peter rodino designed the process. i remember the watergate hearings very well. jim rogan, who was an impeachment manager with me during the clinton impeachment, met up with rodino to try to figure out how they did it. and newt knows this better than i do. i think the american people were not with us on substance when it came to clinton, but i do believe what we did very much mirrored the watergate way of doing business. i remember the watergate hearings. i don't remember any hearings in public about whether or not donald trump did something wrong in ukraine. and here's what -- this is why

here is fundamental problem, and contrast to peter rodino, nixon henry hyde, republican, clinton those impeachments, on both sides of the aisle, people said we have a chair of the committee who is fundamentally fair and fundamentally a good person, who loves his country.. they are great stories. very briefly, after peter rodino voted in favor of impeachment of richard nixon, he retired to his private chambers and cried like a baby be because he loves the country. we are so far removed b from th. >> laura: here is something else the dems wrote in the document for themselves but the provision gives nadlerng leave o punish trump for any stonewalling of the impeachment investigation. if trump doesn't turn over his tax returns to the ways and means committee, or financial records to the services panel rather can use his discretion to deny him and his counsel access to impeachment proceedings. >> and by the way, let's point out, too, that everythingee proceeds as it is proceeding now until it gets the judiciary committee. which means that schiff is allowed to continue operating in secret, an

peter rodino designed the process. i remember the watergate hearings very well. jim rogan, who was an impeachment manager with me during the clinton impeachment, met up with rodino to try to figure out how they did it. and newt knows this better than i do. i think the american people were not with us on substance when it came to clinton, but i do believe what we did very much mirrored the watergate way of doing business. i remember the watergate hearings. i don't remember any hearings in public about whether or not donald trump did something wrong in ukraine. and here's what -- this is why republicans are so frustrated. if we had done this to a democrat, you'd be eating us alive. if we took an opening statement of a witness and said, there, doesn't that look bad? you would want to know, well, did anybody question the witness? how did cross-examination go? so we believe that a lot of people want to get trump and they don't give a damn about how they get him. i am not telling you what he did or didn't do. i'm telling you what they're doing in the house is dangerous

peter rodino designed the process. i remember the watergate hearings very well. jim rogan who was an impeachment manager with me during the clinton impeachment went to meet with peter rodino to find out how they did it. i think the american people were not with us on substance when it came to clinton but i do believe what we did very much mirrored the watergate way of doing business. i remember the watergate hearings. i don't remember any hearings in public about whether or not donald trump did something wrong in the ukraine. here's -- this is why republicans are so frustrated. if we had done this to a democrat, you'd be eating us alive. if we took an opening statement of witness and said does that look bad? you'd want to know. did anybody question the witness? how did cross-examination go? we believe that a lot of people want to get trump and they don't give a damn about how to get him. i'm not telling you what he did or didn't do. i'm telling you what they are doing the houses dangerous for the country. >> reporter: what can you tell us about your lunch today w

the process work, was that the democrats in charge of the committees, the judicial committee, peter rodino made a point saying everything must be bipartisan. it needed to be understood for both sides and understood by both sides. the way he did that, every single time the republicans on that committee asked him for something the answer was, yes. republicans said, can we subpoena our own witnesses? yes. have open hearings? yes. get more evidence? yes. every single time believing the more evidence that came out and the more sunlight shined on the case the more likely it was going to be they would find the truth and the truth ultimately led to nixon's resignation. >> you are the second historian i've talked to makinging that point, be clean and bipartisan and a note to democrats and nancy pelosi and adam schiff as they lead this whole and nia an forgive me. i've been on vacation a few days. thank you all very much. i know exactly who you are. >>> continue with more breaking news ahead. thank you. >>> president trump today patting himself on the back for an alleged solution to a problem that h

. >> committee chairman peter rodino was a democratic machine liberal from newark, new jersey.bted whether he could handle it. >> highly partisan prosecution if ever there was one. many nixon loyalists were angry and still immoveable. for republicans, impeaching their president was tantamount to political suicide so they kept holding out for more evidence. >> the weight of evidence must be clear, it must be convincing. and let's stick to those two words you can't substitute them for anything else -- clear and convincing! but you cannot and should not under any circumstance attempt to remove the highest office in the world for anything less than clear and convincing. >> but as emotions began to run high, the facts were calmly recited and documented. and something surprising happened -- >> there's an obstruction of justice going on. someone's trying to buy the silence of a witness. >> nixon republican larry holman, the father of maryland's current governor, was moved by the evidence. >> the thing that's so appalling to me is that the president, when this whole idea was suggested

and his chairman of the judiciary committee, we sent jim rogan up to new jersey to sit down with peter rodinoo had been the chairman of the democratic -- the democratic chairman of the impeachment committee under nixon, and he who walked rogan through how to do it so it was fair, it was open, it was worthy of the american people, it reinforced the constitution. we adopted every single rule that road you know used in 1973. it was so bipartisan that catbird, the democratic leader, held a joint press conference with me on a bipartisan basis to say that we were going to print the entire reports of the american people could see it. the opposite of the way that speaker pelosi has done this. it's doing all right. trump versus china facing america's greatest threat. book stores. hannity.com. amazon.com. and we have a full interview about the book on my website, hannity.com. mr. speaker, congratulations. thank you. when we come back on the hunter biden has agreed to take a paternity test after a woman claims he fathered her child. trace gallagher has a detailed plus, remember the anonymous, so-called

a majority to do that, and i think not doing that was a mistake, and in the nixon impeachment peter rodinoas head of the house judiciary committee and he was a player and what did he do? he wanted to make it bipartisan and he went out and found a very respected republican john dore with the civil rights under kennedy to be the general counsel, and one staff, not two headed out by john dore and he hired over 100 people, but the whole thing was conducted with an eye toward bipartisanship in trying to keep the country together in all of this and not turning into a partisan brawl and the bigger point is we are now in the midst of a partisan brawl and it could lead to a constitutional crisis if the courts weigh in and tell the white house you've got to hand over the documents and you've got to allow the witnesses and the white house refuses and that's a true constitutional crisis and right now is a big brawl. >> how close to that are we? you have the letter and you don't have a vote and even if you get a vote and that's a big if. the letter is pretty clear and they're not going to cooperate eve

as a result at the end, peter rodino, who had been a machine democrat and was sort of a nondescript individual, he played it straight down the middle and literally at the end of it broke the president's detractors and his advocates and complimented him on the bipartisanship of his investigation. we have seen nothing like this and what adam schiff and nancy pelosi have done so far. >> dana: if the process can be respected, you would maybe be able to make the argument, and i think the white house is saying that so far it is not the case, there was a fox news poll last night showing that the percentage of people now saying that they would like to see the president impeached and removed have gone way up, 51%. and that could be because of media attention, or on the merit, i don't know. but i wonder what you think in terms of the president position right now. they had the letter that went out. he has been very forceful. and i'm sure that that will -- that is his style. he will continue to counterpunch. how do you think that will go strategically from a communication standpoint? >> well, look. this i

all of his intelligence and abilities he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way peter rodino did during nixon and the way henry hyde did during clinton. huge mistake to invest so much authority and power and someone who does not enjoy the respect of the other side. >> dana: what about the idea that the president is saying i need to be defended on the substance not just on process. is it time now do you think the republicans are going to do what are we going to say? what off-ramp do they have? >> again it remains to be seen in light of, we have so many unknowns because of the secrecy and also because of where we are the process. reports now about john bolton the national security advisor has some pretty strong views according to the published reports. let's get this all out in the open, is there an off-ramp? the democrats could take the off ramp namely a resolution of censure, we do not like the way the president is conducting american foreign policy vis-a-vis the ukraine -- >> dana: the kind of do that every day without taking an official vote. >> at the end of the day they c

but it's really critical for the house committees to follow the example of peter rodino and liz holzman standard was 1974. and pelosi's been very successful so far. >> she thinks the house judiciary committee is actually being more effective now than they might've been in watergate. that is it for me. i will see you again at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins now. ♪ >>> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. as public support for the impeachment inquiry into donald trump rises, and the house committee is investigating the president's request for dirt on the bidens from a foreign government reaches deep into the west wing with a threat of subpoenas, donald trump appeared to totally lose it today after a night in mourning of increasingly paranoid and agitated social media posts that seem to warn of his impending outbursts, the president let it rip at an oval office appearance. his outbursts included threats for the whistle-blower whose account of presidential misconduct has been almost entirely corroborated by the president himself and his personal attor

he never uses the word guilty so pelosi is off and -- we went to peter rodino and said what are the rulesrogen, a congressman at the time and we were so bipartisan that dick gephardt, the democratic leader and i held a joint press conference to announce how we're going to go forward. now, if this white house was faced with any kind of decent, honest fair dealing and pompeo, secretary pompeo pointed out yesterday he's got people on his staff testifying in secret. he doesn't have a lawyer in the room. he doesn't know what they're saying. i mean this is a total kangaroo trial and a violation of everything in terms of the american system. >> should we talk about trump versus china. >> that would be nice. >> newt gingrich says if the u.s. doesn't wake up and realize china is not a friendly neighbor it may be too late. what are we not getting. >> this is a totalitarian dictatorship. it has 96 million members. he is the chairman of the military commission which supervises the people's liberation army which is the chinese communist party's army. not the government. and, third, he's president of c

democrats did want to do that, the seriousness the choked voices, people like barbara jordan and peter rodinond that conveyed to the country how big a deal it was. so i think the next phase for the democrats is to find a way to kind of be the serious people while everyone is like going nuts around them. >> that's why the timing is so important because we've seen the american people become more and more in favor of impeachment, but if that number plateaus, then there is a very finite amount of time for the democrats to actually make their case before some of the republican talking points start to sink in a little bit more, certainly before we get much deeper into the presidential cycle. so, again, with all the flurry of activity it's trying to get the american public focused on what they're doing at a very critical point in time before they start losing support for the process. >> putting up the most recent polling we have here, nbc news 49% of all voters think president trump should be impeached and removed from office, 89% of democrats think that as well. how much do you pay attention to tha

all sorts -- but the biggest difference is this, we asked congressman jim rogan to meet with peter rodinono's rules. so the white house counsel was in the room. what they're doing is fundamental violation of american law. they're creating a star chamber as secretary pompeo said, he doesn't have a lawyer in the room. he has no idea what people are saying. they are being selectively leaked. brian: the thing is, they say we don't want them to sync up their stories. if we have public hearings everyone will match story with each other to help sell a narrative. what is your reaction to that? >> my reaction that schiff is embarrassingly dishonest person. pelosi has become a embarrassingly dishonest person. the fact is, i sort of like what tulsi gabbard said about hillary clinton the other day, i won't repeat it but rather direct and clear. democrats in the house are desperately trying to manufacture something. they wake up every morning saying i know trump did something terrible, i wonder what it was? they set up a rigged game that violates every core principle of american justice, violates the

>> in the nixon case was my former boss peter rodino i was his page a hundred years ago.committee. judiciary did everything. in the clinton case the chair was henry hide of house judiciary. judiciary did everything. for some reason this is beginning not with judiciary but with intelligence. pat chip lone the white house lawyer says you can't issue subpoena unless there is a vote. republicans changed the rules when john boehner was the speaker of the house allowing each individual committee to issue subpoenas without a house wide vote. those subpoenas are valid. people that ignore them put them in your drawer do that at your peril. you have to challenge the subpoena. you can't ignore it. steve: thank you so much. >> rand paul today going to get him on liberty file on his latest feud with lindsey graham over whether or not we belong in syria. steve: check it out on fox nation. ainsley: temperatures are dropping. get your coats, everyone. some beauty bargains to fall in love with like hair care for nearly 80% off. mega morning deals just for you next. brian: judge, you can s

think the president is exactly right to say, you know, we adopted basically the same rules as peter rodinote a book called "catch the falling flag" we made sure the white house was protected. we made sure that the minority democrats were protected. what pelosi and company are doing is an absurdity. i agree with senator sasse who said it's a clown show. you can't have a whistleblower in secret take on the president of the united states. that violates everything since the english civil war in the middle of the 17th century when they outlined star chambers. brian: didn't mark felt do that in watergate? >> well, no. that was because he was hiding in secret. he wasn't a whistleblower. brian: he was a source. >> he was a guy who hid. >> he was a source but he wasn't a whistleblower. everybody in watergate appeared in the open. both sides got to cross-examine them. the same thing happened when we impeached clinton in the house in 1998. remember, we had a report from independent counsel that used the word guilty on 11 different counts. they tried to get that out of mueller. he never used the word

rodino. >> aye. >> peter went in the back and cried. we took it very seriously. >> with that vote, mr.and only the second in all of our history to confront removal from office through the only means provided in the constitution, impeachment. >> i stood by nixon and felt he should remain in office, but then we discovered the tape of june 23rd. this was fatal. >> good evening. president nixon stunned the country today by admitting he held back evidence from the house judiciary committee, keeping it a secret from his lawyers and not disclosing it in public statements. mr. nixon issued transcripts of three recorded conversations he had with h.r. halderman on june 23rd, 1972, six days after the burglars were caught in the watergate. >> you open that scab and there's a hell of a lot of things that we just feel that this would be detrimental to have this thing go any further. >> the facts came out. yes, the president himself, not only was he involved in this but he directed this criminal operation. >> they should call the fbi and n. and say that we wish for couldn't trib don't go they further

peter odino was chairman of the judiciary committee. you never heard from pete pete rodino.think that's the democrat's dilemma. who's going to be the spokesperson. it it's going to have to be ejd wi edged with a sentiment of sadness, not glee that he's going to be impeached, sadness as to what's going on with the country. >> david ignatius, mike brings up a great point. i remember when we were going through impeachment in the late 1990s, and i kept -- i realized that congress was not a meritocracy, that often the people who were worse at speaking out and persuading voters were often those that got to the front of the microphones whether it was newt gingrich, whether it was tom delay, actually bill paxton was far more effective speaking for the party, somebody like steve largent would have been far more effective speaking for the party, and yet it went straight with seniority. and i agree with mike, unless it's nancy pelosi, i think the democratic party is going to have a real problem because there have been some people that have not been as effective as they needed to be dur