ken starr joins us tonight.ery much for coming on. >> my pleasure, tucker. >> tucker: we thought about this more than any living american. what qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach? how i would you rate the charges against the president now? >> i would rate the current charges as not meeting, not even coming near the term high crimes and misdemeanors. those terms are tied to treason and bribery and other high crimes, not low crimes, not a low misdemeanors.es something profoundly serious. and also something, i think history is a great teacher here, tucker, read the nixon impeachment articles. they are so powerful. he read those articles and you understand why 400 members of te house of representatives said, we've got to go through with impeachment here. read the glint in articles, muce more divisive, to be sure. when you read the articles, this is serious stuff. we don't know what the articles are going to say but what we do know is, there will be no republican support whatsoever. they w

for ken starr to say it, well, it's ken starr. >> on that note, joe, thank you very much.ank you. >>> now to this. this massive 69-car pileup in virginia has left dozens of people hurt. miraculously when you look at your screen, no one died. that story and what you need to know if you are traveling this holiday week. next. without the lactose. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain. trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to impeach.com need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising. male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to fin

ken starr joins us tonight.hank you so much for coming on. >> my pleasure, tucker. >> tucker: this is a subject you thought about more than any living american, what qualifies as a high crime and misdemeanor sufficient to impeach? how would you rate the charges against the president now? >> i would rate the current charges as not even coming near the term high crimes and misdemeanors. those terms are tied to treason and bribery. other high crimes, not low crimes, low disk meters misdemeanors,something profound. history is a great teacher, read the nixon impeachment articles. they are so powerful. you read those articles and understand why 400 members of the house where preventatives said we've got to go through with impeachment here. read the clinton articles bit much more divisive for sure. when you read those articles, you go, this is serious stuff but we don't know what the articles are going to say but we do know that there'll be no republican support whatsoever. there'll be some democratic slippage as well,

ken starr showed up.o have been charged with the supposedly adam schiff loans designated to carry on this role. i think it's a fair rhetorical point. where is the author of this report? we want to talk to him. in any event, the train has left the station and it's very unfortunate for the country. >> shannon: chairman nadler says you're not getting schiff and the whistle-blower. your response to that? >> the whistle-blower you're not supposed to get. their role was to always produce information. in terms of schiff, i think you'll be the prosecutor in the senate. unlike the situation with judge darr where -- his evidence has been collected. i think the country all saw the actual witnesses testify over the last couple of weeks. in terms of the counts, it's interesting what is noteworthy is they have decided not to bring a specific grabber account. not to get in that argument. the abuse count sounds like will be broader and encompass some of the abuse that the mueller report can basically within a centimeter

tonight ken starr said the president's right to refuse to participate in the next phase of impeachment. here is here to explain this moment, you left wing crazies going nuts about this all day long. plus disgraceful lisa page granted her first interview to the media. and she wants you to feel sorry for her. do you? john solomon here to explain why you shouldn't. and also respond to a breaking statement from the doj that just drop moments ago about michael horowitz's ig report coming out. plus joe biden's no more malarkey bus tour. famous thing? a few potholes hit along the way, and i'll grow we can governor mike huckabee walks us through some of the dips in the pavement, but first, impeaching to the choir. that is the focus of tonight's angle. now for as long as i can remember, democrats have claimed a vigorous support for international alliances. and since comp took field of office they warned his americans first approach would isolate them and do more irreparable harm to nato. >> for single consequential life or the united states. >> vladimir putin number one goal to divide the west

shaking your head, governor, but you know this man is immoral in every way. >> trace: i want to go to ken starr. >> that's incredibly unfair! come on, jessica. let me just point out something. you keep saying there was some ukrainian problem here. you know, neither you or i are constitutional scholars. judge starr is. but jonathan turley, adam dell mccalla dershowitz, have been especially clear. there was not an impeachable offense except for the minds of democrats three years before there was a ukrainian call. >> trace: on that segue, let's go to judge star who would like to judge it because i want to put these numbers here, look at the numbers here. impeachment numbers are flat. 48, 48, nobody has change their minds over the past three months according to these polls. your response on that, judge judge starr? >> i'm not surprised because the narrative was essentially baked in months ago at the beginning of the fall. you either take this with the kind of seriousness our democrat brothers and sisters are or you are saying, do i think it's the wise thing to do? is this really an abuse of pow pow

robert mueller testified that ken starr report ken starr testified. the author of the schiff report is not here. instead he is sending his staff to do his job for him. i guess that's what you get when you are making up impeachment as you go. there will be plenty of time to discuss the factual case for this and the statements that haven't been made. what is detrimental is this. this committee is not hearing from a factual witness or not doing anything past hearing past law school professors and staff. the chairman said something about the president not being able to come. show me where he would have a proper process in this not talking to law school professors and staff instead of witnesses called by both sides. i want to say this in the ending. i love this institution. i was here as a 19-year-old kid as an intern almost 32 years ago. this situation as we see it today is in danger. we see chairmen who are issuing subpoenas for personal vendettas. we see committees such as the judiciary committee that has held many substantive hearings and the center po

no one loomed larger over that trial than independent counsel ken starr, who drove the investigation o impeachment, testified as a witness in the house hearings and even returned during the senate trial to interview monica lewinsky again. starr ultimately faced criticism not only from democrats but many independent analysts and legal experts over his approach. he remains still, though, one of the few living figures who have run this kind of investigation that leads to a president's senate trial, which makes him very interesting to talk with. we got to do that this year as mueller was still writing his report. tonight we want to show you just a few quick highlights with some points that echo harshly for donald trump, as we talked witness tampering, starr's view on whether sitting presidents could be indicted and one of the issues that could soon hobble trump, congress' power to impeach for obstruction. >> when i say obstruction, something that congress might find to be obstructive. >> yeah, because congress is not limited to these very technical elements as you well know with respect t

>> but he was replaced, and his successor ken starr was far more aggressive. >> our job is to gather and get at the truth. >> expanding the inquiry way beyond whitewater. >> the investigation kind of leads in all these different directions. >> this is truly a wildly historic night. >> no one could have been happier with starr's aggressive approach than newt gingrich and the republicans. >> there's been a sea change in american politics. >> they had swept into congress in 1994. >> this is an earthquake. >> preaching the new gospel of strict orthodox conservatives. >> newt gingrich reshapes the republican party. our base wants this, we do this. we do not compromise with democrats. >> president clinton became the democrat the republicans despised the most. he was morally corrupt, thety said. >> he experimented with t. >> i experimented with marijuana a few times and didn't inhale. >> the law is the law. the law is sacred. >> meanwhile, ken starr had been digging into the clintons for more than two years, to no avail. >> are you going to be working for congress or the courts or the publi

>> adam schiff did not act as a special counsel as ken starr did. >> there was no special counsel in in case. >> there was no special counsel. that is right. that is the key distinction. but here is the important point. what matters here is not the debate back and forth about whether adam schiff should testify or whether the republicans were somehow surprised by the witnesses. what matters here are the facts and the law. and again, as a prosecutor, what i'm going to argue to the jury is facts and law. the testimony over the past couple of weeks corroborates what the president himself said in the july 25th conversation. those dedicated patriots and professionals like tailer and hill who came before the committee. the american people should base their judgment on what they saw. >> very quickly, if it does come down to a trial and the senate and impeached in the house, do you see any evidence at this point that would lead you to acquit? >> i want to see what the president has to say. if they -- if there is any evidence to acquit. so far he has refused -- absolutely refused to come forwa

my interview with ken starr himself. later, what elizabeth warren is saying about her vision for 2020 and breaking up big tech. then when we get to the end of the hour we'll have some of our very favorite moments from our maverick series. plus, some lighter moments from "the beat" coming up. ne. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression.

the ken starr report, ken starr testified. the author of the schiff report is not here. >> has s any committee heard frm the whistle-blower? either in closed-door hearings or open hearings? chairman schiff states he called the whistle-blower to testify. >> he did. he hase not. >> laura: we know the whistle-blower's political motivation is obvious, but the very fact that he went to schiff, initially, that first decision. but today, schiff put on the big act, channeling the founders, and pretending to be the great protector of the constitution. >> the framers of the constitution recognized that some day, a president might come to office who would abuse their office, and they prescribed a remedy, and that remedy is impeachment. the argument, why don't you just wait? amounts to this. why don't you just let him cheat and one more election? >> laura: by the way, look at the faces, those are the faces of defeat, morning, noon, and night. it's also easy to argue, i think, that speaker pelosi is also guilty of abuse of power. this sham

joining me now former independent counsel ken starr, harvard law professor alan dershowitz.ood to see you both. professor -- by the way, i read the book. i don't want to go up against you in court. either one of you, i will be very blunt. great read. here's what i want to ask you, they didn't call ken starr and alan dershowitz up there to be ivory tower trump haters, one of which actually wanted to impeach trump because he tweeted out the words "fake" and "news." they want to impeach him for that. there is only one fact witness that i saw in his testimony was exculpatory. i want nothing, no quid pro quo. >> look, the most important development happened today. the supreme court of the united states absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting review in a case where trump challenged a congressional subpoena, and the supreme court said, we are going to hear this case. all three cases, by the way. but think of what that message is. it's trump was right. you don't have to comply with a subpoena of congress unless the court tells you you have t

ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994.

. >> well, in the clinton era, this day was the day that ken starr presented the evidence of the stare nixon period this didn't happen. in the nixon perioddoor, the counsel for the committee a republican, they had a bipartisan committee, he gave over six weeks, he laid out the evidence, did not argue for or against impeachment, the point was that the members of the judiciary committee, each was a juror and had to assess the material on their own, behind closed doors, the public did not hear the materials. they would learn the materials later. so in the nixon case this was done behind the scenes. in the clinton case this was very public, very much like what we're going to see today. lasted a whole day. and ken starr presented his evidence and then both sides of the committee had an opportunity to question him and then the president's attorney, david kendall, questioned ken starr and, of course, today the president will not be represented by his own choice. >> it's interesting, dana, you've covered capitol hill for a long time, the republicans complain that it's been totally unfair, the

all done, it's over.ss >> sean: i agree, but ken starr, i will ask you because every other presidentas used the issue of executive privilege. i thought they would lose that hands down, and i think professor dershowitz is right, but when there is a conflict between the executive branch and the legislative branch, and one seeks remedy in the judicial branch, that would be our system of coequal branches of government, actually, they are o there to resolve such conflicts. are they not? >> exactly right. that is precisely what happened, sean, as you know, in the clinton impeachment. there were a number of instances when president clinton through his very able lawyers invoked executive privilege. that is fair, it is a constitutionally based privilege recognized by unanimous supreme court during the nixon impeachmentge process. or investigative process. so it's very important in our separation of power system, for the judiciary branch, the article three branch, to be able to do its work. when the article one branch, congress, is exercising its authority, and so is the article two branch, th

since when did he have the right when he believes as a prepared himself to ken starr. why would he not be the one and testify instead of sending one of their staffers who is getting airtime right now to do that. the chairman wouldn't even commit to i don't know it >> chad, what he is saying is that he thinks we should have intel people come in and give us their impression of all the hearsay evidence. that is insane, bring us the fact witnesses. >> he wrote the report, next. >> congressman, democrats they are arguing about the process because you can't dispute the fact that were laid out by these witnesses. what's the reaction to? that >> they do listen to my closing? i laid it out every time they're saying what was amazing to me, is that they set up and in their opening statement and most every clip they gave us were opening statements. sondland, who is there and said in the very room that i presume it was and i guess it was. the problem was, it's okay and that's going at their side and will present our side but when you talk about facts being undisputed, these are und

bring in ken starr. welcome back to our coverage here today. we'll see what horowitz has to say over the coming hours. lindsey graham kicks things off in 44 minutes. dianne feinstein follows him and horowitz makes an opening statement. barr called it a travesty, a sham, said gross abuse, flimsy evidence. what do you make of -- or is it obvious what his position is, ken? >> it's obvious that bill barr has strong feelings. i share those feelings. i have read this report with a sense of outrage as well as sorrow. i find it hard to believe that the f.b.i. would conduct itself vis-a-vis the court, vis-a-vis the justice department in the way that it has. in addition to what senator cruz said earlier about misrepresentations, there are omissions before the court in the fisa applications that are so painstakingly laid out by michael horowitz. he is an honorable man. a difference on motivation on the part of the f.b.i. but the sharpest condemnation of f.b.i. behavior since we've seen since the church committee in the 1970s. this is extraordinary. the am

sand by for that, back to ken starr, two major events here as we watch them unfold. or not they keep on the ukraine transcript or broaden it to include the mueller matter. what is your view on that and how they ultimately decide that with an election looming in ten months or so. >> the job of the democrats now given this unfortunate task they have taken on is to build the most impressive case, so how do we do that? let's throw in the kitchen sink is one approach. let's draw from all of the many things that we have quarrels with and throw that into some omnibus kind of article. the first presidential impeachment in 1968 had 13 articles, and that was rather ridiculous. when the nixon impeachment came along it was reduced to three and so forth so i think there is this widowing process, but this is the key. will this persuade, especially will this persuade out in middle america where people will say, when they read this article, when you read the articles of impeachment, of richard nixon, you say he has to go. and they're not that long, right its got to be accessible and

ken starr was a special counsel appointed to carry out the task. keep in mind that the current department of justice refused to investigate, and in fact the attorney general, in his own, covered up information, refused to do what a normal attorney general would do, that is to appoint a counsel. bat in, we d bat by the way we did have a special counsel. his name was robert mueller. 2 1/2 years of obstruction charges in his special report. you want a special counsel, bring mueller back. adam schiff's job was not a special counsel job and therefore his testimony would add nothing. you want to bring additional witnesses that testified during the intelligence committee open hearings, bring them back and let them testify. add others. by the way, let's get the documents. where is this tape? we had the nixon tape. where is the tape of the conversation the president had of his oh so perfect conversation with zelenskey. >> is there a tape? >> it happens to be in the white house. >> congressman, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> we could le

before clinton impeachment veteran ken starr and sol wisenberg react. also, three congressmen have been instrumental in exposing the democrat circus. they are all here tonight. have you noticed how many lawmakers yesterday compared trump's impeachment to the civil rights movement? candace owens has a reaction. plus we'll have the first reaction to tonight's 2020 democrat debate. it's a doozy. some big breaking news tonight in john durham's investigation. you have been waiting for it. a busy hour ahead. but first, america first's fake impeachment. that's the focus of tonight's angle. nancy pelosi and adam schiff were right about one thing. it was historic. but not for the reason they claim. it's historic because it is the first time the impeachment process has been used for purely partisan reasons. >> a slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan sin impeachment. not the first time they've introduced articles of impeachment, it's the seventh time. it's the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before trump was nominated even

let's start with ken starr in dallas, texas. you've been watching and listening, what's your headline now? >> the headline is that chairman graham is extremely upset about the 17 irregularities and he condemned those a regulatory irregularities specifically with the pfizer process. so we have a couple of narratives going on. with the democrats emphasizing that the inspector general did not find political bias in terms of starting the investigation, then i thought that mr. horowitz who was very careful, very cautious and very professional was a very, very clear with respect to the start of the investigation. but then we move of course to what the hearing really is all about and the inspector general's report is all about, which is the abuse of pfizer. the fisa court needs to be looking at this. and if we are going to continue to support the fisa court, those 11 judges who do a very, very good job, then they need to show i think to the congress of the united states which does have the power to do oversight over the fisa court, the

ken starr presented his report but adam schiff sure doesn't want to present his.f this goes to the senate, it shouldn't ever go this, we want to hear from adam schiff. hannity: matt gates, this is very disturbing to me, the president's lawyer, a fellow member of congress and a reporter, and the phone company has cooperated. i have a problem with all of that. do you think there is a problem? >> i do. sean, it was just yesterday, though, that you and i were speaking about our mutual love for the people of pensacola. i just want to say that our hearts are breaking now as our service members are dealing with this tragic act of violence that occurred in my community. hannity: by the way, i saw your tweets earlier today, let me echo your comments. i love the people of pens co-la. you know how i feel. >> they laugove you, too. when i compare them with the savagy of washington, d.c. the contrast could not be more stark. schiff is one of the lowest sbegty people that i have seen in public life. if he stands behind these always allegations he should at least have the guts t

attorney andy mccarthy and former independent counsel ken starr.l analysis as we head into this debate about to happen within the rules committee on capitol hill any moment now. first to you, ken starr, managing our expectations. what are we about to see here? >> lower your expectations. this will be all about parliamentary procedure as we've discussed. how long the debate will be, the rules governing the debate on the house floor. so this is essentially let's get ready. 435 members of the house, only 100 members of the senate. we need much greater attention to the way to proceed so that it's not bedlam so it's not the house of commons with people screaming and interrupting. this is a good thing. we're likely to hear indications of what is, in fact, this impeachment all about. moving procedure to substance. we'll see. here is what has happened very briefly. the majority report from the house judiciary committee and the dissenting views i think set the stage beautifully for tomorrow's debate. i will say this. in light of the conversations today abou

first tonight ken starr of course was special counsel during the white water investigation. that was in the clinton. any living person and he joins us tonight. mr. star, thanks so much for coming on. you have been watching this as close as anyone. how do you assess it as of right now. >> well, it is shaping up that we are just going to keep hearing the same thing over and over again yogi berra would say deja vu. the same thing is being said in each of these miss. here is a critical fact. i have not heard a single member of the house of representatives say i need more evidence. i need to bring in -- we need to bring in more witnesses. now harmony between the house of representatives some of whom are declaring today i'm voting for or with respect to mr. golden of maine. i'm not going to vote in favor of the second article they are making up their minds based upon the record. so consider then chuck schumer we need more or we should have four more witnesses at a minimum. there is a real disconnect between the two sides of capitol hill. second district of maine. district that wen

that might be a fruitful area of investigation to look at the relationship between kavanaugh and ken starrhile starr was president there which ended i'm -- i'm happy. do you cover any of that stuff in your book? >> i don't. i actually don't see, that's not somebody came to my attention is not something that i looked into so maybe the paperback. >> can you explain what happened with the fbi investigation? did senator coons get taken by senator flay? >> that is a great question. the fbi investigation was something that was not going to happen. the white house and the republicans senators, senator mcconnell and others, what they wanted to do was whatever it took to get just as kavanaugh and kavanaugh crossed the finish line. originally the plan and i ride about this in the book was not even to have a hearing at all. senator grassley and senator mcconnell had meetings with members of the judiciary committee and they said well it's just have private interviews with her. and lindsey graham said no, no that's not going to fly. jeff flake said no, no that's not going to fly so we got the hearing.

coming up next ken starr is live on what he expects today. that's coming up. >> it's scandalous that this process of impeachment is proceeding in a public way this week. it is, i think, outrageous, a great disservice to our country. y name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. >> sandra: we're moments away from the opening bell on wall street. 14 minutes from now. you'll see the markets open, dow futures are pointing up now after a sharp 280-point sell-off yesterday. that happened after president trump's comments about the trade deal with china. >> president trump: can't be an even deal. if it's even, it's no good. other presidents and leaders of our country have really let us down because they let china get away with something that should have never been

ken starr, thank you for being with me today. i appreciate your time.en is a new message in his bid to win the white house. why one political veterans as it is the worst slogan ever. stead , for everything that i give, i get so much in return. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. in america, the zip code you're born in can determine your future. but no matter what neighborhood you grow up in, the y creates opportunities for all. for a better us, donate to your local y today. for a better us, i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. mortgage rates just dropped to near 50-year lows. one call to newday usa can save you $2,000 every year. and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verifi

how hard he would fight to bring the whistleblower heward and then when he said needed to be the ken starr of today's world, everyone else would come and testify, but you asked them today, he said no staff were testify. remember what we are talking about, exactly what the speaker said. they treat it like it is a political game. if i was fearful, i would be fearful on their side. >> one thing in the report that came out, it appeared in april there was indication between devin nunes, rudy giuliani and associates. concerns?raise any >> doesn't ring me any concerns. when i first read the report that he went to vienna. the answer was no. you're saying that there was not interaction? >> that is a totally different thing. >> i don't have a problem with devon talking to individuals. what was claimed on the news media is that he went to vienna to me with individuals. he was not. and it seems like a perpetual thing of what we do. this was brought forth by adam schiff who said he did not know who the whistleblower was, who said he had proved beyond circumstantial evidence and today said he did not kn

. >> remember, ken starr was giving news conferences throughout.lked about no leaks from mueller. ken starr was updating all the time. and then dumped that unedited document, the book. i mean, i remember some of our most esteemed colleagues, bob schieffer on cbs and others on the hill, reading aloud things that you could not say on television. >> indeed. i spent some time last weekend reading through the transcript of the house debate on the clinton impeachment. and some things were very similar. there was talk about coups. there was talk about witch hu s hunts. >> 31 democrats voted to impeach him in the house. >> but there was also a lot of conversation not just from those democrats but from others about how deplorable and unacceptable the president's behavior had been. and there was zero reflection of that from republicans in the debate yesterday. >> jonathan, i hear you, speaking of your assent on that, we all lived through it and it was pretty horrible. >> yes. and that's a great point that ruth brought up about last night, the fact that no re

go back to clinton and nixon, ken starr was special counsel, presented a report.testified under oath and took questions from all sides including the white house. my first and foremost witness is adam schiff. chris: you want to bring him in before the committee, not just to present a report but to take questions from democrats and to be cross-examined if you will by the republicans? >> he needs to be. he put himself into that position. if he chooses not to, i really question his veracity, what he is putting in his report. i question his, the motives why he is doing its. it is easy to hide behind a report and hide behind a gavel in intelligence committee behind closed-door hearings. it is another to ends a questions what he knew, his staff knew, interactions with ukraine, other things he had over time with this process and also why he is still not released documents to our committee and reports to our committee that we need to actually proceed in our committee of the judiciary committee which is the committee of impeachment. i have a question, why are they hiding th

reagan and justice rehnquist at the time called up ken starr and said he had a youni had a youngman that it wot to get some government service before becoming a practitioner. i was wondering if you could explain what the chambers are like at the supreme court because as you and i know, the justice's chambers are often a reflection of who they are, what their background is, but their interest has been. you going to justice ginsburg'ss chambers an'schambers and therem all over the world. there's opera playing in the background. the justices have shown the roots. what about roberts, what have you seen? >> he has a large chamber as chief, so a couple different sitting rooms and in th in the e most, there is a notre dame football if you grow up in indiana at thindiana and don't t harvard you might have been a notre dame said he's always been a notre dame football fan and signed find a couple different s he has the art tha arts but he'n and landscape from indiana and maine where they have a vacation home and pictures of himself with william rehnquist who he worked for also a picture of he

it was a strong case, 11 potential felonies identified by special counsel ken starr.ere none are identified and nancy pelosi is holding the articles. >> i think that this has backfired on her and she overplayed her hand. now her only move is to hold these articles of impeachment so they can keep yelling the word impeachment and have that hanging over the president's head as we moved into an election year. the president is doing great, our economy is booming. he just signed for more funding for the border wall, assistance for vets and the opioid crisis. imagine what he's going to do once this sham is over and going into 020, what he will -- 2020, what he will be able to do for this country. gregg: the democrats threatened witnesses, holding hearings behind closed doors. denying republicans the right to call their own witnesses. now nancy pelosi is demanding due process in the u.s. senate, the same due process she denied in the house. >> the word i would use is pathetic. this started when the president released two transcripts to show he did nothing wrong. nancy pelosi

clinton there were 7 items that ken starr said that he did right so you could actuly point to that you don't have that in this and nixon of course. destroyed evidence and truly did struck justice. so you have items likthat you don't have that here and we have a much divided country but but on the obstruction charge she do have. he did not answer subpoenas. he did t let k witnesses who were subpoenaed by congress. >>which has that power to do so that se of those got tied up in court some of them congress did not pursue court to housten pursue that's not obstruction. no and he tell you why the they don't have plenty are plenary power. they have the power to issue subpoena, but if a tissue to subpoena that said if you on't show up we're going to put you in in solitary confinement that would have gone too far so they have a mixi v united states. they did review the powers of congress related to impeachment. so not everything they did is okay so we had the right to go to court or to or to force it in cout. that's e weakest of the charge in my view and the most dangeus to think that congress

we go by the clinton -- ken starr was a special counsel, he presented a report of where -- he actuallye and sat and testified under oath and took questions from all five including the white house. my first and foremost witness in adam schiff. speeone's you want to bring him in before the committee, not just to present a report, but to take questions from democrats and to be cross examined it if you will, by the >> representative collins: he needs to be. he's put himself into that position. if he chooses not to than i really question his veracity and what he's putting in his report. the question the motives of what he's doing it. it is easy to hide behind a report. it's easy to hide behind at gavel and intelligence committee behind closed door hearings but it's going to be another thing to actually get up and have to answer questions about what his staff knew, how he knew, what he know about the whistle-blower, his interactions he's had with ukraine, the other things that he's out over time in this process and also why he is still not released documents to our committee and reports to o

nothing from schiff who made himself out to be like ken starr but ken starr took questions from everybody including the white house counsel. on tuesday, the morning after the presentation of articles were unveiled, remember, think about this, no factual based witnesses. we had a bunch of law professors, one for us, by the way, i did ask for another one, didn't get it, no reasoning, we just went back, we were in impeachment hearings and went back to the normal 3-1 ratio. i asked for one more and basically didn't get it. it was an interesting conversation between the chairman and i. didn't get it. then we came in and got our witness list, summarily dismissed. we get information dumped to us in the middle of what we're supposed to be doing before the hearings, after we had to turn in our witness list. judge, this wouldn't apply in any regular court proceeding, before anyone tweets, we're not in a court, i know that. we're in a kangaroo court, it feels like, in this place. we're more alice in wonderland than house of representatives. do you not think there needs to be a modicum of process and