rights in the intelligence committee? i believe not. i would have to go back and check. i can assure you not. let me explain. you may not accept this analogy but here s the analogy we proceeded on. here s where the fact finder was the house of representatives instead of a special counsel. when the special counsel and independent counsel did their work in the knicks and clinton impeachments all was closed-door depositions because you don t want the witnesses to be coordinating their testimony and so on. that s how prosecutorial investigations take place. the house committee on intelligence was our fact finding committee. that s why they performed closed-door depositions because they wanted to avoid witnesses coaching each other and coordinating their testimony. i will give mr. collins. we re driving down an interesting hole here. i also am ranking member of the same committee that said early on that if the president saw
pelosi s own words back in march of this year. she said, quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don t think we should go down that path because it divides the country, unquote. the key word in that quote is bipartisan. indeed, during the nixon and clinton impeachments, the process for even opening the inquiry was considered on a bipartisan basis. back then both sides treated the process with the seriousness it deserved. negotiating and finding agreement across the aisle to ensure fairness and due process for all involved in the inquiries. but that s not the case today. instead democrats have pushed forward using a partisan process that limited the president s right to due process, prevented the minority from exercising their rights and charged ahead toward a vote to impeach the
i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there s no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we re a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what s next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation. verizon keeps business ready. male anchor: .an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: .this year s most buzzed about premieres.
thus, there are alternative procedures under hres 660 by which witnesses can be subpoenaed but they have not been exercised. third, there is no precedent for the use of minority days to delay committee legislative or impeachment proceedings. it is clear from the legislative history that the minority day rule is not intended to delay legislative activity. again, as the committees on the organization of the congress explicitly explained, we do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics, unquote. the minority day rule was made part of the house rules in 1971. it was not invoked in either the nixon or clinton impeachments. matter of fact, the only precedent i am aware of in the context of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the intelligence committee. there the minority also requested a day of hearings, even though they all said witnesses participate in their proceedings. the minority ultimately did not raise a point of order. while they did offer an amendment
the intelligence committee, it s clear that no abuse of power ever took place and there certainly isn t enough evidence to support an article of impeachment. mr. chairman, as you know, there s another significant difference between the abuse of power charges against nixon and clinton and those presented here. in the nixon and clinton impeachments, abuse of power was a tacked on charge, far less important in those cases than the actual high crimes charged against both of them. here it s the main thrust of the house democrats entire case. let me put it another way. the entire argument for impeachment in this case is based on a charge that is not a crime, much less a high crime, and that has never been approved by the house of representatives in a presidential impeachment before ever in history. if that s the best you got, you wasted a whole lot of time and taxpayer dollars all because so many of you, mr. chairman, hate