justice rehnquist called up kenneth starr and said i have this young man, importantly do more government service before becoming a private practitioner and the rest is history. >> host: i was curious if you could describe what his chambers are like. the justice's chambers are often a reflection of who they are, what their interest has been and going to justice ginsburg's chambers, there is opera playing in the background, with southwestern roots. >> he has large chambers as chief, a couple different sitting rooms. there is a notre dame football, grow up in northern indiana and don't end up and harvard you end up in notre dame. he has always been a notre dame football fan, actually a couple different coaches at the time. landscaped from indiana and maine where they have a vacation home. he has pictures of himself with william rehnquist but also a picture of henry friendly who was us court of appeals for the second circuit judge he first worked with who he had high regard for, pictures of his children, bound law books are there. you can see different parts of his life play out, but the one

as he had to and didn't say this is illegitimate but he certainly thought kenneth starr investigatingthat matter was illegitimate a bit but he didn't feel he had the constitutional ability or public ability to just say, well i think it's a fraud and a hoax and i'm not going to do i . maybe privately, but not publicly. >> so much of our constitution is built on some monochrome of good faith by the president and the actors in congress. not this level of constitutional shamelessness we are seeing. he doesn't care about the legacy he's creating. all he cares about is right now and himself. >> one of the things that both nixon and clinton had was they were worried about their own party. that you know people would turn on them to cause astampede . obviously, one of the things that's been a game but is playing out is how with those impeachments have played out in fox news and internet and twitter and everything that creates the environment we have now. even before they knew what the mother report with a and has been reluctant up until then. but when this came down, it was very little hesitat

kenneth starr was saying he had lied under oath in the civil litigation. the fourth with the abuse of power. basically there was an out -- an allegation that president and his team had lied to congress and abused his power as president. the house judiciary committee passed all for along party -- all four along party lines. but by the time that it move forward to the house, the full house floor, only two of those survived and there were basically a perjury and of -- obstruction. steve: what do you remember? what was your take away of that time more than 20 years ago? alexis: i was covering the white house. my perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. there were a couple of things i remember vividly. one is, when the story about monica lewinsky broke -- you may remember this was an investigative story that newsweek was trying to break, but there had been a pause to make sure the reporting was really complete -- it actually emerged on drudge, which was a brand-new website that opened the door to what we are seeing now about how many

one except that comparison one should expect like kenneth starr and robert mueller the chairman shouldestify. we want adam schiff in a check, you. the application is the person who wrote the report should present it. you weren't elected by anybody. you are giving testimony in place of the chairman. shannon: republicans criticizing adam schiff, the top ranking democrat who wrote the impeachment report for not showing up to present the evidence he says he collected against donald trump. democrats say it makes 0 sense to expect adam schiff to testify. let's bring in harry that men and fox news contributor ken starr. welcome to you both and i want your reaction to the news, they appear to be two impeachment articles coming out tomorrow, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. you first. >> is not unexpected. we have been on this impeachment march since late september. seems to be a 4-day and conclusion. it is very unfortunate there have not been fact hearings at all in the house judiciary committee. it really has been an intelligence committee show and the point was fair, mueller showe

they all say, including kenneth starr, owen explicitly asked her to lie. there is an enormous difference between the two. the very fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always at that word explicitly indicates the power of her denial. it is also interesting that monica lewinsky is a woman of in 10te perfect memory starr's version, except she had a terrible story of losing hours. said, she must've thought it was 2:00 when it was 4:00. this -- there was nothing to promote that. betty currie goes through the same thing. we are told that she was willing to give testimony to the grand jury that the majority finds damaging. betty currie said, monica lewinsky initiated the gift transfer. toty currie was prepared tell the truth, even if it was somewhat damaging to bill clinton. your siding one of her statements is damaging to bill clinton. when did she become a liar and schemer when she volunteers it? is most sensible explanation that both bill clinton and monica lewinsky wanted to withhold the truth. neither one of them wanted to do it. monica lewinsky

because all of that took place as part of the independent counsel investigation by kenneth starr. there were closed door, secret depositions taking place there. then kenneth starr came to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a u-haul truck and gave it to the judiciary committee. monica lewinsky did not testify before the house judiciary committee. there were not witnesses brought before the house judiciary committee, so we're following the exact same pattern that i think took place there, except it was the house of representatives here which did its own fact investigation. finall finally -- well, let me just say a word about the fairness of the process. we all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. if the laws are against you, you pound the facts. if the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. i'm afraid i've seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. and i don't blame them because they're dealing with the hand t

kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes of evidence which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent consulate was appointed to look into what president trump has done. mr. mueller came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle, you know, for what the democrats wanted to do. so much of the mueller stuff after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. they had to find something else. now, let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed, but that's what the facts are. the facts speak for themselves. there was no impeachable offense here and that's why article one of th

then kenneth starr came to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a u-haul truck, and gave it to the house judiciary committee. that was the end of it. monica lewinsky didn't testify before the house judiciary committee. there were not witnesses brought before the house judiciary committee. so we're following the exact same pattern, i think, that took place there except it was the house of representatives here which did its own fact investigation through this assortment of committees. finally, the -- well, let me just say a word about the fairness of the process. and we all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. if the laws are against you, you pound the facts. if the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. and i'm afraid i've seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. and i don't blame them because they're dealing with the hand that they were dealt. we have 17 fact witnesses and all of their depositions and all of their

the case with president clinton in fact that's why we see president trump tweeting a quote from kenneth starr that independent counsel during the last time there was a discussion of impeachment in the united states the president retreating this quote the evidence has to be overwhelming and it's not even close the argument republicans are making the argument you heard there from lindsey graham is that this is a case built on hearsay opinion and not on concrete evidence democrats would say they tried to get it and the white house obstructed the bottom line here is that there is this compound. elling case republicans believe and that's why they believe they can convince voters to give donald trump a 2nd term when ultimately the other unique factor in all of this is that impeachment for bill clinton happened in the 2nd term this is happening for donald trump in the 1st term the voters will have a say on whether or not they believe congress acted appropriately when they vote in november kimberly we've also been hearing from kellyanne conway just now the special advisor to the president speaking fr

founding fathers as a way to justify their impeachment case but former whitewater independent counsel kenneth starr partisanship is exactly what they wanted to prevent. >> mister madison warned against having grounds of impeachment that would include maladministration. that is what this is about but the hyperbole, nancy pelosi, a clear and present danger, another thing moving forward. if the president is a clear and present danger, the trial in the senate which is destined to come has to move forward quickly but the framers were very concerned about the idea of a truly partisan impeachment as opposed to that which nancy pelosi and other democrats have said in the past may need to have something bordering on consensus. of course we do. >> and now president has ever been removed through -- lisa page explain the meaning behind the text message about a, quote, insurance policy. insurance policy on donald trump. the text was sent by her lover, former fbi agent peter stzrok during the presidential election. >> it is not my text. i'm interpreting what i believe he meant three years ago but we are talking

president clinton that it came as the culmination of an investigation by the independent counsel kenneth starr and this tie we did have the president in best a gaited donald trump by special prosecutor but the conclusion of that 2 and a half year investigation was that the president had not colluded with russia but there was also the sort of lingering thing that was left out there and that was whether or not the president had obstructed justice and so it was almost passing the baton if you will to the u.s. congress so notable in all of this is the fact that we're now talking about congress preparing to impeach the president but it's not for obstruction of justice it has nothing to do with that investigation instead it is a obstruction of congress charge which is a very different charge and a very different set of allegations and so that's what lindsey graham is pointing out here what he says that impeachment has been weaponized the notable the us president that was the very last line of his 6 page letter on the eve of this historic impeachment vote he said that the voters will hold democrats i

kenneth starr who prosecuted clinton said nowhere close to an impeachable offense, that is what i believeink the danger is, the danger is congress will overreach, set a precedent for too really bringing impeachment charges was what of republicans are the majority and don't like the president? will he start impeachment proceedings obstructing the ability of this government to be run? one thing i learned is attorney general, it is hard to run this government and these kind of things district every leader every day and take them from the responsibilities the american people want to see them do. shannon: you experience things differently than the american people did when it comes to these allegations regarding the 2016 election. what do you make of the beatings, senator kennedy is taking by saying, not dismissing that russia was involved but saying it is possible ukraine was. politico says a republican-controlled senate intelligence committee thoroughly investigated this. that ukraine worked to aid hillary clinton. according people with direct knowledge, no evidence that ukraine waged a top-d

no one loomed larger over that trial than kenneth starr. estified as a witness in the house hearings and even returned during the senate trial to interview monica lewinsky again. starr faced criticism not only from democrats but from independent analysts and legal experts over his approach. he remains still one of the 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. and we got to do that this year as mueller was still writing his report. tonight we want to show you a few quick highlights with some points that echo harshly for donald trump as we talk witness tampering, star's view on whether sitting presidents can be indicted. one of the issues that would hobble trump. congress's power to impeach for obstruction. >> when i say obstruction something that the congress about a president might find obstructive and impeach over. >> oh, yes, because congress is not limited to these very technical elements as you know. >> so those things you think congress

kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes of evidence, which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent counsel, was appointed to look into what president trump has done. mr. mueller came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle forbe what the democrats wanted to do. much of the mueller stuff, after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle, ended up disappearing into outer space. they had to find something else. let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there were no quid pro quo offer. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed but it's what thelo facts are. the facts, you know, again, speak for themselves. there was no impeachable offense here. that's why article 1 of the im

investigation, travel gate, remember all that, and that went nowhere until linda tripp went to kenneth starr and said there was an intern at the white house having an affair with the president, and then came a whole new investigation. those same republicans -- >> i want to bring in becky anderson. we've had her standing by and got the signal to work. you're the one that did this interview with lindsey graham. a lot of revealing stuff in there especially about he is going to throw away any ability to be impartial here. what else did he tell you? >> well, lest anyone think that the international audience, particularly that one here at the doha forum today, but anyone around this region isn't interested in the impeachment inquiry, let me tell you, i cannot overstate how eager this audience was to hear about what was going on and lindsey graham's thoughts. it was an audience from all over the region and the world. i also put it to lindsey graham, what he thought the world should know about donald trump. let's remember, he wasn't always donald trump's greatest admirer. he's a staunch ally now, of

>> well, the difference is at that point we had had an extensive investigation by kenneth starr withmony and grand jury testimony. there was a big record for us to deal with in terms of the trial of bill clinton. we don't have that in this situation. we have the actions of some 14 different witnesses who appeared before the house of representatives and of course other evidence has been brought together. what we're looking for is a signal from mitch mcconnell that he hasn't ruled out the documents and witnesses. we've asked for obvious witnesses. mick mulvaney we believe was not only party to the conversation that's at hand here but is acting head of the omb he had something to do with the decision to withhold military aid to the ukraine. >> should house democrats have waited and gone to the courts to try to compel the testimony from people like mick mulvaney? >> the president's defense team knew that was a strategy if that was the defense they followed we would never finish that as it wound its way through court. they went forward with what i thought were compelling testimonies from

nixon impeachment and clinton impeachment where there were actual crimes being alleged, and both kenneth starrnd the independent counsel in the nixon impeachment outlined what crimes there were. donald trump has committed no crime and they want to impeachment him because he asked zelensky to do him a favor, what a joke. >>o laura: pam carter, professor ofof one of the top lw schools in the united states made this comment about abuse of power. watch. >> drawing of a foreign government into our election is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. >> undoing an election year before the next election undoes democracy. 63 millionex people voted for donald trump. he was duly elected. and thisas cabal, which influend jerry nadler and schiff, right from the time trump put his hand off the bible and gave his speech, they said impeachmentrr starts now. the lawyer for the so-called whistleblower called it a coup. democracies don't have coups, and i think we are protecting democracy by saying, hey, high crime and misdemeanor has got to mean something,in rather than ts m

kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent counsel that was appointed to look into what president trump has done, mr. mueller came and testified and that ended up being a a big fizzle, you know, for what the democrats wanted to do. so, much of the mueller stuff after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. have to find something else. now let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed. but that's what the facts are. and the facts, you know, speak for themselves. there was no impeachable offense here. that's why article i of the

then kenneth starr came to deliver the report. remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a u-haul truck and gave it to the house judiciary committee. that was the end of it. monica lewinsky didn't testify before the house judiciary committee. there weren't witnesses there brought before the house judiciary committee. we're following the exact same pattern that took place here, except it was the house of representatives here, which did its own fact investigation through this assortment of committees. finally, the -- let me say a word about the fairness of the process. we all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. the laws are against you, you pound the facts. if the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. i'm afraid i've seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. i don't blame them because they're dealing with the hand they were dealt. we have 17 fact witnesses and all of their depositions an

administration, and they said they were told under no uncertain terms, you are to cooperate with kenneth starr>> sure. >> and this administration has been told, you are not to cooperate with anyone. >> that's article 2. >> that's the second article. >> yeah. >> so what's -- that is not obstruction of congress? >> of course it is. >> well, i think that the congress just voted that it is. it is obstruction. again, this is just the pattern of the president seeing how much can he get away with. this is where we draw the line. we're a co-equal branch of government and we're drawing the line today. >> adam schiff made a good point in his closing. he said, someday you're going to be the majority, republicans in this house, and you're going to want to exercise your constitutional oversight power and you'll be glad we did this. >> lindsey graham, you put his comments next to what he said during the clinton impeachment. >> no one cares. >> there is no comparison. >> you're in politics. you know that. come on. thank you. >> no, i couldn't do that. >> thank you very much. our breaking news tonight is huge

but in 1998, we had gone through a year investigation with kenneth starr where every witness that was deposed, it was out in a report. nobody believed there were any facts on the table in dispute. here, you have republicans arguing essentially kind of two things. some republicans are arguing there were not enough facts on the table yet to make the case on the shakedown. other republicans are arguing, well, even if the facts are on the table, the president's motive was pure. what schumer is doing is making an effective argument that the four witnesses that he wants, in particular, bolton and mulvaney, can shed very important facts and very important light on both of those questions. and kind of what schumer is doing, if you look at the polling right now, we're stuck at about 47-47 on impeachment as we are on really everything else in this country. the segment of the country that as opposed to impeachment is kind of soft on it. only 25% of the public thinks the president has been fully exonerated. so what schumer is doing is playing to the moderates right now. and he's playing to potent

. >> maybe it was kenneth starr in your book that said the roots of his character were not only has time at school but also his deeply catholic upbringing. can you talk a little bit about that? >> he grew up in northern indiana and it started as a vacation area for people of chicago back in the early part of the century trying to escape the heat and congestion of the city's and it was a lovely place to grow up and a lot of the same kind of people, very white, catholic, tightknit community and i think that was character forming for him. he graduated first in his class and then he goes to harvard and finishes in the three years and is a little bit turned off by the liberalism at harvard as an undergraduate for law school but he continued to practice his faith. he's maintained his catholicism, he and his wife, very strong practitioners and we do have a lot of catholics on the court but there have been catholics that haven't been conservative such as william brennan and sonya sotomayor. his faith has been imported into him and one thing i want to mention though is even though he's personally

all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starrn the clinton impeachment. i would like to ask you, professor turley, because your mind is the only one of the four of you up there that doesn't seem to have it made up before you walked in the door. isn't there a difference between saying "do me a favor" and "son of a bleep, that's what happened in six hours' time"? >> grammatically, yes. constitutionally it really depends on the context. i think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question is, if the president said i'd like you to do these investigations and by the way, i don't group them together, my testimony, i distinguish between the investigation in 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. it's an issue of order, magnitude of order constitutionally. if you asked i would like this you do this as opposed to i have a good protocol you either do this or you don't get mi

you also had a very lengthy investigation by kenneth starr where there were underlying interviews and depositions and a lot of fact gathering that could be relied upon whereas, as you mentioned, jim, here, very basic fact witnesses have not been allowed to testify and i would argue that precisely because one of the articles of impeachment is abuse of power, the use of the office of the presidency, that what the president did, any direct orders that came from him, that affected whether or not aid was released, for example, really matters here and i think for some senators, maybe important even if they want to acquit to say we heard the evidence and we have waited, whether or not they want to take that oath seriously remains to be seen given the reporting we heard from graham and mitch mcconnell. >> overnight, the house judiciary committee put out a 600 plus page report on the articles of impeachment. it basically accompanies them throughout this process. and let me read part of it. quote, president trump's abuse of power encompassed the constitutional offense of bribery and multiple fe

the schiff report, that is yet to be seen, and republicans are going to argue that similar to kenneth starrho authored a report, and came in and actually testified, during the clinton impeachment, so should schiff. but more than that, adam schiff arguably is a fact witness. he was involved directly in the whole whistle-blower report. so republicans are going to argue that as a fact witness, he should additionally be required to come in and testify about the facts that he uniquely knows. >> all right, danny cevallos, as always, my friend, good seeing you. >>> for a second sunday in a row, republican senator john kennedy of louisiana argued that ukraine interfered in the 2016 u.s. election. in a contentious interview on "meet the press" yesterday, moderator chuck todd asked kennedy about a "washington post" op-ed from columnist michael gursen criticizing his comments last week, that ukraine was responsible for the dnc hack. >> simply uttering this con nation on ukraine and russia, the inference is our doing the president's dirty work here. do you accept that criticism? >> well, listen, i like

of the evidence, which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starr now, i'd like to ask you, professor turley, because you're the only one of the four up there that doesn't seem to have it made up before the walk in to the door. isn't there a difference between saying "do me a favor" and "son of a bleep, that's what happened," and in six hours' time? >> i -- grammatically, yes. the -- constitutionally it really depends on the context. i think you're point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question is, if the president said, i'd like you to do these investigations and by the way, i don't group them together. my testimony i distinguish between the request for investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. but it is an issue of order. the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask -- i'd like to see you do this as opposed to i have a quid pro quo. you either do this or you don't ge

all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starr i'd like to ask you, professor turley, because your mind is the only one of the four who up there that doesn't seem to have it made up before you walked into the door. isn't there is a difference between saying, quote, do me a favor and, quote, son of a bleep that is what happened in six hours time? >> grammatically, yes. constitutionally, it really depends on the context. i think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question, if the president said i'd like you to do these investigations, and by the way i don't group them together, in my testimony i distinguish between the request for investigation into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. but it is an issue of order. the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask i'd like to see you do this as opposed to i have a quid pro quo, you either do this or you don't get m

to russia and northern ireland shortly after his grand jury appearance in the monica lewinsky/kenneth starrgation and went to the middle east days before his impeachment in the house. the idea was to show that, you know, we're above the muck back home, the scandal-obsessed opposition leaders care about that but i care about shaping events of the world. that didn't stop either one of them from getting in trouble, nixon did end up resigning and clinton did end up getting impeached. president trump didn't get that opportunity this weekend. it works against him, he had a talking point which was going to be an important one for him, that the nato secretary general said all these other allies have begun increasing their military spending under pressure from him, it was something he could brag about but it got overshadowed by this viral video. >> peter baker and anne gearan, thank you, both of you, very much. >>> coming up, red scare. the department of justice charging two russians with one of the largest cyber crimes in history, pete williams coming up next. e williams coming up next .♪ ♪for the

then, kenneth starr came to deliver the report. print -- and remember, all the boxes of material they brought over in a u-haul truck and gave it to the house judiciary committee. that was the end of it. monica lewinsky didn't testify before the house judiciary committee. there weren't witnesses there brought before the house judiciary committee. so we're following the exact same pattern that took place here, except it was the house of representatives here, which did its own fact investigation through this assortment of committees. let me say a word about the fairness of the process. we all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. the laws are against you, you pound the facts. if the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. i'm afraid i've seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. i don't blame them because they're dealing with the hand they were dealt. we have 17 fact witnesses, and all of their depositions

sensenbrenner: what bill clinton did was identify as possibly impeachable conduct by the special counsel kenneth starr. and he was appointed under a law, which has expired, and i let it expire when i was chairman, as i thought it was a bad law. and when he gave the house of representatives the 40 boxes of evidence and said that this was possibly impeachable, i think that made it incumbent upon us to determine whether it was impeachable conduct. now, with respect to obstruction of justice, what that evidence showed is that in the civil suit that was filed against clinton for sexual harassment, there were gifts that the president monicaly gave to lewinsky that ended up being retrieved by the president, put in a box, and hidden under the president's secretary's bed. that is clearly obstruction of justice. as a matter of fact, and this was obstruction of justice. as a matter of fact, after it was all over with, the federal judge who presided over that position, federal judges really do that, but this federal judge did in the case of the president, made a determination he had obstructed justice, and him th

all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starr in the clinton impeachment. now, i'd like to ask you, professor turley, because your is one of the only one of the four up there that doesn't seem to have it made before you walked into the door. isn't there a difference between saying quote do me a favor and quote, son of a bleep, that's what happened, in six hours' time? >> grammatically, yes. constitutionally it really depends on the context. i think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question is if the president said if the president said, i'd like you to do these investigations. by the way, i don't group them together in my testimony. i distinguish between the request firefighter investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. but it is an issue of order, the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask i'd like you to see you do this opposed to i hav

all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starr in the clinton impeachment. now, i'd like to ask you, professor turley, because your is one of the only one of the four up there that doesn't seem to have it made before you walked into the door. isn't there a difference between saying quote do me a favor and quote, son of a bleep, that's what happened, in six hours' time? >> grammatically, yes. constitutionally it really depends on the context. i think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question is if the president said if the president said, i'd like you to do these investigations. by the way, i don't group them together in my testimony. i distinguish between the request firefighter investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. but it is an issue of order, the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask i'd like you to see you do this opposed to i hav

kenneth ira starr is the money manager to hollywood's a-lists. >> among his past investors, annie leibovitzese, sylvester stallone, wesley snipes. >> you know, the names just went on and on. >> narrator: starr woos potential clients, but he doesn't stop there. >> ken wanted to be his clients. and he used my mother's money to purchase influence. >> narrator: he steals $30 million to buy his way onto the a-list and live in the lap of luxury. and it's all in the name of love. >> you know, when your money manager starts going out with a stripper, that's a tell.

make one point for viewers that distinguishes this from whitewater, which i participated in with kenneth starr. in that case there was a independent counsel who had four years and grand jury subpoena power to gather a lot of information that was then handed to the congress. that underscores the absence of that here, which would have been bill barr that would have appointed someone like rod rosenstein did with mueller. the lack of a prosecutor to gather facts makes the obstruction case more serious. >> lawyers, do you think we're just skimming the surface in terms of evidence? >> i agree with jonathan. i wrote a piece, there should be a lot more people we should have heard from. mick mulvaney publicly stated it was quid pro quo. why do you think that? when did he talk to the president? what did he say? i think the american people deserve to hear that. >> this is a very thin record. my favorite part is when congressman jackson lee held up two binders and waved them at us and said, do you call this a thin record? i almost chuckled. if she held the record up in the clinton case, she would have req

then when they couldn't get anything on him on whitewater, kenneth starr went after him for infidelityat was the crux of the entire impeachment process. host: well, perjury was the law that the president broke. caller: right. actuallking about the following of the investigation. that was the article of impeachment, was perjury, or one of them, but that is how we got there. justice,obstruction of ok, fine. bill clinton deserved to be punished. i feel like he did, but that is not my point. the republicans held the party line. onre were eloquent arguments both sides, but regardless of what the facts were, that went ahead. , so there was that and then we are saying that this doesn't look wise, there was no crime. both sides are saying repeatedly that an actual crime does it need to be committed in order for it to be an issue recognized for impeachment. in my opinion, a crime has been committed. host: what is the crime, in your opinion? caller: that he attempted to bribe a foreign official. host: the solicitation? caller: yes, even though it didn't actually happen. it definitely was attempt

kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent counsel that was appointed to look into what president trump has done, mr. mueller came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle, you know, for what the democrats wanted to do. so, much of the mueller stuff after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. have to find something else. now let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed. but that's what the facts are. and the facts, you know, speak for themselves. there was no impeachable offense here. that's why article i of the i

to the special prosecutor's investigation and one comparisonon one should also expect that like kenneth starr and robert mueller, the chairman should testify in our members from all the committees believe very strongly that the chairman should testify and answer questions. with that mr. chairman, the time is yours. >> the gentleman's time is has expired and we will proceed to the first round of questions. the gentleman will state his point of order. >> we have been told that the council for the democrats was a witness and that's why he didn't have to comport with the rules and now he's sitting up here -- i've been a judge and i know you don't have to be a witness and a judge in the same case. that is my point of order, he shouldn't be up there. pursuant to house resolution is a judiciary committee procedures there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman and the majority counsel followed by 45 minutes by the ranking member of the minority counsel. the chair and ranking member and respective counsel to question witnesses during this pickup. following that, unless i specify add

kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes of evidence which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent counsel that was appointed to look into what president trump has done, mr. mueller, came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle for what the democrats wanted to do. so much of the mueller stuff, after his testimony and the cross examination by members on both sides of the aisle, ended up disappearing into outer space. they had to find something else. now let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky have said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed. but that's what the facts are. and the facts again speak for themselves. there was no impeachable offense here. and that's why article 1 o

all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by kenneth starr in the clinton impeachment. now, i'd like to ask you, professor turley, because your is one of the only one of the four up there that doesn't seem to have it made before you walked into the door. isn't there a difference between saying quote do me a favor and quote, son of a bleep, that's what happened, in six hours' time? >> grammatically, yes. constitutionally it really depends on the context. i think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. i guess the threshold question is if the president said if the president said, i'd like you to do these investigations. by the way, i don't group them together in my testimony. i distinguish between the request firefighter investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. but it is an issue of order, the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask i'd like you to see you do this opposed to i hav