Today, Explained - The first impeachment vote

Episode Date: October 31, 2019

Nancy: 1 / Donald: 0 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's a big day in Washington, D.C. It's Halloween. The Nationals won the World Series for the first time ever. Go Expos. And a World Series Game 7 winning Curly W is in the books. And the impeachment inquiry is official. On this vote, the yeas are 232. The nays are 196.

The resolution is adopted without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 660. I rise in strong support, but I do not take any pleasure in the events that have made this process necessary. I think the gentleman, Madam Speaker, trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't make it any less of a sham. Andrew Prokop, Politics Vox. What does this mean? It is now official and maybe already was official, but now it's it's like extra official. What does that mean?

Well, so today was the first full vote taken by the House of Representatives related to the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. And it's not a vote about impeaching Trump. It was a procedural vote on how the impeachment inquiry will work going forward. Now, this is basically a political move to sort of ratify and get the full House vote behind what Democrats were already doing. And it was pretty much a party-line vote. What does the actual resolution say? So the resolution was about procedures. It was about how things are going to work going forward.

And over the past month, the action in the impeachment inquiry has been in Representative Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee. They have been holding closed-door depositions of various Trump administration officials related to the scandal over whether Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponents, including Joe Biden. Now, this seems to be a signal that we are moving from the closed-door phase of this to an open setting where there will be public hearings aired on television, witnesses being questioned by members of Congress that we can all, at long last, watch. Did the House have to have this vote today? Why did they do it today? Why is this happening right now? They did not have to hold this vote. There's no requirement in House rules or in the Constitution that an impeachment inquiry start with a vote of the full House.

And it's not clear entirely why they are holding this vote now. But the fact that they have not held this vote yet has been one of the major Republican talking points used to criticize the impeachment inquiry for weeks now. Nancy Pelosi needs to have a fair process, a vote on the floor to actually authorize this impeachment inquiry with a standard set of rules and due process. This is an attempt to dress it up a little bit, to try and give it the sheen of legitimacy. And I just don't think that's going to sell. And it didn't seem like a particularly sincere argument because none of them are going to now say, all right, now it's legitimate that they've held this vote. They'll just move on to new process-based complaints in large part because

they're uncomfortable defending President Trump on the merits of this scandal. Well, the fact that Democrats may have been pressured into doing this by Republicans makes it sound sort of unremarkable, but there's like an official impeachment inquiry happening against the president. That's a pretty big deal, right? You know, on the substance, this vote doesn't change very much. Democrats were conducting this impeachment inquiry before it, and they will be conducting it after it. And it wasn't strictly necessary. Still, though, you know, an impeachment of a president is a very rare thing and it is a milestone that will be remembered by history that this is the first full vote of the House of Representatives related to the topic of whether Trump will be impeached even though that final full vote on impeachment is still probably weeks or more likely months down the road. So what comes next? Some like televised hearings?

So Schiff is going to bring back some of the witnesses that have testified behind closed doors. And he will also get new witnesses if he can. And then at the end of this phase, it's no specific timeline, but whenever they decide they're done, the intelligence committee and Schiff will write a report on their findings and recommendations. That report is then where the judiciary committee comes in. They will review the report and will probably draft articles of impeachment related to the findings of that report. And they will vote on whether to approve those articles of impeachment. And if they are approved, then they will go before the full house.

And that is the vote to impeach Donald Trump in the House. If any article of impeachment passes, Trump is impeached, and then we move to the Senate, which will hold a trial on whether he should be removed from office. Why call witnesses who have already testified? So the move now really is to make more of a public case about why Democrats think Trump did something very wrong here and deserves impeachment. They've gotten all of this information behind closed doors. That was the kind of fact-gathering phase away from TV cameras, stunts and people mugging for the cameras. And now they're ready. They think they are on a good position and they understand the basic facts of this scandal. And now they're ready to kind of air those facts more

in public and get some big TV events to capture voters' attention. And while we're on witness testimony, there was some witness testimony this week. Anything significant? There were several witnesses that came in to do their closed-door depositions this week. And the most significant one that we know of so far was Alexander Vindman. He is a staffer for the National Security Council, and he is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. And Vindman was the top Ukraine expert on the NSC staff, and he was in the mix and in the thick of all of this.

Today, the White House's top Ukraine expert told impeachment investigators that he and others on the National Security Council repeatedly raised concerns about the president's push for investigations into the Bidens and 2016 election interference. And he gave an opening statement, which has been released publicly, that was quite critical of what Trump did here in demanding these investigations into the Bidens. And Vindman says that he reported his concerns internally twice during this process. Why was Vindman's testimony a big deal? So Vindman added new detail to events and episodes we had previously heard about in this whole saga.

And he also revealed some new concerning episodes that we had not yet heard about. First of all, Vindman was on the famous phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. And that's interesting because he is actually the first official who was actually on the line during the call who Democrats have heard testimony from. He says, quote, I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen. And I was worried about the investigation, the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play, which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine

U.S. national security. That's what Vindman chose to reveal in his opening statement. Since his testimony, other details have leaked out that he apparently said behind closed doors. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the first witness with firsthand knowledge of that call to testify, reportedly told investigators the crucial phrases were left out of the White House transcript of the call. He said that he wanted to make certain changes to the transcript of the phone call afterward that he believed would more accurately reflect what was said. Like before the whistleblower even made his report? Yes. Vindman tried to add those details to the reconstructed White House

transcript of the call, but according to The Times, his edits were not included. And it's not clear why. Vindman also describes more about how the document summarizing the call was locked down afterward, that after he was telling the NSC's lawyer, John Eisenberg, about all these concerns, that the response was to try to prevent many other government officials from being able to see what happened here and have access to this transcript by moving it to a more secure system. You know, it looks like he will be a tough witness to discredit. He's corroborated a lot of what was said so far and raised new concerning allegations as well. Behind closed doors, the deposition grew heated.

Lawmakers shouting at each other. Democrats are accusing Republicans of asking questions in an effort to determine the whistleblower's identity. Do people think that Vindman himself could be the whistleblower? He testified he was not the whistleblower. And he doesn't match the reported background where the whistleblower is a CIA officer. Does he still work at the White House? Yes, he is still detailed to the NSC staff, but he is an active duty army officer. So, you know, the NSC staff is just a temporary assignment for him.

How much credibility does that give him that he's an active duty member of the military, that he's in the White House? Well, you might think that it would give him sterling credentials. He doesn't have a partisan background at all. He was wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb. He got a Purple Heart. And so, you know, he's a decorated veteran. But it didn't take long until some of Trump's defenders were viciously attacking him, calling attention to his background, which is that when he was three years old, his mother died and his father and grandmother fled Ukraine or the Soviet Union at the time and got to America. Most people would interpret this

as an inspiring story of the American dream that he rose to become a decorated military veteran and a top staffer in the White House's National Security Council. But Trump's defenders have used this to make insinuations and innuendos about, you know, is he really loyal to the United States or is he loyal to Ukraine? Because Colonel Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani,

though they typically communicated in English. Now, wait a second, John. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story? I find that astounding. And, you know, some people might call that espionage. It was pretty ugly stuff. And there were some Republicans who pushed back against it. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, daughter of the former vice president, Dick Cheney, spoke out and said that

questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to country of people like Mr. Vindman and others who have testified. It is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process. Senator Mitt Romney said the same thing. How does the president feel about someone who works in his White House testifying in such an incriminating way against him? Has he weighed in? The line Trump has taken is basically, I don't know him. I don't know those gentlemen.

That's the approach Mariah Carey takes when everyone asks her about Jennifer Lopez. The Mariah Carey defense. I don't know her. The president tweeted this. Supposedly, according to the corrupt media, the Ukraine call concerned today's never Trump or witness. Was he on the same call that I was? Can't be possible. Please ask him to read the transcript of the call.

Witch Hunt. Trump has also been relying on this talking point lately that the call is actually OK. And if you just read the call summary document released by the White House, which he keeps calling the transcript, then it'll be totally fine. And it's a bit weird because when that document was released, it was widely viewed as terribly damning for the president, but he has now just attempted to, I guess, just assert. I made a call. The call was perfect. There was no quid pro quo. There was nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along. Look at this. I did nothing wrong. And when, in fact, a lot of people think that it shows he did quite a lot wrong. Vinmin testified on Tuesday. Today, a cat named Tim Morrison testified.

Who's he? Morrison is another National Security Council staffer, and he was the top staffer handling Russian and European issues. And he is actually leaving the NSC. Word just broke Wednesday night about that. And so in his testimony, his opening statement is now out. And he doesn't really go out of his way to make President Trump look bad. But he did confirm some pretty ugly underlying facts that

other more hostile witnesses have laid out. Most specifically, he confirmed that Ukraine was in fact told in September that if they wanted to get their military aid, they needed to investigate Burisma, the natural gas company that Hunter Biden sat on the board of. And Tim Morrison is a Bolton guy, right? Yeah. Is Bolton going to testify? So on Wednesday night, the House Democrats sent a request to Bolton to testify. They asked him to show up next week.

And Bolton's lawyer quickly responded by saying that he would only show up if he was subpoenaed. However, there is a lawsuit going on right now by an aide who is close to Bolton and in fact using the same lawyer as him. This aide has sued both the House and the Trump administration and is basically asking a federal judge to tell him what to do. Should he testify as the House says or or should he not, as the Trump administration says? So Bolton may be waiting for this case to resolve itself before testifying or not testifying. It's interesting because, you know, he's a hardcore conservative. He's mad at Trump, but he also supports like executive power. He doesn't like Democrats. So I don't

know which way. He hates everyone in this whole saga. Well, irrespective of whether or not Bolton testifies, is the fact that you've got military personnel saying that this transcript is incomplete and what transpired was actually far more incriminating, the fact that this has now become official, is that going to sway any Republicans? And does it even matter? This is going to happen, right? It definitely looks like the House is going to impeach Trump at this point. The factual picture is bad enough as it is that the votes already seem to be there. So definitely bet on Trump being impeached at this point. But the question of the Senate is a tougher one. It takes two thirds to remove Trump from office. The

Republicans have a majority in the Senate as it is. So that means you need 20 Senate Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office. And right now we're not seeing anything close to that. Mitt Romney is still the only senator who is kind of openly defying the White House here and saying there's some very concerning stuff. All the others are trying to continue to dodge this in part because they say there are going to be jurors eventually. Jurors? Yeah. That's their official role. The House is the prosecutor in impeachment and the Senate is essentially a jury. So senators consider themselves jurors. And a lot of the Republican senators have used this as a convenient excuse to

avoid talking about this scandal in any way whatsoever. Well, I look forward to having you back to talk about the jurors, Andrew. Happy Halloween. The Senate has a lot of rural jurors. Ah, the rural juror. That is something. That's a 30 rock reference. The show is over, but the fun is ready to begin. Our guest today was senior correspondent Andrew Procorps. Today Explained is hosted by Sean Ramos Phantom. Our executive producer is Irene

No Spooky. The show is produced by Wichid McCarthy, Amina Alskerry, Noam Hasenfeir, and Halima Shah! Our engineer is Efim The Scream Shapiro.

We also had help this week from Jared Poltergeist and Matt Frassica. I mean, Frightsico. Fact-checking by Olivia Hextrum. And our music is

composed by the quite mundane Breakmaster Cylinder. Today, Hexplained is produced in association with Witcher, and we are part of the Fox Media Podcast Network. Network. Did you hear that Edward Snowden recently sat down with Joe Rogan for like a three-hour marathon interview? Did you hear that and go like, Damn, I would really like to listen to that interview,

but I really don't like Joe Rogan? I have incredible news for you if so. Kara Swisher of Recode just did a marathon interview with Edward Snowden. The two discuss everything from what it's like living in Russia to his views on the relationship between United States tech companies and the U.S. government, what he thinks about the whistleblower complaint that just launched the entire impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump and how it compares to his own experiences with Ziblor. They talk about so many things. And as per usual, Kara Swisher does not hold back. This episode, Snowden, Swisher, it drops in the Recode Decode feed tomorrow,

Friday, November 1st. If you're not subscribed to Recode Decode, now is the time. You'll get a nice little alert, maybe a little notification tomorrow when this episode goes live. Find it on Apple Podcasts, find it on Spotify, find it on Stitcher, find it wherever you don't listen to the Joe Rogan Experience.