议院司法委员会将于周三重返聚光灯下，首次就乌克兰丑闻举行弹劾听证会，这是一场公开摊牌，可能会引发共和党和民主党之间的争斗。
尽管最近有证人在众议院情报委员会作证支持唐纳德·特朗普总统的指控，称他以迫使外国调查可能的政治对手为交换条件，换取美国的军事援助，共和党人没有退缩保护他们政党的领袖。
总统在国会山的一些最大盟友已经明确表示，周三的听证会将由四名法律专家参加，重点是弹劾程序，届时将会充斥着关于程序的奇观和争论。
此外，情报委员会的共和党工作人员周一下午发布了一份少数派报告，反驳民主党的发现，该报告将在另一份报告中公布。这123页的文件这份报告将被共和党人用来为特朗普围绕乌克兰的行为辩护，报告的结论是，“提交的证据并不能证明民主党的任何指控，民主党的证人也没有证明有贿赂、敲诈或任何重大犯罪或不端行为的证据。"
“证据表明，特朗普总统对乌克兰有着长期、根深蒂固的怀疑，因为乌克兰有着普遍腐败的历史，”该报告称。报道还称，特朗普对乌克兰和腐败有“合理的担忧”，他对乔拜登的儿子亨特(Hunter)参与乌克兰天然气公司布里斯马(Burisma)的担忧是“合理的”
司法委员会的一名共和党成员表示，即将到来的听证会将比平时“更加激烈”。
周日，众议员安迪·比格斯(亚利桑那州)在福克斯新闻上说:“司法委员会中有时会有一群争吵者，所以随着我们的进展，争吵应该会变得相当激烈。”。“我认为事情没有像过去那样发展。所以它会引起一些怨恨，而且应该相当——我要说，比英特尔委员会要活跃得多。”
保守派众议院自由核心小组主席比格斯只是司法委员会中几个以支持特朗普而闻名的共和党人之一。小组成员还包括吉姆·乔丹(俄亥俄州共和党人)、马特·盖兹(佛罗里达州共和党人)、路易·戈默特(得克萨斯共和党人)、道格·柯林斯(共和党人)。)，约翰·拉特克利夫(得克萨斯州共和党人)和黛比·莱斯科(亚利桑那州共和党人)。
约旦和拉特克利夫也是情报委员会听证会的一部分，双方都强烈质疑特朗普的不当行为指控，并质疑一些证人的可信度。
司法机构的高级成员柯林斯警告杰罗德·纳德勒主席(纽约民主党)避免不公平地举行会导致“政治戏剧”的听证会柯林斯希望纳德勒允许共和党传唤同等数量的证人作证，从而确保弹劾调查的“公正性和恢复完整性”。立法者将听取四名证人的证词:三名来自民主党多数派，一名来自共和党少数派。
柯林斯上周在给纳德勒的一封信中写道:“委员会必须确保其在弹劾总统过程中保持信誉和历史上的卓越地位，不要匆忙撰写弹劾文章，也不要只听取对总统表现出敌意的学者的意见。”。
“在这一仓促的党派弹劾过程中，我一直要求大多数成员保持公正。12月4日听证会上专家的平等分配将是向美国人民展示弹劾调查不仅仅是政治戏剧的一个小小让步，”柯林斯补充道。
尽管白宫和共和党一直批评在调查中给予特朗普正当程序，但白宫拒绝参加周三的听证会，称不会派法律代表提问。至于原因，白宫法律顾问帕特·西波隆提到了谁将出庭作证的模糊性和缺乏准备时间。与此同时，特朗普指责民主党人有意安排听证会，安排他在伦敦出席北约峰会时出国。
西波尔龙在一封信中给纳德勒写道:“在证人尚未被提名，司法委员会是否会通过额外的听证为总统提供一个公平的程序还不清楚的情况下，不能公平地期望[·韦德参加听证。”。
“更重要的是，邀请法学教授参加学术讨论并不能为总统提供任何公平的程序。因此，在目前情况下，我们不打算参加你星期三的听证会，”西波隆补充说。
纳德勒称这一决定是“不幸的”。他还表示，如果“总统认为7月25日[与乌克兰总统的通话是‘完美’的，没有什么可隐瞒的，那么他将交出国会要求的数千页文件，允许证人作证，而不是用毫无根据的特权声明阻止证词，并提供任何反驳他滥用权力的确凿证据的开脱罪责的信息。”
至少有一名共和党人将参加周三的听证会，众议员汤姆·麦克林托克(加州共和党人)在周末表示，白宫不参加是错误的。
“我认为让他的律师在那里对总统有利。这是他的权利，”司法委员会成员周日在美国广播公司新闻上说。“但我也能理解他对我们在情报委员会看到的非法进程感到多么不安。”
GOP READIES 'FEISTY' DEFENSE STRATEGY FOR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
The House Judiciary Committee will return to the spotlight Wednesday with its first impeachment hearing on the Ukraine scandal, a public showdown that's likely to feature feuds between Republicans and Democrats.
Despite recent testimony by witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee that backed allegations President Donald Trump engaged in a quid pro quo to pressure a foreign country to investigate a possible political opponent in exchange for U.S. military aid,Republicans haven't backed downfrom defending their party's leader.
Some of the president's biggest allies on Capitol Hill have made it clear that Wednesday's hearing, which will feature four legal experts and focus on the impeachment process, will be filled with spectacle and arguments over procedure.
In addition, Republican staffers on the Intelligence Committee released a minority report Monday afternoon to rebut Democrats' findings that will be published in a separate report. The123-page document, which will be used by Republicans to defend Trump's actions surrounding Ukraine, concluded that "the evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats' witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor."
"The evidence shows that President Trump has a long-standing, deep-seated skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption," the report states. It went on to say that Trump had "legitimate concerns" about Ukraine and corruption, and that his concerns about the involvement of Joe Biden's son, Hunter, in a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, were "valid."
One GOP member of the Judiciary Committee suggested the upcoming hearing would be "much more feisty" than usual.
"There's a bunch of brawlers sometimes on the Judiciary Committee, so it should get pretty hot and under the collar as we go along," Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on Fox News. "I don't think things have been done the way they've been done in the past. And so it causes some rancor, and it should be pretty—much, much more feisty, I would say, than the Intel Committee was."
Biggs, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is just one of several Republicans on the Judiciary panel who are known for going to bat for Trump. The panel also includes Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Doug Collins (R-Ga.), John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) and Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.).
Jordan and Ratcliffe were also part of the Intelligence Committee's hearings, and both vehemently disputed the accusations of wrongdoing against Trump and questioned some of the witnesses' credibility.
Collins, the ranking member of Judiciary, has warned Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to avoid unfairly conducted hearings that would lead to "political theater." Collins wants Nadler to ensure "fairness and restore integrity" to the impeachment inquiry by allowing Republicans to call an equal number of witnesses to testify. Lawmakers will hear from four witnesses: three from the Democratic majority and one from the GOP minority.
"The Committee must ensure it maintains its credibility and its historically preeminent role in the impeachment of presidents by not rushing to articles of impeachment or hearing only from scholars with demonstrated animosity towards the President," Collins wrote in a letter to Nadler last week.
"Throughout this hurried and partisan impeachment process, I have consistently requested mere fairness from members of the majority. An equal distribution of experts for the December 4 hearing would be a small concession to demonstrate to the American people this impeachment inquiry is not merely political theater," Collins added.
In spite of persistent criticism from the White House and Republicans about affording Trump due process in the inquiry, the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday's hearing, saying it will not send a legal representative to ask questions. As for the reasons, White House counsel Pat Cipollone cited ambiguity over who would be testifying and a lack of preparation time. Trump, meanwhile, accused Democrats of purposefully scheduling the hearing for when he would be out of the country at a NATO summit in London.
"[W]e cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone wrote to Nadler in a letter.
"More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing," Cipollone added.
Nadler called the decision "unfortunate." He also said that if the "president thinks the call [with Ukraine's president on July 25] was 'perfect' and there is nothing to hide, then he would turn over the thousands of pages of documents requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify instead of blocking testimony with baseless privilege claims, and provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power."
At least one Republican who will participate in Wednesday's hearing, Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), suggested over the weekend it would be a mistake for the White House to not take part.
"I think it would be to the president's advantage to have his attorneys there. That is his right," the Judiciary panel member said Sunday on ABC News. "But I can also understand how he is upset at the illegitimate process that we saw unfold in the Intelligence Committee."
