Transcript
Article II: Inside Impeachment
Grilling the Lawyers
Jerry Nadler: The House Committee on the Judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee to--
Archival Recording: I object.
Nadler: Objection noted. (Music)
Steve Kornacki: From NBC News, this is Article II: Inside Impeachment. I'm Steve Kornacki. Today is Monday, December 9th, and here's what's happening.
Nadler: We are conducting this hearing on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Nadler: The gentleman is not recognized. Committee will come to order.
Doug Collins: You have brought my name into this.
Nadler: The gentleman will suspend--
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, the witness has violated rule 17, and my point of order should be heard.
Collins: Well, that got us started again.
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the decision of the chair.
Nadler: We will now hear presentations--
Archival Recording: There's a ruling on a point of order.
Archival Recording: What? You made a ruling on the point of order.
Archival Recording: You made a ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. You can't--
Nadler: Gentlemen.
Archival Recording: --then not allow us--
Nadler: Gentlemen.
Archival Recording: --to appeal the ruling of the chair--
Nadler: The gentleman will suspend.
Kornacki: This morning, the House Judiciary Committee held its second public hearing in the impeachment inquiry, and Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler spent a fair amount of time trying to maintain order.
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, the opposing witness--
Nadler: Gentleman is not not recognized--
Archival Recording: It's a point of inquiry.
Nadler: --and will not shout out in the middle of testimony. The gentleman--
Collins: You need to call balls and strikes the right way. You don't interrupt either one of 'em, Mr. Chairman--
Nadler: Gentlemen.
Collins: Your (UNINTEL) witness.
Nadler: Gentlemen.
Collins: Bang it harder. It still doesn't make the point that you're--
Nadler: The gentleman--
Collins: --not doing it right.
Kornacki: Some of that dispute over rules had to do with the witnesses. Today, it was the House lawyers who were in the witness chairs, and they used their time to make the case for impeachment.
Barry Berke: And the scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony.
Daniel Goldman: His determination to solicit foreign interference in our election continues today.
Kornacki: And against it.
Stephen Castor: To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney.
Kornacki: The hearing intensified when the lawyers from each party were turned against one another and forced to answer questions.
Archival Recording: Mr. Castor.
Castor: Can I add something there?
Archival Recording: No, you can't. Mr. Castor, let me ask you a question--
Castor: --President Trump did mention--
Archival Recording: Are you gonna let him answer--
Castor: He did mention that there are some very bad people there--
Nadler: The gentleman-- the gentleman--
Castor: Come on, Barry. In fairness here, President Trump talks about very bad people.
Kornacki: This is expected to be the final public hearing before the House sets forth articles of impeachment. And so today on Article II, we're asking: What are the arguments for and against impeaching the President? And did those arguments hold up under cross-examination?
Nadler: We will maintain decorum in the hearing room.
Kornacki: Leigh Ann Caldwell is an NBC News correspondent covering Congress. She's been running in and out of today's marathon hearing up there on Capitol Hill. Hi Leigh Ann. Thanks for being with us.
Leigh Ann Caldwell: Hi Steve. Thanks for having me.
Kornacki: So round two in front of the Judiciary Committee, the theme here seems to be lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. The first time around last week, we were talking about constitutional scholars, lawyers who were constitutional scholars testifying in front of this committee. Today, these are lawyers who are part of these committees that are leading the impeachment process. Just give us a sense to start. Tell us who the players are today. Who was the committee hearing from? Why were they there?
Caldwell: Sure. More lawyers questioning lawyers, Steve. But this time, all these lawyers work for the respective Republicans and Democrats. Starting us off was the Democrat Judiciary Committee counsel, Barry Berke. He gave a presentation. Then the Democratic lawyer for the Intelligence Committee, Dan Goldman, and where he gave his presentation on the facts of their investigation.
And then once again we heard from Steve Castor, the Republican. He did double duty. He's the main attorney for both Intelligence and Judiciary, and he played both roles, Steve. So these were lawyers who were very steeped in this investigation, trying to make the best case for their respective parties in this impeachment inquiry.
Kornacki: What were the arguments that emerged from those three lawyers?
Caldwell: What Berke was doing, remember, he's a Democrat with the Judiciary Committee. And he was making a legal argument for impeachment. He was talking about what the President did wrong in the sense of how it perhaps violated the Constitution.
Berke: It is clear that the President risked corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference to knock out an adversary to help his prospects in reelection. And the scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony. This is a big deal. President Trump did what a president of our nation is not allowed to do.
Caldwell: Goes on to say by quoting one of the constitutional scholars who testified last week who said that if this is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. And then you had the Republican, Steve Castor, who had a couple arguments. The first was saying that there was no clear evidence that the President, what he said, "acted with malicious intent" in withholding a meeting or security assistance from the Ukrainians.
Castor: Indeed, there are, and the Republican report articulates them, legitimate explanations for these actions that are not nefarious, as the Democrats allege. The evidence shows that President Trump faithfully executed the duties of his office by delivering on what he promised the American voters he would do.
Caldwell: Castor was making the point that what the President was doing completely valid. There was nothing wrong with it, nothing impeachable absolutely. But that the President was just working off his mandate of fighting corruption.
Kornacki: Then the next phase of this was counsel for each side, for the Democratic side on the Judiciary Committee and for the Republican side on the Judiciary Committee, got 45 minutes to talk to these lawyers, to these witnesses. Now, the twist was Democratic counsel for the committee was Barry Berke, who had just given that opening presentation as well.
So he's got Daniel Goldman, and he's got Steve Castor there that he can talk to. I think there was an expectation just based on how these hearings have been going, it seems the Democrats talk to the Democratic witnesses, the Republicans talk to the Republican witnesses. But Berke actually focused his time initially on Steve Castor, on the Republican lawyer. What was going on there?
Caldwell: He was. He was really trying to poke holes in what the Republican argument was. And Berke had just given his presentation, turn around, went from the witness table to the dais to sit next to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler. And he was peppering Castor with questions on a whole range of things.
Not only questioning Castor on the President's obsession with Joe Biden, trying to prove the point that Biden was on the President's mind 'cause he was potentially going to be his challenger in the 2020 race. But then there was also another point, too, that Berke was trying to make. He asked Castor if someone who is part of a crime actually comes out and says their intent of committing a crime.
Berke: Is it your experience that when someone has done something wrongful or corrupt and they're dealing with somebody who's not in the scheme that they state their intentions to do something wrongful and corrupt? Is that your experience as an investigator?
Castor: Well, I mean, are you talking about the call transcript?
Berke: I'm just asking you in general.
Castor: Just general?
Berke: In general.
Castor: You're saying that a schemer--
Berke: Yes.
Castor: --would talk about his scheme?
Berke: Would he generally admit that he was doing something wrongful and corrupt to someone not in the scheme?
Castor: No.
Caldwell: And so what he was trying to do there is to cut through the Republican argument really when the Republicans say that, "The President did nothing wrong. Take the President at his word when he said there was no quid pro quo. Take the President at his word when he says the phone call was perfect, that he wasn't trying to pressure Ukraine." And Berke was trying to get at Castor to prove that you can't take the criminal at his word really.
Kornacki: It also seemed that at the beginning of that questioning of Barry Berke, the Democratic counsel, questioning Steve Castor, seemed to expose some of the tension on this committee. You had a number of Republicans objecting vociferously and sort of extending the time on this by a few minutes, basically saying, "Hey, we don't think it's right that Berke can go from being a witness to then sitting up here on the dais with everybody else and asking questions of the witnesses." It seemed that that exposed some real tension between the two parties on this committee.
Caldwell: It did. And it just gets at the heart of the Republican argument throughout this entire thing, is that the process is unfair, that it's a sham process. And they used this an example to try to prove their point, saying, "You guys are making up the rules as you go to benefit yourselves."
Nadler: Gentleman will state his point of order.
Louie Gohmert: We've been told that counsel for the Democrats was a witness and that's why he didn't have to comport with the rules of decorum. And now, he's sitting up here--
Nadler: Gentleman will state a point of order--
Gohmert: I've been a judge, and I know that you don't get to be a witness and a judge in the same case. That's my point of order. He should not be up here.
Nadler: It's not a point of order.
Caldwell: And so this was a moment where they saw a lot of talking out of both sides of Democrats' mouths really.
Kornacki: So when the Republican side then got a shot to question, to interrogate these witnesses, it was Doug Collins, the ranking Republican member from Georgia. He took the lead initially, and he decided to go after one of the Democrats' counsels, Daniel Goldman. This was a very extended exchange here. It had to do with information that was subpoenaed and then included in that Intelligence Committee report that came to the Judiciary Committee. Take us through what Collins was getting at there and what Goldman was and wasn't saying.
Caldwell: Collins was talking about this new evidence that came up in this Intelligence Committee report: the phone records of Rudy Giuliani. It turns out that the Democrats subpoenaed the phone companies, the phone records of Rudy Giuliani and others. And it turns out that caught up in these subpoenas were the phone calls by a member of Congress, Devin Nunes, who is the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee. He was communicating with Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate, who is also part of this investigation.
Collins:After not saying anything else about this, not publicly known, so two questions are hanging out that everybody's looking for an answer for, including me. Who ordered it? Was it you? Or was it Chairman Schiff? And then why was it decided except for nothing but smear purposes to be included in the Schiff report?
Goldman: Well, I'm not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you. And I will tell you the reason it was included in the report is because the calls were surrounding important evidence to our investigation. And I think that your question is frankly better directed not at me but at the people who were having conversations--
Collins: Oh no, no, no, no. We're not gonna play that game.
Goldman: --people involved in the President's scheme--
Collins: No, we're not gonna play that game. You're as good as Mr. Berke. You're not gonna play that game. You're not answering the question.
Caldwell: And so it was a really hot moment between the two of them about really the crux of this investigation and how the Democrats conducted this investigation. And the Republicans were not happy that one of their own, their colleague's phone records, became an issue in this investigation.
Kornacki: It was also a refrain we heard from Republicans throughout the day on the committee, including--
Collins: Where is Adam?
Kornacki: --at one point Doug Collins.
Collins: Where's Adam? It's his report, his name. Mr. Goldman, you're a great attorney, but you're not Adam Schiff and you don't wear a pin.
Goldman: That's true.
Kornacki: The idea there that Adam Schiff should be called to testify. Republicans on this committee today made it clear they wanted to hear from Schiff. We had another listener, Gerald from Sacramento, California, who was asking essentially this same question, a question about Republicans on this committee and their ability to call witnesses. Who did they want to call? And why was the decision made for these witnesses not to be called?
Caldwell: A few people that they really wanted to hear from. The Republicans wanted to hear from the whistleblower. They want to hear from Hunter Biden. They want to hear from Joe Biden and of course Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff has been the boogie man for Republicans as well throughout this process.
One of the posters on a pedestal behind the Republican side of the dais had a picture of a milk carton with a "missing" sign on it and a picture of Adam Schiff. And any time they could, the Republicans would bring up the fact that Adam Schiff should be testifying in this committee.
They're saying "If he's the one who brought this investigation, if he conducted the investigation through these depositions, then he should be the one to sit before the committee and to present the evidence, not his general counsel, Dan Goldman." So that is a common theme that Republicans continue to focus on throughout this.
Kornacki: So when it comes to Republicans trying to hear from whether it's Schiff or any of these other witnesses they'd like to call, is there any chance they will still get that opportunity, whether it's in front of the Judiciary Committee or if it goes to a Senate trial?
Caldwell: Well, it looks like the Judiciary Committee is probably gonna be done with their hearings. But then it's very likely, assuming that impeachment passes the House of Representatives, it will go to the Senate, where they will have a trial. We could see efforts to call Hunter Biden, or Adam Schiff, or Joe Biden, or even the whistleblower before the Senate, but we don't know yet is the real answer, Steve.
Kornacki: Leigh Ann, we're gonna take a quick break. But hang in there with us for just a second, and we'll be right back.
Kornacki: So then we had the sort of lawyer-versus-lawyer phase of the day. Then it got to the open round. And that is when this giant committee, I think it's 41 members, every member of the committee gets five minutes to talk to whoever they want about essentially whatever they want. One of the themes from the Republican side, I think, that jumped out early in the open segment of the day was trying to draw attention to the Bidens, to Joe and Hunter Biden and to Burisma. What was the strategy behind that?
Caldwell: The Bidens have been what the Republicans have been wanting to talk about throughout this whole thing. And this really came into focus very clearly during the hearing today.
Steve Chabot: --in fact, the concerns about Hunter Biden were first raised by the Obama administration. Is that right?
Castor: That's right. And also Washington Post, a lot of publications, and the State Department.
Caldwell: And any time they're able to switch the focus away from the President and this investigation into him and turn it onto the Bidens, Republicans think that that is good for them. And while there has not been any proof of any wrongdoing by Vice President Joe Biden, because he fired this prosecutor because they were not looking into corruption enough, it is a reminder to voters out there that Biden has flaws.
Biden is still of course the leading Democratic candidate in the presidential election. And it starts to sow some sort of disbelief or discontent among voters about Joe Biden. And so that is also a very effective political tactic on the hands of Republicans.
Kornacki: And I mentioned this earlier, but it felt watching this today that you really saw maybe more than we did last week, maybe more than we did even in some of those Intelligence Committee hearings, really saw frustrations between the two parties kind of coming into view. One moment that stuck out for me was at one point I think there'd been an agreed-upon break that was gonna be thrown in.
Archival Recording: Mr. Chairman, I move to recess for 30 minutes pursuant to clause 1-A of rule 11.
Nadler: That is a privileged motion. It was not debatable. All in favor say "aye."
Multiple Voices: Aye.
Nadler: No, no?
Multiple Voices: No.
Nadler: The nos have it. The motion is not agreed to.
Archival Recording: I ask for roll call vote, please.
Nadler: Roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk: Mr. Nadler?
Nadler: No.
Clerk: Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren?
Kornacki: And the Democrats, it turned out, wanted it five minutes later than the Republicans did. And essentially the committee had to vote on whether to take a break. And it was a straight 24-Democrats-no, 17-Republicans-yes vote. I mean, they had a complete, total partisan gridlock divide.
It seemed watching it there were a lot of frustrations there. I'm just curious. You're much closer to this than I am. What is it like? Is there a lot of palpable tension between the Democratic and Republican members there? Does it stop as soon as the gavel is dropped? Or how deep is it?
Caldwell: It's a really good question. I think that it is very deep. There's moments like that where Republicans and Democrats challenge each other at every step of the way and also because it's strategic. Both sides know that the timing of the breaks are very strategic. So while it might seem very inconsequential, they know that if there's a break right after the Democrats have a really incredible, really powerful moment, then cable news will go and talk about that very powerful moment.
And then there's also moments of congeniality where I was sitting right behind the witness table and Democrat Goldman and the Republican, Castor, had just finished their presentations. The committee was taking a break. The two counsels stood up to exit the committee room.
Castor turned to Goldman, patted him on the back, and said, "Good job." And so there are moments of levity like that where while things have broken down at a very partisan level on Capitol Hill, there are those moments of kind of humanism that exist as well. But don't get me wrong. This is very partisan. And this entire impeachment inquiry is very divided, Steve.
Kornacki: Leigh Ann Caldwell, NBC News correspondent covering Congress. Thanks so much for joining us.
Caldwell: Thank you, Steve.
Kornacki: While today's hearing was underway, the Justice Department finally released a long-awaited report from its Inspector General. The DOJ's watchdog, Michael Horowitz, found that the opening of the FBI and DOJ investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election was justified and that there was no political bias behind it. The report did find that there was significant mishandling and dysfunction on the part of the FBI though.
Looking ahead in the impeachment inquiry, Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler says he expects his committee to vote on articles by Friday. NBC News is reporting that Democrats are focusing on two main charges: abuse of power and contempt of Congress. We'll know more as the week unfolds.
Article II: Inside Impeachment is produced by Isabel Angel, Max Jacobs, Claire Tighe, Aaron Dalton, Preeti Varathan, Allison Bailey, Adam Noboa, and Barbara Raab. Our executive producer is Ellen Frankman. Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of audio. I'm Steve Kornacki. We'll be back on Wednesday.