whether the president committed impeachable offenses? i certainly have opinions and i m certain you can guess those opinions. but as chair of the committee i really have to reverse judgment i don t know if that s a bell you can unring. let s put it this way, there s a heck of a lot of evidence the president has committed impeachable offenses, but we have to give a fair hearing and be open minded. when you talk about this fair hearing and open mindedness, i get from you a genuine principle commitment and value and also a kind of political consideration. like i guess a broader question here is we ve never removed a president from office, right? there have been four impeachments. in one case well, there would have been four when this happens most likely. in one case nixon he resigned, he was probably going to lose that vote. the other two did not result in conviction. do you see the process as possibly ending in the removal of the president of the united states?
is your mind undecided about whether the president committed impeachable offenses? i certainly have opinions, and i think you can guess those opinions, but as chairman of the committee i really have to reserve judgement or at least expressing that judgement. i don t know if that s a bell you can unring. i well, let s put it this way, there s a heck of a lot of evidence that the president s committed impeachable offenses but we have to give a fair hearing, we have to try to be open-minded and see. when you talk about this fairness and the open-mindedness, what i get from you is both a genuine principled commitment in value and also a kind of political consideration. like, i guess the broader question here is, we ve never removed a president from office, right? there have been four impeachments. in one case the president there will have been four when this happens most likely. in one case, nixon he was he resigned. he was probably going to lose that vote. the other two di
impeachment. he did nothing wrong under the law or otherwise. the top republican on house judiciary said this could damage a president s ability to conduct foreign policy. this is a sad day in america when another world leader has to worry if i talk to the president, can anybody just complain to the president and the speaker, go off and release a get a transcript. this is something we don t need to have happen. the president has done what s right here. that s what needs to be emphasized. things are so polarized, the two parties cannot agree on what is in the text of that transcript. dana: thanks. let s bring in ed henry. you had breaking news on fox at night. now you re here. tell me a little bit about what catherine herridge said. she used that image of ringing the bell. nancy pelosi rang a bell yesterday and you can t unring it. what is shocking is, you have adam schiff saying this is like
and so the probability of more cases for singles from the sea into uganda these very high. ebola isn t new to uganda the country has seen 5 outbreaks of the disease since the year 2000 it has now stepped up efforts to contain the virus screening everyone entering uganda from the eastern. the government is also deploying an experimental ebola vaccine for health care workers along the border so right there shelby but again. frontline health walkouts. unring vaccination for the contacts. because of past successes in combating the disease uganda is widely regarded as being at the forefront of the fight against ebola feel that given the most recent cases many ugandans feel uneasy and wish
comes to kind of the shockwave that mattis decision has created, can the president could the president unring this bell? can he settle things down with an unnouncement of another secretary? it seems new times in an already chaotic era. well, i guess it s theoretically possible but extremely unlikely that the president would do anything that would even infer he made a mistake in judgment. now, my comment, you know, a lot of people talked about the implications of this. the previous segment made a good point about we didn t get anything for this, not unlike moving our embassy in israel to jerusalem, where we didn t get any benefit from that. and this has global implications. i would just cite the example of north korea. why should north korea believe anything we say to them about assurances of their security if they denuclearize after watching