under the resolution as it's written, is the president represented in the judiciary committee. does he have the ability to cross examine. >> in the resolution in the draft, 660 only in the judiciary. zyme assuming the answer is yes. >> the president has no ability to ask questions in the intelligence committee. >> does he have it in any of the ecommittees pursuing impeachmen inquiry. as hr resolution is drafted, mentioning financial services, foreign affairs, oversight reform, ways and means and intelligence the president has no ability to participate in any way in any of those commitments. >> to my friend's recollection, was that the case for president clinton or nixon? were they represented in a a committee of jurisdiction where the hearings were taken place? >> the majority can draft it ass they see fit, but your vision is mine. 581 is passed by the republican house in 1998. there were only four hearings held. three at the house's request. one at president clinton's request. if. >> so that wouldn't be possible under this procedure. >> it would be impossible in all of those co

those things that should be in the judiciary committee. goodness knows our intelligence committee, as we all saw yet again in our briefing today, has lots of other work to do. to stackis a reason deckeck or to level the i'm open to hearing up no one has shared it with me. >> we are getting to the truth. >> is that? maintaining my time, mr. chairman, and i would be happy to yield to the chairman, is getting to the truth thwarted by asking the same as the majority that you're asking of the minority? >> no. well, i think what the to focus in is on making sure the investigation moves forward and not a budget sideshows. >> i would be happy to yield back. >> i just want to make, number one, we are in a process debate. this is what this resolution is. dismiss the importance of the underlying subject at all. and i know, i would hope you know and i believe you do that i don't. we're debatingt tonight so we will end up in process are doing. the second point is just, this is just a a matter of simple fairness. the same requirement. why in the world if

work in the judiciary committee.was an open hearing on november 19th, 1998, where ken starr came and testified before the judiciary committee. he was essentially the accuser. this is what republicans are saying. that adam schiff is the accuser, or maybe the whistleblower. and that david kendall, who was president clinton's attorney, he then cross-examined ken starr in the judiciary committee. not so much the members, but the president's attorney pair that was that back-and-forth due process that republicans are arguing instance. that there is no guarantee if they get to the judiciary committee that there would be such a back-and-forth. again, this historical precedent is important. it's important to note we haven't done impeachment of president's very often, so it's always going to be a little different. you take that 1998 model, who exactly then would be the accuser? if you look at '98, it was ken starr. what republicans want to do that? that is where some republicans are thinking this could end very badly for democ

to get your reaction to what control you think this rule gives chairman nadler in the house judiciary committeeu expect that on the committee chair. in 1998, we gave the -- the republicans gave the white house exactly the procedural guarantees that the democrats are now giving to the trump white house. it's almost word for word in terms of procedural guarantees. and after those were voted on, they were voted on by voice vote in the committee. here you actually have a house rule in place, which is much stronger than you had in 1998. after those rules were put in place, tom mooney and myself had to meet with the white house counsel to discuss the implementation of those rules. while there was intense disagreement during the 1998 impeachment, but during the meeting when we had to negotiate how the rules would be carried through, there was complete cooperation by the white house. the clinton white house cooperated every step along the way, even though there was intense disagreement on the overall impeachment, and that's totally contrary today. republicans have painted themselves in a corner by rely

the judiciary committee, which i'm a part of. apparently the powers that be have not been pleased with the democratic performance in the judiciary committee, so somebody figured out, we're better off politically, no matter about the damage it may do to our country, we're better off politically as having a star chamber proceeding where we're the only ones that go out and leak what we want to be out . and that way all of the evidence that shows the president didn't do anything wrong, that doesn't get to come out because if it does, then we'll demand prosecution, so we'll be the only ones that leak information. and we can legally make things available to the press, so we'll only make those things available that are taken out of context, that help us accomplish our goal of trying to make president trump look bad. i heard the speaker on television say that she was tasking six committees with investigating president trump. and one of those judiciary -- is the judiciary which i'm on. sometimes we have things that re so important to keep

them to give it to a judiciary committee, it has been completely neutered of its power. they were completely inept at handling the russia investigation. do i have to remind you of john dean? this is pathetic. the rules committee actually had to write the rules for the judiciary committee because they didn't even trust them enough to do that. i ask you how can the american people trust this judiciary committee which the speaker of the house doesn't trust to handle an impeachment article. when it gets to the judiciary committee, i do have one thing for mr. schiff. if he wants to be a special counsel, here's my challenge. you want to be ken starr, be ken starr, come to the judiciary committee, be the first witness and take every question asked of you. starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower. folks, this ain't over. the get ready. the cloud that is dropping will be dropping on their heads because process matters and substance will always win out in the end and this president has nothing to worry about on substance. i yield back. >> congress will go back to t

because the how the abilities of the transferring from intel committee to the judiciary committee will be had, and no time frame. and maybe we didn't know how to properly ask in rules committee, and i will tell you that we know properly how to use rules 2e that we were told by one of the committees that we could not have access because the parliamentarian said no, and this is false and it needs to stop. this house is developing and shredding procedures everyday, and if the members of the minority and the majority cannot have the rights they are given, then we are in a sad situation. in the haste to put it together, they did not exempt the rule 211e, and it was known in the nixon and clinton impeachment, and we didn't exempt it this time, because we are in such a hurry to impeach this president that we don't give a darn. and so i have a question, we have been here 200-plus years as a committee, and our committee has been neutered and our committee who handles impeachment, and we have been sidelined and our chairman have been sidelined and i am sideline and so bad that they had have to h

my guess is that she knows that the republicans in the judiciary committee, a bunch of lawyers are smart and can retort a lot of things and maybe that's not the case in the other committees, but really we'd have to ask her. i don't know what their rationale is.s. i think it's a bad move because i think that the people will see that these closed-door, secret meetings, unfair, not a vote by the full house of representatives on approving the inquiry with the standard set of rules for due process that any american citizen should get is just not fair.t is it's partisan. parti i mean,sa it's totally obvious me that it's totally partisan. >> we'll go to billy who is in beltsville, maryland.s independent. >> yes. thanks for taking my call.. thee first point is her respons just now that she's saying that the representatives that are iny the inquiry are not smart to th enough? i aboutmean, come on. what is she saying? let's go back to the president.y in 2016 during the presidential primaries, he was the one who publicly said for the russians u toe hack hillary clinton's e-mails. so ifat, it democr

trump and his lawyers once proceedings move to the judiciary committee. today trump's republican allies in the house argued the resolution and a subsequent vote still do not address their concerns about the process. >> you can't put the genie back in the bottle. a due process starts at the beginning. it doesn't affirm a sham investigation all the way through. >> it's clear pelosi needs to declare a mistrial. this has been a tainted process from the start. >> this process has been illegitimate. it's been without credibility. >> tomorrow afternoon the house rules committee will begin reviewing the draft impeachment resolution. as it moves forward, the top democrat in the senate says he's concerned about the impeachment time line and the president's tendency to try to distract. >> i'm increasingly worried that president trump may want to shut down the government again because of impeachment, an impeachment inquiry. he always likes to create diversions. i hope and pray he won't want to cause another government shutdown because it might be a diversion away fro

i should be allowed in that room as a member of the judiciary committee, armed services committee and they wouldn't let us in. it begs the question what are they hiding. >> you're speaking for yourself. you are a member of judiciary and armed services. none of those committees are conducting these depositions. it's intel -- >> i don't know that. i don't know that. no. >> it is a fact. >> it's not a fact. go back and look at the 12th hearing of the judiciary committee. you cannot misstate that as a fact. how can you tell me it's a fact that my committee is not involved when it was the judiciary committee who launched the investigation. >> you have not subpoenaed these individuals for a deposition. that is a fact. >> no. you're shifting ground now. right. first you say we're not involved and then you say we didn't issue the subpoenas. those are two different things. we are involved because our chairman launched the inquiry. that is a fact. >> sure. i want to let you have your say here but i want to find out why you think the rules do not apply to you as they're laid out, to you, congres

they may never get to a hearing stage with the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee ultimatelyite the articles of impeachment but all of the actual hearings might just happen in the house intelligence committee. what we know so far is that adam schiff is still running this investigation. listen. >> i make no prejudgment as to whether not a remedy will warranted when we finish these hearings. i will weigh all the facts that are put forward. >> adam schiff is basically saying we are going to be even killed about this. here's a statement from schiff he said the procedures incorporated into open hearings and this is why we think they will do most of the heavy lifting, dana come in which staff counsel will be permitted to sustain questions for 45 minutes per side and then followed by member questions. they may never get to that point and this is why republicans would love to have open hearings with the house judiciary committee because they think they might be able to turn fire on adam schiff. >> dana: all right chad pergram we appreciate all you do press. thank you. the freshman ho

grounds to impeach the president because an inquiry of impeachment says it is directed that the judiciary committee of the house of representatives which is the committee with ultimate responsibility under the rules and procedures of the house to consider impeachment, it simply directs that the committee on the judiciary inquiry into whether or not there are proper grounds. to me, that is the responsible first step that the member of congress believes the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors which is the criteria that i am in the constitution for impeachment of the president and by the house and thereafter upon impeachment by the house trial and if convicted by two thirds of the senate removal from office. there are other ways to begin in impeachment and we saw that as jim mentioned just earlier this week. a member of the house can introduce articles of impeachment directly not calling for an inquiry into whether or not grounds exist for throwing a piece of paper into the house and saying, let's impeach, who cares about whether or not there's an inquiry, who cares if there's evidenc

and the intelligence committee that the republicans have a problem with, why have those problems in judiciary rather than intelligence? mr. nadler: first question was the time line, we don't know. it depends on how many witnesses, et cetera. i can't speculate on that. second question, remember, the intelligence committee is doing a basic investigative job, a job that in past impeachments was done by the starr commission or urban committee. once it goes to judiciary, it's a different stage. it is not the official initial fact-finding stage and it is proper that the president have more recourse at that point. the minority, the republicans, have the same rights and have rights to call witnesses, to examine witnesses, et cetera, in intelligence. they will have the same rights in judiciary. once it gets to judiciary, if we are carrying -- if there has been a recommendation for an impeachment, then we are carrying on that inquiry at that point and the president ought to have more rights than in the initial fact-finding stage. mr. jeffries: the president yesterday directed his republican defenders t

and the impeachment committee should be the judiciary committee. f you want to do this right, madam speaker, do it right. do not lie to the american people and say these procedures are the same as nixon and clinton. i challenged the rules chairman if you want to have that argument, give us plenty of time i will win. why? because we are right. 900 precedents in clinton and nixon, i saw eight pages the other day. i saw things they are saying that adam schiff's committee gets to continue the process without presidential involvement and scrutiny or anything of fairness or bipartisanship and any way that we saw in others. how can they stand before you and when you talk to them in a little bit, ask them how is it fair and then get it to a judiciary committee that is completely newtered of its power. they have shown they were completely inept in handling the russian investigation. do i have to remind you of john dean. this is pathetic and writing the rules for us, the rules committee had to write the rules for the judiciary committee because they didn't t

can we expect this all to flow through the judiciary committee vis-a-vis public hearings or can we imagine other committees like intelligence have public hearings? >> well, i think you should expect the intelligence committee will continue to have the intelligence focus of this inquiry. that is the ukraine scandal. this has been under way by the intelligence committee in consultation with the foreign affairs and oversight committee. i expect at the conclusion of those hearings -- >> i see. >> -- they'll then make a report and recommendation to the judiciary committee and the judiciary committee then will have to consider whether or not to move forward on articles of impeachment. i would just say chairman mcgovern's remarks really do capture the center of the caucus. this is a really serious moment. i think no one is delighted in doing this. the facts have required to us move forward in this fashion and i think everyone is approaching it in a serious way. >> talk me through how you and your colleagueses are thinking about minority rights in this process. the house is a majoritarian institut

the cases of nixon and clinton, you had outside counsels who did the review, sent to it the judiciary committee and the committee took that work at face value and translated that into articles of impeachment. that's the key distinction when comparing this in a historical prism. >> bill: i'm reading through this. open hearings, five minutes per lawmaker. sounds pretty standard. did you hear senate david purdue last night? he was on with bret on special report. he said what's the chance this goes forward in the senate with some sense of authority? suggesting, will it pass? and senator purdue said not a chance in hell. he said why do you say that? he said, because i see the evidence. what are you hearing on behalf of senators if it goes to that end point as of today? >> two points. i asked mitch mcconnell just about an hour ago whether or not when they continue on republican side of the aisle to condemn the democratic process, can they be fair jurorists. he said we have to see what the house sends over to us. again, keep in mind the number is 67. i'll take you down the rabbit hole. 67, two-thirds

she sits on the house judiciary committee. congresswoman, i appreciate you joining us. e committee writes up a report about its findings, the ball is in your court. tell me about the witnesses. what witnesses do you plan to call? >> well, it's all about the facts, don. as you well know, and it is not something we can predict at this moment. what we will have to do is to look at the report that has collectively come from the intelligence committee, oversight, and foreign affairs. we know that we've had some very provocative witnesses, though they have not given their testimony publicly, the excerpts of their statement have been factual and damning. as a grand juror, as someone who will sit in judgment to the extent that a determination is made for the articles of impeachment, we can't prejudge and so what we will do as a committee is look at the report and then determine what do you need to do to add to the understanding of the american people and to add to the understanding of those who at this point may oppose articles of impeachment. >> the committee, though, met this

>> i certainly believe the judiciary committee will be complete and thorough in the work that we will do. >> interesting. briefly before i go, joyce, your view. >> i think it's hard to argue with success in the committees that congresswoman demings sits on have been very successful at moving this narrative forward. it's simple. it's compelling. although, things may have happened in connection with the mueller report, they are equally abusive, equally sort of actions that would warrant impeachment. they may be more difficult for people to understand. and because impeachment is essentially a political process, simplicity and ease of understanding matters. >> very interesting to get at such expertise and in the case of congresswoman demings, someone with a vote on the biggest issue facing the nation in the white house right now. that's something that separates you from a lot of other people with expertise we speak to. jo, joyce and congresswoman demings, thanks to both of you. >> thank you. >> up ahead, a special report that will break down the exact details and clues from these new demo

impeachment inquiry procedures in the committee on the judiciary. a. the house authorizes the committee on the judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution, pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the congressional record by the chair of the committee on rules, including such procedures as to follow the participation of the president and his counsel. b, the committee on the judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection a, the rules committee and the rues of the house. c-1. the ranking minority member of the committee or the -- committee on the judiciary is authorized with the concurrence of the chair they have judiciary to require as deemed necessary to the investigation a, by subpoena or otherwise, i, the attendance and testimony of any p

official impeachment inquiries we begin in the judiciary committee.peaker losey to get out of the committee because chairman nadler was blowing it. like a star chamber, they put their inquiry not in the place where house members can near the evidence to say ultimately they have to vote on instead it's conducted behind closed doors by committee of intelligence oversight and foreign affairs and the result, the american people only hear a narrative of a design narrative to hurt the president. even congressman who are on a judiciary committee are refused interest and you will hear from one tonight. their goal is to do articles of impeachment without the minority and without the republicans, without the minority even having a chance to hear the evidence. they can hide testimony that outs the president and make sure it does not get out. if they like the way something sounds they will leak it whether if it's out of context or just plain wrong. they do not care the only thing that matters to these radicals is that they win at all costs. you americans who want

because the how judiciary committee is a committee of jurisdiction over the constitution andimpeachment. it's not the intelligence committee. maria: so why do mem go to the intelligence then that adam schiff runs? >> well i think two reasons. one, i think nancy pelosi has so little confidence apparently in jerry nadler to run this the way that she wants it. the other reason is by moving it to the intelligence committee, she can accomplish what they did this week. adam schiff can say gosh, this all has to be done behind closed doors. unlike any other impeachment in our country which is public, he's conducting this behind closed doors being making up the rules as it goes, as he wants them, as it suits his purpose, and so you have a jurisdictional problem, a problem with transparency and worst of all the guy in charge of running the investigation is a central witness in the investigation something we don't allow anywhere in this country and never have. i mean, third world countries are shocked at the kangaroo court, banana republic make it up as you go impeachment inquiry that t

well, so the report would go to the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee then would have the responsibility presumably of taking up an impeachment motion and debating it up or down and voting it in judiciary committee. it takes a lot of authority out of the hands of jerry nadler, the chairman of the committee. and it says to me that the speaker, and adam schiff and others in leadership over on this side of the aisle don't have the confidence that jerry nadler will handle in the way they would like to see him handle it. so the report that's required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the committee on foreign affairs, the committee on prepared nd reform, with their counsel with the chairs. seems like they left out the ranking members. there will be no minority input in this. they're just going sit down with the chairs of some other committees that they claim to be relevant and have them weigh in on this before this report comes out, mr. speaker. the chair of the select committee on intelligence in consultation with a ranking member will trans

because this is the judiciary committee. these are people that are supposed to have expertise in constitutional issues. so when you have the committee that has more expertise in constitutional issues, what did the majority do? we don't want the committee with the most expertise on constitutional issues dealing with these constitutional issues. we want to put armed guards outside a hearing and have it in a secret compartmented information facility and we're not going to let the other side call their own witnesses so we get a fair picture of what actually went on. we're not even going to let them ask questions we don't want them to ask. we'll instruct the witnesses not to answer. because you see, they want it to be a one-sided, nondue process, sham court. and it's about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes. and if there's one thing i don't want to see in my lifetime, i don't want to ever have participation in, it's a civil war. some historian, i don't remember who, said, guns are only involved in

and then the judiciary committee and its decisions to draft the articles of impeachment to the point that it gets to the senate? >> well, the house is talking about maybe having beginning hearings in the intelligence committee perhaps mid-november. i -- i think they've been talking about trying to get a vote on the articles by the end of the year. and if -- once the house judiciary committee, if they were to pass articles of impeachment, they are as the saying goes, privileged. meaning, they can be brought up at any time. they sort of go to the head of the class. and obviously, would become the top priority for the congress. so the house would vote on them. and then it would go to the senate. curiously, you know, the senate rules don't automatically require the senate to take this up. this has been something of a question among scholars of if this happens, does the president -- or does the senate have to take it up? that becomes a moot point. now, mitch mcconnell has said if the house were to vote to impeach, the senate would. if you look at the clinton experience, the -- the articles

i realize id had left it charged in the judiciary committee. so i went over there at the end of the day, only time it ever happened to me. it was about a week or 10 days before my election in august. just to put it in perspective of it. and i went there and john conyers was having a meeting with his staff on what to do the next week. we were in the midst of interviewing people on the bush team, alberto gonzales and some lady from liberty university who had done some stuff that was questionable. we were taking on the bush justice department which had done some egregious things. and i was a freshman and pretty much in awe of john conyers. and so i was in the back room and he was in his office, he said steve, come on. in i was 10 feet high. i was going into a meeting with john conyers of what was going to go on the next week. they were tossing around ideas about maybe bringing up an impeachment of george bush and some other issues. and i decided to throw out, kind of a doug flutie hail mary pass. i said how about if we have an apology for jim crow

but the fact of the matter is that house judiciary committee conducted almost all of its proceedings d doors. but this is going to be different in the sense that the house intelligence committee and the other two committees working for it are holding these depositions in secret. but anything that's going to become public will be made public and anything that's going to go to the house judiciary committee will be public. so the public's going to have a chance to examine it. republicans are going to be there to cross-examine the witnesses. the american people will get to see a very fair process. this is the preliminary part of the process. and what's happening, sadly, is that republicans are trying to distract from the damning facts, from the very grave facts that have come out about donald trump by this red herring about process. >> nancy, the president's been remarkably dismissive of the whole process so far actually. they're attacking process but he's been dismissive of it. do you have some sense that the white house is rethinking the strategy on this? i think we've lost nancy's audi

i now expect that judiciary committee will act on articles of impeachment.a positive thing for this country. impeachment is a process that's very divisive. but he's left the judiciary committee and the speaker with no choice. >> one of the choices she seems to be exercising is holding a full house vote. she said if we want to do it, we will if we don't, we don't. but year not going to do it because of the president. what is the down side? why not just hold the vote and take away one of the president's newest excuses for stonewalling you? >> the president would just have a different excuse. it has nothing to do with whether we have a vote or not. the president has been obstinant in not cooperating his entire administration. the it reality is the president is very clear in the house. the judiciary chair as the power along with the speaker to open an impeachment inquiry. they've done that in the case of judges and when it can comes to actual can impeachment we are go having to a vote. i think the speaker wants tuse have the vote once we've made the case so memb

i expect that the judiciary committee will act on articles of impeachment.he country. impeachment is a process that is very divisive. he's left the judiciary committee and the speaker with no choice. >> one of the choices that she seems to be exercising is not to exercise and hold a full house vote on the impeachment inquiry. she's telling on friday if we want to do it, we'll do it. if we don't, we don't. we're not doing it because of the president. what's the downside in why not hold the vote and take away one of the president's newest excuses for stone walling? >> the president would just have a different excuse. it has nothing to do with whether we have a vote or not. this president has been -- in not cooperating. he hasn't allowed people to cooperate with subpoena. the pres tent is leer in the house. the judiciary chair has the power with the speaker to open impeachment inquiry. they have done that in the case of judges and numerous other instances and when it comes to actual impeachment we are going to have a vote. the speaker wants us to have that vote

the democratic chairman of the house judiciary committee on that decision says, quote, the grand jury information that the administration has tried to block the house from seeing will be critical to our work. meanwhile, the committee's top republican says of that decision, quote, this ruling is dangerous for every american. the grand jury secrecy rules exist to protect knifepoint inne from public disclosure and hearsay that could unfairly harm them. the administration is expected to appeal that decision. the judge found that the house has jurisdiction and can proceed with its impeachment inquiry. back to you guys. arthel: rich, thank you very much. eric: how will all these dynamics play out as the republicans call the meetings unfair, while the democrats push back, saying they're doing exactly what republicans did in the benghazi investigation. joining us now, dave brad, the dean of liberty university. congressman, i'll call you dean. >> thanks, eric. eric: you heard the democratic congressmen say at the deposition, they're not doing anything wrong. do you agree with that? >> i don't

committee and the ranging minority member acted jointly to issue subpoenas, figure out -- lou: the judiciary committee here the intelligence committee, the chairman can act unilateralli'. to say chairman may i. to get the witnesses they want to talk to. lou: i want to go to colonel vintdman's testimony. i realize if ukraine pursued an investigation into the burisma energy it would result in using the bipartisan support it has thus tar maintained. >> president trump did not support the ukrainians the way president trump has supported ukraine. there was no quid pro quo in this whatsoever. we know joe biden openly made a statement that he basically forced the ukrainian government to fire shokin or they were going to withhold the $1.5 billion. there was no quid pro quo here. lou: we are joined next lou: d.c. district court judge canceled a hearing scheduled for next week. this follows general flynn's' southern claiming the fbi manipulated flynn's file. joining us is general flynn's defense attorney, sidney powell, and former federal prosecutor and author. a busy day in d.c. where the order by one judge to

and those tapes were then transmitted by the special prosecutor to the house judiciary committee was idering nixon's impeachment. the committee spent six months conducting its research, hearing from witnesssses, reading documents, and then opened public debate in what we just saw was part of that public debate. amy: explained, especially for young people who don't even know what these tapes were about, that richard nixon himself secretly ordered the taping of the white house and all of the conversations in the oval office? >> yes. he secretly taped himself between february 1971 and july 1973. 1% on his staff, his chief of staff, new about the existence of the taping system. nobody else knew, including his cabinet. and those tapes eventually demonstrated nixonon's direct complicity in the watergate cocover-up andnd led to his ford resignation. amy: there was another issue, not only the watergate cover-up, but the burglarizing of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. >> yes. tong with these many efforts investigate and sabotage the democrats and nixon's democratic opponents, there wa

he is the chairman of the judiciary committee. he has subpoena authority. he can bring them up before the committee. lou: give us your best judgment. what in the world is he thinking? >> i really hope -- and this is a hope -- the horowitz report, when mr. horowitz -- that thing finally hits the light of day. he turned it in weeks and weeks ago. but it has to pass the classification juggernaut. you have the internal fight where you will see horowitz appear before the senate judiciary committee. lou: that's your hope. why in the world hasn't he be investigating ukraine and the biden corruption charges. and how in the world could he have done it without acquiescence and approval of mitch mcconnell, and why is this president so absolutely lacking in support among the rino republicans of his party? >> the republicans should give the benefit of the doubt to the president. i want them to always have an open mind. but there is no doubt in this case. there is no justification for this so-called impeachment. three times they voted in the house, three times it failed.

you serve on the judiciary committee which eventually will introduce articles of impeachment. how soon, congressman, will you start getting material from the intelligence committee which is at least right now leading the inquiry? >> i think we'll get it before thanksgiving. i suspect maybe the second week of november. there's no cut timeline. but they're going to start to go into public hearings. probably in about a week or two. and i think they'll be turning information over to the judiciary committee to look at, to analyze and to synthesize. >> tim morrison, a top official on the national security council testified today behind closed doors that he didn't see anything illegal about the president's demands on ukraine, but he was also worried about the transcript of that july phone conversation leaking. what do you make of that? >> i think it says that the transcript must be released. this is not the cia and it doesn't have anything about any intelligence officials. that phone call, which has become a controversy, the president calls it a it's not a transcript. it's a memorandu

joining me now is one of the congress people on the judiciary committee which will get to see the less redacted report, democratic congressman jonah goose of colorado. thank you for being with us. >> good to be with you, ali. >> let's just understand, it's been a little while since we had this conversation about the redactions and congress' need to see them. what's the argument that the judiciary committee has made that it needs to see the redacted information, and what do you think you'll see as result? >> well, a couple of things as you know the i think ultimately the house was engaged and is engaged in an inquiry. and therefore under rule 6e had the right to these as the committee did proceed. i think you got the context right at the beginning of the program but it's important for this victory not to be seen through a partisan lens. it's ultimatehy a win for the american people. it was a major victory for the constitution and fundamental rule of law in our country for judge howell to ultimately conclude what we all knew to be true which was the house was engaged and is engaged in an

. >> promised he would investigate since he took over as chair of the judiciary committee.t nine months ago. i mean where has he been? >> if this is going stooeb a purely partisan fight republicans have to use the power they have, in congress. >> the senate. >> is should it be difficult to discern partisan battle. >> not to me apparently things mover slowly in washington. >> if stuck in the mud that have swamp. >> good news gone 2 1/2 weeks all back next week seem lot of activity, but i do think. >> always hasomething to cheer us up with here they come. >> reality check not coming back they got to come back be fired back the key thing if i was white house. >> great to see congressman mark meadows roaring. >> standing up for this president, and also, jim jordan doing a great jb. >> great, you know, we still -- still have -- democrats all -- >> speaking of being slow i must be mired -- >> three second delay. >> i. >> i don't pile on, okay? >> i thihe conveniently if whit house does note cooperate members should not the leadership house republicansi wouldn't show up i would sa

ranking member of the judiciary committee i have a question. e been here 200 plus years as a committee and our committee has been neutered. our committee who handles impeachment. we're the reason in that committee that's our jurisdiction. we have been completely sidelined. our chairman and others have been sidelined and i have been sidelined. it is so bad they had to have the rules committee write the presidential due process and give it to us. this is not right. i wish -- >> give the additional 15 seconds. >> i don't know what happened to our committee. we still exist. due process only kicks in at judiciary for the president. doesn't kick in the closed door secret hearing of adam schiff. it's a travesty. no one should vote for this. it is a sad day. the curtain is coming down on this house because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. they are simply after a president. i yield back. >> julie: doug collins accused adam schiff of making this and himself the judge, jury and prosecutor of this case. republicans are standing by the p

it's not just the judiciary committee that's been left out, the foreign affairs committee has been lefts well. speaker pelosi knew that adam schiff would do whatever she wanted him to do, and the american people are the ones who suffer here. if they want to overturn the 2016 election, get in the field, have a candidate who knew where some of these states were to campaign and do that in 2020. you don't turn over an election based on the fact that you hate a president who got elected who beat the person you thought was going to get elected. and by the way, he's working on trade deals, we have an economy. they can't beat him on the facts, so they're going to beat him on the lies. maria: but what are you going to do about it? if your colleagues on the left are in the majority. the american people are p wondering what's going on in terms of this impeachment inquiry. we don't see transcripts, we can't hear any of these hearings. by the way, no one's getting anything done. you're supposed to pass usmca, get trade deals done as well as, perhaps, gun legislation, infrastructure. so what are you