the constitutional standard for impeachment. so we'd done some work already well before the house voted authorization. and by the way, there's nothing in the constitution that requires it. it's just whether you follow precedent. but if the republicans are so concerned about precedent here, then why don't they keep their mouth shut about the hearings that are being held, the depositions that are being held behind closed door because the precedent is well established too. you can't have it one way and not the other way. >> in watergate, the pushback from, you know, people who do remember this will understand. the pushback from the administration was similar to what it is now. the accusations against journalists and partisan hacks and all that. but the obstruction. did you have anything like this? the -- the thing that we had yesterday with the sit in at the scif? did you have that sort of thing in watergate? >> no. i mean, actually, i'm not supposed to be shocked at my age but it's shocking because what a parliament, what a congress is about is using reason to talk. to resolve problems, not with your fists, not with your personal might.