and i want to underscore also the seriousness of this isconduct. because the president informed every department for which we sought records, the state department the office of management and budget which has the records about the withholding of the aid, the defense department, his own white house personnel, to refuse to turn over a single document in answer to congressional subpoenas. the president instructed witnesses not to appear. the president used his office and bully pulpit to try to intimidate witnesses. >> those comments can be seen any time on our website. we take you live now do a press conference with kevin mccarthy and other republican leaders. >> we are back now, you all know, and we'll begin tomorrow hearings in judiciary committee on impeachment. despite the fact that the speaker of the house said that

the evidence in the report on impeachment needs to be clear, compelling an bipartisan, the democrats failed on every single one of those counts. and we have been points owl for several weeks now the extent to which the process was fundamentally unfair. i ask people to remember that they have failed despite the fact that they had a process that basically put everything tilted in their direction. the democrats were able to ask a judge and prosecutors -- act as judge and prosecutors. the democrats were able to choose every single witness. the democrat were able to prevent and did prevent witnesses from answering republican questions. the democrat december sided the typing on the release of important 350eses of transcripts. they still have not released the transcript of the i.g. inspector general.

and so the democrats stacked the deck in their favor. despite the fact that they did this, even with every unfair advantage, unprecedented advantage they gave themselves, including preventing the president from having access to the proceed, preventing his counsel from having access to the proceedings, they have come out of this and failed to prove their case. we'll move into tomorrow where we'll have a panel of constitutional scholars, liberal law professors, predominantly, and one republican witness, and the democrats are now going to be asking them questions about whether or not the behavior that they are inaccurately and lacking in facts, the may havor they're describing would be impeach able. we would remind the speaker of the house once again the power of impeachment rests with the house of representatives. it does not say that impeachment shall be responsible -- responsibility of the -- of a panel of liberal activists but

that's where we'll be tomorrow. in the meantime we're focused on the important and critical work that's not getting done. on that point i would also just note that the intelligence committee has been hijacked for the last 70 days, untable and unwilling because the democrats are in charge, to focus on the real threats that face this nation. the democrats will be fundamentally accountable for the damage they're doing because the intel committee has not been able to focus on critical threats like the threats we face from china, the threats we face from russia, the threats from north korea, iran, terrorism, none of those things have been in the purview of the intel committee because they've been focused on this sham impeachment effort. with that, i would like to turn these over to the republican leader of the judiciary, mr. collins, to talk more about the hearings tomorrow. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. as you'll find out tomorrow, the sideshow of the schiff report now is coming to the judiciary committee, where it should have been to start with.

if you're going to do impeachment, it should have been in our committee to start. with but the committee failed miserably on so many counts this year it was taken away from us. it's coming back tomorrow. we're coming back not what you've always seen in impeachment, you go back to clinton and nixon, it had weight and gravitas, it does not anymore. how are we going to start it? we start with, let's talk about what an impeachable offense is. most of the committee on the democrat side have said we need to impeach him. if they already know they need to impeach him why are we wasting time? i'll tell you why. because they have a problem. they're having problems dealing with the facts that came out of public hearings and private depositions. they're having a problem buzz that will be the first impeachment we've had disputed facts on why to impeach the president and contradicted facts. was there quid pro quo? was there actual pressure? when the two participants on the

call both said nothing was wrong. mr. zelensky said many times we felt no pressure. we'll talk about this more tomorrow but i want to focus just a moment on what's going on in our committee. my chairman can't tell you if we're going to have a fact witness call. my chairman can't tell you what we're going to do past tomorrow. he's still looking at it, presentation, how we're going to do it. how are you supposed to go to the american people with a straight face and tell them you're looking seriously at impeaching a president and you don't have a plan for your own committee? there's also one very large thing, our chairwoman talked about things not getting done, we have a saying down south, when something is going to be important, my mom would tell me, put your sunday best on, we're going to go to town. a few months ago, the democrat pus on their sunday best and said we're going to have rules for impeachment, it's going to take care of everything. the president will have a chance to actually be a part of the process and look at witnesses

and question and this is where we're at now. the judiciary committee was the only place to do that. starting tomorrow they failed rizz blah -- miserably in trying to provide any modicum of fairness . the president is not sending counsel tomorrow, there's nothing for them to ask. why would they sit through a constitutional law class which most of them sat through in law school. tomorrow provides nothing except a dreary thing for this country to watch as the impeachment process drags on because they're having one big problem and the big problem is the president dirt nothing wrong f and they an't prove it. mr. mccarthy: welcome back. i hope you had a great thanksgiving. i wish we'd come back here to confront a lot of problems families are facing across the country. >> that had unanimous support.

it would bring more generics to the market quicker and lower prices for family but we're not doing that i wish we were working here in congress to support what we're going to strengthen nato, working with our allies to make nato stronger. mr. scalise: but we're not doing that. what's disappointing is 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 ton right now. you knowing, you look at how this whole impeachment sham has been going. while president trump is in london meeting with our allies, strengthen nato and to help encourage other nato allies to do more of 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 have yet to bring an impeachable offense, the things that haven't changed, by the way, are the facts that the only two participants in the phone call of question were donald trump and president zelensky. both said the call was fine. president zelensky said there was never any pressure. and not only was there no quid pro quo but ukraine got the money. ultimately there was no push that they made for investigation into anything. they said that. but they still drive on. you're hearing a lot of democrats trying to get out of this mess. during the break you had a number of democrats trying to break from pelosi, saying they should stop pursuing impeachment because they're hearing from people like we are that are and lower prices for

family but we're not doing that i wish we were working here in congress to support what we're going to strengthen nato, working with our allies to make nato stronger. mr. scalise: but we're not doing that. what's disappointing is 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 ton right now. you knowing, 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 to help encourage other nato allies to do more of their fair share, which they're doing because president trump has encouraged them to actually step up and do more. that is being juxtapose but ukr money. ultimately th isn't congress, trade of focusing on this deal already with our neighbors impeachment, it r coming. we know this is a different time. we thought this might work since adam schiff once again has a closed meeting and won't allow you into it or the public, so we thought we'd do something better with your time. something the speaker has said just this year that i think unites the entire nation. what she said i think almost everybody agrees with. 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 that divides this country. march 11, 2019. i imagine most everybody in america believes that impeachment is so divisive. if we twor do it, it would have to be compel, overwhelming and

bipartisan. three criteria the speaker laid out to this country to move what is going to happen this week. have three issues she laid failed. there's nothing compel, there's nothing overwhelming and the only bipartisan vote we have had in this house is not to move forward with impeachment inquiry. but that has not stopped. in a venue we can't go to that is created solely for the intel committee, why? because of the work it's supposed to be doing. work that so sensitive to keep this country safe is not doing any of that because that intel committee has now been changed to the impeachment committee. adam schiff, just standing here today i watched you ask him a question about whether we should move forward with impeachment. it's interesting because adam

has a hard time with the truth. because adam said just a few days ago in his words, he is going to send the president back 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. he still does not have anything overwhelm, compelling, or bipartisan. but that does not stop him. from continuing to make items up. we watch where it's going to go tomorrow. we heard from doug collins. doug collins 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 nadler wanted to lay out to all of america and especially to his colleagues 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, you're serious about removing a president from office, what you're realy doing is overturning the results of the last election. many of the democrats have been very honest about this from al green who put the impeachment to the floor long before they were even in the majority, before the mueller report came forward. 2/3 of the judiciary committee on the democratic side had voted for this they're concerned if they do not impeach this president they can't beat him in an election. this is exactly what alexander hamilton warned us about. unfortunately, we now have a majority solely devised on one goal. but that one goal harms the entire nation. the speaker says, 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, canada agreement. more than one year ago, the three lead verse signed that. to move forward. mexico passed it, canada continues to wait. every economist will tell you it makes america stronger. our challenges are watch the market go down today simply on the idea that the agreement with china may not come together as quickly. china is not our number one trader, it's our third largest trader you know who is number one and number two? mexico and canada. when america -- would america be strong for the a negotiation with china if we had the sumbings mca with our number one and number two trade her 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 rests with one person, the speaker of the house. she's also the person who 70

days ago started down this nightmare far second time. they didn't have proof then. they have no items and now we have a phone call before us. america sees it. now we're watching the polls in america continue to drop. they agree with what the speaker said in march. it's too divisive. so the final question for the speaker is, when will we get the 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 been able to help to make our country stronger, more prosperous since taking the gavel? my real question that i think the american public would ask this new majority, name me one problem you have solved. because they have been issued more -- they have issued more subpoenas than they have created laws. we're better than this and i hope the speaker meant the words she said on march 11.

she set a criteria to have to march forward, she needs to answer the question, what is compel what is overwhelming and where is the bipartisanship? because that would put an end to this nightmare so we could work forward to make america stronger. >> i know you always criticize what democrats have found what the profits have been, report found today. regardless of what you think they put forward, that there is risk for republicans to stand so forcefully behind the president and also to ignore this. >> 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 ratcliffe asked the question of their top witnesses, name me one thing that is impeachable. so i think for those bipartisan, the republicans an democrats who stood together, who actually stood for the constitution and said no, we shouldn't move forward, i'm not fearful of that. i think history will be very kind to those who take that stance. for those that, alexander hamilton warned us act, i don't think history will be that kind. i think adam schiff will have to answer for a great deal. one, when he told the american public that he had truth beyond circumstantial. two, when he said he wished he knew who the whistleblower was and how hard he would fight to bring the whistleblower forward. but he won't let that person come.

when adam schiff said he needed to be the ken starr of today's world. everybody else would come and testify you asked him a question today, he said no staff is going to testify. remember what we're talking about. exactly what the speaker said. it's so divisive 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. because i think the country will see through it. >> one thing that was in the report that came out today, it appears in april there was communication between devin nunes and rudy giuliani have you spoken to mr. nunes about the contents of that interaction and if it raises concerns? mr. mccarthy: it doesn't raise any concerns. when i heard the report that he

was in vienna, he wasn't in vienna. >> there was no interaction? mr. mccarthy: that's a total different thing. i don't have a problem with devin talking to individuals. what was claimed about devin on cnn, on the 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 before. it seems like a perpetual thing of what we do. this was brought forward 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 he didn't know where he would be on impeachment, when he told the entire nation he would throw him back to the goalen? no, i have no concern. >> you and mr. collins talk about the white house not participating tomorrow, i understand your perspective on that but would you like to see

them participating if there are fact witnesss? are they leaving something on the table if they don't come in and give their side? >> we've always had a fair process. you usually had a fair process that an individual could call witnesses and cross examine. who are they going to cross examine tomorrow? tomorrow anything about impeachment? >> past tomorrow, in future hearings. >> is it going to be an open process in the future? >> look, the letter from the white house counsel said if they believe they should participate in anything else they will. there should be something out here to be accountable. you in the media have an opportunity to hold them accountable. for adam schiff to stand here and say he's not going to testify and he's going to send staff, i have a question for adam schiff, what are you hiding? why are you scared? you're going to send -- i call it what we call it in judiciary and intel is bring your donor to

work. he'll have the big donor who gave to the democratic party, mr. goldman, present to him. why stand behind mr. goldman. the white house will be happy to be part of fact witnesses, anything that actually move this is forward. tomorrow is simply just a filler because jerly nadler didn't know what else to do. >> two questions. one given that we have these records and they're showing him having this conversation in key moments, accepting your contention that there's nothing wrong here, should congressman nunes explain what these conversations and interactions were? my second question, do you have concerns that this ended up in this report from chairman schiff? putt appropriate for him to a congressman's call record out there like that? mr. mccarthy: when it comes to adam schiff i have a lot of

concerns. he can't remember whether he met with the whistleblower, who it was. the whistleblower has a hard time remembering when it goes to. why when they brought forth the i.g., why are those transcripts not made to the public yet? adam schiff has a long history with a problem of telling the truth. adam schiff 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 flag where adam schiff is doing it one more time. devin nunes has the right to talk to anybody. they accused devin nunes of going to a country he was not at and as the job of being on the intel committee, he has to travel. adam schiff would know exactly where devon was traveling at that time. to perpetuate a lie is nothing new to adam schiff. perpetuate a lie because he only wants to impeach they have president is something we have

come to expect from him. >> he discussed what happened on -- should he discuss what happened on those phone calls? mr. mccarthy: that's a question for devin but he has a right to talk to people. there's nothing wrong that devin has done except once again get accused of something. it is a simple smoke screen. i wish you'd ask the same question, what did adam schiff say to the whistle blow her why did the whistleblower come to adam schiff before he had an attorney? why did adam schiff go to the american public and start this nightmare over the idea that the administration would withhold the whistleblower from coming before the committee and he would fight hard to make that happen? the only person withholding the whistle bler from coming forward is adam schiff. this is a man who 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 we re-wrote the rues for how the committee works, that he'd get the first 45 minutes.

he has tried to design everything he can to get an outcome he kesires. they lack oblem is evidence and this is one more example of it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> those comments from house republican leaders on today's intelligence committee vote which sends the committee findings of president trump to the house judiciary committee. in a few minute the house gavels in for votes and speeches. live coverage here on c-span. lem