Chris Wallace challenges Dem on not holding official impeachment vote


>>Chris: KEVIN CORKE REPORTING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. KEVIN, THANK YOU. JOINING US NOW FROM FLORIDA, CONGRESSWOMAN VAL DEMINGS, A DEMOCRAT ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND THE FORMER ORLANDO POLICE CHIEF, CONGRESSWOMAN, WELCOME TO “FOX NEWS SUNDAY.”>>Representative Demings: GOOD MORNING, CHRIS, IT’S GREAT TO BE HERE.>>Chris: BASED ON THE WITNESS IS THAT THE COMMITTEE HEARD FROM THIS WEEK, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED, DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE WILL NOW VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM?>>Representative Demings: WELCOME CHRIS, LET ME BEGIN HERE, AS YOU’VE ALREADY INDICATED, I SERVED A LOT OF YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. I HAD THE HONOR OF SERVING IN EVERY RANK AT MY DEPARTMENT. I EVEN WAS APPOINTED TO CHIEF OF POLICE. I TOOK THAT JOB VERY SERIOUSLY AS I TAKE THIS JOB. WHEN I MADE THE DECISION TO RUN FOR CONGRESS, I SAID THAT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, AS IT SHOULD BE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE FOUNDATION I BELIEVE THAT WE BUILD THE AMERICAN DREAM UPON. I BELIEVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE OVER THE PAST ABOUT TEN DAYS OR SO RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT’S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COERCE A FOREIGN COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATING A POLITICAL RIVAL AND USE MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY AID AS A CONDITION OF THE DEAL. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RATE OUT THE ADMINISTRATION, FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, IT CORROBORATES EVERYTHING, ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S REPORT, AND SO WE CANNOT IGNORE WHAT IS PAINFULLY — OR OBVIOUSLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF US AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT DANGEROUSLY ABUSED HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND HIS ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS, WHICH RISKS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.>>Chris: SO TO AGAIN ASK YOU A QUESTION DIRECTLY, DO YOU BELIEVE HE IS GUILTY OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THAT THE HOUSE WILL IMPEACH HIM?>>Representative Demings: I BELIEVE THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER AS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST TEN DAYS THAT HAVE BEEN SO DETAILED AND APPROPRIATELY LAID OUT BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, I THINK THE ELEMENTS ARE THERE. I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WE NEED ARE THERE AND I DO BELIEVE, BASED ON THAT, THAT WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.>>Chris: WHAT’S YOUR REACTION TO THE REPORT THIS MORNING THAT THERE IS NOW A SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER, A SECOND INTELLIGENCE AGENT. APPARENTLY HE HAS NOT FILED A COMPLAINT YET WITH YOUR COMMITTEE BUT HE — OR SHE, I SHOULD SAY — HAS SPOKEN TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY’S INSPECTOR GENERAL?>>Representative Demings: LET ME JUST SAY THIS, CHRIS, LET’S DEAL WITH THE FIRST WHISTLE-BLOWER. I BELIEVE THIS IS A CAREER SERVICE EMPLOYEE, A PUBLIC SERVANT. I CONSIDER HIM OR HER A PATRIOT, SOMEONE WHO IS AWARE OF WRONGDOING AND HAS STEPPED FORWARD AT RISK, I BELIEVE, TO THEMSELVES. OF COURSE I SUPPORT WHAT SENATOR GRASSLEY SAID NEXT DOOR MICHAEL LAST WEEK, THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE FROM THE PRESIDENT ABOUT MAYBE WE SHOULD HANDLE THIS PERSON LIKE WE USED TO IN THE OLD DAYS, AND THE REPORTING THAT A SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS COME FORWARD OR IS ABOUT TO COME FORWARD, I BELIEVE AGAIN WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO SEES WRONGDOING, HERE IS WRONGDOING, AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.>>Chris: IT NOW THE WHITE HOUSE, AS I POINTED AT THE BEGINNING, THAT YOUR COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE, HAS VOTED TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS IT WILL NOT RELEASE THOSE DOCUMENTS, WILL NOT TURN THEM OVER, UNLESS THE FULL HOUSE VOTES TO AUTHORIZE AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AS WAS DONE IN THE CASES OF BILL CLINTON AND RICHARD NIXON. WHY IS HOW SPEAKER PELOSI REFUSING TO HOLD A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ABOUT?>>Representative Demings: CHRIS, LET ME SAY THIS, I WOULD HOPE — THIS IS BEEN A PAINFUL TIME, THIS PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS AND ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE BOAT. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER HOUSE RULES THAT WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE BOAT AND THERE IS NO PRECEDENT THAT WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE VOTE THAT REALLY DRIVES WHAT WE DO. SPOON WHITE, CONGRESSWOMAN, YOU SAY THERE’S NO PRECEDENT. THERE’VE ONLY BEEN TWO TIMES IN THE HISTORY UNDER THE RULES THAT WE NOW HAVE, ANDREW JOHNSON BACK IN THE 1860s WAS DIFFERENT. IN BOTH THE BILL CLINTON CASE AND THE RICHARD NIXON CASE THERE WAS A CLEAR PRECEDENT, THE FULL HOUSE VOTED AND AUTHORIZED A FULL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, SO THERE IS A PRECEDENT.>>Representative Demings: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, AGAIN, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND NO REQUIREMENT UNDER HOUSE RULES THAT THAT IS THE PROCEDURE THAT WE FOLLOW. CHRIS, LET ME JUST SAY THIS. THIS PAST TEN DAYS HAS BEEN PAINFUL FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COMMITTEE. OBVIOUSLY IT’S BEEN QUITE PAINFUL FOR THE SENATE EVEN THOUGH TOO MANY SENATORS ARE QUIET ON THIS ISSUE, AND SO WE NEED TO CONDUCT A VERY METHODICAL, VERY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. WE NEED TO TALK TO ALL FACT WITNESSES, WE NEED TO IDENTIFY OR REVIEW ALL DOCUMENTS AS WE BEGIN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HISTORICAL DECISION. AND SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, I BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE PAINFULLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE WITNESSED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.>>Chris: WE ALSO LEARNED THIS WEEK THAT THE ORIGINAL, THE FIRST WHISTLE-BLOWER, ORIGINALLY REACHED OUT TO THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ALL THE WAY BACK IN AUGUST AND YET ON SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 17TH, YOUR CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF, WAS ASKED ABOUT ANY CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, HERE’S WHAT HE SAID.>>WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN DIRECTLY WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. WE WOULD LIKE TO.>>Chris: “THE WASHINGTON POST” GAVE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF FOUR PINOCCHIOS THERE, HIGHEST LEVEL OF FALSEHOOD FOR THAT COMMENT AND HERE’S HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP REACTED.>>I THINK IT’S A SCANDAL THAT HE KNEW BEFORE. I WOULD GO A STEP FURTHER, I THINK HE PROBABLY HELPED WRITE IT.>>Chris: FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR THE CHAIRMAN NOT BEING UP FRONT AND SAYING THERE WAS CONTACT, AND SECONDLY, DIDN’T CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IN EFFECT GET ADVANCE WORD — MAYBE IT WASN’T DETAILED, BUT SOME ADVANCE WORD ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT, WHICH LED HIM TO PUSH THE STORY EVEN BEFORE ALL OF YOU GOT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT’S PHONE CALL?>>Representative Demings: CHRIS, LET ME JUST SAY THIS. WITH THE PRESIDENT BEING ACCUSED OF USING HIS POWER AND ABUSING HIS OFFICE TO COERCE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO ASSIST IN AN ELECTION, IT’S KIND OF AMAZING THAT WE WOULD TRY TO MAKE THE NEWS OF THE DAY CENTERED AROUND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S WORDS AS IT PERTAINS TO CONTACT WITH WHISTLE-BLOWER. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AS, AS YOU KNOW, HAS SERVED SEVERAL TERMS IN CONGRESS. HE HAS BEEN A PERSON WHO HAS PROVIDED EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID HE COULD HAVE STATED — RESPONDED TO THAT QUESTION IN A MORE CLEAR WAY. WHEN HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE WAS THINKING OF HAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. IS THE COMMITTEE AWARE OF THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT? NO. AT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD NOT COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, NOR WAS THE COMMITTEE OR EVEN STAFF AWARE, NECESSARILY THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT. IT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT PROCEDURE AND PROCESS.>>Chris: I’M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, SO LET ME ASK YOU MY FINAL QUESTION. THERE IS ALSO CRITICISM OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF FOR THE WAY HE LAID OUT, THE WAY HE BASICALLY SEEMED TO STATE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. HERE IS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.>>I HAVE A FAVOR I WANT FROM YOU THOUGH, AND I’M GOING TO SAY THIS ONLY SEVEN TIMES, SO YOU BETTER LISTEN GOOD. I WANT YOU TO MAKE UP DIRT ON MY POLITICAL OPPONENT, UNDERSTAND? LOTS OF IT.>>Chris: AS PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, IT’S JUST NOT TRUE. IT IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS. YOU KNOW, IT’S ONE THING — BECAUSE THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, HE AT ONE TIME TALKED ABOUT HAVING EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IN THE RUSSIA CASE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. IT’S ONE THING TO TALK LIKE THAT EVEN IN A PRESS CONFERENCE. IT’S ANOTHER THING TO MAKE STUFF UP IN A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THE POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.>>Representative Demings: CHRIS, I BELIEVE WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT SAID WAS THAT THE ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY, THAT THE INFORMATION THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THROUGH ALL OF THE OBSTRUCTIVE EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM GETTING ALL THE INFORMATIO INFORMATION, THAT THE ELEMENTS DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CHARGE AND CONSPIRACY. WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID WAS, AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INDICATED THAT HE WAS READY TO PURCHASE MORE MILITARY WEAPONRY, THE PRESIDENT SAID “BUT I NEEDED TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH.” THAT’S NOT DISPUTED IN ANY WAY AND WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE REFERENCE, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, — AS A FORMER POLICE DETECTIVE, CHRIS, I’VE SEEN WHEN EVIDENCE WAS SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS — I’VE SEEN THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATION TURN AND ATTACK THE INVESTIGATORS. WE NOT ONLY SEE THAT FROM THIS PRESIDENT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN BEFORE FROM HIM. WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYE ON THE

Posts created 6830

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top