>> 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."

>> 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... >> You're tough as nails, and you're smart as hell.

>> ...and offered some criticism of President Trump.

>> It's certainly not how the executive, current or in the future, should handle such a call.

>> At other times, he seemed to defend the President's actions.

>> I've not heard evidence proving the President committed bribery or extortion.

>> With more and more witnesses coming forward... >> Was there a quid pro quo?

The answer is yes.

>> ...what does Congressman Will Hurd say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Representative Will Hurd, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me on.

>> You are a Republican member of the House of Representatives, representing Texas' 23rd District.

>> That's correct.

29 counties, two time zones, 820 miles of the border.

>> Which makes you the only Republican in the House of Representatives that represents a border district with the U.S. border and Mexico border.

>> That's correct, and the longest border.

>> You are also on the House Intelligence Committee, which has, this week, been undergoing impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump.

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.

>> I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary and the Ukraine, not Russia, attacked us in 2016.

These fictions are harmful, even if they're deployed for purely domestic political purposes.

>> 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?

>> Well, let's start with -- Let's start with what the Russians did, alright?

And there's this notion that Republicans on the Intel Committee are not supportive of the fact that the Russians tried to manipulate our elections in 2016.

Everybody agrees to that because their goal was 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 involved, and my fear is that we are not doing enough to counter the disinformation that the Russians are continuing to try to do in 2020, and in my hearing after the Mueller investigation, Bob Mueller said, "Sitting there today, the Russians are still trying to do it."

>> Do you think part of that Russian disinformation campaign is this idea that it was actually Ukraine that was interfering in our elections, not Russia?

>> Sure, sure.

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

>> Is it helpful to have a President -- What happens when the President is spreading a narrative that is not true about our foreign allies?

>> Look, 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 disinformation.

>> You've spent this past two weeks hearing from members of our Foreign Service and who have served in similar positions as you have in government.

One of them is the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who you questioned for nearly four minutes, but you spent the first minute of your time questioning her talking about her accomplishments and her awards.

Let's take a look.

>> 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.

>> Why did you do that?

>> I think it's unfortunate that 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 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 hearings -- and there's very few, in my opinion -- was that we got to see some of the men and women in our diplomatic corps that oftentimes don't get the accolades they deserve.

>> And yet Ambassador Yovanovitch, while she was abroad, was -- and serving overseas as the ambassador to Ukraine -- became the target of a smear campaign 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 that she had served in.

And then the President tweeted while she was testifying in front of your committee, saying...

I just want to show you her reaction to the President's tweet about her when she was testifying.

>> 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?

>> Well, uh, it's very intimidating.

>> It's designed to intimidate, is it not?

>> [ Sighs ] I-I mean, I can't speak to what the President is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating.

>> What did you think about the President's tweet to Marie Yovanovitch?

>> I think it was terrible and it shouldn't have been done, alright?

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.

>> Was that witness intimidation?

>> Ah, 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.

>> 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 statements.

>> Sure.

>> I know that members of this committee 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 the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

>> 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, and on the other hand, when he spoke to the President, the President said, "There was no quid pro quo."

Did he answer that to your satisfaction?

>> 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, alright?

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.

>> Do you think there's a material difference whether there was a quid pro quo for a meeting with the President of the United States or for the $400 million in military aid?

>> 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 statute, 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 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.

>> But now we have this preponderance of information about how this series of events have unfolded, but it seems -- >> Why was the aid withheld?

>> Right.

It seems to me that we won't know that until we have people who had direct knowledge of the President's intentions.

>> Right.

>> So does that mean to you -- It seems to me that we should need to hear from the people who would know.

>> 100%.

>> Do we need to hear from Rudy Giuliani?

>> 100% we need to hear from Rudy Giuliani.

>> Do we need to hear from Ambassador John Bolton?

>> We need to hear from Rudy Giuliani.

We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney.

Those were the first two that I would start with.

>> How about Secretary of State Pompeo?

>> I think Secretary Pompeo 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?

>> And why does that matter?

>> Because it talks about their intention, right?

And was there direction in their efforts in doing and ultimately bringing the complaint to Congress?

>> Do you think the whistleblower didn't have earnest intentions?

>> 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 and after the complaint.

>> What he has said in a statement is that the whistleblower came to his office, and his office said that they couldn't deal with it, but they advised him to seek legal counsel.

>> Yeah, but should we just take one statement or not ask questions?

>> Tell me what we would learn from Hunter Biden.

>> 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 fairly well-known to 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.

If he can clear up some of this, I think it's actually helpful.

We should hear from everybody, right?

This is not -- and I've said this a billion times -- we're not voting somebody off the island in season 12 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 still be talking to and understanding more information, but they're trying to push this.

And this is a serious -- This is a serious matter.

It should be an overwhelming evidence of this kind of behavior, and what we have seen in the couple of weeks of hearings is not overwhelming or compelling.

>> Well, you've called this a partisan exercise.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> 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?

>> 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 this is -- there's still more people that we should be able to talk to, and a key person we have to talk to is ultimately Rudy Giuliani.

That's why I asked the questions as many times to try to understand who was Rudy Giuliani talking to ultimately within the Zelensky regime?

So, if there was a quid pro quo or there was some arm twisting or there was some bribe and Rudy Giuliani is ahead 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 -- >> They don't believe they were being pressured.

At least that's what they've said publicly, but can you take at face value what they say publicly?

>> Yes, because saying that the president of another country is going to lie to his people and going to lie the rest of the world because he's worried about some aid from another country?

That is completely disrespectful 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 will lie to his own countrymen because he's worried about this aid, to me, is crazy when there's no evidence to suggest that happened.

>> Okay.

Let's talk about what an impeachable offense actually is and what's gonna 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.

>> 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 principle casualty is ourselves rather than the President.

>> 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?

>> 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.

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

>> Yes.

>> So, you believe that the President should be impeached if there is a proven illegal or criminal conduct.

>> Yes.

>> You said there are 535 different opinions about what constitutes an impeachable offense.

Is abuse of power an impeachable offense?

>> I think if there is an abuse of power that was involved in a violation of the law, 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.

>> 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.

>> If that abuse of trust was a criminal violation, that is my definition.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> You can also argue that's inappropriate or shouldn't have been done, 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.

>> 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?

>> Of course not.

He hasn't.

Right?

The articles and his report has already been written, and that is what's gonna ultimately get transmitted to Judiciary.

We're gonna see -- We're gonna see that happen ultimately before the end of the year.

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

>> 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, and that includes the public hearings, the depositions, that suggests that there's evidence of bribery.

>> Are you waiting for more hearings or have you decided already?

>> Well, I'll decide when we get to that actual vote.

I don't know if there are going to be more hearings.

But as I've said, the hearings that I've participated in to this point, I have not seen evidence that says that confirms that there was a bribery or extortion.

>> Yeah.

But you haven't heard from Rudy Giuliani.

>> Haven't heard from Rudy.

Haven't heard from a lot of people.

>> Does that mean that your mind is still open or that you've decided to vote against articles of impeachment?

>> I don't know what's in front of me.

Again, I know what I know up until to this point.

If there's more information, I'm always going to evaluate new information before I make some decision.

>> Let's switch gears from the impeachment inquiry.

You announced in August that you're not going to run again for re-election in 2020.

After winning in potentially the hardest year for Republicans, in a district that was -- Hillary Clinton won by 3 points and you won by less than 1,000 votes in your re-election, so it's safe to say that you probably could've won re-election again in 2020.

>> Of course.

>> 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?

>> Every member has their own reason for why they're leaving.

Mine is simple.

I think I can help my country in different ways.

So I think this notion of Texodus and whether Texas is in play, I think these 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 state House in Texas, which means they're gonna be responsible for redistricting in 2021.

So the trends that we saw happen in California, then the Northeast, and recently in Virginia, all of those trends are in place in Texas.

>> You have 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.

>> And I think that applies to the rest of the country, and I would add 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 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.

>> The face of the party needs to be different.

You're a fresh face for the party, for sure.

But also the message of the party needs to be different.

You've demonstrated that, and 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.

>> Of course.

>> You're in favor of what instead?

>> 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 and depth.

You have to have different tools for every area.

But there is two broader pieces of information that we can be doing better.

We could have better technology along the border, and we could have more manpower.

>> So you have a different view than mainstream Republicans on immigration, which I think represents a modern view or a reform Republican view.

What are the other top two, three issues that Republicans need to reform on in order to win those groups of people you just said?

>> So, I don't actually think that my position is that far out of the mainstream, right?

>> It's quite different from the President.

>> From the President, 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?

>> But the point is, you represent a view amongst Republicans which, at the moment, is not the majority view.

Or maybe it is the majority view, but it's not the loudest voice in the room.

Let's say that.

>> It's not the loudest voice in the room.

I'll agree with that, right?

But 75% -- >> So what are the other couple issues?

>> I'll get to that.

75% of Republican primary voters believe DACA should be fixed and that Dreamers should have a permanent legislative fix, right?

76% of Republican primary voters.

That's a lot.

I would say that's freaking mainstream, right?

And so that's one area.

But I also -- I'm not afraid to talk and say climate change is real.

I actually think that more Republicans do believe that, but unfortunately, the handful of voices get magnified and everybody believes that that is ultimately something that every Republican believes that way.

>> How are you gonna keep modernizing the Republican Party if you're not an elected member of the Republican Party?

>> 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 sitted elected officials.

They're still helping in moving the party.

>> So is the best way then to be a modern Republican and influence the direction of the Republican Party to run for President?

>> Look, you know, that's a long ways off.

For me in the interim period is to talk about these issues and help change the face of the party, and I'll do that because I know Congress, right?

>> But what I didn't hear was a no.

So would you consider running for President in 2024?

>> Look, my -- As a kid, my mother always told me to be committed to something larger than yourself.

And if there's a point where I'm able to serve my country in a different way, then I'd evaluate that, 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 an academia, doing it in the media, doing it in the private sector.

That's the plan, and I'm gonna run through the tape in the 23rd because this has been a pleasure to represent my hometown.

>> Will Hurd, thank you for being at "Firing Line."

>> Always a pleasure.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪