WE JUST HEARD FROM A DEMOCRAT WHO’S BEEN PRESENT AT THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES CLOSE DOOR
DEPOSITION.
DEPOSITION. NOW, LET’S GO TO THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE FOR REPUBLICAN
POINT OF VIEW ON THIS.
KELLY ARMSTRONG, MEMBER OF BOTH
THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. CONGRESSMAN ARMSTRONG, THANKS
FOR COMING ON.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> WELL, LET ME START WITH THE
SAME QUESTION I STARTED WITH MR.
MEEKS.
MEEKS. MR. MORRISON, WHAT KIND OF
WITNESS WAS HE AS FAR AS YOU
WERE CONCERNED?
WERE CONCERNED? >> I THINK MR. MORRISON WAS A
VERY GOOD WITNESS.
I THINK IT JUST GOES TO PROVE
OUR POINT THAT WE WANT ALL OF
THESE TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED.
WE WANT AS MUCH INFORMATION OUT
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CAN DECIDE WHAT’S GOING ON DOWN
IN THE BUNKER.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE FOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO IN SOME WAYS, YOU’RE GLAD
THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BECOME
A MORE PUBLIC THING.
WHY IS THAT?
>> AS SOMEBODY WHO SITS ON BOTH
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND HAS
DEALT WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT
FARCE SINCE THE FIRST DAY I GOT
INTO CONGRESS AND HAS SAT
THROUGH ALMOST ALL OF THE
OVERSIGHT DEPOTS, I HAVEN’T
HEARD A SINGLE THING DOWN
THERE -- PRACTICED CRIMINAL LAW
FOR ALMOST MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.
THERE ARE PROCEDURES AND THINGS
THAT GO IN PLACE AND AS WE GET
HERE, JUST PUBLIC HEARINGS ISN’T
ENOUGH.
ENOUGH. I’M NOT SURE YOU CAN UNDO THE
DAMAGE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
DONE.
DONE. I MEAN, THIS IS ABOUT
CREDIBILITY, AND DUE PROCESS.
BUT YES, I WANT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
I WANT THEM AS QUICKLY AND AS
FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
NEW LAW’S GOING TO ALLOW FOR IF
THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CALL
WITNESSES, HE CAN.
WHAT WITNESSES DO YOU THINK HE
SHOULD CALL?
SHOULD CALL? OR WHAT WITNESSES WOULD YOU LIKE
TO SEE CALLED THAT HAVEN’T BEEN?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MR.
MORRISON’S TESTIMONY AS PUBLIC
AS POSSIBLE BUT THOSE ARE
DECISIONS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO
TAKE.
TAKE. I ALWAYS AIR ON THE SIDE OF
TRANSPARENCY.
TRANSPARENCY. I MEAN, THE ONE DIFFERENCE, WE
CONTINUE TO EQUATE THESE THINGS
TO CRIMINAL CASES BUT YOU HAVE
TO REMEMBER AT THE END OF ANY
KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,
ONE, NOTHING LEAKS DURING THE
MIDDLE OF IT FOR AS MANY
CRITICISMS I HAVE OF THE MUELLER
REPORT, THERE WEREN’T LEAKS
GOING OUT EVERY 30 SECONDS TO
DRIVE A NARRATIVE.
BUT THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU LEAK
SPECIFIC THINGS IS FACTS ARE
STUBBORN THINGS AND AS THE WHOLE
PICTURE COMES INTO PLAY,
PARTICULARLY WITH THE GAME OF
TELEPHONE EVIDENCE, YOU’RE
STARTING -- SO I -- I -- I MEAN,
I’M JUST GOING TO ERR ON THE
SIDE OF MY CONSTITUENTS AND
ANYBODY IN THE COUNTRY SEEING
ALL OF IT.
>> WE’VE SEEN THESE OPENING
STATEMENTS AND I’LL BE HONEST
WITH YOU.
WITH YOU. I’VE BEEN TRYING TO BE CAREFUL
OF JUST GOING BY FACTS WE’VE
LEARNED FROM OPENING STATEMENTS
AND I’VE TRIED TO IGNORE THE
SOURCES SAY THIS WAS ALSO SAID
INSIDE.
INSIDE. BUT JUST BASED ON THE OPENING
STATEMENTS SINCE THAT IS
SOMETHING MOST OF US HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO READ, IT IS MORE
TRANSPARENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE
ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
HAVE YOU BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT
THE NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE
IT’S CLEAR THE PROCESS WASN’T
FOLLOWED HERE WHEN IT CAME TO
AID WITH UKRAINE?
>> WELL, AM I CONCERNED ABOUT
IT?
IT? FIRST OF ALL BS I WANT TO START
WITH OPENING STATEMENTS AREN’T
EVEN TESTIMONY.
EVEN TESTIMONY. THEY’RE NOT PART OF THE CROSS
EXAMINATION.
EXAMINATION. THEY’RE NOT PART OF THAT
PROCESS.
PROCESS. SO I -- I GET -- TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS TO BEGIN WITH.
PARTICULAR
PARTICULAR PARTICULARLY, WHEN THEY’RE
RELEASED WITHOUT ANY CROSS
EXAMINATION.
EXAMINATION. ALSO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT MOST OF
THESE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE --
I MEAN, IT’S NOT EVEN HEARSAY
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE -- SOME
KIND OF OFFICIAL COURT
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. BUT IT’S THE GAME OF TELEPHONE.
IT’S THIRD HAND, FOURTH HAND,
FIFTH HAND INFORMATION AND
WITHOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO
READ THOSE WHOLE TRANSCRIPTS,
IT’S REALLY HARD TO TALK ABOUT
THAT.
THAT. I THINK THOSE OPENING STATEMENTS
DO NOT PAINT AN ACCURATE PICTURE
OF WHAT IS BEING SAID.
>> WELL, OKAY.
BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE STANDING
BY IT.
BY IT. THEY’RE SAYING IT UNDER OATH.
I MEAN, I DO VIEW -- I MEAN,
SHOULD WE NOT TAKE WHAT’S SAID
IN THOSE OPENING STATEMENTS,
WHETHER IT’S AMBASSADOR TAYLOR,
WHETHER IT’S FIONA HILL, THAT WE
SHOULDN’T TAKE THAT AS THEIR
TESTIMONY?
TESTIMONY? >> I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT
AS THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS OF
THEIR TESTIMONY.
THEIR TESTIMONY. AND WHEN YOU HAVE THE WHOLE
TRANSCRIPT -- BUT I’LL START
WITH THIS.
WITH THIS. I THINK THIS IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I’VE
NOTICED IN D.C. SINCE THE FIRST
DAY I GOT HERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
CAREER ESTABLISHMENT
CAREER ESTABLISHMENT BUREAUCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT
BUREAUCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT DOESN’T LIKE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
IS HE DOESN’T DO THINGS IN THE
SAME WAY THAT THEY’RE USED TO.
AND I THINK ACTUALLY THAT’S WHY
THE GUY GOT ELECTED AND THAT’S
WHY I WAS PROUD TO SUPPORT HIM.
SO SAYING THAT SOMETHING WASN’T
DONE PROPERLY OR THROUGH PROPER
CHANNELS DOES NOT MAKE IT
ILLEGAL, DOES NOT MAKE IT
IMPROPER, AND DOES NOT MAKE IT
IMPEACHABLE BY ANY STRETCH OF
THE IMAGINATION.
THE IMAGINATION. >> WELL, OF COURSE, THERE ISN’T
A LEGAL STANDARD TO IMPEACHMENT.
AS YOU KNOW, IT DOESN’T MATTER
SOMETHING LEGAL OR NOT.
AS WE KNOW, IMPEACHMENT IS A
POLITICAL -- IT’S A POLITICAL
DEFINITION.
DEFINITION. RIGHT?
RIGHT? WE KNOW -- I MEAN, WHAT’S
IMPEACHABLE?
IMPEACHABLE? IT’S LIKE A HAM SANDWICH.
WHAT CAN YOU INDICT?
YOU CAN INDICT A HAM SANDWICH.
DOESN’T MEAN YOU CONVICT A HAM
SANDWICH.
SANDWICH. >> AS SOMEBODY WHO’S SERVED ON
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, I CAN
TELL YOU WITH FULL SUPPORT THAT
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS A
PURELY POLITICAL EXERCISE.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU’VE
HEARD THAT’S BEEN DISTURBING TO
YOU?
YOU? IS THERE -- I’M CURIOUS.
THIS -- BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I’VE
TALKED TO PLENTY OF REPUBLICANS
WHO ARE IN THIS SORT OF MIDDLE
GROUND.
GROUND. THEY DON’T BELIEVE IT’S
IMPEACHABLE.
IMPEACHABLE. BUT THEY DO THINK THE PRESIDENT
DID SOMETHING HERE THAT HE
SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE.
BUT THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO
SORT OF WRAP HIS WRISTS BECAUSE
IT’S EITHER ALL OR NOTHING.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE ANSWER TO ALL OF
THAT IS WHENEVER YOU PUT
YOURSELF IN THE SITUATION OF
SOMEBODY ELSE, PARTICULARLY
SOMEBODY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
PERSONALITY AND THOSE SUCH
THINGS, WOULD YOU HAVE DONE SOME
THINGS MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT?
SURE.
SURE. BUT THAT DOESN’T RISE TO THE
POINT OF IMPEACHMENT.
PARTICULARLY, WHEN YOU’RE
DEALING WITH THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY THAT STARTED THESE THE
SECOND DAY I GOT HERE AND JUST
MOVES FROM ONE ISSUE TO THE
OTHER.
OTHER. I HAVE SEEN NOTHING REMOTELY
CLOSE TO SOMETHING THAT RISES TO
THE CONDUCT OF IMPEACHABLE.
AND IF IMPEACHMENT WAS ACTUALLY,
YOU KNOW, HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, AS SOMEBODY WHO’S
DONE IN IN THE COURT OF LAW MY
ENTIRE LIFE, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
DEFEND THE PRESIDENT IN ANY REAL
COURTROOM.
COURTROOM. >> ALL RIGHT.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS
PROVE A POINT TO ME.
ARE THE WASHINGTON NATIONALS THE
ONLY THING THAT UNITED CONGRESS
THESE DAYS?