in the start of this hearing because house members are attending a series of votes in the chamber. we do expect it to get underway here in just a few minutes, though. and when it does, we'll have live coverage on cspan3.

we are still a few minutes away from the start of the serious study group hearing, while we wait, i'll look at conversation from today's washington journal.

>> back at our table this morning, a member of the intelligence committee a democratic from connecticut, let's begin with the argument being made by republicans about how this impeachment inquiry was launched and how it's being conducted. here is the senate majority leader on the floor yesterday. >> now, speaker pelosi has finally crumbled and allowed her impeachment caucus to dictate the house's actions. i don't think many of us were expecting to witness a clinic in terms of fairness or due process. but even by their own partisan standards, house democrats have already found new ways to lower the bar. this is about the most consequential process the house of representatives could possibly engage in. overruling american voters and nullifying an election. surely any such process must be

conducted with the utmost fairness and transparency. it must be held to the most exacting of standards and yet house democrats have wasted no time throwing fairness and precedent to the wind. already they have denied their republican counter parts certain minority rights, like equal subpoena power that republicans provided democrats during the clinton impeachment. already, they've made clear that president trump's counsel will not be allowed to participate in hearings, present evidence, and cross examine witnesses. all important rights that republicans provided to president clinton. >> congressman, your response? >> well, i guess i have two responses to that. number one, process is what every republican on capitol hill is talking about and the reason for that of course is that they don't want to engage, and they

don't have the courage to say what every american knows to be true which is the president asking for his own political goals to be advanced by the machinery of the federal government, by the state department, led by people like rudy giuliani and two individuals who were indicted last week, they're not willing to say what everybody knows to be true which is that that is wrong. that's why we get these process arguments. the thing two is, he's wrong. he's simply wrong in what he is saying. in other words, there is no rule in the constitution or in the house rules or anywhere else that says that an inquiry can only be launched by a vote on the house floor. he is also wrong that proper procedure is not being followed. i have sat on any number of these interviews and i will tell you that the time in these interviews is divided equally between democrats and republicans. both sides, and both sides' lawyers have an opportunity to interview these witnesses. he's also wrong that the president's attorneys are not being afforded an opportunity to

present evidence. what he's talking about, and he knows this, and this is why he knows he's being dishonest. a trial in the senate, the president's supporters would have the opportunity to confront with witnesses, to cross examine and do all of that stuff. what we're doing in the house right now is more akin to a grand jury proceeding. grand jury proceedings do happen behind closed doors, and there's other reasons for that happening. mitch mcconnell knows he is lying into the camera there by saying that the protections that would be afforded in a senate trial are not being afforded in the house of representatives. again, the big point here, we're proceeding on this inquiry the way we do all other committee meetings with tiles equally divided between the two sides. everybody has an opportunity to ask questions, sometimes they're closed, sometimes they're open, if this goes on to a trial in the senate, everything that mitch mcconnell is talking about, he will be in charge of making sure that that happens in the senate. >> by not following precedent,

though, of previous impeachment kwa inquiries, by holding a full vote on the house floor, are you not giving the opposition, the republican party, a legitimate argument that this is not fair, that this is not transparent. you're not putting people on the record on launching an investigation. >> well, we're giving them an argument, whether it's a good argument or not is a very different question. in other words, the reason in the couple of impeachment proceedings that have happened in the house in american history prior is because the house had to vote in order to grant committees subpoena power. that's why those votes were held. today under the rules, committees have subpoena power, and by the way, the minorities in these committees can ask for a subpoena. they need to persuade the majority of the members of the committee to vote for that subpoena but they have that authority today to ask for a

subpoena, again, this is largely a smoke screen. who knows, at some point speaker pelosi argues to take this off the table. now the republicans don't have the main thing to talk about, and they have answer uncomfortable questions about whether the president's behavior is good or not, impeachable or not. but look, we know the republicans, if we hold a vote this afternoon, and it passes, which it would, they've got another one that is equally specious in terms of whether this process is being conducted fairly. >> what about their argument that this is being done behind closed doors, and i understand that democrats argue it needs to be done behind closed doors because it's similar to a grand jury type investigation. however, republicans like debbie lesco who was here this morning, democrats, you say you want to do this behind closed doors and then staff or whoever is going out and leaking only what they want the media and american

people to know what is being said behind closed doors. >> there is good reason to do this behind closed doors, and the way to think about this, and you can talk to anybody who's a lawyer or did 20 minutes of law school. these proceedings that are prior to a trial a generally done behind closed doors, because not only do you want to make sure witnesses don't coordinator their system, and you know what that guy said and you can coordinate testimony, and it's also done because in this fact finding stage, people's names get mentioned, personally identifiable information, you need protections around that process. as to the leaks, i don't disagree with my republican colleague. they shouldn't be happening. it's not a partisan thing, though. i have now been on this committee for a long time, and i have seen both parties go out and leak information that is, you know, they think is helpful to their cause. but look, what the american people really need to understand is that these, the transcripts of these hearings, once they

have been scrubbed of classified information, that's the other reason these have to happen behind closed doors, once it has been scrubbed of classified information, once it's been scrubbed of personal information of people who are not involved, they will be released to the public, the american people have the right to see what was said in these hearings. >> let's get to calls in bloomington, indiana, democratic caller. >> yes. i have a comment and a question and thank you for taking my call. and it just seems a lot more serious than it is being approached by mainly the republicans seem to not be doing what they need to do by speaking up and telling the truth. i've been watching this for three years and i'm very concerned our country is getting

stepped on. and i really appreciate you being on, jim, thank you for taking my call. >> thanks. i do step back every once in a while because you're talking about things beyond just this impeachment inquiry. i do step back every once in a while and remember the previous presidency, and remember the way donald trump attacked hillary clinton for the high crime, the deadly sin, the moral catastrophe of having a personal e-mail account. something that it turns out donald trump's children do, the people in his administration do, that was, according to the current president, something that she should go to jail for. now we have a president that has basically sidetracked the official policy of the united states government as it relates to russia and ukraine for his personal political benefit. we have a president who has run his businesses and his children

have been making millions and millions of dollars while he's president, and this president has the gumption to criticize hunter biden because hunter biden went on a board in ukraine. we have a president that regularly calls the media the enemy of the people and says his political opponents should be jailed who uses language in rallies that i would ground my two daughters for a month for using and yet my republican colleagues just grin and bear it because this is some how okay. obama would have been impeached ten times before lunchtime for any one of the things that i just mentioned that this president does on a regular basis. >> let's go to robert in michigan, republican caller. hi robert. >> yeah, here's why the american people don't understand and don't believe the democrats and republicans and who's lying and who's not lying, because the woman you had earlier said there was no confidential information for them to have meetings behind

closed doors. why don't they have them through the public instead of going behind closed doors if it there ain't no confidential information on there. he called mitch mcconnell a liar because he said mitch mcconnell is lying about this, lying about that, now i don't know who's lying and the people that's watching your program don't know who's lying. we don't know if he's lying or mitch mcconnell is lying. that's why it should be open to the public. >> okay. so what robert is saying, congresswoman lesko, understands there is no classified information being disclosed in these closed door depositions so she thinks it should be made, you know, a public hearing. >> first of all, congresswoman isn't in the room, so i'm not going to say she's lying, but she doesn't know what she's talking about because she hasn't been in those hearings. i have been. when senior diplomats, when am

ambassador liquors a ambassadors are speaking freely as they must in these situations, they often refer to classified information. that's why these transcripts need to be scrubbed prior to their release to the public. let's grapple with the larger issue that the gentleman raised there. it's true. you know, the republicans are saying one thing and the democrats are saying another. but here's my argument on that. we're all american citizens. we have the immense privilege of being american citizens the what would you rather be than that? that does not come for free. that does not come without strings attached and one of those strings attached is that you do the work to become a critical thinker about your government. so i accused mitch mcconnell of not being honest about the fact that the president doesn't have his lawyers in the house impeachment proceeding. so the gentleman who just asked the question or anybody else in america could look up the process around impeachment and

see if what i mean 'm saying is or not. an indictment is issued, that's what happens in the house, and then they should do a little bit of work to determine whether in a grand jury proceeding or traditional in impeachment proceedings, the president's lawyers have been in the room. what the gentleman will discover is the answer to the question is no, and when mitch mcconnell says the house isn't doing that, he is not being honest about both either the rules or what has happened historically. my larger point is, yeah, i get it, and it's immensely frustrating to me that people don't touch base to the truth more than they do. but again, we're american citizens. we have an obligation to do a little bit of work to understand what our government and what the people in our government are saying to us, and we've got lots of opportunity to do that, more opportunity than ever before because of the many outlets you can find online, on television, and something else. so again, i would urge the gentleman, don't give up. if you take your civic duties as an american citizen seriously, you'll do the work to figure out who's telling the truth here.

>> take a look the at list of folks that have gone behind closed doors this week. you have fiona hill, whose testimony was monday, along with simone kissling, george kent, today the committee is going to hear from michael mckinley, thursday, gordon sondland, and let's talk about wednesday, thursday, friday. michael mckinley, who is he, what do you want to know from him. >> michael mckinley is mike pompeo's adviser, a professional diplomat, not a political appointee, one of the senior people around mike pompeo who by the way, is a friend of mine. we worked together on the intelligence committee for a long time. it's important for america to understand even though the partisan fight is a tough one, there's good personal relationships across the aisle. so mckinley was his adviser, and he resigned two weeks ago, i believe. he resigned because,

purportedly, we haven't heard this from him, he was concerned about the fact, that, among other things, people like ambassad ambassador yovonavitch, that people like that weren't getting the support that they needed from the secretary of state. he's going to have a view on that. we're going to talk to him today to find out more about what the secretary of state was doing while the job of the state department to run foreign relations for the united states was hi jacked by rudy giuliani and a group of others whose interest was getting dirt on a political opponent of the president. we need to hear from mckinley on what he knew about that. >> and gordon sondland, and alrich brechpool, why do you want to talk to him. >> a senior guy in the foreign policy apparatus, in and around

this whole change in policy or this hi jacking of policy with respect to the ukraine. sondland appears to have been in the cockpit for that fight, and that's sort of an interesting thing because, you know, he's a respected businessman, wasn't originally a trump supporter. became a trump supporter late to the game. he has interests i think well beyond in president. it will be interesting to hear how he got to where he got. >> and alrich is a name mentioned, not a well known name but a name mentioned in the whistleblower's complaint as well. >> i think that's right, yeah. >> subpoenas for documents and witnesses, just want to run through that with our viewers, the vp, mike pence, subpoenas of document, whether he had knowledge of president trump's phone call to the ukraine president. gordon sondland, documents to the house committee, pentagon officials, records outlining the delay in the military aid to ukraine, an october 15th deadline.

that was yesterday. russell vout, of omb, documents of the delay. rick perry, documents related to his contacts with the ukrainian president, rudy giuliani, his documents as well, and of course the two giuliani associates who have been indicted. why is all of this information necessary? >> it's necessary because as mitch mcconnell pointed out in the clip you played, the house of representatives is doing arguably the most consequential thing it can do, maybe other than declare water which is an unused power for the last couple of generations, but as such, it's not okay to just say, hey, we heard this, or there was this in the whistleblower's complaint, we actually just as a court of law would do, need to build a complete record of what happened. that's important to the impeachment inquiry and the decision as to whether the the president's behavior was impeachable and, look, opponents or supporters of the president should want that to be done

well, the sail wme way evidence lots of good process would be able to anyone accused of doing something wrong. the other reason we need to understand this, whether it's the president saying he's in love with kim jong un in north korea, a man who brutally murders his own people. whether it's a president who does what vladimir putin wants him to do, by this summary pullout from syria. we need to understand who was told what around ukraine. we have professional diplomats who have devoted their careers in places like ukraine, north korea, and places like russia. we're going to need to rebuild, both of those efforts and those people's careers and sense of self-worth by really understanding what has happened here in so many areas where the president seems to be acting contrary to the american national interest. >> let's go to birmingham, alabama, olivia, democratic caller. >> yes, good morning. >> good morning.

>> go nationals. woo woo woo. and congressman himes, you have been straight up ever since the mueller report. you have never wavered. you have never changed nothing you say. i watch you on tv. i see you all the time. you have never changed what you said about donald trump. i'm sorry, you all shouldn't give mitch mcconnell no credence on tv. mitch mcconnell is the same person that said he was going to make president obama a one-time president. look how that turned out. president obama was elected for two terms. i don't believe nothing mitch mcconnell say. the house had passed so many bills, mitch mcconnell had bills sitting on his desk that is not trying to move through the senate. america, we need to wake up. we really need to do some studying. learn about your civics and your government, what it does.

this is what congress also should be doing. the congress do impeachment and have an impeachment inquiry, they're doing their jobs. republicans do not have to be included. president clinton, i love him. i'm a staunch democrat. that was a disgrace what he did in that office. >> i'm going to jump in, mr. himes, you have been in the room. how many republicans have been present during these closed door depositions and are they asking questions? >> yes, they are. so it's a very interesting answer to that question because it has not been members of the intelligence committee present there on the republican side. most of the questions on both sides have been asked by lawyers, by attorneys for the majority and the minority and that's important because oftentimes they're trained in ways that the members are not trained, but the reason that's a particular interesting question, it hasn't been so much members

of the intelligence committee, republican members, it has been the president's most vocal defenders. so when mitch mcconnell says the president doesn't have people in the room, guess who's been in the room, almost every deposition. jim jordan, mark meadows, lee zeldon has adopted this role of aggressive defender of the president. it has been those three and a couple of others that have been there. someone will accuse me of not being honest of that. run any clip of these, and these are the most fervent of the president's defenders, they have been in the room. >> rodney in brooklyn, independent. >> okay. good morning. you spoke about subpoenas just a little while ago, and my understanding is those subpoenas are issued by the democrats. my question is representative himes said the republicans in the committee have the right to issue subpoenas but they have to

be granted through the majority or the democrats, so the question is are the democrats granting subpoenas submitted by the republicans because according to jim jordan and others, thaey're not being granted anything. they're being shunned out. can you clear that up for me. >> i can clear that up, and let me start with the larger point, which is it's kind of sad that we're at a point where the subpoenas are necessary, and they have become necessary because the white house that wrote that legally insane memorandum saying we're not going to cooperate with this impeachment inquiry. that would be a little bit like you get arrested or charged with a crime, and you say i'm not participating in the trial process. you don't have the right to do that, and the president does not have a right to say to the congress of the united states i won't participate in this inquiry, under any circumstances, so it's number one sad that the subpoenas are necessary. number two, subpoenas are issued

by committees. the majority party always has the majority on those committees so the minority party in these instances often feels aggrieved and when i was in the minority, i felt exactly the same way, but the republicans today have every right to request of the chairman a subpoena, and that request would be considered. it might be granted. i actually haven't seen them request a subpoena to date, but they could request a subpoena. ultimately it would be put to a committee vote and i would like to believe that if the republicans raised a person who could actually contribute important information to this inquiry, they might win a vote to get a subpoena. they need to request it, which as far as i know, they haven't done yet. >> the deadlines for the subpoenas, the vice president, rudy giuliani, they have all been missed. how are you going to get that information? >> that's a different and scarily constitutional question. nobody has the right to say no to a congressional subpoena any

more than you have the right to say no to a demand that you appear in court. and yet the president and the vice president and rudy giuliani have asserted that right. that gets us into constitutional crisis territory, right, and my republican friends, those who still believe that the president is in the right here need to ask themselves one question, which is there will be a democratic president down the road at some point. i don't know if it will be in a year and a half or when it will be. you need to ask myself, my republican friend, how you feel about the precedent hathat's beg established by this republican president, and his friends, saying sorry, i'm going to ignore the congress. people need to grapple with that. this is one of the ways that we don't have a king in this country. it was set up 240 years ago in our constitution, and people really need to grapple with that. how are we going to do it. we have two choices. we can ask a court to enforce the subpoenas, we can ask the judiciary, the third branch of government to order the president, vice president,

whatever to produce those documents or to appear or you hear talk about this on capitol hill, until the 1950s, the congress had a power called inherent contempt, which basically to make a long story short would result in a trial occurring inside the congress and if the trial rendered a verdict that somebody was in contempt of congress. congress without the assistance of the judiciary could back then, they would actually jail people in some cases, but i think in the modern era, we would simply fine people. so we would hand down a ruling inside the congress that said, hey, as long as you don't appear, you're paying a $10,000 a day fine. >> we'll go to dallas, north carolina, mike, republican. >> yes. i would like to ask the congressman a question, after all this, you know, how are we going to be friends? you know, i have seen a 16-year-old kid get attacked by a democrat. i heard there was a couple that got a gun pulled on them in a

sam's club. they were people getting beat up for just wearing a maga hat. you know, how are we going to get along? i have seen democrats dianne feinstein, nancy pelosi, maxine accuse bush of being a war criminal, and now trump 45 is a traitor. how are we going to get along? >> heard your point, mike. >> yeah, mike raises a question and an issue that i think a lot about. i come from a district that today it's pretty democratic because the president doesn't have a lot of fans there. prior to me, for decades it was a republican district. i have folks from both sides of the aisle and a lot of them. i worry a lot about this, the incidents mike mentions of violence, obscenities breaking out, they're not acceptable under any circumstances by either party, and yeah, you know, partisans on both sides are guilty of this kind of

thing, and i guess it comes back to what i was trying to say earlier about what's our responsibility as citizens of the greatest country that has ever existed. one of those responsibilities is to put some walls around the intensity of our political opinions. and one of the ways we do this, and, you know, maybe this doesn't feel authentic coming from a member of congress but is by holding our beliefs with some degree of humility. none of us are always right. in fact, some of us are rarely right. my point is, when you're 100% sure that this president is a traitor or 100% sure this president is the greatest president we have ever had, you have to step back from that, and say there's a human like everybody else. there's some things he say are good. i appreciate he stood down from a military attack with iran. i thought we were going to be in a war with iran, which would have been worse than the war we found ourselves in with iraq, and i give the president props for doing something i'm not sure

any president would have done, planes are in the air, missile attacks are ready, he says no, 150 deaths involved, we're not doing this attack on iraq. you heard a democrat compliment a president, they're political opinions, they're not fundamental to the universe, and secondly, there's some chance we could be wrong. >> we'll go on to steve in albany, oregon, independent. steve, good morning! all right. one last try for steve, you there? >> let me try tom in ohio. democratic caller, tom? >> hi, good morning. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. go ahead. >> two things, one, i think the democrats and republicans are there to work for the citizen of the united states and so far since trump's been in, nothing has been accomplished period.

i read in the paper that when they retire, they're multimillionaires, only make 180 some thousand a year, and i would like to know what gets them to that level of that type of money other than special interest groups. what they have bully iing the c the united states and start working for the citizens. i'm a democrat. i'm ashamed of what's going on. they have done nothing since trump has been in. it's just totally ridiculous. the citizens of the united states are paying this bill and making all these attorneys richer while us poor people and -- i'm running out of time so i'll have him respond with you. >> i understand tom's frustration. i work here, so i see so many things i'd like to be work iing

on. for me it's transportation and infrastructure. people spend hours on the roadway. i understand the frustration. but i have a a message which is you can't lose faith. your statement that nothing has gotten done is is wrong. it's not true. and i'm not going to sort of fill a bunch of balloons and say everything is working fine down here pz but under donald trump, we got a major commitment. it's killing people every year. the government came together and made funds available to municipalities to put senator can in police cars. number two, the congress came together just a year ago. people like cory booker and rand paul came together to pass penal and judicial reform. going back and relooking at some of the three strikes you're out laws that resulted in people being in prison