Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I would ask him. It is a yes or no question, but I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Is the gentleman yielding?

Mr. SCALISE. So as the so-called whistleblower----

Mr. SCALISE. So a phone call, this was before the transcript was released, there were all of these insinuations. And this is a pattern, by the way, we have seen even going back to the Mueller investigation. And again, I cited the chairman running around, saying he had more than circumstantial evidence----

Mr. SCALISE. With all due respect, the goose is being cooked behind closed doors because you started an impeachment inquiry by decree. You could change the rules today. If this is an impeachment inquiry, if it is--and I would ask the question: Are we in an impeachment inquiry right now? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I would trust him to run that same fair process.

Mr. SCALISE. But he is denied that.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Well, let me ask the gentleman: Would he allow----

Mr. SCALISE.--Mr. Nunes to call witnesses?

Mr. SCALISE. Well, you asked a question. Could I answer the question?

Mr. SCALISE. So let's look at the process. Let's look at the facts. Yes, if you think it is fair that you can control everything and deny the ability for Members of Congress to go in and see what is happening behind closed doors in that room, if you think it is fair to deny the ability for both sides to call witnesses--hey, you get to call your witnesses and you think that is fair, and you don't want anything to be disclosed. You talk about innocence. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. You think the President should have to go prove his innocence time and time again, with anonymous sources in many cases citing things that are inaccurate, that have been disproven. But you can lay false claims out, and the chairman can lay false claims out, and then the President has to go prove his innocence. Time and time again, we see that even with these selective leaks that are coming out of your committee--which shouldn't happen--many of those are disproven too, but the damage is done. Just like when the chairman opened up the committee hearing with a parody, stating things that were false that were not part of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, giving his own version of it that was false while the public was watching on TV thinking that was the transcript, that is disingenuous. That is not a fair process, but that is what happened. Just today and yesterday and every day, we have had of members of our party--I don't know if any members of your party have tried--but members of our party who wanted to try to go down there and read the Volker testimony or sit in the hearings were turned away because the process is going on in secret. This is not fairness. This is not how it has always been done. If you really think it is unfair, and you think the rules should be changed, you do get the control over that. I will write the rule with you, and we will vote for it together. We could pass that rule today. In fact, I filed a rule change with Ranking Member Cole of the Rules Committee to allow Members access to these hearings. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman: Would you be willing to schedule this rule for the floor so we could have more fairness in this process? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I am trying to answer it.

Mr. SCALISE.--participate. Madam Speaker, I reclaim the time.

Mr. SCALISE. I would trust Mr. Nunes to have equal access to call in witnesses, just like Chairman Schiff does, to subpoena people. Chairman Schiff can do that, and Mr. Nunes cannot. Why is Mr. Nunes denied those same rights that the chairman has? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE. We never tried to impeach a President----

Mr. SCALISE. And in all three cases where there was an impeachment-- --

Mr. SCALISE.--the rules allow for both sides to have fairness.

Mr. SCALISE. You think fairness is you being able to control everything and not letting the other side----

Mr. SCALISE. Would the gentleman yield on that specific accusation he just threw out?

Mr. SCALISE. This is your rule. You are in charge of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. SCALISE. This is your rule. You are in charge of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. You are the one who made the official decree. This is my time. I will yield time to the gentleman in a moment. If he wants to talk about fairness, let's lay out the facts because these are the facts: Our side cannot call witnesses. The majority could change that rule today. I would ask the gentleman: Would you be willing to change the rule to let our side call witnesses and to let the President's counsel be able to question witnesses who are, in secret, making charges against him to try to literally undo the results of a duly elected President? Would the gentleman be willing to change the rules to do that? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.