committee hearing. i would make two points. number one, there are so many instances of misconduct and allegations of misconduct that we may very well, in order to do a complete and thorough job, have to use subcommittee as well as committee hearings, there not be enough days otherwise for the task. number two, there is ample precedent for subcommittees being used in this fashion and i was on the committee when we -- during the clinton impeachment, as the gentleman states. then the committee under republican leadership, under chairman hyde, used the subcommittees to hold hearings on the subject. i remember in particular one subcommittee hearing in the constitution subcommittee on the question of what is an impeachment offense? subcommittees were used for impeachment hearings. as part of the impeachment investigation. the committee held hearings. at least the constitution subcommittee, maybe other subcommittees, i don't remember, also did. and there's no reason why we can't parcel out the work that is nec

this committee. we require his testimony for our obstruction investigation, but the president has vowed to, quote, fight all the subpoenas, unquote, and this, too, is conduct that requires a congressional response. as members of congress and in particular as members of the house judiciary committee, we have a responsibility to investigate each of these allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. that responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment. that judgment cannot be based on our feelings about president trump. it should not be about personal behavior. it must be a decision based on the evidence before us, the evidence that keeps coming in. now, there's been a good amount of confusion in the press and elsewhere about how we should talk about this work. some have said that absence in grand moment from which we passed dramatically concerned about the president's conduct to actively considering articles of impeachment, it's hard to know exactly

of congress.. >> the committee will come to order and declare a recess on the committee at any time and this hearing is entitled recommendations for improving the budget and the process i will look at the work of the joint elected committee on the process reform. i now recognize myself for five minutes and the 104th which convened in 1995 was the last two pass all the bills as part of the fiscal school year and i was almost 25 years ago and motels members have not seen a process that works the way it's supposed to where they are there on time and the committee on appropriation process which i served along my colleague who was established by the bipartisan act of 2018 and was charged with making recommendations to significantly reform the budget process. a very active establishing committee was that the process wasn't working at all to be. local one such a nine says that no money shall be gone from the treasury and the appropriations made by law and the color of the purse within the constitutional powers. it's a constitutionally mandated shut down an executive power. when congress fa

committee and from the rules committee. we just default from having chairman and ranking member status enthusiastic freshman designated from this committees to serve. i yield back. >> thanks very much. mr. cleaver. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. ms. lynch mentioned some of the things we should think about, and i also think she said, and i was here so i remember, almost everything you said was the practice when earmarks was discontinued. i mean, you have to put on your website, you had have to sign n affidavit saying this is not going to your cousin bill. i couldn't go to a corporation, all those things we had in place. and so the missouri delegation had lunch each month. everyone of us, all eight of us rather, said we were going to say publicly that we support it marks or whatever you want to call it. but here's where things bumping heads. the confluence between politics and constitution. what happens is, well, first of all, let me just -- senator stevens is trying to build a bridge to nowhere. it was

committees can't freelance. if the majority wants to exercise the house's power of impeachment, all you got to do is ask the house to do so. all you have to do is ask the house that it direct and authorize this committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. that's all you have to do. resolve that the house authorizes the judiciary committee to conduct an inquiry into the impeachment of the president. it's that simple. i dare you to do it. in fact, i double dog dare you to do it. have the house vote on those 18 words and then go at it. why won't you do that? it's because you want to give the illusion of impeachment without the reality of it. you're duping that portion of your base that is clambering for impeachment into thinking you are when you aren't. some democrats can tell their constituencies they're conducting an impeachment inquiry while others can tell their constituencies that they aren't. you can have your impeachment and deny it too. that's why you won't pass this resolution. if this president is guilty

that is his responsibility in the committees responsibility as a committee. the majority party claims that they have an agenda for the people, andfo the people believu we ought to exercise our responsibility. that's what the committee is doing. i do not want to anticipate what the committees find is ultimately know what the committees actions will finally be. we will wait to see. but it is exercising responsibility as a coequal branch of government as provided in the constitution i'm not going again to the arguments about, mr. speaker, the premises in the mueller report. other than to say i disagree with the characterization made by the republican whip. that would be for another day te argue that. but the committee is doing its duty and it will continue to do so. and if it decides that requires further action, my presumption is it will pursue that as well. go i yield back. >> i think the gentleman for you link but it don't think the question has been answered. the gentleman says the committee has responsibility and i agree that the committee has a responsibil

me turn to jim jordan, our leader when it comes to the oversight committee and a judiciary he committee as well. jim. thank you, well, kevin. let me thank kevin for his in ership and doug committee. dan, congratulations. what a contrast between greg bishop on tuesday evening and what you saw -- and jump in -- what you saw in judiciary committee this week. two days ago the judiciary to take way ed americans' second amendment rights without them doing voted towrong and they allow that to happen in a court proceeding where the person their rights doesn't get to show up and defend themselves. two days later, less than 24 later, we had the craziest scenario we had today where is impeachment, not impeachment, is it an investigation, inquiry? he doesn't says care. he doesn't want to talk about it anymore. he wants to go after the president. straightforward. the reason they want to do this and change the rules in the nine months game, into a new congress, the reason they want to change the rules, him.ng else has worked for michael cohen hearing was a flop for them. 17 times.ied the john dean he

and i welcome 'd and take seriously the committee's oversight role. during my confirmation process to be the director of the national counterterrorism center i told the senate select committee on intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and it's central to successful operations with the intelligence community having served as the director of the national counterterrorism center for 8 months and as the acting director of national intelligence for the past 6 weeks i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight as i pledge to the senate i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism when i return to the national counterterrorism center to ensure you are fully and currently informed of the tele just activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the intelligence community the american people expect us to keep them safe the intelligence community cannot d

the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee, foreign affairs committee, oversight committee, ways and means xhirk committee, the financial services committee. we'll get some expert help over the course of this hour, including speaking with one of these committee chairs, to understand exactly what pelosi has proclaimed here. but as best as we can tell right now, the plan i think is for each of these six committees to pursue their own inquiries into potentially impeachable offenses by president trump and each of these committees is expected to present what they believe is their best case for articles of impeachment against president trump on the subject matter that they've been investigating. so all these committees will all give their potential articles of impeachment to the judiciary committee, to jerry nadler, who's the chair of the judiciary committee. if warranted, nadler and the judiciary committee will sort of formally compile these articles of impeachment that they will ask the house to vote on. then the house will proceed toward an impeachment vote. so that, we think,

he's the chair of the committee, the house judiciary committee, of course, without him we weren't goingo start everybody else seems to be seated corey lewandowski is seated and we are ready for, i don't know, stephanie, i think some fireworks. they've got two aims, right, one is to try and tell people what was in the mueller report that they don't know. and trying to get corey lewandowski to say something that is critical of president trump in his handling of the russian interference that, i don't know what they'll get. >> let's bring nbc's geoff bennett back and nbc national intelligence security ken delanian and former law professor joyce vance. let's goat through logistics, geoff. jerry nadler is in the room in his seat what comes next? >> reporter: so, he will make an opening statement, there's a swearing in of the witness and we'll here from doug collins, a rhetorically colorful guy. five minutes between each democrat and republican. after that wraps up, then we'll hear from committee staffers and this, of course, goes back to what we talked about earlier, the new framework of how

i respect this committee, and i welcome and take seriously the committee's oversight role. during my confirmation process to be the director of the national counter terrorism center i told the senate select committee and intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the intelligence community. having served as the director of the national counter terrorism center for eight months and as the acting director of national intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. as i pledged to the senate i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i am serving either in this capacity as aking director of national counter terrorism, but when i return to the national counter terrorism center to make sure you are informed of the tiffs activitie facilitate the oversight intelligence. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee's support. before

of the committee. thank you for joining us. >> we talk to your chairman to ask the same question, where are we now 18 ea

lofgren's committee is here, and we have committee staff. chairman nadler: i am prepared to rule on the point of order. for the purposes of stiff questioning under the resolution adopted the committee on september 12, 2019, there is no distinction between staff and consultants. first, the chair has discretion to determine who qualifies as staff for the purposes of the resolution. committee consultants in effect function as staff, they are paid from the committee's budget, the work at the chairman's discretion, and they are subject to all the same ethical and do go responsibilities as any house employee. second come at retention of consultants is consistent with drier practice. commitment -- with prior practice. they have assisted with significant investigations, including impeachment investigations, for example, david shippers, the consultant to the majority, and add below all to the minority, during the clinton impeachment investigations. commitment consultants have questioned witness before. the republican majority of this committee hired

reporter: do you the committee will call witnesses? ms. pelosi: i can't speak to the committee. reporter: what message do you have to the committee? ms. pelosi: speak truth. speak truth. and i'm very careful about this. this is a heavy decision to go down this path. some people, it was easier. they thought the transgressions were self-evident. thought we needed more facts to show the american people as to why this was necessary. but last week, use anything you and a new day has dawned y analogy, we are at a different level of lawlessness that is self-evident to the american people which is clearer than saying the president wouldn't let see us this records and we can't show what the president is hiding. as long as he keeps obstructing and because of the whistleblower, we have this access, then we have a heightened responsibility to act upon those facts. i have said in years, and 25 years in intelligence, i was seven years longer than anybody on the ethics committee. we were trained, it's about the facts and the law and the rules of the house, nothing else matters. if you have the

the judiciary committee as well. jim. mr. jordan: well, thank you, kevin. let me thank kevin for his leadership and doug in committee. and then of course, congratulate dan. it was a big night, and what a contrast between greg murphy and dan bishop on tuesday evening and what you saw -- and i'll let doug jump in -- what you saw in judiciary committee this week. two days ago the judiciary committee voted to take way americans' second amendment rights without them doing anything wrong and they voted to allow that to happen in a court proceeding where the person who's losing their rights doesn't get to show up and defend themselves. two days later, less than 24 hours later, we had the craziest scenario we had today where is an impeachment, not impeachment, is it an investigation, inquiry? jerry nadler says he doesn't care. he doesn't want to talk about it anymore. he wants to go after the president. we all know it's straightforward. the reason they want to do this and change the rules in the middle of the game, nine mont

advance impeachment effort, tell us about the intelligence committee and other committees would be doing during this break. >> impeachment is judiciary committee but because we are dealing with intelligence community whistleblower and classified information, the committee taking the lead here on what could end up becoming a central article of impeachment and because they want to move fast, there's concern that the recess will give the president time to regroup on this so what they're going to do is try to plow through. they may want to sit with the whistleblower until, if they can so when congress returns completely, they are ready to go and get some sleep. >> the headline on one of your pieces says why pelosi and her party finally embraced impeachment, what finally sparked her decision and how much has the carcass rallied behind her? >> almost one 100%. my last count, only ten democrats out of 235 hadn't fully endorsed impeachment inquiry including many were skeptical before hand. so the whistleblower was the catalyst and post released from the transcripts, which he seemed to say, it tu

, the house intelligence committee or before the senate intelligence committee. every time i raise my right hand to god i have sworn and told the truth. >> my question to you is on national television. did you lie about your relationship and whether they sought your interview? >> i don't know. >> did you live because you do not want the world to find out you would be exposed and would only appear as the certain issues with the grant of immunity protecting your words from being used against you in a criminal prosecution? mr. lewandowski: i am not going to allow you to use me as a backdoor into his methods. if you want to question director mueller about the investigation techniques, you have had the opportunity to do so, but clearly you did not. take them back here, those questions are not for me. >> prior to the mueller report being published and redacted, did you ever misrepresent what you did on behalf of the president? mr. lewandowski: i cannot think of an instance when that would have occurred. >> let me show you an interview you did on may 14 of 2019. excuse

i do know members of this committee although you are the intelligence committee but not members of the intelligence committee and as the d.n.i. i have no authority or responsibility over this committee but my question is do you think that if every whistleblower complaints that was brought to the intelligence community inspector general was always shared with this committee with that have any impact on intelligence equities. and i ask that because i don't know why when the statute was written that it didn't say all should be shared rather than only urgent concern and my question to you as the head of the intelligence community do you think if we change that law would it have an impact on intelligence equities so i don't think that a law could be changed to cover all things that might possibly happen i think we have a good law i think it is well written however as i said congressman this is unprecedented and this is a unique situation why this one is it's why we're sitting here this morning sure and i hope we're not in this position again however if we do find ourselves in this position

i respect this committee. and i welcome and take seriously the committee's oversight law. during my confirmation process to be director of the national counterterrorism center i told the intelligence congressional ov oversight is critic the and central. having served at director of the national counterterrorism center for eight months and as acting director of national intelligence the past six weeks i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. as i pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism or when i return to the national counterterrorism center to ensure you are fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities to facilitate your able to perform your oversight of the intelligence community. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee's support. before i turn to the matter at hand, there are a few things i would like to say.

committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my right is rules committee vice chair shamann walton and seated to my left is rules committee member supervisor gordon mar. we are joined by supervisor aaron peskin. our clerk is linda wong, filling in for victor young. and i'd also like to thank jesse larson and kalina mendoza at sfgov for staffing this meeting. ms. clerk, do you have announcements? >> clerk: please make sure to silence cell phones. complete the speaker cards and documents are included should be submitted to the clerk. acts acted on today, will be appear on the board of supervisors agenda on october 8th. >> thank you. >> clerk: item number one. an ordinance amending the administrative code to add a preference in city affordable housing programs to tenants temporarily evicted from rental units for capital improvements or rehabilitation work. and requiring landlords who regain possession of such rental units to provide evidence of complying with a tenant'

judiciary committee. there's just no constitutional way around that. >> yeah. and there aren't very many precedents in history for how to do this sort of thing, it just hasn't happened very many times. talking with financial services committee chairman maxine waters today, it's surprised with what you just said there, it surprised me to hear her say she thinks this will happen very fast, that this is a short time frame and this is something the committee chairs are working on today, are working on tomorrow and are expected to be working on the rest of the week. like it's happening right away. >> it has to and it can. bo both of those things are true. this new story, this new development that is driving impeachment now is so clear and compartmentalized that it's one of those stories that once you get the information, you can work pretty quickly on it. >> right, you don't have to dig too far. what's been publicly admitted to is kind of the bottom line. >> we've seen a rolling confession by the president, ra

the judiciary committee is the committee for a reason. we oversee the court system. and for anyone who's been here and appeared before a judge. a judge is a stickler for rules. and i want to point out something. some will laugh and some award care. the subpoena for mr. lewandowski said at 10 am this morning. this shows you how impulsive and poorly designed this is. the subpoena is not properly. we compel them to be heard at 10 am but today's hearing was at 1 pm. the witness was given a lack of appropriate notice. i can understand that it is natural resources get around. transportation. but i don't understand how the judiciary gets this wrong. the chairman wants to hold people in contempt, try enforcing this in court. there is no clarification and when i was given a subpoena for my client what time do you appear in court? whenever you feel like a. unless the court or the officer giving the subpoena says differently. the chairman says well we could do this because we've wasted enough time on other things. we can issue of new subpoena. there's probably a date in october

s say and do in the committee in 2017. austin from the green party remembers the negotiations vividly did seem to move but all that the christian democrats and christian social union people did was stall and. they torpedoed the whole thing with it was an endless process. and we in the opposition got a pretty good picture of events because social democrat colleagues would come over to cry on our shoulders and they said you can't imagine how tough going the negotiations are how difficult it is to get any kind of agreement. vilhelm place meyer is from the junior coalition partner social democrats and was involved in the talks 1st hand he tells us he fought long and hard for stricter legislation on fertilisers. issues i feel like a bit of a failure because i could have done better. and who made you fail. on my colleagues from the christian democrats. and also the interest groups behind the scenes who are also represented there. in these negotiations there was relatively tight solidarity between the farmers union and the c.d.u.

the judiciary committee is the committee for a reason. it's because we oversee the court system. for any person who has actually been here and actually appeared before a judge, a judge is pretty stickler for rules. i just want to point out something. i know some will laugh and some won't care, but for some of us, it does matter. the subpoena today for mr. lewandowski and the other said "10:00 a.m. this morning." this just shows you how impulsive and poorly-designed this entire sort of faux impeachment charade we are doing is. the subpoena -- we were to compel an attempt on this money. but today's hearing is at 1:00, not 10:00. the witnesses lacked appropriate notice for the hearing today. that's a simple basic subpoena issue. but we are the judiciary committee. i can understand this -- and it will fence -- natural resources, i can understand if they get it wrong. or transportation. i don't understand how judiciary gets this wrong! this chairman wants to hold people in contempt for not showing up. try to enforce this in court. because there is no extra letter, there is no clarific

and not the judiciary committee. >> yeah, look.ocratic caucus is a big tent as you know, maria. we have voices giving opinions, a wide range of ideas and thoughts, the judiciary committee is no exception. here is my approach. first of all you referred to our six darn week recess it's as if we weren't working in that time, almost all members of congress do work during their recess and what we do is we get around our district and we have town halls and we have coffee with your congressman and i do that a lot because that's why we call it the people's house maria because we listen to the people at home and what i'm hearing is that people care about the kitchen table issues. the things that matter to your family. maria: such as trade. like u.s. mca, congressman so are you going to vote yes for u.s. mca? do you want nancy pelosi to bring it to the floor? >> what i'm talking about is jobs and lower prescription costs, and better available healthcare for everybody, and cleaning up government. these are bills that the democratic house pass

senate intelligence committee. the trump administration is refusing to do that. the chairman of the house intelligence committee adam schiff has issued this statement tonight. the intelligence community inspector general has agreed to appear before the house intelligence committee for a briefing on the handling of the whistle blower complaint tomorrow morning, september 19th, in a closed session at 9:00 a.m. the acting director of national intelligence joseph maguire has agreed to testify in an open session before the committee next thursday, september 26th at 9:00 a.m. the intelligence community inspector general determined that this complaint is both credible and urgent and that it should be transmitted to congress under the clear letter of the law. the committee places the highest importance on the protection of whistle blowers and their complaints to congress. ben rhodes, the house intelligence committee has had many important hearings. it is hard to think of one more important tomorrow -- more important than t

these committees, house foreign affairs, intelligence committee that's leading the impeachment inquiry and house oversight committee had been demanding for weeks that pompeo turn over records. they set a deadline for thursday for pompeo to turn over the information. he did not provide the information. so these committees just now issued a subpoena. in this letter that's written by the house chairman, it says your failure, refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the house impeachment in court. they're saying give us the information as part of the probe into the ukraine matter as they consider i mpeaching the president. if they don't, it could be obstruction. so this is the first escalation we have seen from the democrats since they've announced formal impeachment inquiry. we'll see how the administration ultimately responds, giving them a matter of days to provide the records. >> and let's talk about this. there's an interesting i don't want to call it a sub plot, but an interesting story about rudy guiliani, his role in reaching out to the ukrain

if they will just let the committee process work. instead this thing is created in a complete partisan way and in the back rooms of the speaker's office so they can put out there talking points score their political points and leave the many people hanging because this will not become law. maybe that's what they want. it's cynical and wrong does not have to be this way. i implore my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee on the democratic side, they shared the bills us and they said they had it and have disarray in their own conference on this issue and in the committee. american people expect us to act and just as we are doing the price billing just as we've done on these other issues i've outlined before we are prepared and ready to do that and be full-fledged bipartisan partners to achieve meaningful results that the president signed into law. we did it on opioids and we've done it over and over again and this is simply raw partisan politics and it needs to stop. >> is one clear message. we have a record of working togeth

chair of this committee. do you know of the whistleblower provided that letter to those t wo chairman concurrently with the icig? no,ector maguire: congressman. as i said earlier, i believe that the whistleblower and the icig acted in good faith and follow the law every step of the way. >> good copy. we have talked about the way the law on the whistleblower statute share if it is decided to be an urgent concern. however that practice has always been to share regardless of whether that urgent concern. reason negative impact on the intelligence community, if that legislation was changed to say all whistleblower complaints should be shared with, with the committee? director maguire: that's correct. in addition to that, congressman, let's say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. members of this committee, although you are the intelligence committee, but not members of the intelligence community. and as the dni, i have no responsibility over this committee. >> my question is, do you think th

on the agriculture committee. worrying currently holds around 15 positions in various corporations lobby groups and the banking sector. to name just a few lurking is on the board of trustees of follet it on 6 height a company responsible for checking quality and safety standards in the food sector . he's also president of a regional branch of the farmers association. as well as on the supervisory board of d.c. hoop a leading provider of real estate financial services in germany and he's on the supervisory board of the l.v. m. insurance group's pension fund division. janusz berthing also works for fertiliser supplier a graphic where he sits on the advisory board. littering said he did not have time for an interview with us due to scheduling commitments our question about whether he had conflicts of interest went unanswered a gravity sent us a written response saying the company did not see a conflict of interest for refereeing or holds in comp and that both politicians act according to their conscience. crosses the

well, because the cases that came before either this committee or the senate committee, whether or nothey met the criteria of urgent concern, because they involved members of the intelligence committee who were, in fact, in organizations underneath the dni authority and responsibility. one just didn't go that way because it involved an individual who is not a member of the intelligence community or an organization underneath the authority of the dni, so this one is different from all others in the past that i'm aware of. >> i want to get into how this all got out in the public. this has basically been an orchestrated effort over two weeks. we were first told about it about a week and a half ago. we were told very specifically that the whistleblower did not want to get any of this information out, they did not want it leaked out. there are only a few potential groups of people that would have known about this complaint. you and your people within your office. the people within the inspector general's office, and the whistleblower and whoever that whistleblower gave this information to.

the judiciary committee is the judiciary committee for a reason. it's because we oversee the court system. for any person who has actually been here and actually had an attorney and has appeared before a judge, a judge is pretty stickler for rules. i want to point out something, and some will laugh and some won't care, but for some of us it does matter. the subpoena today for mr. lewandowski and others said 10:00 a.m. this morning. this just shows you how impulsive and poorly designed this entire sort of impeach. charade we're doing. they were not even here properly. the subpoena says 10:00 a.m., but they're not here at 10:00, they're here at 1:00. for the sdwru dishjudiciary com can understand they get it wrong. for transportation. i don't understand how judiciary gets this wrong. the chairman wants to hold people in contempt for not showing up, try to enforce this in court. because there is no extra letter, there is no clarification of time, and when i was given a subpoena for my client to appear in court, what time do you appear in court? whenev

lofgren's committee is here, and we have committee staff. chairman nadler: i am prepared to rule on the point of order. for the purposes of stiff questioning under the resolution adopted the committee on september 12, 2019, there is no distinction between staff and consultants. first, the chair has discretion to determine who qualifies as staff for the purposes of the resolution. committee consultants in effect function as staff, they are paid from the committee's budget, the work at the chairman's discretion, and they are subject to all the same ethical and do go responsibilities as any house employee. second come at retention of consultants is consistent with drier practice. commitment -- with prior practice. assisted with significant investigations, including impeachment example,tions, for david shippers, the consultant to the majority, and add below all to the minority, during the clinton impeachment investigations. commitment consultants have questioned witness before. the republican majority of this committee hired consultants to assis

help on the committee. the ranking member understand, e's been pushing for this, why don't we have the inspector general, who, by the way, just ssued a scathing report of mr. comey, just two weeks ago, but wo days ago when i asked mr. nadler when we might expect an pportunity to the inspector general, mr. horowitz, when ask him about his report, nadler says i don't know. i haven't thought about that. stop and think about that. this is the chair of the judiciary committee with its history and the house of representatives defending basic rules, basic procedure and rights and that's the response we get from him. exactly ity leader is right what a contrast between what democrats have done this saw on election night with a big win in north so i appreciate the leadership of the leader, and congratulate dan and welcome him to the podium, judiciary ber of the committee, mr. collins. >> it's been one of those days, one long great week. congratulations. we know what's happening. this is one of the things that we're s

the judiciary committee is the judiciary committee for a reason. it is because we oversee the court system. for any person who has actually been here, an attorney in this room, who has appeared before a judge, a judge is a stickler for rules. some will laugh, and some will not care, but for some of us, it does matter. the subpoena today for mr. lewandowski and others said 10:00 a.m. this morning. this just shows you how poorly designed this entire impeachment charade is we are doing. the subpoena is not done properly. it compels for 10:00 this morning. it says the hearing is at 1:00, not 10:00. proper notice. that is a simple subpoena issue. this is the judiciary committee. no offense, but natural resources, i could understand if they get it wrong, or transportation. i do not understand how judiciary gets this wrong. the chairman wants to hold people in contempt for not showing up, but try to get this to hold up in court, because there is no clarification of and what time do you appear at court? when you feel like it? no, when it says. unless the o

i respect this committee. i welcome and take seriously the committee's oversight role. during my confirmation process to be the dreprocess, i told the committee that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the intelligence community. having served as the dre ed and director of naths anational intelligence, i believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. as i pledged to the senate, i pledge today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i am serving in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism or when i return to the national counterterrorism center. to to ensure uriyou are informed t facilitate your ability to perform oversight. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without the committee's support. before i turn to the matter of hand, there are a few things i would like to say. i am not partisan and i am not political. i believe in a life of service and i'm honored to be a public servant. i served un