inquiry mr. chairman, before i yield back i have a motion. gentlemen was recognized for the purpose of an opening statement not for the purpose of making a motion. parliamentary inquirements, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. it s not a proper inquiry. that is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. i seek recognition. i m not going to recognize you now. mr. chairman i have a motion. gentlemen is not able to offer a motion. mr. chairman, i seek recognition for a privilege motion. gentleman will suspend. the democrats impeachment witnesses made their case trump s actions represent abuse of power, bribery and obstruction, highlighting possible articles of impeachment. if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no
constitutional grounds. but it s the judiciary committee, which has traditionally been the most partisan committee in congress. members going after each other as much as they might be going after the constitutional basis for this report. and then, oh by the way, we re going to have rolling deadlines all week long. we could potentially have additional hearings announced next week. we ve got this deadline on friday for the president and his attorneys to decide if they want to participate in the inquiry at all. so we re up against an end of the year deadline. it isn t a real deadline but for political purposes, it s when democrats want to be done. and they are trying to get a lot of things done in a very short period of time. garrett, what let s talk about the deadline for the the righting of the articles of impeachment. is there some sense it s already done? well, look. it s hard to say exactly. but we know is that these things will probably you know, the outlines for the artic
bucket is up for some debate. and then there s been this threat of every time that the administration stonewalls or fails to comply with a subpoena, for example, that s further evidence of obstruction. in the past impeachment inquiries in the nixon inquiry, in the clinton inquiry, obstruction was a big part of the case that the party making the impeachment allegations was making. so i think we re liable to see something along those lines. but as to the specific wording, as to the specific number of articles and how they line it up. that s being kept a very closely-guarded secret if, in fact, that work is happening now. garrett, we ll be talking to you a lot this week. thank you, my friend. as the house judiciary committee prepares its phase of the impeachment investigation, nbc s political unit underscores four core questions at the heart of the debate. number one. did the u.s. president ask another country to interfere in the upcoming 2020 election against possible democratic rival
to see you at 5:00 on mondays. it is monday, december the 2nd. heading to europe to represent our country and fight hard for the american people while the do-nothing democrats purposely scheduled an impeachment hoax hearing on the same date as nato. not nice. president trump bashed house democrats accusing them of deliberately holding impeachment hearings while he s out of the country at a nato summit in london. the contentious nature of that relationship has been there from the outset. the president has directed current and former white house officials to defy congressional subpoenas and testimony for testimony and relevant documents. and just yesterday, the white house counsel sent a letter to the house judiciary committee saying it would not participate in the committee s first impeachment inquiry this wednesday. the administration did leave open the possibility of taking part in future hearings. and it has until friday to make its final decision. now, tonight, the house intellige
at our mark-up yesterday republicans tried to change that. we tried to offer constructive amendments that made the process more fair, that would give rights to the minority, that would give rights to the accused, and that insure due process for everyone. republicans offered 17 amendments and not one, not one madam speaker, was accepted. not one. we offered amendments that would align the subpoena powers in this resolution from the subpoena powers used for president clinton. unlike the clinton inquiry, today s resolution does not provide for co-equal subpoenas power. instead it grants the minority the right to subpoena witnesses and materials only with the concurrence of the chair with no such limitation on the rights of the chair to issue subpoenas. we offered amendments to change that. the majority rejected each of them in turn. we offered an amendment that would allow all members the right to fully access committee