an independent prosecutor. with the judiciary committee did in 1998 as they took cannot stars work and incorporated that into their work in the judiciary committee. there was an open hearing on november 19th, 1998, where ken starr came and testified before the judiciary committee. he was essentially the accuser. this is what republicans are saying. that adam schiff is the accuser, or maybe the whistleblower. and that david kendall, who was president clinton s attorney, he then cross-examined ken starr in the judiciary committee. not so much the members, but the president s attorney pair that was that back-and-forth due process that republicans are arguing instance. that there is no guarantee if they get to the judiciary committee that there would be such a back-and-forth. again, this historical precedent is important. it s important to note we haven t done impeachment of president s very often, so it s always going to be a little different. you take that 1998 model, who exactly then wo
able to say, this is donald trump lying politics because of impeachment. which is so far from the truth. melissa: at the same time, this does seem preemptive. but we don t know what we don t know. they could bring out evidence. at this point you say, show us the money. they could bring out evidence at this point that would sway republicans. i do think once things are out in the open it s totally possible it could go on the other direction. we don t know what evidence we haven t seen it. we just know it doesn t seem compelling, right? jason: and they haven t made the case on that evidence. if they had evidence, if they had something, the vote today does not give congress the authority that it didn t already have. you can have open and transparent hearings. when i was the chairman of the oversight committee, devin nunes was the chairman of intel committee, he would regularly send things over to our committee. you don t have to have another piece of legislation that says, we are