hurdles. i wonder if it would spark schultz to run or not? he was definitely in that inquiry phase for quite some time and bowed out. there wasn t a huge amount of the public affection for the schultz character. to say the least. talk about the house impeachment inquiry moving into the public faces as of next week. right. what is axios taken away from the last week of closed door testimony? there s a set of agrees upon or largely agreed upon facts that are out there. and democrats have accepted that they re not really going to get anymore new facts, that they have what they have. they re not going to fight some of these the white house is blocking people like mulvaney, there was a subpoena that went out last night, my colleague elina break that story. they ve been trying to get people like bolton in there. democrats said we re not going to fight these legal fights, we ll add this as another article, obstruction of the investigation in their impeachment inquiry. look, we
bully these people who might want to come forward into being silent. so should we be protecting the whistleblower? absolutely. that s the law. that s why it is there in the first place. sandra: so this eight-page resolution that we ve had a chance to look at it. some of the new rules that are involved in this impeachment inquiry. i want to dig into the last portion of the trump team can participate only in judiciary committee phase because, of course, we have know the judiciary has been added to this. but based on the way this resolution is written, the legal rights affords the president could be curbed untles there are judiciary committee meeting hearings as opposed to intelligence committee hearings. does it address the concerns that the president was not seeing due process here, congressman? first of all this is the inquiry phase. the trial will take place, if there is one, in the senate. so during the essentially what
have to be in private? why can t this be out in public? one of the democratic members put his head down like this and would not look at me. i think that body language tells me that they know they should be doing this like the judiciary committee should, out in the open. they won t say it out loud because their leadership decided to keep it the way it is. congressman burn from alabama, appreciate it. fair and balanced reaction to all of this from chief deputy whip dan kildee who joins us from flint, michigan. so, congressman, why do the meetings have to be held in a secret skiff? first of all, the republicans are in that room asking questions of these witnesses during these depositions and i think it will obviously lead and always has been the intention of mr. schiff to hold public hearings, but this is very much like the inquiry phase that, for example, when president clinton
was subjected to impeachment, there was a special counsel who held hours and hours and hours of private interviews before there were public hearings on the facts gleaned. since there is no special counsel, this is the inquiry phase similar to what mr. starr did some time ago, but i do agree, and i probably would share some of the views of my republican colleague, mr. burn, that we re all better off when this is a public conversation and we focus on the facts. i do think there is a bet of hyperventilation on both sides around the process where we would all be better served sooner rather than later if we get to the public hearing phase of this. absolutely. and focus solely on the facts. no offense to you guys, but i care a lot less about you than i do about the 63 million americans who voted for president trump who want to hear openly what evidence there is against him and who want to hear
for documents. now the president is threatening to sue democrats, even try to impeach schiff or even pelosi. are those viable options for the president? not really. so any white house wants to proceed very cautiously before turning documents over, so that s standard, but basically to say an impeachment inquiry, it s not even a proceeding at this stage. an inquiry and constitutional, and if you re not going to cooperate, it s an affront to constitutional powers. if it s a negotiation that s trying to be reasonable, then it would be more defensible and maybe more constructive. this seems like a kind of hair on fire approach to something that s very grave. i ve heard many describe this inquiry phase is something like a grand jury phase before there are really charges imposed. this is kind of exploratory to see if it really reaches the