Will Hurd

He’s a Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who, in the past, has stood up to the President. Will he do it again? This week on Firing Line

SOT HURD: An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous

Through two weeks of public impeachment hearings, Texas Congressman Will Hurd has praised career diplomats.

SOT HURD: You’re tough as nails and you’re smart as hell. 

And offered some criticism of President Trump 

SOT HURD: it’s certainly not how the executive, current or in the future, should handle such a call.

At other times, he’s seemed to defend the President’s actions

SOT HURD: I’ve not heard evidence proving the President committed bribery or extortion. 

With more and more witnesses coming forward 

SONDLAND: Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.

What does Congressman Will Hurd say now?

‘FIRING LINE WITH MARGARET HOOVER’ BROUGHT TO YOU BY — ROBERT GRANARI.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS PROVIDED BY —
CORPORATE FUNDING PROVIDED BY STEVENS INC.

HOOVER: Representative Will Hurd, welcome the Firing Line. 

HURD: Thanks for having me on.

HOOVER: You are a Republican member of the House of Representatives representing Texas’s 23rd District. 

HURD: That’s correct. 29 counties, 2 time zones, 820  miles of the border, 

HOOVER: which makes you the only Republican in the House of Representatives that represents a border district with the US border and Mexico border. 

HURD: That’s correct. And the longest border.

HOOVER: You are also on the House Intelligence Committee, 

HURD: Uh huh

HOOVER: …which has this week been undergoing impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump.

HOOVER: We are at the end of the second week of public testimony, and this week we heard from Dr Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former Russia National Security Council adviser. And here’s what she said in her opening statements. Let’s take a look. 

SOT FIONA HILL, Nov. 21, 2019: I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016. These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. 

SECOND HLF CUT FOR SATURDAY 

HOOVER: The president and some Republicans seem to be subscribing to this narrative that Ukraine interfered in our elections in 2016, although there does seem to be no evidence that that’s the case. Do you subscribe to this?  claim?

HURD: Well, let’s start with let’s start with what the Russians did, right? And there’s this notion that Republicans on the Intel Committee are not supportive of the fact that the Russians try to be tried to manipulate our elections in 2016. Everybody agrees to that, because their goal was to to sow discord and distrust in our democratic institutions. And guess what? That is still going on. And it’s very clear, the Republican report, we said that the Russians were, were involved. And my fear is that we are not doing enough to counter the disinformation that the Russians are continuing to try to doing to do in 2020. And in my hearing against with after the Mueller investigation. Bob Mueller said, sitting there today, the Russians are still trying to do it.

HOOVER: Do you think part of that Russian disinformation campaign is this idea that it was actually Ukraine that was that was interfering in our elections. 

HURD: Sure –

HOOVER: Not Russia?

HURD:  Sure. And there are elements of the Russian government trying to make it sound like it was Ukraine

HOOVER: Is it helpful to have a president what happens when the president is spreading a narrative that is not true about our foreign allies?

HURD: Look, it it’s bad foreign policy, right? It’s also bad foreign policy. When you have Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence suggesting that Republicans don’t believe that the Russians were involved in our 2016 election, right? That actually contributes to all this to all this disinformation. 

HOOVER: You’ve spent this past two weeks hearing from members of our foreign service… 

HURD: Sure

HOOVER: …who have served in similar positions, as you have in government. One of them is the former ambassador of Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who you questioned for nearly four minutes. But you said the first minute of your time questioning her, talking about her accomplishments and her awards. Let’s take a look:

SOT HURD, Nov. 15: You’re tough as nails and you’re smart as hell. You’re a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You’re an honor to your family. You are an honor to the foreign service. You are an honor to this country. And I thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country.

HOOVER: Why did you do that?

HURD:  I think it’s unfortunate. There have been many members of our foreign service that have been smeared over the last couple of years. And I think, Ambassador Yovanovitch is a perfect example of the kind of foreign service officer that we need doing our, our, our, you know, national security around the country. And for me, I think it was an example of she’s been in tough places, she’s won countless awards, and I think one of the benefits of these of these hearings — and there’s very there’s very few, in my opinion — was that we got to see some of the men and women in our diplomatic corps and that oftentimes don’t get the accolades they deserve.

HOOVER: And yet, Ambassador Yovanovitch, while she was abroad And was serving overseas as the ambassador in Ukraine, became the target of a smear campaign 

HURD: Sure

HOOVER: by President Trump’s lawyer and his associates. The president later referred to her as bad news and said she’s going to go through some things. When he spoke to the president of the country and she had served in. And then the president tweeted while she was testifying in front of your committee, saying: everywhere Marie Yovanovich has went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian president spoke unfavorable about her on my second phone call with him. I just want to show you her reaction to the president’s tweet about her when she was testifying.

SOT HEARING, November 15th, 2019 

SCHIFF: And now, the president in real-time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, it’s very intimidating.

SCHIFF: It’s designed to intimidate, is it not?                                                          YOVANOVITCH: I — I — I mean, I can’t speak to what the president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating.

HOOVER: What did you think about the president’s tweet to more easily advantage? 

HURD: I think it was terrible and it shouldn’t have been done,right? And ultimately, everybody has agreed that the president has the ability to select his ambassadors and just do it. If you wanted somebody different, pick somebody different, alright. You don’t have to go through the process that they went through and some of the things that she had to deal with.

HOOVER: Was that witness intimidation?

HURD: You know, I think witness intimidation is a very specific term used to influence somebody that’s coming to testify in a judicial proceeding. This wasn’t a judicial proceeding, but I think it was ill advised and something that shouldn’t have happened.

HOOVER: Another person who testified this week was Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, and he spoke directly with the President about Ukraine on at least a half dozen occasions. Let’s watch a portion of his opening statement.

HURD: Sure.

SOT SONDLAND, November 20th, 2019 I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

HOOVER:  In your opportunity to question Ambassador Sondland, you asked him about a contradiction in his testimony, it seemed to you,  where he said on the one hand there was a quid pro quo. 

HURD: Mhmm

HOOVER:  And on the other hand, when he spoke to the president, the president said there was no pro quid pro quo.

ADDED FOR SATURDAY:

HOOVER: Did he answer that to your satisfaction?

HURD: No, he didn’t answer it to my satisfaction. And throughout the hearing, one of the things that he narrowed, what he meant was a quid pro quo was that Rudy Giuliani’s request was a quid pro quo, and he assumed that Rudy Giuliani was operating on behalf of the president, right? And it was specifically for that White House meeting, right? And then he talked and he assumed after the fact, way after September and in October, that somehow aid was wrapped into all of this.

——

HOOVER: Do you think there’s a material difference of whether there was a quid pro quo for a meeting with the president of the United States or for the 400 million dollars in military aid?

HURD: There’s there’s a very big difference. Because ultimately what the Democrats are alleging is that some type of bribery happened. And under the federal bribery statutes, a meeting, or calling someone, is not counted as a something that can be offered for a bribe. And so the difference between aid and bribery is is significantly different. And also when you look at all the individuals that were involved and that we’ve had conversations about, many of them could not say that they knew at the time that aid was involved.

HOOVER: But now, we have this preponderance of information about how this series events have unfolded, but it seems to me… 

HURD: Why was the aid withheld? 

HOOVER: Right. It seems to me that we won’t know that until we have people who had direct knowledge of the president’s intentions. 

HURD: For sure. Right. 

HOOVER: So what does that mean to you — it seems to me that we should need to hear from the people who would know. 

HURD: 100 percent. 

HOOVER: Do we need to hear from Rudy Giuliani?

HURD: One hundred percent we need to hear from Rudy Giulani. 

HOOVER: Do we need to hear from Ambassador John Bolton? 

HURD: We need to hear, we need to hear from Rudy Giuliani. We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney. Those were the first two that I would start with. 

HOOVER: How about Secretary of State Pompeo?

HURD: I think Secretary Pompeo should should come as well. I think there’s a lot more people that we should hear from. I actually think we should hear from Hunter Biden. I think we should hear from the whistleblower and we should be able to protect the whistleblower’s anonymity. Because ultimately, who did the whistleblower have contact with before the whistle was blown? Right. 

HOOVER: And why does that matter? 

HURD: All those-  because it talks about their intention. Right? And it was their direction in their efforts in doing in and ultimately bringing that complaint to the Congress.

HOOVER: Do you think the whistleblower didn’t have earnest intentions?

HURD: I don’t know what the whistleblower’s intentions are. Here’s what I do know, that Adam Schiff had to correct a statement on his office’s contact with the whistleblower. I would love to hear from Adam Schiff and have him answer questions about what was his office’s connection and involvement with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being brought forward.

HOOVER: What he had said in his statement was that the whistleblower came to his office and his office said that they couldn’t deal with it the way they had. They advised him to seek legal counsel.

HURD: Yeah. But should we just take one statement or not ask questions? 

HOOVER: Tell me what we would learn from Hunter Biden?  

HURD: All the things that went around Burisma. All of this has got started because the name Biden was mentioned on the July 25th phone call between President Trump and Mr. Zelensky. So his role in this company, this company has been investigated multiple times. The leader of the company is is fairly well known to have have built the Ukrainian government. And I think it’s an important piece because there’s been a lot of conversations about Burisma and Mr. Biden. And if he can if he can clear up some of this, I think it’s actually helpful.

HURD:  We should hear from everybody, right? This is not — and I’ve said this a million times — we’re not voting somebody off the island in season twelve of Survivor. This is one of the most serious things a member of Congress can do. It shouldn’t be rushed. Right? This is being rushed prematurely because the Democrats want to get it done before the vote, the elections that start in New Hampshire, right, and the primaries in New Hampshire. There’s a lot of people we should be we should still be talking to it and understanding more information. But they’re trying to push this. And this is a serious it’s a serious matter. It should be an overwhelming evidence of of this kind of behavior. And what we have seen in the couple of weeks of hearings is not overwhelming or compelling.

HOOVER: Well, you’ve called this a partisan exercise. 

HURD: Mm hmm

HOOVER: You’ve criticized the way the process has been handled. Do you think the hearings so far have been helpful or useful to the American people? Has information come out that has been helpful?

HURD: I think ultimately, if you hate the president, every piece of information you saw was an example of why you should impeach. If you love the president every piece of information you saw was an example of how he should be exonerated. I ultimately want to try to get to the truth. And I believe there is still more people that we should be able talk to. And a key person we have to talk to is ultimately Rudy Giuliani. That’s why I ask the questions as many times as I do and try to understand who was Rudy Giuliani talking to within ultimately within the Zelensky regime. 

HURD: So if there was a quid pro quo, or there was some arm twisting or there was some bribe and Rudy Giuliani is the head of it, who did he bribe? Who were the people he was talking to? Because ultimately, the president of Ukraine, the foreign minister of Ukraine, his senior aides, the secretary of defense for Ukraine, none of them believed that they were being pressured. Now, my Democratic colleagues will say – 

HOOVER: Hang on. They don’t believe they’re being pressured.

HOOVER: At least that’s what they’ve said publicly. But do you take at face value what they say publicly?

HURD: Yes! OK, because saying that the president of another country is going to lie to his people and going to lie to the rest of the world because he’s worried about some aid from another country? That is completely disrespectful to that, to that, to that leader. The Ukrainian government is involved in a hot war with Russia. They are holding their own. And by implying that he’s subservient to the United States and would lie to his own countrymen because he’s worried about this aid to me is crazy, when there is no evidence to suggest that’s what happened. 

HOOVER: [17:41:35] OK. Let’s talk about what an impeachable offense actually is and what’s going to rise to an impeachable offense on this program which aired for 33 years. William F. Buckley Jr. was the original host of it. And in one episode, at the height of the Watergate hearings in 1973, Buckley spoke to what he believed rises to, not just an impeachable offense, but an offense worthy of removing the president from office. And I’d like you to take a look. 

SOT BUCKLEY: You must not punish the Republic by convulsing it and this is what the impeachment instrument is. The impeachment instrument, in my opinion, ought to be used not to punish a president but to remove him. If you think that the safety of the state requires that the president be removed, then you invoke it; but you don’t invoke it for high crimes and misdemeanors without recognizing that the principal casualty is ourselves rather than the president.

HOOVER: If the president’s offense, as Buckley says, does not imperil the safety of the state, do you agree with Buckley that the primary casualty of a removal of the president is actually the country instead of the president?

HURD: I think that’s right. And ultimately, I would add to what Mr. Buckley had said. What rises to an impeachable offense? There’s 535 different opinions on that. And that is the members of the House and the Senate that have that. It’s ultimately a political process. And each person has to have their own opinion on what rises to that level. 

HOOVER: Is your opinion of what rises to that level a criminal violation of the law?

HURD: Yes. 

HOOVER: So you believe that the president should be impeached if there is a proven illegal or criminal criminal conduct. 

HURD: Yes.

HOOVER: You said there are 535 different opinions about what constitutes an impeachable offense. Is abuse of power an impeachable offense? [18:00:58]

HURD: I think if there is an abuse of power that that was involved in a violation of the law, then then yes. And so trying to define what an abuse of power is, is going to be one of those things that you’re going to also have 535 different opinions on.

HOOVER: an abuse of trust, as Alexander Hamilton said, and many legal scholars say, is also grounds for impeachment, that it doesn’t just have to be a criminal violation, 

HURD: If if that abuse of trust was a criminal violation. That is my definition.

HOOVER: But to be clear, from your perspective, an abuse of power is not, for you, an impeachable offense. The President of the United States has to be proven to have broken a law, or committed a crime.

HURD: I ultimately believe that abuse of power and a violation of the law are ultimately the same things, right? And so I don’t know what a scenario is when you have an abuse of power, but it’s not a violation of the law.

HOOVER: Well, it may not be illegal to ask a foreign leader to open an investigation into your chief political opponent, but it could be argued that that is an abuse of power.

HURD: You can also argue that that’s inappropriate or shouldn’t have been done. But, but how did the person that was receiving that request view it? And ultimately President Zelensky and their foreign minister have made it very clear that they didn’t feel like their arms were being twisted or that they were being pressured to do anything?

HOOVER: You will soon likely have to vote. As it turns out, it’s quite likely you’ll have to vote on articles of impeachment, and whether to send them to the Senate. Do you believe — because you’ve spoken, that this process is inherently partisan and you’ve seen the partisanship as it plays out — do you believe that Chairman Schiff has kept an open mind to this process? 

HURD: Of course not, he hasn’t. Right. The articles and his report has already been written, and that is what’s going to ultimately get transmitted to Judiciary. We’re going to see we’re going to see that happen, ultimately, before the end of the year.

HOOVER: Do you think anyone in the House of Representatives has kept an open mind in this process? 

HURD: Yeah, I have! Right. And my goal has always been to understand the facts. Right. And I have not seen anything in the number of hearings that I have participated in the review into — and that includes the public hearings, the depositions — that suggested there’s evidence of – 

HOOVER: Are you waiting for more hearings or have you decided already? 

HURD: Well, I’ll decide when the when we get to that actual vote. I don’t know what there are going to be more hearings. But as I as I’ve said. The hearings that I’ve participated in to this point, I have not seen evidence that says that, that confirms that there was a bribery or extortion. 

HOOVER: But you haven’t heard from Rudy Giuliani.

HURD: Haven’t heard from Rudy. Haven’t heard from a lot of people.

HOOVER: Does that mean that your mind is still open, or that you’ve decided to vote against him, articles of impeachment?

HURD: I don’t know. I don’t know what’s in front of me again. I know what I know up until this point. If there’s more information, I’m always going to evaluate new information before I make some decision.

HOOVER: Let’s switch gears on the impeachment inquiry. You announced in August that you’re not going to run again for reelection in 2020. After winning in potentially the hardest year for Republicans, in a district that was, Hillary Clinton won by three points, and you won by less than a thousand votes in your reelection. So it’s safe to say you probably could have won reelection again in 2020. 

HURD: Of course. 

HOOVER: There’s this term ‘a Texodus,’ which refers to the six Republican members of the House of Representatives from Texas who are not running again. What’s going on?

HURD: Every member has their own reason for why they’re leaving. Mine is simple. I think I could help my country in different ways. So I think this notion of Texodus and whether Texas is in play. I think those are two separate issues. Right. And I also believe Texas is in play. Texas is a purple state. Just because we don’t have a statewide elected Democrat doesn’t mean it’s not in play in 2020. I think that Democrats have a real shot of taking over a majority in the statehouse in Texas, which means they’re going to be responsible for redistricting in 2021. So the trends that we saw happen in California than the Northeast and recently in Virginia, all of those trends are in place and in Texas.

HOOVER: You’ve said you said in a quote in The Washington Post that if the Republican Party in Texas doesn’t start looking like Texas, that it won’t be there won’t be a Republican Party in Texas anymore.

HURD: And I think that applies to the rest of the country. And I would add it, if the Republican Party doesn’t start  looking like America and start appealing to all Americans, there won’t be a Republican Party in America. And why should that matter to Democrats and why should that matter to to Independents? The only way we have ever solved big problems in this country is by doing it together. And the only way you do that is if you have a true competition of ideas in November. And so I want to make sure that we have a party that’s appealing to communities of color, people under the age of 29, women with a college degree in the suburbs. Those are the three groups where the Republican brand is terrible. And those are the three largest growing groups of voters. And so we have to be able to take a message to folks like that. And helping to change the face of the party so that we can do that is important for us. 

HOOVER: The face of the party needs to be different. You’re a fresh face and the party, for sure. But also the message of the party needs to be different. You’ve demonstrated that you have actually stood in stark contrast to the president, especially with respect to how to handle issues like immigration and a wall. You’ve been outspoken as the only Republican who represents a border with Mexico between the U.S. and Mexico, that you are not for a wall in the traditional sense. You’re in favor of what instead?

HURD: Look, I’ve always said building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security. Every mile of the border is different from every other mile. And so you have to have what’s called defense in depth. You have to have different tools for every area. But there’s two broader pieces of information that we can be doing better. We can have better technology along the border and we can have more manpower. 

HOOVER: So you have a different view than mainstream Republicans on immigration, which I think represents a modern view, or a reformed Republican view. What are the other top two, three issues that Republicans need to reform in order to win those groups of people you just said?

HURD: So I don’t actually think that my position is that far out of the mainstream, right?

HOOVER: It’s quite different from the president. 

HURD: From the president, but but also, I don’t think that. I always tell people all the time, the president’s not my boss. Kevin McCarthy is not my boss. The speaker is not my boss, right.

HOOVER: But the point is you represent a view amongst Republicans, which at the moment is not the majority view or maybe it is a majority view, but it’s not the loudest voice in the room.

HURD: It’s not the loudest voice in the room. I’ll all agree with that, right. 

HOOVER: But what are the other couple issues? 

HURD: 75% of Republican primary voters believe DACA should be fixed and that that Dreamers should have a permanent legislative fix, right? 76% of Republican primary voters. That’s a lot. I would say that’s that’s freakin mainstream. Right? And so, so, so. So that’s one area. But I also like I’m not afraid to talk and say climate change is real. All right. And it’s happening. 

CLIMATE CHANGE TRIMMED FOR SATURDAY. 

I actually think that more Republicans do believe that. But unfortunately, the the the handful of voices get magnified. And everybody believes that that is ultimately something that we shouldn’t, you know, that that is… every Republican believes that way. 

HOOVER: So how are you going to keep modernizing the Republican Party. if you’re not an elected member of the Republican Party, 

HURD: I love that question because everybody thinks the only way to get anything done is in Congress. Right. And look at all the members that are running for president on the Democratic side. All of them are not sitting elected officials. They’re still helping and moving the party.

HOOVER: So is the best way then to be a modern Republican and influence the direction the Republican Party to run for president?

HURD: Look, I know that’s a long ways off for me in the interim period is to talk about these issues and help and help change the face of the party. And I’ll do that because I know Congress, right?

HOOVER: But what I didn’t hear was a no. So would you consider running for president in 2024?

HURD: Look, as a kid my mother always told me to be committed to something larger than yourself. And if if is a point where I’m able to serve my country in a different way, then I’d evaluate that. All right? But in the meantime, I’m looking forward to continuing to elevate these issues that I’ve been talking about in Congress in a different way. Doing it in academia. Doing it in the media. Doing it in the private sector. So that’s the plan. And I’m going to run through the tape in the twenty third, because now this has been a pleasure to represent my hometown.

HOOVER: Will Hurd, thank you for being at Firing Line.

HURD: Always a pleasure. Yeah.

‘FIRING LINE WITH MARGARET HOOVER’ IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MARGARET AND DANIEL LOEB FOUNDATION.
ROBERT GRANERI THROUGH THE FUND.
DAVID STEPPER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS PROVIDED BY — CORPORATE FUNDING IS PROVIDED BY STEVENS INC.
–Captions by VITAC– www.vitac.com
YOU’RE WATCHING PBS.