RADDATZ: So, let's bring in Democratic Representative Jackie Speier, a member of the intelligence committee, which will conduct those public hearings this week. Thanks so much for joining us.
Let me ask you, Robert Mueller's public testimony earlier this year did not galvanize public opinion on the findings of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. And while this is obviously a different allegation, how do you make a stronger public case this time?
REP. JACKIE SPEIER, (D-CA): I think for a number of reasons. First of all Bob Mueller's report was 400 pages long, had a lot of legalese. This is a very simple, straightforward act. The president broke the law. He went on a telephone call with the president of Ukraine and said I have a favor, though, and then proceeded to ask for an investigation of his rival.
And this is a very strong case of bribery, because you have an elected official, the president, demanding action of a foreign country in this case, and providing something of value, which is the investigation, and he is withholding aid, which is that official act.
And the constitution is very clear: treason, bribery or acts of omission. In this case, it's clearly one of those.
RADDATZ: Obviously Republicans would disagree with you on a lot of that. Republicans sent their list of witnesses that they want to call as part of the intelligence committee's public impeachment hearings yesterday. It included the whistle-blower, and Hunter Biden. But this is what Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement last night, this inquiry is not and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigation into the Bidens or 2016.
And in the letter to Republicans, Schiff calling the whistle-blower's testimony "redundant and unnecessary and would only place their personal safety at grave risk."
It doesn't sound like the chairman will allow Biden or the whistle-blower to testify, as the Republicans have requested.
If you're able to guarantee his or her safety, why shouldn't the whistle-blower testify?
SPEIER: Well, the whistle-blower actually provided a document. He was third hand.
We have Colonel Vindman, who was actually on the call, who will be in a position, I think, to testify. And so you have a much more direct person to speak to about the events. And you have the actual transcript that the president himself provided that is corroboration.
So you have -- what we have to prove, though, is corrupt intent. And we prove corrupt intent by showing, first of all, the money was withheld. Secondly, there was concealment. There's concealment, by virtue of having that transcript put into a special server.
You have concealment because you have persons within the administration who are prevented from testifying. You then go further and you have this diversion by the president by trying to focus on the whistle-blower, who legally has a right not to be coming forward.