you didn t see here. this is the first time in modern history we ve seen the party of the president refuse to acknowledge any oversight duty. they are the president s line and they will not move. what does that do to this process? i think that s a really terrific point. that is different from clinton s situation and different from nixon s in nixon and clinton admitted it was legitimate that there was an impeachment inquiry. here the president s defenders are doing exactly what you said. they re attacking the legitimacy of this inquiry at all and attacking the people who are fact witnesses, attacking the people who are talking about the law, but attacking them for being disloyal, for being idiots or whatever, but not really attacking the substance of what they re saying. that really throws a wrench in the works because that s not what the founders intended. so that s my last question for you. i read, you know, the federalist
don t have either here. what happened here is pretty obvious. they keep arguing what seems to be isn t what it seems to be. this is the first time in modern history we ve seen the party of the president refuse to acknowledge any oversight duty. they are the president s line and they will not move. what does that do to this process? i think that s a really terrific point. that is different from clinton s situation and different from nixon s in nixon and clinton admitted it was legitimate that there was an impeachment inquiry. here the president s defenders are doing exactly what you said. they re attacking the legitimacy of this inquiry at all and attacking the people who are fact witnesses, attacking the people who are talking about the law, but attacking them for being disloyal, for being idiots or whatever, but not really
so it was and remember with nixon, it was members of his party that told him he was done. so this is the first time where we ve seen a party go all in exclusive of their constitutional duty. so you know who is right here? the president. he was dead on when he said this. you ll have a democrat president. you ll have a republican house, and they ll do the same thing because somebody picked an orange of a refrigerator and you don t like it. forget about the orange part, but he is correct. that s exactly how it went with clinton. so he is living his own prediction except he s not looking into the future. he is the future. the democrats are doing what the gop did the way the gop did it except the gop is not acting like the democrats, right? because the democrats have him on worse facts than the gop did with clinton, i m telling you. but it is the gop that perverted the process by refusing to do
information and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. in nixon, it did go to the courts and nixon lost. and that was the reason nixon resigned. reporter: house speaker nancy pelosi urging house democrats, quote, are you ready? while vice president mike pence rallying the republicans to turn up the heat on the democrats. and back in that hearing room, republicans were furious when one of those law professors argued that the constitution does not make trump a king. driving the point home with a quip about the president s son. so, while the president can name his son barron, he can t make him a baron. when you invoke the president s son s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing barron trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. it makes you look mean. it makes you look like you re attacking someone s family, the minor child of the president of the united states. so, let s see if we can get into the facts. to all of the witnesses
impeachment approved by the house judiciary committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. here it is far more than four this president has failed to comply with, and he s ordered the executive branch as well not to cooperate with congress. those together with a lot of other evidence suggests obstruction of congress. the one witness called by republicans, jonathan turley of george washington university pushed back saying democrats should allow the courts to weigh in on subpoenas. you re saying article i gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another branch it must be turned over or we ll impeach you in record time. so on obstruction i would encourage you to think about this. in nixon, it did go to the courts and nixon lost. and that was the reason nixon resigned.