House Republicans, Democrats React To Vote On Impeachment Report | NBC News (Live Stream Recording)

Channel: NBC News
Published: 12/03/2019 11:35 PM

Watch live coverage as House Republicans respond after the Intelligence Committee holds a vote to officially send their impeachment report to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats are also likely to speak after the GOP news conference. » Subscribe to NBC News: » Wat...

Unday bass and they said we're gon na - have rules for impeachment, and it's gon na take care of everything and we're gon na actually take care of the president. The president will have a chance to actually be a part of the process and look at witnesses in question, and this is where we're at now. The judicial committee was the only place to do that. Well, starting tomorrow, they failed miserably ...
n trying to provide any modicum of fairness in this process. The president's not sending a counselor and he shouldn't send a car because there's nothing for them to ask. Why would they want to sit back through a constitutional law class which most of them had to suffer throughin law school tomorrow provides nothing except a dreary. Id drowsy protocol for this country to watch is the impeachment process slowly drives on with no direction, no focus because they're having one big problem and the big problem is, the president did nothing wrong and they can't prove it without our yield of the will. Thank you. Doug welcome back hope, y'all had a great thanksgiving. I wish we had come back here to confront a lot of the problems that families are facing across the country. I wish that we were this. We'Ve taken up the bipartisan package of bills that passed out of energy commerce to lower drug prices that had unanimous support the fact that wouldlower prescription drug prices bring more generics to the market quicker to lower health costs for families.

But we're not doing that. I wish that we were working here in congress to support what president trump is doing right now in europe, to strengthen nato working with our allies, to make nato even stronger, but we're not doing that. What is disappointing the fact that, right now, as we speak, adam schiff, meeting behind closed doors once again, holding votes in secret is an affront to transparency. It'S going on right now. You know you look at how this whole impeachment sham has been going. While president trump is in london meeting with our allies to strengthen nato and tohelp and get encourage other nato allies to do more, their fair share, which they're doing because president trump has encouraged them to actually step up and do more. That is being juxtaposed by this. Continued sham, where they don't have any facts they get to bring in a peach, abul offense. The things that haven't changed by the way are the fact that the only two participants in the phone call of questions were donald trump and president solinsky both said. The call was fine. President szalinski said there was never any pressure and not only was a no quid pro quo, but ukraine got the money and ultimately there was no push that they made for investigation intoanything and they said that the foreign minister said that, but they still drive on you're Hearing a lot of democrats now trying to get out of this vest during the break. You had a number democrats trying to break from pelosi by saying that they should stop pursuing impeachment, because they're here for people like we are that are saying.

Why isn't congress? Instead of focusing on this impeachment obsession at pelosi has, and our members have to reverse the 2016 election. Why? If they're, instead using this time in this majority, to confront the problems that this country is facing, they could have bills on the floor to lower drug prices. That would be signed into law. Alreadybut pelosi won't bring that to the floor because of impeachment us mca could be the law of the land. We could have a better trade deal already with our neighbors from the north and south mexico and canada, and create over 160,000 new jobs, but pelosi won't bring that to the floor because of impeachment our troops could have the tools they need to train and fight safely And we don't have that yet, because pelosi is obsessed with impeachment, there's a cost to what they're doing, there's a cost to our country. There'S a cost to hard-working families that, because congress won't confront those problems, because pelosi is obsessed with impeachment, it really does cost hard-working families acrossthis country enough sanaa. Let'S get back to work, confront the problems that have bipartisan support. That congress is not doing because of pelosi. Obsession with impeachment with that i'll call up our republican leader chemicals. Thank you for coming. I know this is a different time. We thought this time might work since adam schiff once again has a closed meeting and won't allow you into it or the american public to see what they want to vote on.

So we thought we'd have something better to do with your time. We could talk about something, even though congress looks like they're divided. There is something that the speaker has said just this year, that i thank unites theentire nation. What she said, i think almost everybody agrees with the exactly right here. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i do not think we should go down the path because it divides the country march 11. 2019. I imagine most, everybody in america believes that impeachment is so divisive, but if we were to do it overwhelming and bipartisan three criterias, the speaker laid out to this country to move what is gon na happen this week. Those three issues she laid have failed each one. There is nothing to find there's nothing overwhelming and the only bipartisan we have vote. We have had in this house isnot to move forward with impeachment inquiry, but that has not stopped them in a venue that we can't go to. That is created solely for the intel committee. Why? Because of the work that is supposed to be doing this work, that's so sensitive to keep this country safe has not been doing any of them, because that intel committee has now been changed to the impeachment committee.

Adam shifter, just standing here today, i watched you ask him a question about whether we should move forward with impeachment it's interesting, because edomites has a hard time with the truth, because adam said just a few days ago. In his words, he is going to send the press andback to the golden throne. He came from adam had made his mind up long before he just didn't have the proof, so he had to write his own story. You read his report. He only picks what he wants and he still does not have anything overwhelming compelling or bipartisan, but that does not stop him from continuing to make items up. If we watch where it's gon na go tomorrow, you heard from doug collins the columns is the ranking member. In that committee, the committee chairman is a congressman named nadler nadler had to campaign for this position. It was a competitive race, so navin wanted to lay out to all of america and especially to his colleaguesof, why they should vote for him to become chairman. He said he would be the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. This was the creation of their majority. That was their goal and he himself admitted last year, if you're serious about removing a president from office. What you're really doing is overturning the results of the last election.

Any of the democrats have been very honest about this from al green who put the impeachment before long before they're. Even in the majority before any mahler report came forward, 2/3 of the judiciary committee on the democratic side had voted for those they're concerned that if they do not impeach this president, they can't beat him inan election. This is exactly what alexander hamilton warned us about, and unfortunately we now have a majority solely devised on one goal, but that one goal harms the entire nation. The speaker said it's very divisive, but what is harming is what's not getting done. What are the opportunities that we are missing? You heard it so many times before united states, mexico and canada agreement more than one year ago, the three leaders have signed that to move forward. Mexico had passed it and canada continues to wait. Every economic economist will tell you it will make america stronger our challenge, as i watched the market go down today, simply on the idea that the agreement with chinamay not come together as quickly. China is not our number one trader, it's our third largest trader. You know who's number one and number two, mexico and canada, but america will be stronger in the negotiation with china. If we have the u. s. mca with our number one and number two trader, everyone will tell you.

Yes, everyone in the house will tell you if you put it on the floor, it will pass, but that power all rests with one person, the speaker of the house. She is also the same person who's 70 years of 70 days ago. Star goes down this nightmare. For a second time i didn't have proof, then they have no items andnow. We have the phone call before us america season and now we're watching the own polls in america continue to drop that they agree with what the speaker said in march. That is too divisive. So the final question for the speaker is: when will we get to mexico and canada trade agreement? When is the funding bill to fund our troops for the department of defense and, more importantly, how have we get be able to help to make our country stronger, more prosperous? Since taking the gavel, my real question, i think the american public would ask this new majority name me. One problem you have solved because they have issued more subpoenas than they've created lawswe're better than this, and i hope the speaker meant the words she said on march 11. If she set a criteria to have to march forward. She needs to answer the question. What is compelling, what is overwhelming and where's the bipartisanship, because that would put an end to this nightmare, where we could work forward to make america stronger so for them for questions? Yes, sir, i know you always. You know criticize what the democrats have found, what their process is found today, but isn't there wasteful republicans and the president, regardless of what you think of what they put pool when this is put to the american people, that there is risk for republicans to standso forced We'Re behind the president, and also to first of all this is made up, and i thank you for your question.

I think it's more fearful that we don't stand for the constitution. The constitution is very clear. It'S based upon facts. If everybody in the country can see the phone call - and you have all the witnesses before in a process that is unfair, could not tell you one thing: that's impeachable john radcliffe asked the question of their top witnesses. Name me one thing that is impeachable, so i think for those bipartisan, the republicans and the democrats who stood together, who actually stood for the constitution and said no. We shouldn't move forward, i'm notfearful of that. I think history will be very kind to those who take that stand for those that alexander hamilton warned is about. I don't think history will be that kind. I think adams shift will have to answer for a great deal one when he told the american public that he had proof beyond circumstantial. He said he wish he knew who the whistleblower was and how hard he was gon na fight to bring that whistleblower forward. But lo and behold he won't let that person come and then, when adam schiff said that he needed to be the kin star of today's world. Well, everybody else would come and testify.

But you asked him the questiona day. He said no staff is going to testify. Remember what we're talking about exactly what the speaker said and so did yc to the country, but they treat it just like it's a political game. If i was fearful i'd be fearful on their side cuz, i think the country will see. Yes, one thing was in the report that came out today. It would appear that in april there was some accusing fake communication, devon, nunez and rudy guiliani, and some of mr. giuliani's associate notorious one. If you've spoken minister day knows about the contents of that interaction into it, that raises any concern from your saying. It doesn't raise me any concerns when i talkedto devin, when i first heard a cnn report that said devin went to vienna and it was reported on the news continued to repeat it. Have you talked to devin? Was he in vienna? The answer is, no, i think, devin's following forward like he should do so. There was not interaction. These phone records log, that's a totally different thing.

You said about the phone logs of devin's talking to an individual. I don't have a problem with devin talking to individuals. What was claimed about devin on cnn, on a national news media is that he went to vienna to meet with individuals. He was not in vienna. That was a lie. Just like many lies beforeand. It seems like a perpetual thing of what we do. This was brought forth by adam schiff, who said he didn't know who the whistleblower was. Who said he had proof beyond circumstantial evidence who said today at this podium that he didn't know where he would be on impeachment when he told an entire nation that he's going to throw him back to that golden throne? No, i have no concerns. Yes, sir, do you and mr. collins, you talked about the white house not participating tomorrow? I understand your perspective on that. Would you like to see them participate? If there are fact witnesses are they leaving something on the table if they don't come in andgive their side or their version of things through their counsel? Of course, if you watch through the past history that we've always had a fair process - and you usually had a fair process that another individual could call witnesses and should cross-examine who are they gon na cross-examine tomorrow, is tomorrow anything about impeachment past tomorrow.

In the future hearings, is it going? Is it gon na be an open process in the future i'll? Let the rancor yeah look. The letter from the white house counsel said that if they were, they leaving their offices open to dissipate anything else and they will - and i think that's the important part there's got to be something out here to hell. Camelyou in the media had the ability to hold this account. Let'S say why are they're not calling fat witnesses? Why we're not having this for adam schiff to stand at this podium and say that he's not going to testify he's going to send staff? I have a question for adam jill. What are you hiding? Why are you scared, you're gon na? Send your dunk your? I call it what we call it in judiciary committee and then intel committee he'd bring your dollar to work. That, because he's gon na have a big donor who gave to the democratic party mr. goldman present for him. Well, i stand behind mr. goldman, you have the gavel. You have the reportcome testify. The white house will be happy to be a part of fact witnesses. Really things that actually move us more tomorrow, it's simply just a filler, because jerry nadler didn't know what else to do.

Yes, so we're following up on congressman unis, any two questions: one, given that we have these records and they're, showing him having these conversations at some key moments and accepting your your contention that there was nothing wrong here. Should congressman oona's explain what these conversations and interactions worked? My second question is: do you have concerns that this stuff ended up in this report from chairmanship? Is it appropriate for him to put a fellow congressman's call records out there likethis when it comes to adam schiff, to have a lot of concerns? You can't remember whether he met with the whistleblower, who it was whistleblower has a hard time remembering when it goes to y, when y, when they brought forth the ig. Why are those transcripts not made to the public yet adam schiff has a long history with a problem of telling the truth. Adam shift also has a long history to do anything above and beyond and even lie if it takes to impeach the president, we're just finding another flags where adam shift is doing it one more time. Devin nunez has the right to talk to anybody, what they accused of devin nunez ofdoing of going to a country that he was not add and as a job of being on. The intel committee is something that devin has to travel and adam schiff would know exactly where devin was traveling at that time. But to perpetuate a lie is nothing new to adam schiff, catchweight ally, because this man only wants to impeach. The president is something we come to expect from him, but should he discuss what happened on those phone calls? This question for devin, but devin has the right to talk to people, there's nothing wrong. That devin has done, except once again try to get accused of something it is a simple smokescreen. I wish you'd ask thesame question what did adam schiff say to the whistleblower? Why didn't the whistleblower come to adam schiff before he ever had an attorney? Why did adam schiff go to the american public and start this nightmare over the idea that the administration was going to withhold a whistleblower from coming before the committee and he was going to fight so hard to make that happen? The only person that's withholding the whistleblower from coming forward is adam schiff. This is a man that didn't even take the same rules that has been allotted to anybody else in the same position. He rewrote the rules, so only he can pick who comes before the committee.

He rewrote the rules forhow the committee to work that he would get the first 45 minutes. He has tried to design everything he can to get an outcome that he desires, but the only problem that he is the truth and it's just one more example of thank you. You.

Watch Next