this is the biggest mistake people are making about the politics of this over and over again which is the fal laefs analysis. that doesn t mean there will be a giant shift towards impeachment but it doesn t mean there won t be depending what facts are put on the table. that gets back to why we need fact witnesses. the fallacy of static analysis. i ll be stealing that. viewers will be hearing that on this program in the future. jill wine-banks, joyce vance, and john heilemann, thank you for starting an us off tonight. appreciate that. when we come back, no one on the house judiciary committee knows more about impeachment than our next guest. zoloft gren served on the committee when bill clinton was impeached as did many other members of the committee but she is the only member of the committee who was there when the committee voted to impeach president richard nixon in 1974, back then, congresswoman lofgren was a staffer on the house judiciary committee during the
impeachment but let s see what happens. this is the biggest mistake people are making about the politics of this over and over again which is the fal laefs analysis. that doesn t mean there will be a giant shift towards impeachment but it doesn t mean there won t be depending what facts are put on the table. that gets back to why we need fact witnesses. the fallacy of static analysis. i ll be stealing that. viewers will be hearing that on this program in the future. jill wine-banks, joyce vance, and john heilemann, thank you for starting an us off tonight. appreciate that. when we come back, no one on the house judiciary committee knows more about impeachment than our next guest. zoloft gren served on the committee when bill clinton was impeached as did many other members of the committee but she is the only member of the committee who was there when the committee voted to impeach president richard nixon in 1974, back then, congresswoman lofgren
the impeachment fight, i think that they will regret it in the long run politically as well. look, everybody that talks about this i feel like has valid points. i listen to the argument about this all the time and i find myself agreeing with parts of what everybody says. but all of it seems to me premised on this static analysis. there s everybody says you ll never get a conviction in the senate. how do you know? the process would be to unearth new material. there would be an investigation, things that we don t know, we would then know. things that we know that are in the report but that most of the american public does not know would be highlighted, televised hearings, months going forward of an investigation would change the political dynamic. you see many people in the country as jeremy and that clip points out, there are a lot of people who heard what the president said. no collusion, no obstruction. they think the mueller report is an exoneration.
reconciliation window. they are fighting over the fact that it adds to the deficit and debt in a way that is unacceptable to members of your party, and it does not appear to be set up to advantage the middle class more than the upper class, and that was the promise of the plan. those are the problems, not repatriation. even the more static analysis says you will probably get more economic growth, so it will be about $500 billion and that s on the conservative side and some conservatives think you may get more than an increased economic pie, and some think some will be in the tax code that end up getting scored that way, and that doesn t get scored because they are not permanent right now, and i would suggest members of our party that crow about government wasting money and big government, why don t we get a
economic growth a little less than 1% in 2018 and generates an additional $159 billion in tax revenue, though it would also add or than $1 trillion to the deficit in a decade. on the senate plan, the analysis found it would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in 2019 and 2025. 9% of taxpayers would pay higher taxes in 2019 but that number would rise to 50% in 2027. back with our power panel, jason chaffetz and marie harf, i have problems with that math, having studied economics myself because it is static analysis where they don t count for the growth in the economy, we have no idea how much the economy would grow. what do you think? i think there are a couple challenges here, the senate has a problem in terms of counting votes, forgetting about the economics, the senate may not actually pass this end a number of senators that are either