BACK WITH ANDY BIGGS FROM

WASHINGTON

YOU HEARD IT, SIR.

YOUR REACTION.

>> WELL, I HAVE SEVERAL POINTS

TO MAKE.

WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT A

MONARCHY, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE

ELECTIONS.

THE SECOND POINT IS IF THIS

REALLY IS AN EXIGENT

CIRCUMSTANCE WHY DID WE TAKE

OFF ALL THE TIME IN AUGUST,

SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER,

WITH NO ACTION ON IMPEACHMENT

OR INVESTIGATION.

THE THIRD THING IS PROFESSOR

TURLEY SAID YESTERDAY AND HE IS

EXACTLY RIGHT, THERE IS NO

EVIDENCE HERE.

SO WHEN SHE SAYS THE FACTS ARE

NOT CONTESTED, SHE IS FLAT OUT

NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

THE FACTS ARE HIGHLY CONTESTED

HERE.

AND WE HAVE NOT HAD FACT

WITNESSES IN THE COMMITTEE OF

JURISDICTION THAT WILL BE

MARKING UP ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT.

PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID GOING

FORWARD ON SUCH FLIMSY

EVIDENCE, THAT'S HOW HE

DESCRIBED IT, IN SUCH A FAST,

QUICK MANNER WITHOUT A THOROUGH

INVESTIGATION -- HE IS NOT

OPPOSED NECESSARILY TO

IMPEACHMENT.

HE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT THE WAY

YOU'RE DOING IT, IT WILL

UNDERMINE THE NOTION OF

IMPEACHMENT IN THE FUTURE AND

THERE WON'T BE A PRESIDENT WHO

IS NOT SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT

UNDER THESE FLIMSY STANDARDS.

THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND

THIS IS JUST FLAT OUT A

POLITICAL MOVE ON THE PART OF

THE SPEAKER AND THE DEMOCRATS.

>> Bill: TWO POINTS ON THAT.

ONE SAID TO HER CAUCUS

YESTERDAY.

SHE SAID THIS IS THE MOMENT

WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION.

IT COULD BE MONTHS UNTIL THE

COURT CASES ARE RULED ON.

IT GOES TO THE TIME CRUNCH ON

BEHALF OF DEMOCRATS.

SHE SAID HERE, TOO.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTION

OF 2020 SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT

MIGHT REPEAT HIS GUILT AND

RETURN TO POWER.

THEY HAVE A CLEAR CONCERN IN

ELECTION YEAR THAT THEY CAN'T

MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THEY DO

THIS NOW, SIR.

>> HERE IS THE THING.

IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH AN

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHY DID WE

TAKE TWO MONTHS OFF IN THE

MIDDLE OF THIS INVESTIGATION?

YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?

IF IMPEACHMENT IS THE RIGHT

REMEDY, DOING IT SIX MONTHS

BEFORE AN ELECTION IS JUST AS

IMPORTANT AS DOING IT NOW AND

TRYING TO CRAM IT IN.

WHEN SHE SAYS WE WOULD NOT

INDUCE ANY MORE INFORMATION,

HOW ABOUT THIS?

HOW ABOUT DECLASSIFYING THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S

TESTIMONY?

THAT'S CLASSIFIED.

HOW ABOUT LETTING US HAVE FACT

WITNESSES IN THE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE ITSELF WHERE WE GET A

CHANCE TO GO THROUGH AND REHASH

SOME OF THIS STUFF AND EXPAND

AND BRING IN SOME OF OUR

WITNESSES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO

HAVE TESTIFY?

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SEEING A

RUSH -- A RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT

AT THIS POINT AND IT'S BEING

DONE IN A MANNER THAT'S NOT

PROVIDING PROCESS.

>> Bill: ONE THING THAT LOOKED

APPARENT FROM YESTERDAY'S

TESTIMONY WITH THE LAW

PROFESSORS IS THAT THE MUELLER

REPORT MAY BECOME RELEVANT

AGAIN FOR DEMOCRATS.

DO YOU GET THAT SENSE THAT THEY

WILL REACH INTO THE MUELLER

REPORT AND LOOK FOR POSSIBLE

CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF

JUSTICE THAT CAME FROM THERE?

>> ABSOLUTELY, BILL.

I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE

MONEY THERE.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE STARTING TO

BRING UP OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE HORSES

ON THE OTHER END AND TRY TO

BRING UP MUELLER.

THAT PROBLEM, IT HAS BEEN RULED

BY THE D.O.J. OF DEVOID OF

OBSTRUCTION.

THERE IS A MENU SO SOME MEMBERS

CAN VOTE NO FOR POLITICAL

PURPOSES AND THEN VOTE YES

UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE

SPEAKER SO THEY CAN GO BACK TO

THEIR DISTRICTS THAT THEY'RE

IN, THE 31 DISTRICTS AND SAY

YOU KNOW WHAT?

I VIEWED THIS CAREFULLY AND

VOTED NO ON THIS ARTICLE AND

THIS ARTICLE BUT I THOUGHT

EVIDENCE WAS IMPORTANT SO I

VOTED YES ON THAT.

THAT'S THE TYPE OF POLITICAL

SHENANIGANS THAT WILL GO ON

HERE IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE THE

ELECTION OF 2016.

>> Bill: WAS THIS A FOREGONE

CONCLUSION EVEN BEFORE THE

HEARING STARTED YESTERDAY?

I ASK THAT.

MITCH MCCONNELL'S OFFICE

CLEARED THE CALENDAR FOR THE

MONTH OF JANUARY.

>> I FELT IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO

I THOUGHT MAYBE THEY WERE GOING

TO WALK AWAY FROM IT LOOKING AT

POLLING DATA CRATERING.

I FELT THEY EITHER HAD TO PUT

PEDAL TO THE METAL AND BACK

AWAY ALL TOGETHER.

SO YES, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY

RIGHT.

>> Bill: WE'LL SPEAK TO THE

WHITE HOUSE NEXT HOUR.

WE'RE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING

THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL CALL

WITNESSES DURING A SENATE TRIAL.

DO YOU KNOW WHO THOSE WITNESSES

COULD BE?

>> AT THIS POINT I HAVEN'T

TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THEM SO I

DON'T KNOW.

>> Bill: NANCY PELOSI ALSO TOLD

HER CAUCUS TO BE FLEXIBLE IN

DECEMBER MEANING DECEMBER 21 OR

DECEMBER 22.

THAT'S A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY

BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS BREAK.

IS THAT THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU

SEE FOR THE HOUSE, SIR?

>> YES, I GOT THAT INFORMATION

LAST NIGHT LATE THAT WE

PROBABLY WON'T GET OUT OF HERE

BEFORE DECEMBER 22nd.

THAT MADE ME FEEL THEY WERE

READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON

IMPEACHMENT.

>> Bill: YOU WENT THROUGH A

TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th

PHONE CALL WHAT THE LAWYER SAID

AND SOME OF THE WITNESSES AS

WELL.

THIS WAS THE KEY LINE.

IT CAME UP MANY TIMES IN THIS

HEARING.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A

FAVOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKING

NOW.

YOU WENT BACK TO SAID I WOULD

LIKE TO YOU DO US A FAVOR AND

FINISHED THE SENTENCE.

THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS

BEEN THROUGH A LOT.

DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET PAST THE

FIRST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,

FIVE, SEVEN OR EIGHT WORDS.

WHEN YOU COMPLETE THAT THOUGHT

DO YOU BELIEVE THIS PRESIDENT

IS GUILTY AS CHARGED ON BEHALF

OF YOUR COLLEAGUES?

>> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

BILL, THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS

THE FIRST HALF OF YESTERDAY'S

HEARING THE WITNESSES FOR THE

DEMOCRATS KEPT SAYING I WOULD

LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR.

AS IF THAT WAS A PERSONAL

REQUEST.

BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH AND READ

THE ACTUAL WORD IS I WOULD LIKE

YOU TO DO US A FAVOR.

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY OUR

COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE TAKEN

IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO PROVIDE A

GASP FOR THEIR NARRATIVE.

THE REALITY IS HE IS TALKING

ABOUT OUR COUNTRY.

NOT ABOUT A 2020 ELECTION.

HE IS TALKING ABOUT 2016

INTERFERENCE BY THE UKRAINIANS

AND WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S A

FALSE OR TRUE NARRATIVE, THAT'S

WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT IN THE

CONTEXT OF ALL THE CORRUPTION.

>> Bill: I KNOW IT'S BEEN

BATTED BACK AND FORTH.

A COUPLE QUICK ONES AND WE'LL

BRING IN ANOTHER AGAINST.

WILL THERE BE ANOTHER HEARING

IN THE HOUSE?

>> I'M TOLD THERE WILL BE A

HEARING BUT IT WILL BE A

PRESENTATION NEXT WEEK.

>> Bill: THAT WOULD INCLUDE WHO

WOULD BE THERE AS A WITNESS?

>> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

THE RUMOR IS THAT IT IS GOING

TO BE GOLDMAN, WHO IS THE

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN

THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND MAYBE --

>> Bill: WILL REPUBLICANS BRING

ON ANOTHER WITNESS?

WILL YOU CALL A JONATHAN TURLEY

OR SOMEONE ELSE FOR THAT

HEARING?

>> THEY WILL NOT LET US DO THAT.

THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO WE

CALL AS WITNESSES.

>> Bill: THEY LET TURLEY APPEAR?

>> THEY LET HIM APPEAR BECAUSE

IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED REALLY BAD

TO HAVE THE THREE FOLKS THEY

HAD YESTERDAY WITH NO REBUTTAL

WITNESS THERE.

SO THEY LET THAT HAPPEN.

THEY'LL PRESENT THE INTEL

COMMITTEE AND USE A STAFFER SO

THEY'LL TRY TO LIMIT US TO

USING ONE OF OUR STAFFERS TO

PRESENT.

>> Bill: ANDY BIGGS FROM

ARIZONA.

MUCH MORE TO DISCUSS ON THIS