Jim Himes

Yeah. And to be fair to the president, you know, a lot of us read that in the president's firing statement of Jim Comey and we said, 'That doesn't sound right.'

The remedy, of course, is removal from office. And that's where all of a sudden the politics become as or more important than the law.

The RNC's explanation is the best interest of the country was not one that we've heard until today.

It almost doesn't matter what Jim Comey says tomorrow. Already the effort has started to damage the integrity and the credibility of Jim Comey.

We're talking about a man who could wake up in two hours or in three hours and start a nuclear war, who controls -- you know, whose words send armies marching and, you know, change markets.

The president demanding loyalty asking that, you know, just let this -- let Flynn off. That is something that, you know, you wouldn't except in, you know, Bolivia of 1934.

I hope when we all get back next week that we can come to a cleaner way of, you know, some combination of Mike Conaway and Adam Schiff actually doing the work to issue the subpoenas.

The investigation is going very, very well.

We need to know what other pressure may have been put on, what else the president may have said and, of course, what Jim Comey said.

Let's -- if there's nothing to hide, let's get all the information out. Let's not stop anybody from testifying.

It would be very strange to exert executive privilege against somebody who is now a private citizen who's been asked to testify before the Congress.

I would have thought that if I were the president, I would say, hey guys, build up my credibility, don't damage it.

And so when the White House comes out and says there is no evidence, they are very clearly saying something that they can't possibly know.

I just don't understand how the White House comes at these things.

I think that my Republican colleague was hoping to get the answer that he'd seen no evidence of collusion.

Well, I wasn't particularly surprised. And, you know, he said that in answer to a question from one of my Republican colleagues.

If that is possible or certainly if that is true, there's no way Congress should grant him immunity.

You know, going back to why in God's name did the White House keep this guy on for 18 days after Sally Yates went to the White House and said this guy is a national security risk.

I guess it doesn't shock me in the sense that we know that Sally Yates went to the White House and told the Don McGahn the counsel at the White House that this guy was potentially blackmailable by the Russians.

An innocent White House that wanted to get beyond this would behave in the exact opposite fashion that this White House is behaving.

The investigated has just fired the investigator and said that the interference appears political.

I would really like to thank Ranking Member Waters for assembling this group and for doing this due diligence around a really important and threatening piece of legislation.

This is a fairly complicated process, I mean before you start interviewing witnesses you've got thousands of pages of documents to review.

I think we need to -- we need to have a bias towards this being open.

Well, it's concerning because of course, you know, it is almost always true in these things that cooperating and putting all the information that you have out there is the right way to go.