LIVES. >> IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE WILL GET >> IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE WILL GET LONDON’S REACTION LATER IN THIS LONDON’S REACTION LATER IN THIS HOUR, RACHEL. THANK YOU, RACHEL. HOUR, RACHEL. THANK YOU, RACHEL. WELL, IF YOU DID NOT HAVE WELL, IF YOU DID NOT HAVE CONTEMPT FOR THIS CONGRESS CONTEMPT FOR THIS CONGRESS BEFORE TODAY’S CHAOTIC, BEFORE TODAY’S CHAOTIC, DRAMATIC, COMICAL AND IMPORTANT DRAMATIC, COMICAL AND IMPORTANT HEARING IN THE HOUSE OF HEARING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THEN YOU MIGHT REPRESENTATIVES, THEN YOU MIGHT BE FEELING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BE FEELING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEMPT TONIGHT. CONTEMPT TONIGHT. >> LET ME START BY SAYING THIS >> LET ME START BY SAYING THIS IS A STUPID AND RIDICULOUS IS A STUPID AND RIDICULOUS HEARING. HEARING. >> REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE OF >> REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TODAY ONCE AGAIN REPRESENTATIVES TODAY ONCE AGAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT TRIED AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CONNECTIONS OF THE TRUMP THE CONNECTIONS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO RUSSIA SHOULD NEVER CAMPAIGN TO RUSSIA SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI BECAUSE ONE OF THE FBI FBI BECAUSE ONE OF THE FBI AGENTS INVOLVED IN THAT AGENTS INVOLVED IN THAT INVESTIGATION AGREED WITH THE INVESTIGATION AGREED WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS AT MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS AT THE TIME THAT CANDIDATE DONALD THE TIME THAT CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT. FBI AGENT PETER PRESIDENT. FBI AGENT PETER STRZOK BECAUSE THE ONLY WITNESS STRZOK BECAUSE THE ONLY WITNESS BECAUSE HE SENT PRIVATE TEXT BECAUSE HE SENT PRIVATE TEXT MESSAGES EXPRESSING HIS MESSAGES EXPRESSING HIS DISAPPROVAL. BECAUSE THIS WAS A DISAPPROVAL. BECAUSE THIS WAS A HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING, MOST OF IT WAS HEARING, MOST OF IT WAS IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT. THAT IS NOT UNUSUAL. IRRELEVANT. THAT IS NOT UNUSUAL. BUT MOST OF THE HEARING WAS BUT MOST OF THE HEARING WAS HISTRIONIC AND OUT OF CONTROL HISTRIONIC AND OUT OF CONTROL AND INCONKONINCOHERENT TO A DEGR AND INCONKONINCOHERENT TO A DEGR HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. HIS HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. HIS DEFENSE OF HIS FAIRNESS AND DEFENSE OF HIS FAIRNESS AND OBJECTIVITY IN HIS WORK AS AN OBJECTIVITY IN HIS WORK AS AN FBI AGENT WAS THIS. FBI AGENT WAS THIS. >> I CAN ASSURE YOU, MR. >> I CAN ASSURE YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AT NO TIME IN ANY OF CHAIRMAN, AT NO TIME IN ANY OF THESE TEXTS DID THOSE PERSONAL THESE TEXTS DID THOSE PERSONAL BELIEFS EVER ENTER INTO THE BELIEFS EVER ENTER INTO THE REALM OF ANY ACTION I TOOK. REALM OF ANY ACTION I TOOK. FURTHER MORE, THIS ISN’T JUST ME FURTHER MORE, THIS ISN’T JUST ME SITTING HERE TELLING YOU. YOU SITTING HERE TELLING YOU. YOU DON’T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR DON’T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. AT EVERY STEP, THERE ARE IT. AT EVERY STEP, THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PEOPLE ABOVE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PEOPLE ABOVE ME AND MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PEOPLE ME AND MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PEOPLE BELOW ME. SECTION CHIEFS, UNIT BELOW ME. SECTION CHIEFS, UNIT CHIEFS, CASE AGENTS AND CHIEFS, CASE AGENTS AND ANALYSTS, ALL OF WHOM WERE ANALYSTS, ALL OF WHOM WERE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THESE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THESE DECISIONS. THEY WOULD NOT DECISIONS. THEY WOULD NOT TOLERATE ANY IMPROPER BEHAVIOR TOLERATE ANY IMPROPER BEHAVIOR IN ME ANYMORE THAN I WOULD IN ME ANYMORE THAN I WOULD TOLERATE IT IN THEM. THE SUGGEST TOLERATE IT IN THEM. THE SUGGEST THAT I WOULD SOMEHOW CAST ASIDE THAT I WOULD SOMEHOW CAST ASIDE ALL OF THESE PROCEDURES, ALL OF ALL OF THESE PROCEDURES, ALL OF THESE SAFE GUARDS AND SOMEHOW BE THESE SAFE GUARDS AND SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO DO THIS IS ASTOUNDING TO ABLE TO DO THIS IS ASTOUNDING TO ME. IT COULDN’T HAPPEN. AND THE ME. IT COULDN’T HAPPEN. AND THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS IS GOING PROPOSITION THAT THIS IS GOING ON, THAT IT MIGHT OCCUR IN THE ON, THAT IT MIGHT OCCUR IN THE FBI DEEPLY CORRODES WHAT THE FBI FBI DEEPLY CORRODES WHAT THE FBI IS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, THE IS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR MISSION EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR MISSION AND IT IS DEEPLY DISTRUCKIVE. AND IT IS DEEPLY DISTRUCKIVE. >> THE REPUBLICANS NEVER >> THE REPUBLICANS NEVER PENETRATED THAT DEFENSE. EVERY PENETRATED THAT DEFENSE. EVERY WORD OF THAT DEFENSE HELD UP FOR WORD OF THAT DEFENSE HELD UP FOR THE NINE HOURS AND 41 MINUTES OF THE NINE HOURS AND 41 MINUTES OF THAT HEARING. THE REPUBLICANS THAT HEARING. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY A SINGLE ACTION TAKEN BY PETER A SINGLE ACTION TAKEN BY PETER STRZOK BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL STRZOK BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THOSE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THOSE TEXTS OR BECAUSE OF ANYONE TEXTS OR BECAUSE OF ANYONE ELSE’S POLITICAL OPINIONS. ELSE’S POLITICAL OPINIONS. REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE SEEM TO REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THE BEST LAWYER BELIEVE THAT THE BEST LAWYER AMONG THEM IS FORMER PROSECUTOR AMONG THEM IS FORMER PROSECUTOR TREY GOWDY. SO THEY GIVE TRAY TREY GOWDY. SO THEY GIVE TRAY GOD GOD HIM EXTRA QUESTIONING TIME HIM EXTRA QUESTIONING TIME TODAY. TODAY. >> SO YOUR TESTIMONY -- >> SO YOUR TESTIMONY -- >> HIS TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. >> HIS TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. CHAIRMAN, BY TWO AND A HALF CHAIRMAN, BY TWO AND A HALF MINUTES. MINUTES. >> SECOND -- >> SECOND -- >> IMPEACHMENT FOR WHAT? >> IMPEACHMENT FOR WHAT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ARE THE >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ARE THE RULES HERE? RULES HERE? IS THE WITNESS NOT GOING TO BE IS THE WITNESS NOT GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO ANSWER THE PERMITTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? QUESTION? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE ASSUMING -- ASSUMING -- >> I HESITATE IN PART -- >> I HESITATE IN PART -- >> WERE YOU UNDER DURESS? >> WERE YOU UNDER DURESS? >> ASKED AND ANSWERED OVER AND >> ASKED AND ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. OVER AGAIN. >> YOU DON’T WANT IT TO BE YOU >> YOU DON’T WANT IT TO BE YOU AND LISA PAGE AND YOU DON’T WANT AND LISA PAGE AND YOU DON’T WANT IT TO BE THE FBI. IT TO BE THE FBI. >> WE HAVE INDULGED THIS >> WE HAVE INDULGED THIS HARASSMENT NINE MINUTES. HARASSMENT NINE MINUTES. >> THE REPUBLICANS REACHED MANY >> THE REPUBLICANS REACHED MANY NEW HEIGHTS OF ABSURDITY, NEW HEIGHTS OF ABSURDITY, INCLUDING THREATENING THE INCLUDING THREATENING THE WITNESS WITH CONTEMPT OF WITNESS WITH CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT CONGRESS WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE QUESTIONS HE COULD THERE WERE QUESTIONS HE COULD NOT ANSWER BECAUSE THE FBI’S NOT ANSWER BECAUSE THE FBI’S LAWYERS HAD ORDERED HIM AS AN LAWYERS HAD ORDERED HIM AS AN FBI EMPLOYEE TO NOT ANSWER THOSE FBI EMPLOYEE TO NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. THAT BROUGHT A QUESTIONS. THAT BROUGHT A CHALLENGE FROM A DEMOCRAT WHO CHALLENGE FROM A DEMOCRAT WHO POINTED OUT THAT THESE SAME POINTED OUT THAT THESE SAME REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ALLOWED STEVE BONNANNON NOT TO ALLOWED STEVE BONNANNON NOT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT HE ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT HE CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER WHEN THEY CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER WHEN THEY QUESTIONED HIM. QUESTIONED HIM. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO SUBPOENA STEVE BANNON IN OUR SUBPOENA STEVE BANNON IN OUR HOUSE INTELLIGENCE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION. HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION. HE WAS UNDER SUBPOENA. HE REFUSED A NUMBER OF SUBPOENA. HE REFUSED A NUMBER OF TIMES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF MR. TIMES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF MR. GOU GOU TREY GOWDY. HE HAS A SINCERE TREY GOWDY. HE HAS A SINCERE INTEREST TO GETTING TO THE INTEREST TO GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED. I MOVE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED. I MOVE NOW FOR CONSIDERATION FOR MR. NOW FOR CONSIDERATION FOR MR. BANNON TO BE SUBPOENAED. IF HE BANNON TO BE SUBPOENAED. IF HE REFUSES, FOR CONTEMPT REFUSES, FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO OCCUR. PROCEEDINGS TO OCCUR. >> ERIC WILL LEAD OFF OUR >> ERIC WILL LEAD OFF OUR DISCUSSION IN A MOMENT. AFTER DISCUSSION IN A MOMENT. AFTER THAT THE REPUBLICANS TRIED AND THAT THE REPUBLICANS TRIED AND FAILED TO CAST DOUBT ON THE FAILED TO CAST DOUBT ON THE HONESTY OF PETER STRZOK’S UNDER HONESTY OF PETER STRZOK’S UNDER OATH TESTIMONY. HE DECIDED TO DO OATH TESTIMONY. HE DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT PERMITTED IN HOUSE HEARINGS. HE PERMITTED IN HOUSE HEARINGS. HE REPEATEDLY CALLED THE UNDER OATH REPEATEDLY CALLED THE UNDER OATH WITNESS A LIAR AND THEN WENT IN WITNESS A LIAR AND THEN WENT IN FOR THE KILL IN A VERY PERSONAL FOR THE KILL IN A VERY PERSONAL WAY. WAY. >> YOU HAVE EM BASSBARRASSED YOU >> YOU HAVE EM BASSBARRASSED YOU AND I CAN’T HELP BUT WONDER WHEN AND I CAN’T HELP BUT WONDER WHEN I SEE YOU LOOKING THERE WITH A I SEE YOU LOOKING THERE WITH A LITTLE SMIRK HOW MANY TIMES DID LITTLE SMIRK HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE’S EYE AND LIE TO HER ABOUT WIFE’S EYE AND LIE TO HER ABOUT LISA PAIGE? LISA PAIGE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! OUTRAGEOUS! >> NEEDLES TO SAY >> NEEDLES TO SAY >>> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION >>> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION IS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY AND IS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE. AND CONGRESSMAN, THE HOUSE. AND CONGRESSMAN, REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. WE ALL KNOW HOW LONG YOUR TODAY. WE ALL KNOW HOW LONG YOUR WORKDAY HAS BEEN ALREADY. WHAT WORKDAY HAS BEEN ALREADY. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ARE THE MOST WOULD YOU SAY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS ESTABLISHED IN IMPORTANT POINTS ESTABLISHED IN THIS HEARING TODAY? THIS HEARING TODAY? >> GOOD EVENING, LAWRENCE. OF >> GOOD EVENING, LAWRENCE. OF COURSE FIRST WOULD BE WRONG COURSE FIRST WOULD BE WRONG HEARING, WRONG PRIORITIES. WE HEARING, WRONG PRIORITIES. WE SHOULD BE DOING ALL WE CAN AS SHOULD BE DOING ALL WE CAN AS THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION TO THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION TO REUNITE THESE KIDS WHO ARE REUNITE THESE KIDS WHO ARE SEPARATED AND WRONG PRIORITIES SEPARATED AND WRONG PRIORITIES IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE PETER IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE PETER STRZOK COME IN BECAUSE HE KNEW A STRZOK COME IN BECAUSE HE KNEW A LOT ABOUT WHY THE RUSSIA LOT ABOUT WHY THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED. HE INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED. HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CONTACTS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CONTACTS THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS HAVING IN THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS HAVING IN THE RUSSIANS, AND THEY WANTED TO THE RUSSIANS, AND THEY WANTED TO JUST FOCUS ONGOING BACK IN TIME JUST FOCUS ONGOING BACK IN TIME TO HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND TO HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND UNDERMINING THE MUELLER UNDERMINING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. BUT I POINTED OUT INVESTIGATION. BUT I POINTED OUT IN MY QUESTIONS, ONE, THAT PETER IN MY QUESTIONS, ONE, THAT PETER STRZOK WAS NOT THE ONLY STRZOK WAS NOT THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL TO CLOSE THE CLINTON INDIVIDUAL TO CLOSE THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION. THERE WERE A LOT INVESTIGATION. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY DECISION. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL TO OPEN THE INDIVIDUAL TO OPEN THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. EVEN TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T LIKE HIS TEXT IF YOU DIDN’T LIKE HIS TEXT MESSAGES, AND I DON’T, THAT IS MESSAGES, AND I DON’T, THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MOUNTAIN OF IRRELEVANT TO THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT EXISTED THAT WOULD EVIDENCE THAT EXISTED THAT WOULD WARRANT ANY FBI AGENT TO BE WARRANT ANY FBI AGENT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND CONCERNED ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA. HIS CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA. >> AND THE AGENT’S TESTIMONY >> AND THE AGENT’S TESTIMONY TODAY, WAS THERE ANYTHING IN TODAY, WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT TESTIMONY WHERE YOU OR THAT TESTIMONY WHERE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE LEARNED SOMETHING THAT YOU LEARNED SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW? DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW? >> NO, NO, LAWRENCE. WE DID, >> NO, NO, LAWRENCE. WE DID, HOWEVER, LEARN THAT THE HOWEVER, LEARN THAT THE REPUBLICANS, FOR THEM, THIS WAS REPUBLICANS, FOR THEM, THIS WAS MORE ABOUT PROTECTING DONALD MORE ABOUT PROTECTING DONALD TRUMP RATHER THAN, AS I SAID, TRUMP RATHER THAN, AS I SAID, PROTECTING KIDS WHO ARE PROTECTING KIDS WHO ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES. SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES. HIGH SCHOOLERS WHO WANT US TO DO HIGH SCHOOLERS WHO WANT US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, SOMETHING ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, FARMER WHO IS WANT THIS FARMER WHO IS WANT THIS COMMITTEE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT COMMITTEE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE TARIFF IT IS PRESIDENT IS THE TARIFF IT IS PRESIDENT IS IMPOSING. BUT WE LEARNED NOTHING IMPOSING. BUT WE LEARNED NOTHING NEW. WE LOST PRECIOUS HOURS NEW. WE LOST PRECIOUS HOURS WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON US TO FIGHT FOR THEM COUNTING ON US TO FIGHT FOR THEM AND WE WERE JUST SEEING AND WE WERE JUST SEEING REPUBLICANS AGAIN SEEKING TO REPUBLICANS AGAIN SEEKING TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT ABOVE PROTECT THE PRESIDENT ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE. ANYTHING ELSE. >> DID YOU HEAR ANY LINE OF >> DID YOU HEAR ANY LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM REPUBLICANS QUESTIONING FROM REPUBLICANS THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS ACTUALLY THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS ACTUALLY SOMEHOW HELPFUL AND INFORMATIVE SOMEHOW HELPFUL AND INFORMATIVE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT’S TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT’S BEEN HAPPENING HERE? BEEN HAPPENING HERE? >> NO. BUT, LAWRENCE, I DID HEAR >> NO. BUT, LAWRENCE, I DID HEAR TREY GOWDY EXPRESS A REAL TREY GOWDY EXPRESS A REAL INTEREST IN HAVING PETER STRZOK INTEREST IN HAVING PETER STRZOK ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. THIS IS A ONGOING INVESTIGATION. THIS IS A PATTERN WE HAVE SEEN THROUGHOUT PATTERN WE HAVE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR. THEY WANT TO THE PAST YEAR. THEY WANT TO BREAK THE SAFE OF THE FBI BREAK THE SAFE OF THE FBI EVIDENCE LOCKER AND HAVE EVIDENCE LOCKER AND HAVE EVIDENCE COME TO LIGHT SO THAT EVIDENCE COME TO LIGHT SO THAT SUBJECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION SUBJECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION KNOW WHAT IS OUT THERE. BUT WHEN KNOW WHAT IS OUT THERE. BUT WHEN PETER STRZOK REFUSED TO ANSWER, PETER STRZOK REFUSED TO ANSWER, NOW HE WAS ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING NOW HE WAS ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT, WHICH IF TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT, WHICH IF THAT’S THE CASE, WE WANT TO KNOW THAT’S THE CASE, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, THAT SAME WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, THAT SAME INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN FOR MR. BANNON, WHICH IS WHY I FOR MR. BANNON, WHICH IS WHY I MOVED TO HAVE MR. BANNON MOVED TO HAVE MR. BANNON SUBPOENAED. AND OF COURSE THAT SUBPOENAED. AND OF COURSE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. BUT WAS VOTED DOWN. BUT INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, TREY GOWDY INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, TREY GOWDY DID NOT VOTE YES OR NO ON THAT. DID NOT VOTE YES OR NO ON THAT. HE ABSTAINED FROM VOTING WHEN HE ABSTAINED FROM VOTING WHEN THAT WAS PUT BEFORE HIM. THAT WAS PUT BEFORE HIM. >> THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR A >> THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR A CLARIFICATION OF HOW HE WAS CLARIFICATION OF HOW HE WAS VOTING BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SEEN VOTING BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS IN A ROLL CALL VOTE BEFORE. THIS IN A ROLL CALL VOTE BEFORE. HE USED THE WORD PASS. THE VOTES HE USED THE WORD PASS. THE VOTES ARE YES OR NO, AND HE SAID PASS. ARE YES OR NO, AND HE SAID PASS. SO THE DEMOCRATS INSISTED ON A SO THE DEMOCRATS INSISTED ON A CLARIFICATION. THAT’S WHEN HE CLARIFICATION. THAT’S WHEN HE WENT SILENT WHEN THE ROLL CAL WENT SILENT WHEN THE ROLL CAL WAS CALLED AGAIN. WHAT CAN YOU WAS CALLED AGAIN. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE OF THAT DECISION OF HIS, TO MAKE OF THAT DECISION OF HIS, TO NOT VOTE AT ALL ON THAT QUESTION NOT VOTE AT ALL ON THAT QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED? THAT YOU RAISED? >> WELL, I THINK HE KNOWS >> WELL, I THINK HE KNOWS BETTER. HE WASN’T GOING TO GIVE BETTER. HE WASN’T GOING TO GIVE US A VOTE THERE. BUT I THINK HE US A VOTE THERE. BUT I THINK HE WASN’T GOING TO REALLY WASN’T GOING TO REALLY CONTRADICT HIS POSITION AT THE CONTRADICT HIS POSITION AT THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THAT BANNON SHOULD HAVE WHICH IS THAT BANNON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED. SO I THINK HIS BEEN SUBPOENAED. SO I THINK HIS SILENCE ACTUALLY SPOKE VOLUMES, SILENCE ACTUALLY SPOKE VOLUMES, THAT HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG TO TRY THAT HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG TO TRY AND PURSUE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AND PURSUE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST PETER STRZOK BUT NOT MR. AGAINST PETER STRZOK BUT NOT MR. BANNON. SO MANY OTHER TRUMP BANNON. SO MANY OTHER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES WHO ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES WHO REFUSED TO TELL US ANYTHING. BY REFUSED TO TELL US ANYTHING. BY THE WAY, LAWRENCE, WE HAVE NOW THE WAY, LAWRENCE, WE HAVE NOW SEEN PETER STRZOK AND JAMES SEEN PETER STRZOK AND JAMES COMEY COME BEFORE CONGRESS. THEY COMEY COME BEFORE CONGRESS. THEY RAISE THEIR RIGHT HANDS. THEY RAISE THEIR RIGHT HANDS. THEY WENT UNDER OATH AND TOLD US WHAT WENT UNDER OATH AND TOLD US WHAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THE RUSSIA THEY KNEW ABOUT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO CRITICIZE THEM. CONTINUES TO CRITICIZE THEM. HOWEVER, WHAT DISTINGUISHES THEM HOWEVER, WHAT DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM HIM IS THAT THE PRESIDENT FROM HIM IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS UNWILLING TO RAISE HIS RIGHT IS UNWILLING TO RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL. SO IT HAND FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL. SO IT IS HIS MOVE. IS HIS MOVE. >> WE’RE GOING TO BE JOINED IN >> WE’RE GOING TO BE JOINED IN THE DISCUSSION NOW BY A SENIOR THE DISCUSSION NOW BY A SENIOR EDITOR OF THE ATLANTIC. DAVID, EDITOR OF THE ATLANTIC. DAVID, YOU HAVE GOT NINE HOURS AND 41 YOU HAVE GOT NINE HOURS AND 41 MINUTES OF HEARING TESTIMONY TO MINUTES OF HEARING TESTIMONY TO REACT TO. TAKE YOUR PICK. REACT TO. TAKE YOUR PICK. >> LOOK, IF YOU’RE THE LAWYER >> LOOK, IF YOU’RE THE LAWYER FOR THE CORLOENE FAMILY AND YOUR FOR THE CORLOENE FAMILY AND YOUR CLIENTS ARE SUPER, SUPER GUILTY, CLIENTS ARE SUPER, SUPER GUILTY, OF COURSE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO OF COURSE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO ATTACK THE INVESTIGATORS AND ATTACK THE INVESTIGATORS AND FIND A PROCEDURAL DEFENSE. IT FIND A PROCEDURAL DEFENSE. IT DOESN’T MAKE THEM HONEST, DOESN’T MAKE THEM HONEST, UPRIGHT WASTE MANAGEMENT UPRIGHT WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS. WE’RE WATCHING SPECIALISTS. WE’RE WATCHING TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME WE’RE TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME WE’RE WATCHING AN ATTACK ON NATO, AN WATCHING AN ATTACK ON NATO, AN ATTACK ON THE U.S.-UK ALLIANCE. ATTACK ON THE U.S.-UK ALLIANCE. DONALD TRUMP TRYING TO TOPPLE DONALD TRUMP TRYING TO TOPPLE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENTS AND IN FRIENDLY GOVERNMENTS AND IN EVERY WAY CARRYING OUT A RUSSIAN EVERY WAY CARRYING OUT A RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA. THE FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA. THE QUESTION IS IS HE DOING THIS QUESTION IS IS HE DOING THIS BECAUSE HE IS MISINFORMED, BECAUSE HE IS MISINFORMED, IMPULSIVE OR IS THERE A DARKER IMPULSIVE OR IS THERE A DARKER REASON? REASON? AND THE REPUBLICANS AND THE REPUBLICANS INVESTIGATING THE FBI ARE ACTING INVESTIGATING THE FBI ARE ACTING LIKE LAWYERS FOR THE CORLEONE LIKE LAWYERS FOR THE CORLEONE FAMILY. BUT WHAT’S THE TRUTH FAMILY. BUT WHAT’S THE TRUTH HERE? HERE? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFEND THE HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY? COUNTRY? IS THE PRESIDENT COMPROMISED AS IS THE PRESIDENT COMPROMISED AS WE WATCH THIS WRECKING BALL WE WATCH THIS WRECKING BALL HAPPENING IN EUROPE AND 75 YEARS HAPPENING IN EUROPE AND 75 YEARS OF SECURITY IS ABOUT TO BE OF SECURITY IS ABOUT TO BE DESTROYED BY ONE MAN. DESTROYED BY ONE MAN. >> IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE >> IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE NOT READY FOR REPUBLICANS WERE NOT READY FOR SOME OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SOME OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES THAT YOU PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES THAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES RAISED ON AND YOUR COLLEAGUES RAISED ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AS THEY WERE THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AS THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAM ROLL THE WITNESS TRYING TO STEAM ROLL THE WITNESS AND DEMAND THE WITNESS ANSWER AND DEMAND THE WITNESS ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT FBI LAWYERS SAID QUESTIONS THAT FBI LAWYERS SAID HE COULD NOT ANSWER, THREATEN HE COULD NOT ANSWER, THREATEN THE WITNESS WITH CONTEMPT THE WITNESS WITH CONTEMPT CHARGES IN THAT SETTING. WAS IT CHARGES IN THAT SETTING. WAS IT YOUR SENSE THAT THE REPUBLICANS YOUR SENSE THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE NOT ACTUALLY PREPARED TO WERE NOT ACTUALLY PREPARED TO HANDLE THIS HEARING TODAY AND HANDLE THIS HEARING TODAY AND THAT THEY WERE SURPRISED AT HOW THAT THEY WERE SURPRISED AT HOW STRONG PETER STRZOK’S RESPONSES STRONG PETER STRZOK’S RESPONSES COULD BE WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED TO COULD BE WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED TO DELIVER THEM? DELIVER THEM? >> THEY WERE WHOLLY UNPREPARED. >> THEY WERE WHOLLY UNPREPARED. WHEN I SAW PETER STRZOK TWO WHEN I SAW PETER STRZOK TWO WEEKS AGO AT OUR CLOSED HEARING WEEKS AGO AT OUR CLOSED HEARING DEPOSITION, I THOUGHT, OH, BOY, DEPOSITION, I THOUGHT, OH, BOY, THE REPUBLICANS, THIS IS GOING THE REPUBLICANS, THIS IS GOING TO BACKFIRE BECAUSE HE IS A TO BACKFIRE BECAUSE HE IS A PRETTY BRIGHT GUY. HE MADE A PRETTY BRIGHT GUY. HE MADE A MONUMENTAL ERROR IN SOME OF MONUMENTAL ERROR IN SOME OF THOSE TEXT MESSAGES. BUT THIS IS THOSE TEXT MESSAGES. BUT THIS IS ALSO THE RESULT OF WHAT’S BEEN ALSO THE RESULT OF WHAT’S BEEN BUILDING UP OVER THE PAST YEAR. BUILDING UP OVER THE PAST YEAR. WE HAVE SEEN THE CHAIRMAN USE WE HAVE SEEN THE CHAIRMAN USE THIS COMMITTEE TO JUST GO BACK THIS COMMITTEE TO JUST GO BACK IN TIME TO KEEP REVISITING THE IN TIME TO KEEP REVISITING THE HILLARY CLINTON E-MAIL HILLARY CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION AND EVERY POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION AND EVERY POSSIBLE FORM. SO I THINK OUR MEMBERS YOU FORM. SO I THINK OUR MEMBERS YOU SAW JUST KIND OF THE RELEASE OF SAW JUST KIND OF THE RELEASE OF THAT FRUSTRATION, AND WE CAME THAT FRUSTRATION, AND WE CAME READY TO FIGHT. READY TO FIGHT READY TO FIGHT. READY TO FIGHT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW. OF LAW. >> DAVID, FROM THE REPUBLICANS >> DAVID, FROM THE REPUBLICANS IN THE COMMITTEE SEEM TO HAVE A IN THE COMMITTEE SEEM TO HAVE A SINGLE RULE ABOUT INVESTIGATING SINGLE RULE ABOUT INVESTIGATING DONALD TRUMP. YOU CAN ONLY BE DONALD TRUMP. YOU CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE DONALD ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE DONALD TRUMP IF YOU ENTHUSIASTICALLY TRUMP IF YOU ENTHUSIASTICALLY WANTED DONALD TRUMP TO BE WANTED DONALD TRUMP TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> YES. YOU CAN’T MAKE ANY >> YES. YOU CAN’T MAKE ANY COMMENT. DONALD TRUMP IS OF COMMENT. DONALD TRUMP IS OF COURSE THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT COURSE THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. HE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. HE HAS DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF CENTRAL HAS DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF CENTRAL AMERICAN GANGS AS ANIMALS. THEY AMERICAN GANGS AS ANIMALS. THEY ARE CERTAINLY CRIMINAL ARE CERTAINLY CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS. BUT IF THE ORGANIZATIONS. BUT IF THE SUGGEST THAT ANONYMOUS MEANS SUGGEST THAT ANONYMOUS MEANS THAT THE LAWS CAN’T BE ENFORCED, THAT THE LAWS CAN’T BE ENFORCED, THEN I DON’T KNOW HOW WE’RE EVER THEN I DON’T KNOW HOW WE’RE EVER GOING TO PUT ANY MEMBER OF ANY GOING TO PUT ANY MEMBER OF ANY CENTRAL AMERICAN GANG IN JAIL
