witness after witness after witness, including don mcgahn, because we believe he has absolutely no reason to reject the demand for his presence before the committee. we have subpoenaed him. we have now gone to court. and now with the resolution that we passed just this past thursday, we believe the court will see that we are truly in an impeachment investigation, needing to get all of the facts to ensure that we have the truth. and joy, i just want to say this this is not a witch hunt. we have no particular desire to go after a president of the united states. it is a sacred and somber responsibility. but we cannot leave all of what has occurred in this administration on the table without doing our article one duties and upholding the rule of law. can you give us some insight into what areas? i named a whole big, long list of things that potentially could be written into articles of impeachment against this president that the public has
shouldn t get the grand jury materials. well, what world are they living in? during the nixon impeachment we got grand jury materials and we got it with the approval of the court. that s a precedent that s there for 45 years. what are they talking about? i guess this is just like the new trump supreme court they throw out all precedent, disregard history, don t know what they re talking about but that s what we see with the justice department here and it s highly political and it s wrong. let the house do its work. you know, nobody knows the outcome of an inquiry. they don t know whether it s going to be whether there are going to be any grounds for impeachment. i personally think there are x but maybe they ll decide they aren t after they do a thorough investigation. then maybe they ll decide as we did actually in the nixon impeachment, there was several articles of impeachment that were proposed. i drafted one of them and they were rejected. does that mean you have to drop the whol
is a perception, if you talk to folks in the sort of democratic hill world, that the mueller report didn t deliver the knockout punch, and it made it harder to make the very clear case that something in the mueller report is what impeachment will be based on. because it didn t deliver the knockout, now they re having to reset and say, okay, the point of hearings is to convince the public. right now, most of whom object to overturning the election through impeachment. that this man has done something that even if it isn t critical in court, is grounds for removal. and so, the simple cases would be enriching yourself off the white house. you can show people are staying in his properties, they re going 40 miles out of their way to stay in his properties, even his own cabinet members are paying him to do their parties at his properties, bragging about it in public. it s very public. and so, that case do you the argument that i m hearing back from democrats who are frustrated with the d
and kavanaugh and the other conservatives. that s my concern too. i think we did see in the census case that justice roberts because the evidence was so overwhelming of political interference with the census process that to preserve the integrity of the court, roberts cast the correct vote, but can we be sure that that s going to happen here? i don t know the answer to it and i m troubled about it and it may just well be that the house of representatives has to bite the bullet and say, we re going to authorize an inquiry into whether there should be articles of impeachment. we were not when we were authorized we weren t told you write articles of impeachment. right. we were told inquire as to whether there were grounds. i think people get confused. impeachment doesn t have to happen because you do an inquiry. yeah. it s a grand jury, folks. that s the way i would describe it. thank you very much. really appreciate it.