CABLE.
BACK WITH ANDY BIGGS FROM
WASHINGTON
YOU HEARD IT, SIR.
YOUR REACTION.
>> WELL, I HAVE SEVERAL POINTS
TO MAKE.
WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT A
MONARCHY, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
ELECTIONS.
THE SECOND POINT IS IF THIS
REALLY IS AN EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE WHY DID WE TAKE
OFF ALL THE TIME IN AUGUST,
SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER,
WITH NO ACTION ON IMPEACHMENT
OR INVESTIGATION.
THE THIRD THING IS PROFESSOR
TURLEY SAID YESTERDAY AND HE IS
EXACTLY RIGHT, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE HERE.
SO WHEN SHE SAYS THE FACTS ARE
NOT CONTESTED, SHE IS FLAT OUT
NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
THE FACTS ARE HIGHLY CONTESTED
HERE.
AND WE HAVE NOT HAD FACT
WITNESSES IN THE COMMITTEE OF
JURISDICTION THAT WILL BE
MARKING UP ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID GOING
FORWARD ON SUCH FLIMSY
EVIDENCE, THAT'S HOW HE
DESCRIBED IT, IN SUCH A FAST,
QUICK MANNER WITHOUT A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION -- HE IS NOT
OPPOSED NECESSARILY TO
IMPEACHMENT.
HE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT THE WAY
YOU'RE DOING IT, IT WILL
UNDERMINE THE NOTION OF
IMPEACHMENT IN THE FUTURE AND
THERE WON'T BE A PRESIDENT WHO
IS NOT SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT
UNDER THESE FLIMSY STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND
THIS IS JUST FLAT OUT A
POLITICAL MOVE ON THE PART OF
THE SPEAKER AND THE DEMOCRATS.
>> Bill: TWO POINTS ON THAT.
ONE SAID TO HER CAUCUS
YESTERDAY.
SHE SAID THIS IS THE MOMENT
WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION.
IT COULD BE MONTHS UNTIL THE
COURT CASES ARE RULED ON.
IT GOES TO THE TIME CRUNCH ON
BEHALF OF DEMOCRATS.
SHE SAID HERE, TOO.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTION
OF 2020 SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT
MIGHT REPEAT HIS GUILT AND
RETURN TO POWER.
THEY HAVE A CLEAR CONCERN IN
ELECTION YEAR THAT THEY CAN'T
MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THEY DO
THIS NOW, SIR.
>> HERE IS THE THING.
IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH AN
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHY DID WE
TAKE TWO MONTHS OFF IN THE
MIDDLE OF THIS INVESTIGATION?
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
IF IMPEACHMENT IS THE RIGHT
REMEDY, DOING IT SIX MONTHS
BEFORE AN ELECTION IS JUST AS
IMPORTANT AS DOING IT NOW AND
TRYING TO CRAM IT IN.
WHEN SHE SAYS WE WOULD NOT
INDUCE ANY MORE INFORMATION,
HOW ABOUT THIS?
HOW ABOUT DECLASSIFYING THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S
TESTIMONY?
THAT'S CLASSIFIED.
HOW ABOUT LETTING US HAVE FACT
WITNESSES IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ITSELF WHERE WE GET A
CHANCE TO GO THROUGH AND REHASH
SOME OF THIS STUFF AND EXPAND
AND BRING IN SOME OF OUR
WITNESSES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE TESTIFY?
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SEEING A
RUSH -- A RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT
AT THIS POINT AND IT'S BEING
DONE IN A MANNER THAT'S NOT
PROVIDING PROCESS.
>> Bill: ONE THING THAT LOOKED
APPARENT FROM YESTERDAY'S
TESTIMONY WITH THE LAW
PROFESSORS IS THAT THE MUELLER
REPORT MAY BECOME RELEVANT
AGAIN FOR DEMOCRATS.
DO YOU GET THAT SENSE THAT THEY
WILL REACH INTO THE MUELLER
REPORT AND LOOK FOR POSSIBLE
CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE THAT CAME FROM THERE?
>> ABSOLUTELY, BILL.
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE
MONEY THERE.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE STARTING TO
BRING UP OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE HORSES
ON THE OTHER END AND TRY TO
BRING UP MUELLER.
THAT PROBLEM, IT HAS BEEN RULED
BY THE D.O.J. OF DEVOID OF
OBSTRUCTION.
THERE IS A MENU SO SOME MEMBERS
CAN VOTE NO FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES AND THEN VOTE YES
UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE
SPEAKER SO THEY CAN GO BACK TO
THEIR DISTRICTS THAT THEY'RE
IN, THE 31 DISTRICTS AND SAY
YOU KNOW WHAT?
I VIEWED THIS CAREFULLY AND
VOTED NO ON THIS ARTICLE AND
THIS ARTICLE BUT I THOUGHT
EVIDENCE WAS IMPORTANT SO I
VOTED YES ON THAT.
THAT'S THE TYPE OF POLITICAL
SHENANIGANS THAT WILL GO ON
HERE IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE THE
ELECTION OF 2016.
>> Bill: WAS THIS A FOREGONE
CONCLUSION EVEN BEFORE THE
HEARING STARTED YESTERDAY?
I ASK THAT.
MITCH MCCONNELL'S OFFICE
CLEARED THE CALENDAR FOR THE
MONTH OF JANUARY.
>> I FELT IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO
I THOUGHT MAYBE THEY WERE GOING
TO WALK AWAY FROM IT LOOKING AT
POLLING DATA CRATERING.
I FELT THEY EITHER HAD TO PUT
PEDAL TO THE METAL AND BACK
AWAY ALL TOGETHER.
SO YES, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY
RIGHT.
>> Bill: WE'LL SPEAK TO THE
WHITE HOUSE NEXT HOUR.
WE'RE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL CALL
WITNESSES DURING A SENATE TRIAL.
DO YOU KNOW WHO THOSE WITNESSES
COULD BE?
>> AT THIS POINT I HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THEM SO I
DON'T KNOW.
>> Bill: NANCY PELOSI ALSO TOLD
HER CAUCUS TO BE FLEXIBLE IN
DECEMBER MEANING DECEMBER 21 OR
DECEMBER 22.
THAT'S A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY
BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS BREAK.
IS THAT THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU
SEE FOR THE HOUSE, SIR?
>> YES, I GOT THAT INFORMATION
LAST NIGHT LATE THAT WE
PROBABLY WON'T GET OUT OF HERE
BEFORE DECEMBER 22nd.
THAT MADE ME FEEL THEY WERE
READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON
IMPEACHMENT.
>> Bill: YOU WENT THROUGH A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th
PHONE CALL WHAT THE LAWYER SAID
AND SOME OF THE WITNESSES AS
WELL.
THIS WAS THE KEY LINE.
IT CAME UP MANY TIMES IN THIS
HEARING.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A
FAVOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKING
NOW.
YOU WENT BACK TO SAID I WOULD
LIKE TO YOU DO US A FAVOR AND
FINISHED THE SENTENCE.
THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS
BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET PAST THE
FIRST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,
FIVE, SEVEN OR EIGHT WORDS.
WHEN YOU COMPLETE THAT THOUGHT
DO YOU BELIEVE THIS PRESIDENT
IS GUILTY AS CHARGED ON BEHALF
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES?
>> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
BILL, THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS
THE FIRST HALF OF YESTERDAY'S
HEARING THE WITNESSES FOR THE
DEMOCRATS KEPT SAYING I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR.
AS IF THAT WAS A PERSONAL
REQUEST.
BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH AND READ
THE ACTUAL WORD IS I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY OUR
COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE TAKEN
IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO PROVIDE A
GASP FOR THEIR NARRATIVE.
THE REALITY IS HE IS TALKING
ABOUT OUR COUNTRY.
NOT ABOUT A 2020 ELECTION.
HE IS TALKING ABOUT 2016
INTERFERENCE BY THE UKRAINIANS
AND WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S A
FALSE OR TRUE NARRATIVE, THAT'S
WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT IN THE
CONTEXT OF ALL THE CORRUPTION.
>> Bill: I KNOW IT'S BEEN
BATTED BACK AND FORTH.
A COUPLE QUICK ONES AND WE'LL
BRING IN ANOTHER AGAINST.
WILL THERE BE ANOTHER HEARING
IN THE HOUSE?
>> I'M TOLD THERE WILL BE A
HEARING BUT IT WILL BE A
PRESENTATION NEXT WEEK.
>> Bill: THAT WOULD INCLUDE WHO
WOULD BE THERE AS A WITNESS?
>> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.
THE RUMOR IS THAT IT IS GOING
TO BE GOLDMAN, WHO IS THE
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN
THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND MAYBE --
>> Bill: WILL REPUBLICANS BRING
ON ANOTHER WITNESS?
WILL YOU CALL A JONATHAN TURLEY
OR SOMEONE ELSE FOR THAT
HEARING?
>> THEY WILL NOT LET US DO THAT.
THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO WE
CALL AS WITNESSES.
>> Bill: THEY LET TURLEY APPEAR?
>> THEY LET HIM APPEAR BECAUSE
IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED REALLY BAD
TO HAVE THE THREE FOLKS THEY
HAD YESTERDAY WITH NO REBUTTAL
WITNESS THERE.
SO THEY LET THAT HAPPEN.
THEY'LL PRESENT THE INTEL
COMMITTEE AND USE A STAFFER SO
THEY'LL TRY TO LIMIT US TO
USING ONE OF OUR STAFFERS TO
PRESENT.
>> Bill: ANDY BIGGS FROM
ARIZONA.
MUCH MORE TO DISCUSS ON THIS