WE’RE GOING TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE EVENTS UNFOLDING AT THE THE EVENTS UNFOLDING AT THE CAPITOL AND WATCHING EVERYTHING CAPITOL AND WATCHING EVERYTHING ELSE HAPPENING AT THE CAPITOL ELSE HAPPENING AT THE CAPITOL INCLUDING THIS MORNING THE "NEW INCLUDING THIS MORNING THE "NEW YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL BOARD YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL BOARD ASKING THIS QUESTION. ASKING THIS QUESTION. WHY DID REPUBLICANS STORM IT? WHY DID REPUBLICANS STORM IT? HERE’S ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER FROM HERE’S ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER FROM OUR NBC NEWS FIRST READ TEAM OUR NBC NEWS FIRST READ TEAM BECAUSE THE GOP IS RUNNING ON BECAUSE THE GOP IS RUNNING ON EMPTY. EMPTY. OUR POLITICAL UNIT WRITING, IF OUR POLITICAL UNIT WRITING, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY HOUSE YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY HOUSE REPUBLICANS DECIDED WEDNESDAY TO REPUBLICANS DECIDED WEDNESDAY TO DISRUPT THE DEPOSITION INTO THE DISRUPT THE DEPOSITION INTO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IT’S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PROBABLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE GOP ARE RUNNING OUT OF AND THE GOP ARE RUNNING OUT OF DEFENSES. DEFENSES. HERE’S CONGRESSWOMAN JACKIE HERE’S CONGRESSWOMAN JACKIE SPEIER. SPEIER. >> WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY WAS A >> WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY WAS A HIGH SCHOOL PRANK BY A BUNCH OF HIGH SCHOOL PRANK BY A BUNCH OF 50-YEAR-OLD WHITE MEN. 50-YEAR-OLD WHITE MEN. THE REPUBLICANS ARE WHINING THE REPUBLICANS ARE WHINING BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS WHINING BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS WHINING AND FRANKLY I THINK THEY DID AND FRANKLY I THINK THEY DID WHAT THEY DID YESTERDAY BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID YESTERDAY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS WHINING THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WHINING THAT THEY WEREN’T FIGHTING FOR HIM THEY WEREN’T FIGHTING FOR HIM HARD ENOUGH. HARD ENOUGH. >> THE PRESIDENT LIKED THE WHOLE >> THE PRESIDENT LIKED THE WHOLE THING. THING. WATCH THIS. WATCH THIS. >> I THINK THEY SHOWED FULL >> I THINK THEY SHOWED FULL SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT. SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS HAPPY TO SEE IT HAPPEN. HE WAS HAPPY TO SEE IT HAPPEN. HE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT, AS HE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT, AS HE SHOULD BE. HE SHOULD BE. >> REPUBLICAN WHO LED THAT >> REPUBLICAN WHO LED THAT CHARGE IS JOINING ME FLORIDA CHARGE IS JOINING ME FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN MATT GAETZ SITS ON CONGRESSMAN MATT GAETZ SITS ON THE JUDICIARY AND ARMED SERVICES THE JUDICIARY AND ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND JOINING US FROM COMMITTEE AND JOINING US FROM FLORIDA. FLORIDA. GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE SHOW, THANK YOU. SHOW, THANK YOU. >> THANKS, HALLIE. >> THANKS, HALLIE. MY IFB WASN’T CLEAR. MY IFB WASN’T CLEAR. DID JACKIE SPEIER IDENTIFY MY DID JACKIE SPEIER IDENTIFY MY RACE AND GENDER IN THE CONTEXT RACE AND GENDER IN THE CONTEXT OF MY ACTIVITIES AS A MEMBER OF OF MY ACTIVITIES AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS YESTERDAY? CONGRESS YESTERDAY? >> I THINK YOU HEARD HER SOUND >> I THINK YOU HEARD HER SOUND BITE. BITE. WAY TONIGHT GIVE YOU THE CHANCE WAY TONIGHT GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO RESPOND. TO RESPOND. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. >> NO. >> NO. DID SHE SAY WE WERE A BUNCH OF DID SHE SAY WE WERE A BUNCH OF WHITE MEN? WHITE MEN? WHAT DOES THE FACT THAT WE ARE WHAT DOES THE FACT THAT WE ARE WHITE MEN HAVE TO DO WITH OUR WHITE MEN HAVE TO DO WITH OUR DESIRE TO REPRESENT THE MILLIONS DESIRE TO REPRESENT THE MILLIONS OF CONSTITUENTS WE SERVE. OF CONSTITUENTS WE SERVE. I WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED. I WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED. WHEN JACKIE SPEIER WALKS IN I WHEN JACKIE SPEIER WALKS IN I DON’T SAY A WHITE WOMAN COMES DON’T SAY A WHITE WOMAN COMES IN. IN. THIS IS THE TYPE OF IDENTITY THIS IS THE TYPE OF IDENTITY POLITICS FROM THE LEFT THAT POLITICS FROM THE LEFT THAT SEEMS TO PERMEATE ANY SEEMS TO PERMEATE ANY SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS THEY MAKE AND IT’S ARGUMENTS THEY MAKE AND IT’S SICKENING TO ME THAT’S HOW WE SICKENING TO ME THAT’S HOW WE WOULD BE THOUGHT OF. WOULD BE THOUGHT OF. PEOPLE WE SERVE ARE DIVERSE AND PEOPLE WE SERVE ARE DIVERSE AND IT’S JUST REALLY KIND OF IT’S JUST REALLY KIND OF SICKENING. SICKENING. >> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE >> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF IT THEN. SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF IT THEN. THERE ARE TWO PIECES OF THIS. THERE ARE TWO PIECES OF THIS. BY THE WAY, CONGRESSMAN, I WANT BY THE WAY, CONGRESSMAN, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TURKEY AND SYRIA TO TALK ABOUT TURKEY AND SYRIA SO I WILL ASK YOU TO LEAVE ME SO I WILL ASK YOU TO LEAVE ME TIME FOR THAT IN THIS TIME FOR THAT IN THIS DISCUSSION -- DISCUSSION -- >> START WITH THAT. >> START WITH THAT. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TURKEY WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TURKEY AND SYRIA. AND SYRIA. >> WE TEASE YOU, WE STARTED ON >> WE TEASE YOU, WE STARTED ON THIS CONVERSATION ON THE IDEA THIS CONVERSATION ON THE IDEA THAT REPUBLICANS WALKED INTO THAT REPUBLICANS WALKED INTO THIS SECURE AREA OF THE CAPITOL THIS SECURE AREA OF THE CAPITOL YESTERDAY, INCLUDING SOME YESTERDAY, INCLUDING SOME REPUBLICANS WHO COULD HAVE JUST REPUBLICANS WHO COULD HAVE JUST GONE IN AND PARTICIPATED AS GONE IN AND PARTICIPATED AS MEMBERS OF THOSE COMMITTEES AS MEMBERS OF THOSE COMMITTEES AS THE RULES ALLOWED. THE RULES ALLOWED. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS? WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS? WAS THIS REALLY ANYTHING MORE WAS THIS REALLY ANYTHING MORE THAN A STUNT? THAN A STUNT? >> THE POINT 2000TO HIGHLIGHT TH >> THE POINT 2000TO HIGHLIGHT TH TRUE DUE PROCESS AND INEQUITIES TRUE DUE PROCESS AND INEQUITIES DAMAGING THE CONGRESS AND THE DAMAGING THE CONGRESS AND THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY. INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY. I DON’T THINK DEMOCRATS HAVE I DON’T THINK DEMOCRATS HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION YET, WHY ANSWERED THE QUESTION YET, WHY IS DONALD TRUMP GETTING LESS DUE IS DONALD TRUMP GETTING LESS DUE PROCESS THAN PRESIDENT CLINTON PROCESS THAN PRESIDENT CLINTON GOT OR THAT RICHARD NIXON GOT. GOT OR THAT RICHARD NIXON GOT. THAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE. THAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE. I’M ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I’M ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHERE CHAIRMAN NADLER -- WHERE CHAIRMAN NADLER -- >> BUT WE’RE SHOWING A PICTURE, >> BUT WE’RE SHOWING A PICTURE, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE A I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE A RETURN, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF RETURN, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WALKING IN, YOUR CONGRESS WALKING IN, YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, WHO COULD REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, WHO COULD BE IN THE ROOM ANYWAY, 47 ARE ON BE IN THE ROOM ANYWAY, 47 ARE ON THE COMMITTEES ABLE TO GO IN AND THE COMMITTEES ABLE TO GO IN AND PARTICIPATE ON DEPOSITIONS AND PARTICIPATE ON DEPOSITIONS AND MANY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN NIECE MANY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN NIECE DEPOSITIONS. DEPOSITIONS. >> I’M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. >> I’M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I TRIED TO GO IN LAST WEEK AS A I TRIED TO GO IN LAST WEEK AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THAT’S A COMMITTEE AND THAT’S A REASONABLE THING TO DO, ON REASONABLE THING TO DO, ON SEPTEMBER 12th, JERRY NADLER, SEPTEMBER 12th, JERRY NADLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SAID I AM HEREBY COMMITTEE, SAID I AM HEREBY LAUNCHING THE IMPEACHMENT LAUNCHING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. SO I THINK THE BIZARRE ELEMENT SO I THINK THE BIZARRE ELEMENT HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD EXCLUDE HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD EXCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT LAUNCHED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY LAUNCHED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FROM THE FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ADAM SCHIFF IS TRYING TO DO THAT ADAM SCHIFF IS TRYING TO DO IN SECRET, AIDED BY SELECTIVE IN SECRET, AIDED BY SELECTIVE LEAKS AND THEN LEAKS AND THEN MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, HIS CONTACT WITH WHISTLEBLOWER, HIS CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND THE THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND THE TRANSCRIPT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TRANSCRIPT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I THINK THAT’S WHY WE WERE I THINK THAT’S WHY WE WERE TRYING TO GET IN THERE, BUT LIKE TRYING TO GET IN THERE, BUT LIKE I OPEN SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I OPEN SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT ROOM I SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT ROOM AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THEY WOULDN’T LET COMMITTEE AND THEY WOULDN’T LET US IN. US IN. IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHAT ARE IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHAT ARE THEY HIDING. THEY HIDING. >> YOU’RE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF. >> YOU’RE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF. YOU ARE A MEMBER OF JUDICIARY YOU ARE A MEMBER OF JUDICIARY AND ARMED SERVICES. AND ARMED SERVICES. NONE OF THOSE COMMITTEES ARE NONE OF THOSE COMMITTEES ARE CONDUCTING THESE DEPOSITIONS. CONDUCTING THESE DEPOSITIONS. IT’S INTEL -- IT’S INTEL -- >> I DON’T KNOW THAT. >> I DON’T KNOW THAT. I DON’T KNOW THAT. I DON’T KNOW THAT. NO. NO. >> IT IS A FACT. >> IT IS A FACT. >> IT’S NOT A FACT. >> IT’S NOT A FACT. GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE 12th GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE 12th HEARING OF THE JUDICIARY HEARING OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE. YOU CANNOT MISSTATE THAT AS A YOU CANNOT MISSTATE THAT AS A FACT. FACT. HOW CAN YOU TELL ME IT’S A FACT HOW CAN YOU TELL ME IT’S A FACT THAT MY COMMITTEE IS NOT THAT MY COMMITTEE IS NOT INVOLVED WHEN IT WAS THE INVOLVED WHEN IT WAS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO LAUNCHED JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION. THE INVESTIGATION. >> YOU HAVE NOT SUBPOENAED THESE >> YOU HAVE NOT SUBPOENAED THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR A DEPOSITION. INDIVIDUALS FOR A DEPOSITION. THAT IS A FACT. THAT IS A FACT. >> NO. >> NO. YOU’RE SHIFTING GROUND NOW. YOU’RE SHIFTING GROUND NOW. RIGHT. RIGHT. FIRST YOU SAY WE’RE NOT INVOLVED FIRST YOU SAY WE’RE NOT INVOLVED AND THEN YOU SAY WE DIDN’T ISSUE AND THEN YOU SAY WE DIDN’T ISSUE THE SUBPOENAS. THE SUBPOENAS. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. WE ARE INVOLVED BECAUSE OUR WE ARE INVOLVED BECAUSE OUR CHAIRMAN LAUNCHED THE INQUIRY. CHAIRMAN LAUNCHED THE INQUIRY. THAT IS A FACT. THAT IS A FACT. >> SURE. >> SURE. I WANT TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR SAY I WANT TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR SAY HERE BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT WHY HERE BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT WHY YOU THINK THE RULES DO NOT APPLY YOU THINK THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO YOU AS THEY’RE LAID OUT, TO TO YOU AS THEY’RE LAID OUT, TO YOU, CONGRESSMAN GAETZ. YOU, CONGRESSMAN GAETZ. >> THE RULES -- OH, I DO THINK >> THE RULES -- OH, I DO THINK THE RULES APPLY TO ALL OF US BUT THE RULES APPLY TO ALL OF US BUT THE RULES WOULD TYPICALLY THE RULES WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE THE SPEAKER OF THE REQUIRE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE -- I SHOULDN’T SAY THE HOUSE -- I SHOULDN’T SAY THE RULES, THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS RULES, THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS APPLIED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON AND APPLIED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON AND PRESIDENT NIXON, WOULD PRESIDENT NIXON, WOULD NECESSITATE SOME ARTICULATION OF NECESSITATE SOME ARTICULATION OF THE RULES SO WE HAVE AN THE RULES SO WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS WILL BE. PROCESS REQUIREMENTS WILL BE. WE SEE DEMOCRATS NOW SACRIFICING WE SEE DEMOCRATS NOW SACRIFICING DUE PROCESS ON THE ALTAR OF DUE PROCESS ON THE ALTAR OF THEIR HATRED FOR DONALD TRUMP. THEIR HATRED FOR DONALD TRUMP. >> I’M NOT ASKING ABOUT -- >> I’M NOT ASKING ABOUT -- >> THAT SHOULD -- ALL AMERICANS. >> THAT SHOULD -- ALL AMERICANS. >> I’M NOT ASKING ABOUT >> I’M NOT ASKING ABOUT PRECEDENT. PRECEDENT. I’M ASKING ABOUT THE RULES. I’M ASKING ABOUT THE RULES. >> THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT. >> THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT. >> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU’RE ABOVE >> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU’RE ABOVE THAT? THAT? THIS IS THE POINT OF WHY YOU THIS IS THE POINT OF WHY YOU WENT IN THE SCIF. WENT IN THE SCIF. >> I’M NOT ABOVE THE RULES BUT >> I’M NOT ABOVE THE RULES BUT WHEN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAUNCHES THE INQUIRY, CHAIRMAN LAUNCHES THE INQUIRY, WHEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WHEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WON’T ADOPT RULES, THEN IT WON’T ADOPT RULES, THEN IT CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE DEMOCRATS JUST SORT OF MAKE IT DEMOCRATS JUST SORT OF MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. UP AS THEY GO ALONG. LET’S KICK SOME COMMITTEES OUT, LET’S KICK SOME COMMITTEES OUT, LET SOME COMMITTEES IN. LET SOME COMMITTEES IN. IT’S ALL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO IT’S ALL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO RESHUFFLE THE LEGISLATIVE DECK RESHUFFLE THE LEGISLATIVE DECK BECAUSE THEY’RE HUMILIATED THAT BECAUSE THEY’RE HUMILIATED THAT THEY LOST THE RUSSIA THEY LOST THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION UNEQUIVOCALLY WITH INVESTIGATION UNEQUIVOCALLY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ADAM SCHIFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ADAM SCHIFF LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE SAID HE HAD MORE THAN HE SAID HE HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENGAGED IN A PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA AND THIS IS A WAY TO TAKE SOME AND THIS IS A WAY TO TAKE SOME FOLKS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOLKS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LIKE MYSELF, LIKE ANDY BIGGS, LIKE MYSELF, LIKE ANDY BIGGS, OUT OF THE NEXT HAND BECAUSE WE OUT OF THE NEXT HAND BECAUSE WE WERE EFFECTIVE IN MAKING THE WERE EFFECTIVE IN MAKING THE CASE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE CASE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE OVERSTATING THE FACTS. OVERSTATING THE FACTS. >> YOU ARE VERY CLEAR, >> YOU ARE VERY CLEAR, CONGRESSMAN, YOU ARE UNHAPPY CONGRESSMAN, YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE PROCESS AND IT SHOULD WITH THE PROCESS AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE JUDICIARY BE NOTED THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY COMMITTEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY SUBPOENAED THESE WITNESSES TO BE SUBPOENAED THESE WITNESSES TO BE DEPOSED. DEPOSED. >> WE LAUNCHED THE INQUIRY. >> WE LAUNCHED THE INQUIRY. >> BUT ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF >> BUT ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS, CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE I THIS, CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE I HAVEN’T HEARD YOU SAY ANYTHING HAVEN’T HEARD YOU SAY ANYTHING SINCE BILL TAYLOR TESTIFIED YES SINCE BILL TAYLOR TESTIFIED YES OR NO, IS IT OKAY FOR ANY OR NO, IS IT OKAY FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO TRADE MILITARY AID POLITICIAN TO TRADE MILITARY AID FOR POLITICAL FAVORS? FOR POLITICAL FAVORS? >> LOOK, I’M NOT GOING TO GET >> LOOK, I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE TAYLOR INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE TAYLOR DEPOSITION BECAUSE I WASN’T DEPOSITION BECAUSE I WASN’T PRESENT FOR IT. PRESENT FOR IT. >> I’M ASKING WHAT IS -- >> I’M ASKING WHAT IS -- >> YOU ARE. >> YOU ARE. THE LEAD INTO YOUR QUESTION I THE LEAD INTO YOUR QUESTION I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BILL TAYLOR’S WANT TO TALK ABOUT BILL TAYLOR’S DEPOSITION. DEPOSITION. >> SURE. >> SURE. >> WHEN WE DON’T HAVE THE >> WHEN WE DON’T HAVE THE BENEFIT -- BENEFIT -- >> THE QUESTION DO YOU THINK >> THE QUESTION DO YOU THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE IT. IT’S APPROPRIATE IT. >> OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED. >> OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ANY POLITICIAN APPROPRIATE FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO LINK MILITARY AID TO A TO LINK MILITARY AID TO A ASSISTANCE IN A FUTURE ELECTION. ASSISTANCE IN A FUTURE ELECTION. NO. NO. I DON’T THINK THAT’S WHAT THE I DON’T THINK THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. PRESIDENT DID. >> WHY NOT. >> WHY NOT. >> I THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS >> I THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS RIGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE WORK RIGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE WORK OF BILL BARR TO TRY TO IDENTIFY OF BILL BARR TO TRY TO IDENTIFY THE CORRUPT ORIGINS OF THE THE CORRUPT ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. IT WAS A UKRAINE COURT THAT IT WAS A UKRAINE COURT THAT RULED THAT THE UKRAINE IMPER RULED THAT THE UKRAINE IMPER MISERABLY INTERFERED IN THE U.S. MISERABLY INTERFERED IN THE U.S. ELECTION AND THAT IS A ELECTION AND THAT IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR COOPERATION PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR COOPERATION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THAT MATTER. THAT MATTER. >> SO A COUPLE THINGS ON THAT. >> SO A COUPLE THINGS ON THAT. I’M GOING TO ASK MY CONTROL ROOM I’M GOING TO ASK MY CONTROL ROOM TO GIVE ME MORE TIME, I WANT TO TO GIVE ME MORE TIME, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO FOREIGN MAKE SURE WE GET TO FOREIGN POLICY PUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING POLICY PUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS SIGNIFICANT NOT ABOUT THE IS SIGNIFICANT NOT ABOUT THE PIECE OR UKRAINE IN 2016, PIECE OR UKRAINE IN 2016, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A PROVEN BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A PROVEN THEORY -- THEORY -- >> WAIT IN THE CRANE. >> WAIT IN THE CRANE. YOU JUST KEEP BLOWING THROUGH YOU JUST KEEP BLOWING THROUGH THESE THINGS LIKE THEY’RE FACTS THESE THINGS LIKE THEY’RE FACTS BUT THEY’RE NOT. BUT THEY’RE NOT. JUST STOP MISCHARACTERIZING JUST STOP MISCHARACTERIZING STUFF. STUFF. I HAVE TO FACT CHECK YOU IN REAL I HAVE TO FACT CHECK YOU IN REAL TIME. TIME. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR YOU SAID >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR YOU SAID IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ANYBODY TO TRADE MILITARY AID ANYBODY TO TRADE MILITARY AID FOR HELP IN A FUTURE POLITICAL FOR HELP IN A FUTURE POLITICAL ELECTION. ELECTION. >> YES. >> YES. >> IT APPEARS FROM THE TESTIMONY >> IT APPEARS FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAVE SEEN REPORTED THAT WE HAVE SEEN REPORTED PUBLICLY FROM THE WITNESSES PUBLICLY FROM THE WITNESSES HERE -- HERE -- >> FROM THE SELECTIVE WITNESSES >> FROM THE SELECTIVE WITNESSES PROVIDED BY ADAM SCHIFF THAT PROVIDED BY ADAM SCHIFF THAT AREN’T SUBJECT TO AREN’T SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. CROSS-EXAMINATION. LIKE YOU’RE PLAYING THE GAME LIKE YOU’RE PLAYING THE GAME HERE. HERE. YOU’RE PLAYING THE GAME WHERE YOU’RE PLAYING THE GAME WHERE THEY SELECTIVELY LEAK STUFF THAT THEY SELECTIVELY LEAK STUFF THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. >> RIGOROUS REVIEW. >> RIGOROUS REVIEW. CHECK AGAINST DOCUMENTS AND CHECK AGAINST DOCUMENTS AND TIMELINES. TIMELINES. BY THE WAY, WHEN THEY HAD TO DO BY THE WAY, WHEN THEY HAD TO DO THIS IN THE OPEN IN THE RUSSIA THIS IN THE OPEN IN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WITH MUELLER, INVESTIGATION, WITH MUELLER, WITH LEWANDOWSKI, DEMOCRATS WITH LEWANDOWSKI, DEMOCRATS LOOKED TERRIBLE. LOOKED TERRIBLE. NOW THEY’RE TRYING TO DO THINGS NOW THEY’RE TRYING TO DO THINGS IN SECRET SO WE CAN HAVE IN SECRET SO WE CAN HAVE INTERVIEWS SO YOU CAN CHERRY INTERVIEWS SO YOU CAN CHERRY PICK ELEMENTS OF LEAKED PICK ELEMENTS OF LEAKED TESTIMONY AND ASK ME ABOUT THEM TESTIMONY AND ASK ME ABOUT THEM WHEN I WASN’T IN THERE, YOU WHEN I WASN’T IN THERE, YOU DIDN’T SEE THE TESTIMONY, AND DIDN’T SEE THE TESTIMONY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WE’RE UNABLE TO MORE IMPORTANTLY WE’RE UNABLE TO SEE HOW THOSE STATEMENTS HOLD UP SEE HOW THOSE STATEMENTS HOLD UP AGAINST CROSS-EXAMINATION SO THE AGAINST CROSS-EXAMINATION SO THE SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS IS VERY SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS IS VERY DIFFICULT IF WE’RE NOT ABLE TO DIFFICULT IF WE’RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE SOME STANDARDIZED DUE HAVE SOME STANDARDIZED DUE PROCESS THAT IS PREDIBLGTSBLE PROCESS THAT IS PREDIBLGTSBLE AND PROVIDES CLARITY. AND PROVIDES CLARITY. >> DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO SEE >> DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO SEE BILL TAYLOR’S OPENING STATEMENT BILL TAYLOR’S OPENING STATEMENT THAT WAS RELEASED? THAT WAS RELEASED? DO YOU THINK HE MADE THAT UP? DO YOU THINK HE MADE THAT UP? >> I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE >> I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE TAYLOR CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE TAYLOR ON THOSE CLAIMS OR EVEN TO ON THOSE CLAIMS OR EVEN TO OBSERVE MY COLLEAGUES CROSS OBSERVE MY COLLEAGUES CROSS COMING TAYLOR. COMING TAYLOR. BUT THIS IS THE NEW ADAM SCHIFF BUT THIS IS THE NEW ADAM SCHIFF STRATEGY. STRATEGY. >> YOUR COLLEAGUES CAN CROSS >> YOUR COLLEAGUES CAN CROSS EXAMINE HIM. EXAMINE HIM. YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN IN THE ROOM. BEEN IN THE ROOM. >> I DON’T HAVE THE QUESTIONS >> I DON’T HAVE THE QUESTIONS AND SNEENS YOU DON’T TRUST YOUR AND SNEENS YOU DON’T TRUST YOUR REPUBLICANS ON THESE COMMITTEES? REPUBLICANS ON THESE COMMITTEES? >> I WANT TO SEE THE CONSEQUENCE >> I WANT TO SEE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR WORK RIGHT. OF THEIR WORK RIGHT. IT’S NOT -- THEY PUTUT THEIR IT’S NOT -- THEY PUTUT THEIR OPENING STATEMENT WE ENGAGE IN OPENING STATEMENT WE ENGAGE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU WANT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT THE OPENING, BUT I ASK ME ABOUT THE OPENING, BUT I DON’T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DON’T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO BE ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINATION TO BE ABLE TO TEST THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE TEST THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. OPENING STATEMENT. AND THAT IS ALL BY DESIGN. AND THAT IS ALL BY DESIGN. IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT YOU IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT YOU AND I ARE HAVING THIS INTERVIEW AND I ARE HAVING THIS INTERVIEW ON TERMS THAT ARE VERY FAVORABLE ON TERMS THAT ARE VERY FAVORABLE TO THE ADAM SCHIFF THEORY OF THE TO THE ADAM SCHIFF THEORY OF THE CASE BECAUSE WHEN JOHN RATCLIFFE CASE BECAUSE WHEN JOHN RATCLIFFE ASKED QUESTIONS THAT I THINK
