scalise -- mr. hoyer: mr. scalise ought to know this isn't like any other one. i'm not sure about john roberts. there was a special prosecutor in the nixon case. nixon fired the first one. mr. cox, you recall. mr. jaworski succeeded him. there was a special prosecutor in the clinton case. all of them did -- not exactly, because all the republicans are in the room that were on the committee. members of the committee. it's a select committee on intelligence. the intelligence committee operates that way. consistent with their rules and with your rule. you continue to say, we ought to change the rule. it is your rule that we adopted in our own rules. you didn't like it -- you liked it when it was applied to us. but you don't like it when it's applied to you. we never -- mr. scalise: we never had an impeachment inquiry. we're talking about an impeachment inquiry. which has been done before. there's precedent. three times. it's always been done the same way. you're now having an impeachment inquiry but you're treating it as if it's a secret, closed-door hearing, which

scalise -- mr. hoyer: mr. scalise ought to know this isn't like any other one. i'm not sure about john roberts. there was a special prosecutor in the nixon case. nixon fired the first one. mr. cox, you recall. mr. jaworski succeeded him. there was a special prosecutor in the clinton case. all of them did -- not exactly, because all the republicans are in the room that were on the committee. members of the committee. it's a select committee on intelligence. the intelligence committee operates that way. consistent with their rules and with your rule. you continue to say, we ought to change the rule. it is your rule that we adopted in our own rules. you didn't like it -- you liked it when it was applied to us. but you don't like it when it's applied to you. we never -- mr. scalise: we never had an impeachment inquiry. we're talking about an impeachment inquiry. which has been done before. there's precedent. three times. it's always been done the same way. you're now having an impeachment inquiry but you're treating it as if it's a secret, closed-door hearing, which

scalise: when? mr. hoyer: when they're concluding their private sessions which are trying to get at the facts and not have them tainted by some circus. and everybody is going to have the right to see what evidence is adduced. that is the fear, of course, and i again suggest that the .entleman think of this we saw these headlines, it was a democratic president and turkey and russia were deciding what's happening in the midd east, and deciding whether they're going to go after isis, our ally , and then this other headlines replete with the aid to ukraine was conditied on a quid pro quo or you wouldn't get to be in the white house, wouldn't get the $390 million, you would be outraged, you'd be on the ceiling mr. scalise: i would if it was true but it's not. i can't find out what the truth is because you can only read it in the press because of selective leaking. that's how members of congress are supposed to make a decision based on selective leaks to the president. mr. hoyer: starr might as well -- mr. sc

i want to go to whip scalise here first. i got to tell you, to hear schiff and nadler already pooh-poohing a criminal investigation, jumping to conclusions, when you see that, steve scalise, how do you react? >> that's aou, bit rich. coming from those two out. what you saw today, this is big news, by the way, a bad sign for all the people politicizing ande trying to interfere with the 2016 election, including people at the department of justice and the fbi who were trying to undermine the trump campaign. of course, we've already seen a lot of information about that. but today, you saw both schiff and nadler hit the panic button. they really understand this is bad for them and their case they are trying to impeach a president based on false

scalise: when? mr. hoyer: when they're concluding their private sessions which are trying to get at the facts and not have them tainted by some circus. and everybody is going to have the right to see what evidence is adduced. that is the fear, of course, and i again suggest that the .entleman think of this we saw these headlines, it was a democratic president and turkey and russia were deciding what's happening in the midd east, and deciding whether they're going to go after isis, our ally , and then this other headlines replete with the aid to ukraine was conditied on a quid pro quo or you wouldn't get to be in the white house, wouldn't get the $390 million, you would be outraged, you'd be on the ceiling mr. scalise: i would if it was true but it's not. i can't find out what the truth is because you can only read it in the press because of selective leaking. that's how members of congress are supposed to make a decision based on selective leaks to the president. mr. hoyer: starr might as well -- mr. sc

congressman scalise, what is going on here? it's only about process.he process does ensure fairness. without a process in place, we have no do process ann the constitution and imagined that out of the window. they all claim to stand on right to confront an accuser, due process, but guys, this is fundamental fairness beingig violated here. oh, you don't care about the substance. we don't know the substance because the substance is being hidden. i think that is what you actually accomplished today. >> laura, they don't want people to know this is actually going on. what they are doing adam schiff is building from impeaching the president and doing it behind closed doors because they tried to do it in a normal setting. if you remember, the mueller investigation was their idea 22 months, 2800 subpoenas. there was every kind of indication that you could imagine and you'll did absolutely nothing. the president didn't do anything wrong. no colluding, no obstruction and it crushed them here that thought that would be a basis for impeachment. they go on to look

i want to call up our whip, steve scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, kevin. when we talk about the vote, i think it's important to note, when you see that not only did every single republican reject this soviet-style impeachment process but we were even joined by democrats who couldn't stand it anymore. if you look at where we are right now, we're at an important point in history. clearly there are people that we serve with that don't like the results of the 2016 election. that's their prerogative. but the country next year will be deciding who our president is going to be. it should not be nancy pelosi in a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president. if you look at the resolution today, they talk about fairness. now if they really think they can tell people it's fair that only the chairman gets to decide who the witnesses are, they give us an opportunity to call witnesses, but if the chair says they don't like the witness the witnesses don't come forward. they allow the president to have legal counsel in the

steve scalise and lee zeldin will lay out the g.o.p.'s new strategy for us. also has the impeachment push actually been hurting certain 2020 democratic candidates? joe biden's hail mary, and the 11th hour surprised. raymond arroyo joins us for some hollywood oddities. a new cbs drama about jim comey. and a brand-new stage reading of the peter strzok and lisa page it left texas, i kid you not. seen and unseen, i had to. but first, house democrats continue to ignore long-standing precedent for impeachment and i want to clearly lay out three possibilities. one, they can hold a vote authorizing impeachment. that will do best process for the president. >> if that would be positive we would cooperate. >> can we just saved that the republican party, and treated extremely badly by the democra democrats. a tiny margin in the house and they have eviscerated the rules. can't have lawyers and can't speak. >> if democrats refuse that brings us to option number two. take the fight to court. at least in court there is a process, which would be a novelty for the democrats. >

[inaudible conversations] >> house democrats leader steny hoyer and republican whip steve scalise spentearly an hour on the floor today debating the house impeachment and cory. -- impeachment inquiry. it took place during the end of week discussion of next week's schedule. congressman scalise started by asking leader hoyer about republican committee members rights during the closed-door hearings. >> there are hearings going on behind closed doors. many of my colleagues have tried to attend some of those hearings and have been turned away if they are not on the committees of jurisdiction, colleagues that have tried to go and read things like the volcker. ave tried to attend some of those hearings and have been turned away if they are not on the committees of jurisdiction, colleagues that have tried to read things like the volcker testimony and have been turned away, denied the ability to do that. there is a real concern that there is an attempt to impeach a president of the united states, remove a president who was dualy elected using a process of

i want to go to whip scalise here first. got to tell you, to hear schiff and nadler pooh-poohing, jumping to conclusions, when you see that, steve scalise, how do you react? >> that's a bit rich. what you saw today, this is big news, by the way, a bad sign for all the people politicizing and trying to interfere with the 2016 election, including people at the department of justice and the fbi who were trying to undermine the trump campaign. of course, we've already seen a lot of information about that. you saw both schiff and nadler hit the panic button. they really understand this is bad for them and their case where they are trying to impeach a president based on false information and innuendo in secret behind closed doors and in fact what you look at, both what horwitz is doing and what durham is doing, they've actually been looking at facts, talking to real people, giving things that they've risen to the level of criminal probe. it's a really big deal, bad news for those people who try to undermine the trump campaign ille

come of course the soviet style proceedings being ran by house democrats commit jim jordan steve scalisend bradley burns take us inside and also hillary clinton, floating for another presidential run, her name, my angle tonight ask, why now and who would benefit most, that is a little later on in the show and mba china saga and an unexpected turn, iconic director takes on superhero films and the "gq" actually understands masculinity anymore, raymond aurora rowe has it all in "seen and unseen." but first to today's most dramatic story, republican house members frustrated with continued secrecy of the process, stormed the ultra-secure conference room were scifs during closed door hearing and called for transparency. >> behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an american presidential election. we want to know what's going on. this is a soviet style impeachment process. >> we are finding -- >> show your face where we can all see the travesty that you are trying to waste on america. let's see if we can get in. >> laura: instead of asking why the most serious political tactic

scalise: i want to share the larming concerns of my colleagues, mr. turner, ms. stefanik, talking about what is behind closed doors. everybody in america should be now here in right congress there is an impeachment inquiry going on to the of the united states and the public is not allowed to see it, the press is not allowed and members of congress that aren't on the relevant committees are not room or able to see the transcripts of what's going on over there. american ought to be alarmed that they're literally trying to reverse the results of behind closed on doors. in secret. chairman, adam schiff, who has a very, very concerning the record of telling truth. you can go back to the mueller investigation. months, you had chairman schiff running around saying he had more than circumstantial that there was collusion with russia, and at the end of the report, you saw there was noeport, collusion. showed any ever evidence. he's never come forward with aroundidence that he ran for over a year and a half claiming that he had and instead the next baseless charge against

joining me now congressman scalise. lee zeldin. how long can democrats run the sham inquiries without a vote? >> for the last two weeks members have been back in their districts, lots of these vulnerable members. 31 democrats are in districts that donald trump won are goinge back home and are hearing from constituents going, you are seriously trying to impeach the president? you can't even name an impeachable offense. that's how ridiculous this is. they are going to be coming back asking pelosi these questions, going you and adam schiff are literally trying to take away the will of the voters and they will have the opportunity in 2020 to pick the next president. pelosi and schiff are trying to take it away from them running this kangaroo court where you can't even question your accusers. you can't have basic rights -- rights, due process that every impeachment has had. only three in the history of o r country and all of them have started with ve a vote in the house. pelosi has bypassed that because she's trying to shield and hide a

we are seeing similar language from trum allies including kevin mccarthy and ta steve scalise are referring it to a soviet-style. i don't expect the criticism to let up. the democrats are pointing to certain provisions in the resolution that will allow the president to defend himself. it will be interesting to see how that will all take shape. but, you know, while we have been mostly in the dark aside from a few selective weeks, it will be fascinating when this process heads into the public atmosphere. a part of the ground rules for each of these public hearings will allow for 45 minutes for the democratic staff counsel to ask questions of the witness and then 45 minutes uninterrupted for the republican staff counsel to question the witnesses and after that 90 minutes, it will shift to the lawmaker portion. we will see professionals questioning these witnesses, democrats want to make sure that process allows them to get as many facts out to the public as possible before it shifts into the political atmosphere when the lawmakers will do the questioning. >> they have called the ultimate house

i want to call up our whip, steve scalise. >> thank you, kevin.we talk about the vote, i think it's important to note, when you see that not only did every republican reject the soviet-start impeachment process, but we were joined by democrats who couldn't stand it anymore. if you look at where we are right now, were at an important point in history. clearly there are people that we serve with that don't like the result of the 2016 election. that is their prerogative. but the country next year will be deciding who our president is going to be. it should not be nancy pelosi and a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president. if you look at the resolution today, they talk about fairness. if they really think they can tell people it's fair, that only the chairman gets to decide who the witnesses are, and they give us an opportunity to call witnesses, but if the chair says they don't like the witnesses, the witnesses don't come forwar forward. they allow the president to have legal counsel in the room,

steve scalise, thanks for being with us.roject veritas published undercover footage appearing to show cnn president, jeff zucker, demanding his network focus on impeachment coverage. >> let's stay very focused on impeachment. we are moving toward impeachment. we can't pretend this is going one way. so all these moves are moves towards impeachment. lou: quite analysis. zucker's anti-trump posture. listen to how one employee had to say about how cnn is covering president trump. >> zucker, the president of cnn, has a personal vendetta against trump. he hates him. lou: the undercover video was videos by gary porch, a former satellite uplink technician. he recently joined sean hannity to talk about cnn's outright campaign against this president. >> i just want the biases to be up front. if i were to watch like an msnbc. i know i'm getting a left wing perspective. if i watch fox i know i am getting a right-wing perspective. the same thing with reason tv, i am getting a libertarian perspective. but to claim you are the cnn of old,

scalise: i want to thank my bringing . biggs, for this resolution forward. when congress was not in from n, what we saw speaker pelosi and chairman alarming uld raise questions to people all across this country. ay are they trying to impeach president of the united states doors, in secret, it, the public can't see the press can't see it, even noters of congress that are in the jurisdiction, can't read the testimony? what is chairman schiff trying the american people? we have an election next year. in act, we had an election 2016, and i understand that there were some people that donald trump but he won. he was duly elected by the people. some still haven't gotten over it and are trying to revert -- the decision that was made by the people of this country. again, we have an election for year.ent next speaker pelosi and adam schiff away the try to take rights of the american people to have that voice next year by doors and d closed trying to impeach a president of the united states without even high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the standard that the const

you mentioned liz cheney, a member of the house republican leadership and the other top steve scalise and kevin mccarthy are backing the sanctions bill. so it's going to divide republicans who are torn between supporting their president and they just didn't like this move of leaving syria and abandonning the kurds. so you're going to see -- potentially see votes next week and beyond that would admonish the white house for making this move. that's going to be a tough vote for some republicans. >> it seems that the president see that is the withdrawal is a political winner for him. >> that's right. he has made the case that the . untry is very war weary, he repeatedly mentioned we need to stop the endless wars. it triggered some applause. it's interesting because some republicans will support him. i think some democrats also will support him if they are forced to vote on it. but a vast majority of republicans and democrats don't support this move and i think the white house has been a little bit surprised about how much republican pushback they've gotten, especially from leaders. that i

congressman adam nunez, steve scalise all here and they will reveal their plan. don't miss it. one mother fights for her daughter's right to compete against other girls in track and field. a warning about what the left pushes for trans athletes will do to women's and girls exports. and i will have my list response to lebron james potter's comments on china latee show. unmasked and unanswered, that's the focus of tonight angle. well, joe biden has spent weeks deflecting the flood of questions about his son's shady business deals in ukraine and china. >> i never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever had a conversation with my son about anything i was doing. there is zero, zero, zero evidence. >> laura: nothing, nothing, nothing to see here! that should be biden's new campaign slogan, i've decided. of course is bill of lading denials are enough to satisfy and in curiously uninterested lame stream media. >> it basically stitches together the entire right wing conspiracy theory. >> this whole ukraine conspiracy theory with joe biden and his son -- >> smart of him to be dismissing this becau

scalise: i want to thank my friend, mr. biggs, for bringing this resolution forward. over the last few weeks, when congress was not in session, what we saw from speaker pelosi and chairman schiff should raise alarming questions to people all across his country. why are they trying to impeach a president of the united states behind closed doors, in secret, where the public can't see it, the press can't see it, even members of congress that are not in the jurisdiction, can't read the testimony? what is chairman schiff trying to hide from the american people? we have an election next year. in fact, we had an election in 2016, and i understand that there were some people that didn't support donald trump but he won. he was duly elected by the american people. some still haven't gotten over it and are trying to revert-- reverse the decision that was made by the people of this country. again, we have an election for president next year. speaker pelosi and adam schiff should not try to take away the rights of the american people to have that voice next year by going behind cl

and frankly, when leader mccarthy and representative scalise and representative cheney can vote for this kind of resolution, why should we not be doing the same? it will send a better message to the president than anything else we can do. my friend, the republican leader, says we need a stronger resolution. quibbling over words at a time when america is in danger doesn't make sense to me, particularly a resolution that he knows will not pass the house and not go to the president's desk. so i would plead with my colleagues let's move forward. i plead with my friend from kentucky -- both my friends from kentucky. but i plead with the junior senator from kentucky to not stand in the way. he has a different world view than almost all of us. but we talked in -- we talked early this morning. i asked him was he against going after the taliban and bin laden when they hit us in america, in new york, and he said no. well, this is the same kind of thing. we're happy to vote on his resolution. let's vote on both. this is momentous. these terrorist acts from escaped isis prisoners might not occur tom

we are seeing similar language from capitol hill including kevin mccarthy and steve scalise, who has referred to it as a soviet style interrogation process, so i don't expect the criticism to let. the democrats are -- let up. democrats are pointing to revisions in the resolution that will allow the president and his attorneys to defend himself in this process in the public setting. they will be interesting to see how that will all take shape. mostly inwe have been the dark aside from a few selective leaks, it will be fascinating when this process heads into the public sphere. one thing i will note is part of the ground rules for each of these public hearings will allow for 45 minutes for the to asktic staff counsel questions of the council and 45 minutes uninterrupted for the republican staff counsel to question witnesses and after that total 90 minutes, it will ,hift to the lawmaker portion so we will see professionals questioning these witnesses. thatrats want to make sure process allows them to get as many facts out to the public as possible before it shifts into the political sph

minority whip steve scalise. devin, i know you can't tell us everything, but my sources are pretty clear. it's a complete adam schiff shutdown. republicans can't ask questions. republicans can't do pretty much everything. you have read this so-called resolution. is this resolution when newt gingrich offered bill clinton in 1998? >> well, i think the thing people should be asking themselves, especially if you're a democrat on the judiciary committee, where is jerry nadler? no one has seen him for like two and a half months, he's like the missing in action. so clearly, schiff and the intelligence committee democrats, they have completely obliterated the intelligence committee. it's now known as the impeachment committee. so that resolution is just more of the same, and i will tell you, you mentioned you haven't seen this in your many years in radio and tv. i have never come in my life, seen anything like what happened today. i mean, they have been bad in most of thesee depositions, but to interrupt us continually,

i want to call up our whip, steve scalise. >> thank you, kevin.think it's important to note, when you see that not only did every single republican reject the impeachment protcess, but w were even joined by democrats who couldn't stand it anymore. when you look at where we are right now, we're at an important point in history. clearly there are people we serve with that don't like the results of the 2016 election. that's their prerogative. but the country next year will be deciding who our president is going to be. it should not be nancy pelosi in a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president. if you look at the resolution today, they talk about fairness. now, if they really think that they can tell people it's fair that only the chairman gets to decide who the witnesses are and they give us an opportunity to call witnesses, but if the chair says they don't like the witnesses, the witnesses don't come forward. they allow the president to have legal counsel in the room unless the chair decides that

elizabeth: that is steve scalise referring to chifundo "mercy" . >> that is what he said, that is why this is a shameful day in house of representatives. i was one of those that was a major mover in clinton impeachment 20 years ago. ken starr appeared he was subject to questioning by the democrats and by the republica republicans. the clinton lawyers had a day to present a defense before the house voted articles of impeachment against president clinton. what is significant here is the house under the constitution is not a grand jury. people who are not on the three committees that were allowed into the scif, are not even allowed to hear the testimony. this is probably the most consequential and gravest vote that any member of the house of representatives will cast any time during their careers, shutting members who are not on three selected committees out from being able to hear and judge the body language of the witnesses, and listen to them answer all of the questions, democrats' to ask, and getting hearings republicans shut off, again does not allow the president -- bottom line is

scalise then say oh, okay, fine. i guess we can move forward now.on't think that's what's going on. they don't want to argue the facts or defend the president's behavior so they're attacking the process. a process we're following very carefully. for example. in those hearings republicans are asking all the questions that they want to ask, having their time allotted to them. i think it's a fair process. >> sandra: quite a battle brewing that's for sure both in the white house and that meeting yesterday and on capitol hill. congressman, we appreciate your time this morning. we'll check back in with you soon, thank you. >> thanks for having me on. >> bill: breaking news, the u.s. pushing for a cease-fire in the syrian crisis. pence and pompeo meeting with president erdogan. what will they get done? the retired four star general jack keane is on deck and he has analysis in a moment. >> sandra: 2020 democrat mayor pete buttigieg ramping up attacks on elizabeth warren on her medicare for all plan. our a-team will be next. >> she was more specific and fort

[inaudible conversations] >> house democrats leader steny hoyer and republican whip steve scalise spent nearly an hour on the floor today debating the house impeachment and cory. it took place during the end of week discussion of next week's schedule. congressman's police started by asking leader hoyer about republican committee members

last week remember whip steve scalise filed a rule change to allow all members of congress access to documents related to the impeachment show and the documents associated with it. i am fully supportive of this rule change. we'll vote on this measure soon. and now my colleagues from the other side of the aisle must show the american people whether or not they support giving them the transparency they deserve in this process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore raskin on friday, october 18, 2019. the clerk: senate 1196. an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1715 leonard drive in sun prairie, wisconsin, as the fire captain cory barr post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of represe

national able satellite corp. 2019] >> house democratic leader steny hoyer and republican whip steve scalise spent nearly an hour on the floor today debating the house impeachment inquiry. it took place during the end of week discussion of next

leader mccarthy with scalise, number three cheney all voted for it. they are as loyal to president trump as anybody but they saw the danger, the real danger. today the senate should and i hope will follow suit. we can quibble about the language but i have no we can agree on the, basic message and there's no reason we can't vote on a senate resolution today. time is of the essence to say i'd like to add this word or add this sentence as kurds irving slosberg, as isis terrace are escaping. no, e no, no. no, no, no. we should move the house bill because we all know there's only one person who can reverse this and that is the president and the greatest stability to make them her verses and overwhelming message from the republicans tied, house and senate that this is wrong. he doesn't hear that too often publicly from our republican friends. he is heard from the house correctly and courageously. please my friends my republican friends in the senate let's put politics aside. let's vote the house bill pass yesterday. there is no time to waste. time is of the

chuck, the republicans, and i saw it right away from steve scalise with you on "meet the press" on sundaymorning, they've got this deflection, they're just not answering the questions, they're misstate the questions, steve scalise, kevin mccarthy on "60 minutes," jim jordan. is that the way it's going to go? >> i think it will be for a while. right now these folks have made the decision to the best way to defend the president is not to defend his actions but try to attack his opponents. and what i found i think it wil interesting, they will not defend what the president did. essentially trying to gloss over that as much as possible. trying to avoid getting into the specifics of how appropriate any of that stuff is. and instead try to make it overreach or try to make it about the democrats behavior, try to make it about, again, it is a standard defense strategy. the clinton's used it in their impeachment. it is what you do. i think it is interesting. you have lindsey graham who is now how many a house republican again. look at chuck grassly today or a mitch mcconnell, the rules do stay i h

it is not the case here. >> that from congressman steve scalise, republican from louisiana. talking about the process being placed by house democrats. >> as a friend of mine at georgetown said the other day, many when you're talking about process you are probably losing. what you see from the president's defenders is consistently discussions about process. let's talk about the process. the idea that the house procedure that is being under gone now is in any way in violation of due process, which is a phrase thrown around, or remarkably different from what has gone on in the past, is not supportable. for example, he said in three impeachment there has been complex long processes with witnesses being called and so forth. let's start with andrew johnson. congress tried to impeach andrew johnson several times, but the second time, the time that produced his impeachment went something like this, the principal ground was a violation. he fired his secretary. he was one of the people covered by the tenure of office act, which says a president can't fire certain people without the pe

many point as victory for scalise.he democrats made a huge mistake, this is obviously a partisan issue when historically these things have been bipartisan. >> that is exactly right. the part of the error that ms. pelosi made should have had the vote not weeks ago but months ago when jerry nadler said he would open up an impeachment inquiry. instead of taking it to the floor, having a vote, trying to deal with it on a bipartisan fashion, it was always partisan and they started, let's be honest here, you have a group of people that were elected in the midterms, elected for the specific purpose that they said they wanted to impeach this president. so kind of put the bipartisanship right out the window quite frankly. charles: the resolution itself, what is it that republicans find so offensive about it, when nancy pelosi says this opens the process up to the general public? >> mr. pelosi is not telling the truth there, if that were the case, then adam schiff wouldn't have three days of closed-door hearings today, have a wh

he was shot at second base, steve scalise, a right? the greatest. so, he's recovering and he really -- i don't want to go into it.he but he had a lot of damage. and he went out and he played in the baseball game like six months later, seven months later, he could hardly stand up and they had him at second base. he didn't have big range. i'd say range would be about six inches. and the first batter rips a ground ball right at him. i said, oh, this is going to be terrible. and he got down, and he got that ball, he caught it. he threw it to first. he could barely throw. the batter -- and it was like a miracle. the first pitch of the game. i said, how tough is that? i don't think anybody else could have stopped that sucker. that was hard hit. but he's a great friend of mine. he loves your state, he loves you so much. he's really a brave guy. steve scalise. [applause] and then we have some other great warrior, great congressmen. thanks, steve. great, great congressmen, mike johnson, clay higgins. come on up. jared graves. jared graves. what a group. they

leaders discuss the democratic led impeachment inquiry against president trump very minority whip steve scalise called the inquiry a soviet style inquiry not rooted in fairness. also participating in the conference, house ranking member tom cole. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for joining us. as we meet with you here today we await language on the resolution that the democrats say they are going to put forward. we would just note we are going to hear more on this issue from the republican leader of the rules committee in a minute, mr. cole, but i would just note that what the democrats are now trying to do, they basically cooked up a process, they have been conducting in secret, the goal of the process, the aim of the process was very clearly to preclude the president's counsel from asking questions of witnesses. the goal of the process was to preclude republicans from being able to call any witnesses. they have now taken this process, they have gotten so much pressure because of the way they have been conducting the process, they are now attempting to sort of put a cloak of legitimacy ar

here is th the house minority wp steve scalise. congressman scalise was in the meeting today at the white house with nancy pelosi. also the author of the book "another breakthrough big huge "new york times" best seller. it's only been out a week. it's called "witch hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion and american blood glass tree." fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. congress move from 11 to begin with you and ask you. you were in the meeting. bring us inside the meeting. do you agree with my point? the president ran on. president took off the rules of engagement. he defeated the caliphate. he put the sanctions on turkey. he's also keeping a promise whether some republicans like it or not. he's not going to engage in endless wars with countries if we don't have to. >> sean, yes. like so many things president trump has done, he's following through on his words. he's been a man not only of words but actions. taking on isis, confronting so many of the problems barack obama created. barack obama was the one who called them

ard the exchanges during the soliloquy between steve scalise and leader hoyer. i heard the comment that adam schiff is fair and judicious. and i hope the parliamentarian won't get nervous, because i'm not going to -- i'm going to adeptly avoid violating the rules. but congressman adam schiff , 2010, we 2008, 2009 were on the judiciary committee two federal we had judges who needed to be impeached. they needed to be eliminated from their official positions as federal judges. one had committed a sexual assault and the other had trouble understanding that bribes were not appropriate for udges. congressman schiff was put in , a temporary ly committee, to deal with the impeachment of those two judges . and during those efforts it was quite bipartisan. republicans had just gone into the minority for the first time in many years. we were in the minority, democrats were in the majority. i found adam schiff very easy to work with. i found that when he gave his word on something, it could be trusted. i found that it was a person that was a pleasure to work together with.