REAL-TIME CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY U.S. CAPTIONING
COMPANY
COMPANY >> THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MOVES TOWARD A HISTORIC
IMPEACHMENT VOTE ON PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
TRUMP. IS THE OUTCOME OBVIOUS OR DO
SURPRISES AWAIT?
SURPRISES AWAIT? AND A MOMENT OF AGREEMENT
REPLACING NAFTA WITH THE USMCA.
WE HAVE A ROUND TABLE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO TALK ABOUT IT
ALL.
ALL. TODAY IS SUNDAY, DECEMBER 15TH,
2019.
2019. AND THIS IS FLASH POINT.
>> DEVIN: HI, WELCOME TO FLASH
POINT.
POINT. IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY TO
DESCRIBE AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE
THAN AS A FLASH POINT.
THEY’LL VOTE ON THE ARTICLES
APPROVED BY THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. ODDLY ENOUGH THERE SEEMS TO BE
LITTLE SUSPENSE AHEAD OF US
UNLESS SOMETHING TRULY BIZARRE
SO CURSE.
SO CURSE. WE WASHED PASSIONATE, AT TIMES
ANGRY DEBATE, BUT NO MIND OPEN
TO CHANGE.
TO CHANGE. WE DID GET ONE CHANGE AS NEW
JERSEY DEMOCRAT JEFF VAN DREW
TOLD OF HIS AIDES OF PLANS TO
SWITCH TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
AS HE STANDS AGAINST
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE MAJORITY
IN THE WHO US WILL IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT AND THE MAJORITY IN
THE SENATE, IN A TRIAL THAT
COULD BE SHORT AND SWEET OR
LENGTHILY AND VIGOROUS WOULD
KEEP THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE.
THAT ISN’T TO SAY THERE AREN’T
SUBPLOTS.
SUBPLOTS. AND I’M HAPPY TO HAVE THE
DEMOCRATS DEBBY DINGELL, BRENDA
LAWRENCE AND PAUL MITCHELL, IN A
BREAKDOWN OF THE VOICES IN
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN IN
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. AND IMPEACHMENT WITH FOUR WHO
WILL CAST VOTES ON THE FATE OF
DONALD J. TRUMP TODAY ON FLASH
POINT.
POINT. ♪
♪ >> THERE ARE THEORETICALLY
DEPENDING ON ABSENCES, 435 VOTES
IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD
TRUMP, AND FOUR ARE AT THE
TABLE.
TABLE. ANDY LEVIN, DEMOCRAT FROM
MICHIGAN’S 14TH DISTRICT.
BRENDA LAWRENCE.
BRENDA LAWRENCE. FROM THE 12TH DISTRICT DEBBIE
DINGELL AND HOLDING DOWN THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE FROM THE 10TH
DISTRICT PAUL MITCHELL.
I HAVE HE ALREADY SEEN ON
TWITTER, THREE AGAINST ONE.
>> I’M OKAY IN THE WEIGHT CLASS.
THAT’S OKAY.
THAT’S OKAY. >> AGAIN, IT IS REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE WAY THAT THE BREAKDOWN
WORKS IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN.
CONGRESSWOMAN, I’D LIKE TO START
WITH YOU.
WITH YOU. >> OF COURSE.
>> DEVIN: LAST NIGHT WE HAD THE
PRESIDENT AFTER YOUR APPEARANCE
ON CABLE NEWS TWEETING OUT THE
LAST TIME I TALKED TO DEBBIE
DINGELL WAS AFTER SHE THANKED ME
FOR EVENT ON JOHN DINGELL AND
NOW I SEE HER RIPPING ME EXECS
EXCLAMATION POINT.
EXCLAMATION POINT. >> I WAS SPEECHLESS, AND TODAY I
WASN’T RIPPING HIM, I WAS BEING
THOUGHTFUL IN A SAD TIME IN OUR
NATION’S HISTORY.
NATION’S HISTORY. A DIFFICULT VOTE FOR ALL OF US.
IT’S NOT A CELEBRATING TIME,
I’LL WORK WITH HIM WITH ANY
DISTRICT IN OUR STATE.
AND PEOPLE SAID DEMOCRATS
WEREN’T GOING TO TRY TO FIND
NAFTA 2.0, WAITING TO READ THE
WRITTEN REPORT.
WRITTEN REPORT. WE DID.
WE DID. I’LL WORK WITH YOU ON ISSUES,
BUT MY JOB IS TO PROTECT OUR
CONSTITUTION, OUR DEMOCRACY AND
IT’S A DIFFICULT TIME, BUT WHEN
I CAST A VOTE NEXT WEEK, THAT’S
WHAT I TOOK MY OATH OF OFFICE TO
DO.
DO. >> DEVIN: HAVE YOU DECIDED WHAT
THAT VOTE WILL BE.
>> I’M GOING TO DO ONE MORE
READING TONIGHT.
READING TONIGHT. IMMIGRATELY DISTURBED BY WHAT
I’VE SEEN, BUT I DON’T DO THIS
LIGHTLY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR
FORM SO I’M GOING TO READ THAT
INTELLIGENCE REPORT AND READ THE
JUDICIARY REPORTS ONE MORE TIME
THAT I’VE CROSSED EVERY T.
>> DEVIN: STAYING WITH THE FLOW
OF THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, YOU
CAUSED A STIR ABOUT A WEEK AND A
HALF AGO BY SUGGESTING IT MIGHT
BE BETTER TO CENSURE THE
PRESIDENT RATHER THAN IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT. WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING NOW TO DO
WITH YOUR VOTE?
>> I HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT.
I WANTED TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE I FEEL THE
BEHAVIOR IS WARRANTED.
WHAT I SAID IS THAT IT WOULD BE
A DERELICTION OF DUTY FOR THE
REPUBLICANS JUST TO ABSOLVE THE
PRESIDENT OF ALL THE ACTIONS.
I SIT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AS
WELL AP I’VE BEEN LOOKING INTO
ACTION AFTER ACTION, THE
EMOLUMENTS, THE ISSUING OF TOP
CLEARANCE SECURITY TO HIS
FAMILY, PEOPLE LIKE GUILIANI
BEING INTERVENED INTO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES
WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SO YOU ADD ON
TOP OF THIS THE EGREGIOUS--
>> AS REPUBLICANS POINTED OUT.
NOTHING THAT YOU MENTIONED THUS
FAR ARE PART OF THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. >> HOWEVER, FROM ME I’VE BEEN
LOOKING AT THESE THINGS FROM DAY
ONE.
ONE. FOR ME, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE
ISSUE THE REQUEST FOR ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT, I SIGNED ON.
WHAT I FEEL SO SAD ABOUT AND
WHAT IS REALLY BOTHERING ME IS
THIS DELIBERATE ATTEMPT FROM THE
SENATE TO JUST ABSOLVE AND TURN
THEIR HEAD AND NOT SEE ANYTHING.
WE CANNOT LET HISTORY REFLECT
THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY
ANY PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT,
REPUBLICAN, IS ACCEPTABLE AND I
SAID AT MINIMUM, WOULD THEY
CONSIDER A CENSURESHIP BECAUSE
NOW THEY’RE GOING TO VOTE AND
SAY NOTHING IS WRONG.
>> DEVIN: I HAPPEN TO HAV A
REPUBLICAN HANDY.
REPUBLICAN HANDY. IF CENSURING THE PRESIDENT WAS
THE PRESIDENT THIS IS GOING, IS
THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
SUPPORT.
SUPPORT. >> LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK,
DEVIN, I THINK I HAVE TO.
DEMOCRATS MANY OF THEM, NOT ALL
OF THEM, HAVE BEEN ON A PATH
SAYING WE NEED TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT AND WE’LL FIND A
GREEN.
GREEN. AND IN FACT, YOU SUPPORTED
IMPEACHMENT SINCE 2018, WE’LL
FIND A REASON.
WE’LL FIND A REASON, WE’LL
CONVICT HIM LATER.
THE REALITY IS, IMPEACHMENT IS,
IN MY OPINION, A SAFETY VALVE
WHEN SOMEONE DOES STUFF, IN THIS
CASE, A PRESIDENT, THAT IS SO
IMMORAL, AND ILLEGAL AS TO
THREATEN THE BASIS OF OUR
REPUBLIC.
REPUBLIC. NOT BECAUSE THEY DON’T LIKE
THEIR RHETORIC, THEIR POLITICS,
THEIR POLICY.
THEIR POLICY. THAT’S NOT WHAT IT’S FOR.
AND IF IT WAS WE WOULD HAVE
IMPEACHED A NUMBER OF OTHER
PRESIDENTS BEFORE.
PRESIDENTS BEFORE. I’LL OFFER LBJ, NOT THE BEST
HUMAN BEING AND A LIST OF
PEOPLE.
PEOPLE. I DON’T WANT TO DO
EQUIVALENCESY, BUT RECOGNIZE
THAT IMPEACHMENT IS A SERIOUS
ACT THAT WARRANTS A DECISION, IS
THAT A THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC
AND WHY?
AND WHY? BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS SHORTLY AFTER
HE WAS INAUGURATED JUST BECAUSE
THEY DON’T LIKE THE GUY.
IF WE WEAPONIZE THIS IT WILL BE
OUT OF CONTROL.
>> DEVIN: IN HIS DEALINGS WITH
THE UKRAINE, IF THIS WAS AN
OPTION TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT
THE WAY HE BEHAVED, MILITARY AID
BEING WITHHELD WOULD YOU BE IN
FAVOR.
FAVOR. >> THERE’S ONE LINE THAT REFERS
TO BIDEN AND BURISMA, NOT
BURISMA--
BURISMA-- >> PEOPLE WANT TO CALL IT A
TRANSCRIPT.
TRANSCRIPT. BUT IT’S A SUMMARY.
>> THEY CALL IT A TRANSCRIP,
DERIVED FROM A SERIES OF
PEOPLE’S NOTES FROM A SERIES OF
PHONE CALLS.
PHONE CALLS. ONE LINE.
ONE LINE. I DON’T THINK THAT ANY REFERENCE
SHOULD BE MADE WHATSOEVER.
I’LL GO BACK WE’RE GOING TO
IMPEACH PEOPLE BECAUSE OF ONE
LINE IN A CONVERSATION?
>> TO THAT POINT, CONGRESSMAN
LEVIN, IN THE FIRST 200 YEARS OF
OUR NATION, WE HAD ONE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AND
WE’VE NOW HAD THREE IN THE LAST
45 YEARS TO ADDRESS THE
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN CONGRESSMAN’S POINT IF THIS IS A
POLITICAL WEAPON, A CUDGEL.
>> I’M WILLING TO ADOPT
CONGRESSMAN MITCHELL’S IDEAS
WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND
WELL-STATED AND I THINK THAT
DONALD TRUMP HAS CROSSED THAT
INLIAO.
INLIAO. I CAN’T THINK ABOUT WEAPONIZING
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. I TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE TO
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND
DONALD TRUMP HAS CLEARLY CROSSED
THE LINE, VIOLATING HIS OATH OF
OFFICE.
OFFICE. HE HAS PUT PRESSURE ON, EXTORTED
EVEN A VULNERABLE ALLY TO
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL
HOLDING UP $391 MILLION OF AID
PASSED COMPLETELY ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS BY THE
CONGRESS, WITHHOLDING A MEETING.
I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO THINK
ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.
WE -- I HAPPEN TO REPRESENT THE
CENTER OF THE UKRAINIAN
COMMUNITY IN WARREN AND STERLING
HEIGHTS, SO FORTH.
THINK OF THIS FROM THEIR
PERSPECTIVE.
PERSPECTIVE. THEIR HOMELAND MATTERS A LOT TO
THEM.
THEM. I TALKED TO THEM ABOUT UKRAINE.
IMAGINE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE IF WE
ARE SIDING WITH RUSSIA.
THAT’S NOTHING TO DO WITH AN
INTEREST DIGSAL--
INTEREST DIGSAL-- >> YOU’VE HEARD TIME AND AGAIN,
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAYS
THERE’S NO QUID PRO QUO, WHY
SHOULDN’T WE TAKE HIS WORD.
>> HE’S A VULNERABLE VICTIM OF
THE EXTORTION.
THE EXTORTION. EVEN THE PRESIDENT’S OWN MILLION
DOLLAR DONOR AMBASSADOR SAYS
THERE’S A QUID PRO QUO AND--
>> LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> AND UNTIL HE WALKED IT BACK.
>> LET’S TALK ABOUT QUID PRO
QUO.
QUO. WE STARTED WITH QUID PRO QUO AND
THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE 0 DID
FOCUS GROUPS ON THAT AND THEN
WENT TO BRIBERY TO SEE IF IT
WOULD SELL TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND DIDN’T WORK SO WELL
AND NOW ABUSE OF OFFICE.
FIGURE OUT FIRST WHAT TERM I’D
LIKE TO USE AND THE SONDLAND’S
COMMENTS ON QUIT PRO QUO CAME IN
REVISED TESTIMONY HE SOMEHOW
REMEMBERED.
REMEMBERED. HE SAID IN ORIGINAL TESTIMONY
132 TIMES HE COULDN’T REMEMBER.
>> AND PAUL--
>> LET ME FINISH, I LET YOU
FINISH.
FINISH. >> GO AHEAD.
>> AND SECOND OF WAY, THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE’S AIDE SAID
THAT THE CONVERSATION SONDLAND
SAID ABOUT HOLDING BACK AID
NEVER HAPPENED.
NEVER HAPPENED. AND THEY WERE IN A GROUP AND HOW
COULD IT HAPPEN.
IT WOULD BE EXTORTED YOU HAVE TO
KNOW THAT SOMEONE IS PUTTING THE
PRESSURE ON YOU.
WHERE DID THIS HAPPEN?
OTHER THAN PRESUMING, AND YOU
CAN’T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON
PRESUMPTION.
PRESUMPTION. >> THERE’S NO PRESUMPTIONS, I
WAS IN THE ROOM IN THE
DEPOSITION WHEN AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND COULDN’T REMEMBER
ANYTHING.
ANYTHING. HIS TESTIMONY WAS SO UNTENABLE,
IT WAS SO NOT CREDIBLE.
>> AND NOW YOU’RE GOING TO--
>> THAT WE WEREN’T SURPRISED AT
ALL WHEN HE SUBMITTED LATER A
WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT WAS MORE
SUBSTANTIVE AND HONEST.
>> BECAUSE HE WAS CALLED ON IT.
>> AND THEN HE TESTIFIED IN
PUBLIC.
PUBLIC. BUT THE PRESIDENT ON THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWN, THIS ISN’T ABOUT ONE
PHONE CALL, THIS IS ABOUT A
MONTHS’ LONG CAMPAIGN, DEVIN,
WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES USED THE OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT CHANNELS AND HIS
PRIVATE LAWYER MESSING IN OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS.
IT’S COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS.
HISTORY, THERE’S NO QUESTION
THAT HISTORY WILL RECORD THAT
THE PRESIDENT CROSSED THE LINE.
>> WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT THE
PEOPLE THAT COULD BE IN THE ROOM
AND COULD SIT AT THE TABLE, TO
TAKE THIS BEYOND HEARING AND
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING, HAVE
BEEN FORBIDDEN BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE HAS OBSTRUCTED THE PROCESS SO
THAT THOSE PEOPLE CANNOT
TESTIFY.
TESTIFY. >> LET’S TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS OR
JUSTICE REQUIRES A COUPLE OF
THINGS.
THINGS. FIRST, YOU HAVE TO SUBPOENA
THEM.
THEM. NO ONE SUBPOENAED BOLTON, NO ONE
SUBPOENAED GUILIANI.
SUBPOENAED GUILIANI. IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE RESPONSE
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EVERY
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IN MODERN
ERA.
ERA. >> EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT MASS
COMPLIED.
COMPLIED. >> I GET TO FINISH.
AND THEN YOU GET TO PURSUE THAT,
IT WORKED UNDER NIXON, WHERE IN
FACT THEY OVERTURNED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, IT CAN BE DONE.
IT DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE
THAT IN FACT YOU FOLKS WANT THAT
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IMPEACHMENT
BY CHRISTMAS, HO, HO, HO.
>> DEVIN: I’VE GOT TO GET TO A
BREAK AND THERE’S MERCHANTILE
BUSINESS TO BE DONE AND WE’LL
CONTINUE WITH THIS IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION LIVE ON LOCAL 4,