Jim Himes

I guess I am looking for a specific statement from you about how important you think this is.

I appreciate that and you said you think it needs to be looked at.

I would just highlight that as an area where I hope for focus on your part.

Yes, of course, we're in a tough spot here because there is now very clear evidence that the president may have committed a serious crime while president of the United States.

I think anybody looking at that would say trying to stop a story that you had an affair with a porn star is something that would certainly be material to Americans' decisions on how they vote for president.

It's clear we were lied to.

I think what he meant, and I think what is fair to say is that we learned new things.

There is a case to be made that that is evidence that the President, knowing that something's about to happen that would benefit him on the part of WikiLeaks or the Russians and saying, 'Do it. Go ahead. Please do it.'

I think he was more comfortable and the proceedings were a lot less adversarial.

If Congress wants you here, you come. If you don't appear voluntarily and Congress thinks it's important, you will be subpoenaed.

If the president knew that these contacts were going on, authorized these contacts... that gets you pretty close to anybody's definition of collusion.

I'm encouraging people to remember that you've got three investigations out there, House, Senate, and the Mueller investigation.

Congress can encourage the development of these potentially lifesaving technologies by providing research and development tax credits and grants for gun safety technology through supporting the SAFETY Act introduced by Congressman Jim…

This Congress has the chance to right this wrong by passing legislation to repeal PLCAA.

But where it could become seriously problematic and illegal, of course, is whether the president suggested, asked, demanded that Michael Cohen say any particular thing, certainly if that particular thing was not true.

There is nothing normal about this.

Yes. Well, that statement says couple this I think so to me. First of all, obviously, it's a complete repudiation of the president's previous position which is he had nothing going on in Russia.

Look, nobody would hire Rudy Giuliani to be their defense attorney in the classic sense of the word if they were being charged with a crime.

I think that's too big of a coincidence.

I would certainly be favorably inclined to approve it.

If Roger Stone told the special counsel or told anybody in an official capacity a lie, that's a very big deal and a very big point of leverage that Mueller would now have on top of Roger Stone.

There is a very, very ugly fact for the Trump campaign.

I find the dissenting FASB votes to raise some very troubling prospects regarding CECL.

Whatever else you think of the President, now pretty much everybody, his campaign manager, his trusted lawyer and off a lot of people associate with this campaign are now known to be criminals.

It was those words at the direction of the President of the United States. So, yes, there is now a specific accusation of a specific crime.