judgments about what they re finding out? there is no record of it, chris. it is lawmakers coming to the microphone and giving their spin be it right or left. there is a record for those committees even as they meet without television cameras present. i love television cameras, they re wonderful. thank you for paying my children s tuition but that having been said, this is we are early in this process, number one. number two, the whistleblower doesn t matter anymore. the whistleblower is irrelevant. the president said i did it, and then he added china to it, which sort of ob vaoe aits the question. the press needs stuff every day to feed the bulldog. you have to make a living out there and you need something to try to move the story forward. right now it all looks simple. there are enough democrats to vote to impeach the president i m sure. and they will impeach him on something straight forward. bill: you don t know the vote until you take the vote.
happen. if the whistleblower s allegations are turned into an impeachment article it is imperative the whistleblower be in public under oath and cross-examined. nobody in america goes to jail without confronting their accuser. there will be hearings held in an expeditious way. the democrats learned their lesson from the russia thing and they ll go fast, not slow. i also want to say public hearings are terrible, terrible, terrible congress cannot anymore manage worthwhile public hearings. when you put the television cameras on these people and you make them ask questions in five-minute increments it s a disaster. sandra: then they step out in front of a camera from the closed door session. i got it. a public hearing, why is it necessary? we have the transcripts and we know exactly what the president said.
a room that s specially constructed to make sure there can be no electronic penetration of everything and everything remains secret. these are being handled as if they were huge state secrets and nothing that has to be kept secret. what you re hearing republicans say is we shouldn t just have this little leak or that little leak of what took place in these interviews. we should have the entire transcripts released and the future meetings should be held in public so people can see what was said. bill: maybe at some point they are in public. what are you afraid of right now if you made these hearings public? i don t know. the democrats have said the secrecy is necessary to protect the an imtee of the whistleblower, referring to the first now, now a second one apparently. but the law is not absolute on this. if you look at the law it says the inspector general of the intelligence community shall
that i sit here talking to you about how divided this country is. recent facts of filing the complaint. inspector general finding it was i credible and urgent. i want us to follow the facts. no one is above the law. let s keep getting what the facts are. let s keep getting the knowledge out making as public as we can as much of it. some is classified. not only are we protecting the whistleblower which i think is something that s very important historically in this country. but we also have national security that we are protecting. in the past congress has respected that classified material. if democrats say repeatedly they have the votes, why not take the vote? you know, i think we may down the road. i have not been there for 10 days. but i also think that what we
to have firsthand knowledge that supports the first whistleblower account. why has there been no official complaint filed? we understand that to be fact at this point. i don t know. and again, i don t think that it matters. we have the transcript. the white house didn t have to release that transcript. in fact, that might have turned out to be a strategic or tactical mistake. it is a conversation with a foreign leader. there are a number of people on all sides of the aisle who believe the president had the constitutional right to keep that from being released. but he did. we have the transcript now. whether you believe with the president that it shows something that s perfectly proper or with speaker pelosi who says it shows a violation of the constitution. that s another question. but we have a transcript. so whether it was firsthand or second hand or somebody some intelligence mid-level person signed a complaint is irrelevant at this point. sandra: sol wisenberg on the