstruction of justice for trying to impede the Russia investigation by Mr. Mueller. In his report last spring, Mr. Mueller submitted evidence of 10 instances of possible obstruction but said he could not judge whether they were illegal. Attorney General William P. Barr, a Trump appointee, declared that the president’s actions were not illegal; Democrats dismiss his judgment as skewed and partisan.
Mr. Nadler said he and his fellow Democrats would not decide the shape of the articles of impeachment until after hearing evidence on Monday.
“There are possible drafts that various people are writing,” Mr. Nadler said on “State of the Union” on CNN on Sunday. “But the fact is we’re not going to make any decision as to how broad the articles should be — as to what they contain, what the wording is — until after the hearing.”