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

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.

The investigation is going very, very well.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I can tell you, it was anything but routine and having now had the opportunity to review those documents myself, I would concur with ranking member Adam Schiff when he said that there is nothing there that would warrant anything as…

I completely concur with Adam's conclusion, which is that there's nothing there that for either one of us jumped off the page to say this has to be handled in some, you know, unusual fashion.

I do think that Mike Conaway, assuming that the control of this investigation, is a good thing. I have a lot of faith in Congressman Conaway.

I continue to be puzzled by Chairman Nunes' behavior with respect to this White House information.

There's absolutely nothing unusual about unmasking. We get all kinds of intelligence intercepts all the time.

We just need to remember that so far, there's absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing, even by the chairman.