for the audience at home, thanks for being patient with us as we bobbed and weaved in and out of that was procedure. the resolution is passed and we will see what we get necks. >> julie: in the week that we should expect the public hearing. >> bill: have an awesome halloween with your kids. >> julie: happy halloween. >> bill: bye-bye. >> on this boat, the yeas are 232. the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid up on the table. [gavel] >> harris: house democrats just passed the resolution formalizing their impeachment inquiry into president trump. now we await reaction from top house lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. you are watching "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis. fox news contributor, katie pavlich. former ohio senate democratic minority leader, capri cafaro. and in the center seat, former

utah congressman and fox news contributor, jason chaffetz. he is "outnumbered," and right on time for the big news day. before he opened it up to everybody here, i want you first get to our chief congressional correspondent, mike emanuel, who is live for us on capitol hill. mike, quite a morning. >> no doubt. harris, good afternoon to you. it was a party line vote, with democrats and one independent voting to set the parameters going forward with his impeachment inquiry. this morning the house republican leader issue this morning to democrats. >> history will ask you when you cast this boat, when you cast the vote to justify something that has gone on behind closed doors. i want you to ask the historian and answer the question, "what do you know that happened there?" speak of the two democrats voting no, jeff van drew from new jersey and collin peterson for minnesota. others expressed reservations but those of the only two voting against the impeachment process.

this marks a shift to the more public phase of this impeachment probe. open hearings are expected in the next few weeks. the most explosive witnesses are expected to be called back for open sessions, leading democrats made the case for moving forwar. >> the house impeachment inquiry is about abuse of power. it's about the trail. it's about corruption. it's about national security. it's about the undermining of our elections. it's about defending our democracy for the people. >> other democrats noted this is a very serious step. >> for all the disagreements i've had with president trump, for all his policies, his tweets, and his rhetoric that i deeply disagree with, i never wanted our country to reach this point. i do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution. we are not here in some partisan exercise. we are here because the facts compel us to be here. >> a key republican noted this is a very difficult and toxic

time in the house. >> this is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this house. it has been falling for ten months and it is showing itself today. >> we expect the close-door depositions to wind down, and public hearings to begin in the coming weeks when we enter a more public phase of this impeachment process. harris? >> harris: thank you very much, mike. i want to bring in democratic comments been jamie raskin, member of the house rules and judiciary at oversight committees. a democrat for marilyn. good to see you today, thank you for being on the program. >> thank you for having me, harris. >> harris: you have a couple people in your political party you said no to this. collin peterson, democratic out of minnesota. known for being more moderate. and jeff van drew from my home state, democrat of new jersey. do you think that is going to spread as you go forward? >> no, i don't think so. we were not whipping this vote in any way.

there were no party disciplines impose. i'm sorry there weren't at least a handful of republicans who were willing to vote for what the g.o.p. has basically been asking for, which is open hearings. that's what this is. for open hearings and the availability of the public to participate in this process. i was happy also that the independent in the house, justin amash, voted with the democrats. so it was bipartisan or multi-partisan in that sense. >> harris: congressman raskin, i want to make sure i understand it right. i got the key provisions and the resolution, kind of rules. since that's one of the committee to sit on, maybe you can educate us all on this. it looks like there's almost a permission that has to be asked if they subpoena and want to call witnesses. is that understanding correct? if so, if is that fair? >> this is the same as when president clinton was impeached

by the house of representatives, when the republicans were in the majority. and exactly as they where if president nixon would have been considered for impeachment then. the majority rules in the context of the committee, the minority gets the right to ask for subpoenas. in the event that there's a majority, it goes to vote. everything that has taken place up to now has been scrupulously bipartisan. all of the close-door depositions taking place have given 50% of the staff questioning time to the republicans, 50% of the democrats. members on both sides have been able to ask precisely how it will proceed. the president will have all the rights as in the clinton impeachment. >> harris: as a quick follow-up to that, how has it worked out then up onto this point that republicans haven't had that by the example? will there be a makeup session? come they go back and talk with

witnesses, as a political party behind closed doors, and only seven republicans could be there for hearings and depositions and transcripts. can they get another bite at the apple with those people in a public session? >> i am so glad you are raising that, because you have expressed what has been a deliberate misperception created. there is been no witnesses questioned by democrats that were not also questioned by republicans. >> harris: right, there were seven of them, and 45 total could do one of the other. but they didn't see all the transits on the depositions. >> this resolution that we voted on today authorizes the release of all of the depositions by the committee, after they withhold classified material. obviously, the trouble that the president has gotten into deals with national security. there are a lot of national security matters that involve classified information. other than that, the depositions are going to be released.

both sides in this whole public are going to get a chance to see them. that's what i don't understand why they aren't supporting this resolution, because it gives the republicans precisely with a bit asking for. public hearings and the opportunity to see all the depositions. >> melissa: this is melissa francis. if i could ask you quickly, while you are going down this road, are you getting ready to vote on other people's business? the usmca, for example, is so important to our economy. there were so much other work. as americans what you do this, we are wondering about the stuff that is going to have a major impact on us and our economy. and the things we expect you to be doing right now. where are you on usmca? >> absolutely, we are going to be advancing all of the people's business. as you know, there's more than 150 bills sitting on mitch mcconnell's desk right now that he has not taken up that came out of the house of representatives, dealing with everything from universal criminal and mental background checks for gun safety,

prescription drug reform, which is very important parody of hours. increasing the minimum wage to $15. we've been doing this all along and we will continue to go ahead and legislate. remember, the president who got us involved in all the corruption of ukraine, it was the president who decided to shake down of foreign governments. we are involved in doing the people's business here. >> melissa: if i may come up before you run out of time, everybody who has had a majority, but they are doing the same thing. they do work and that dies and set it for you know we passed the house -- >> wait a second, don't take my word for it. senator mcconnell brags about it. senator mcconnell called himself the grim reaper. he said presiding over the legislative graveyard for all the legislation coming from the house. you don't have to take my word for it come he's bragging about it. >> melissa: one of the most important things is the usmca, and that is sitting right now. nancy pelosi is the one negotiating on that right now, and that is the most essential piece of business. that is definitely in all of your hands. so are you going to have movement on that soon? >> well, i think there will be

movement on it. by the way, the fact of the suggestion that it's the most essential is obviously a subjective opinion. a lot of people think prescription drug reform is the most essential reform that we need right now. and the majority of house. we want to give the government the power to negotiate with big pharma for lower prescription drug prices for millions of americans who are being bankrupted by the fact that they can't afford their prescription drugs. it's a very dangerous situation. but we are moving forward on that. we are moving forward on gun safety and minimum wage. we are moving forward on environmental protection. we would love it if we had cooperation from the senate and the president. >> melissa: thank you, sir. we appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. i really appreciate it. >> melissa: will bring it out to the couch. your thoughts? >> jason: thanks for having me. i served with congressman asking. i find them to be a nice guy. i just fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything he just said. first of all, the house is about to go on a 12-day recess presenter tell me you have urgency to give usmca an oldies of the things done, or even this

so-called "fake, so the sham of an impeachment inquiry." when you're going to take a 12 day break. i just don't buy it. number one, they weren't whipping this vote to my you kidding me? james clyburn will know exactly where every single member is on that vote. open and transparent? there was nothing previously that inhibited any of those committees are making is open and transparent. these are not classified briefings. they could have made this come up they let adam schiff in the basement and close the doors. in the addenda have years i served in congress come if i want to see an unclassified brief were testimony, if i wanted to go see it, i could go see it. it's only adam schiff and the way he's conducted this that has made it such a close-door process. >> melissa: what about the response to hearst's question, that this is how it was done under nixon and clinton? >> jason: i don't buy it. first of all, if they have the goods on donald trump, they

would move forward with that. they are on a fixings petition. they are hoping something bites on it. >> harris: along those lines, because you mentioned the gap of time between now and the end of the where and how few working days congress will have, we saw the same thing at the end of the summer. there was this big push. "we've got it, in terms of something," with democrats. and then they took a break. if it were that urgent -- many of them went home to their constituents. i assume taking temperatures, figuring out how it will play before they go back to d.c. >> capri: they have taken about now so they will have to go back in answer to those constituents. i would suggest the house reconsider their calendar if they think it's that important. to your point, with usmca and prescription drugs, as congressman askin said, let's not take a break. we discussed this, katie was asking the cumbersome and earlier, "with the rest of the

calendar?" 16 days, and only ate before we are on the collision course for the government to shut down again because we will run out of money. >> harris: november 21st. >> capri: the people of america are so disgusted that they are going to tune everything out. i want to say one more thing. as you guys know me on the couch, i always call it like i see it. this is the conclusion of come to, why the democrats have done this behind closed doors up to this point. they wanted to basically preinterview these witnesses. they wanted to ensure -- >> harris: that's why i asked congressman raskin. do republicans get a public bite at the apple again with these witnesses? let us all see what democrats have heard. >> capri: they want to end up like a situation like they did with mueller or comfort civil, corey lewandowski. they want to know that whatever they present, they know the answers are before they go. >> katie: are republicans going to be re-interview the people have been behind closed doors? >> harris: publicly. >> katie: adam schiff has the ability to reach these

transcripts when don asked we can see what this looks like. he has a choice and he's not doing it. we keep calling this an impeachment resolution. this is not real impeachment. nothing has changed outside of democrats putting things on paper in terms of what the rules on how they continue their investigation. they are not impeaching the president. that is not what this days. the congressman mentioned bill clinton and rick don't nag nixon. they were impeached. this is not an impeachment proceeding officially. democrats don't want to do that official proceeding because it does give republicans the ability to issue their own subpoenas. it's interesting to watch nancy pelosi on the house floor lament bipartisanship and a lack of it. and then ignore things like the usmca. which democrats have come out against nafta, and the usmca is a replacement for nafta, and yet they are not working out. one more thing, she got on the

house floor today and said, "we are doing this to protect the american people and our democracy," when this vote is really about undermining a vote americans took in 2016 to elect a president. >> harris: melissa, we are anticipating hearing reaction after the vote from the speaker of the house. how much pressure is they are on her at this point, in terms of how this goes? this is going to play across six committees. it's hard to corral one or two. you can easily see things going in different directions and taking a different tone. she's got to make sure this thing holds together. what is that pressure like on her? >> melissa: it's a lot. no one is better at this job than she is. if anyone could corral these people, i would think it could be heard. at the same time, she does have to keep the whole thing on track and look like they are doing something productive. as they made the point in the last hour, the president can stage what we call "alternate

programming." you can counter program what's going on. >> harris: oh, i think he will. >> melissa: he can go out and do things and talk to real people and do anything he likes to look at he's carrying on business while these people are sitting here doing this. >> harris: you know i'll see could do, jason chaffetz? he can counter program with the other side of the argument. that has worked for him in terms of owning that bully pulpit and the lectern out at rallies. >> jason: this is a sham of an investigation. the way it's been conducted, i don't buy into it. by the way, they are making a big deal about how open and transparent they're going to be. today, right now, they are holding a closed-door hearing with somebody but the public -- that is happening right now here today as we speak. >> harris: real quickly, is the president staying with process, or does he toggle now to substance? and say, "this is not what they are saying it is, because blah, blah, blah," or does the process

of fairness resonate more with the american people? >> jason: where's the beef? they should start running those old wendy's commercials. if they have something, they should produce it. they are on a fishing expedition because they don't have anything. >> katie: take a real vote. >> harris: and electric hour as we watch the news come together. awaiting reaction from both side of the political aisle after house democrats pass their impeachment inquiry resolution into president trump. we will bring it to you as it happens. ♪ great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

(amber jagger) if we don't give students from an underserved background the technology that they need in school, they're not going to be competitive in the workforce that's waiting for them. since verizon innovative learning, students have hardware, connectivity, and quality curriculum. the jobs of tomorrow will involve technology. now students are truly hopeful for what they may achieve.

thbecause with nband after thleague pass on xfinityr. you can watch the out of market games you want- all season long. and with the all-new xfinity sports zone, you get everything nba all in one place-

even notifications about your favorite teams. watch the dropped dimes, monster blocks, and showstopping dunks. plus get instant access to your teams with the power of your voice. that's simple, easy, awesome. say nba league pass into your voice remote to upgrade for a great low price - or go online today. impeachment inquiry resolution. >> melissa: and democrats say this is about bring it out into the light. they will make it official. we have jason chaffetz with us here, made the point where we were in the commercial that while we are watching all of this there is still testimony unquestioning going on basically in secret behind closed doors. they say they will bring it out.

now, let's see minority leader kevin mccarthy here. he's talking to his group and he is going to take to the lectern a little bit here and just a moment. i have no doubt that he is going to touch on some of those topics. jason, your thoughts? >> jason: kevin mccarthy's obviously the minority leader. you see him talking to liz cheney, who is also in leadership. jim jordan, congressman mccall, and also steve scalise. i'm sure that's what they are waiting for. you'd be surprised, this is a little more impromptu than he would think. this is not a totally well- well-scripted event. obviously the minority leader will have some talking points, but these are usually more impromptu than anybody would give it credit for. >> melissa: he looks like he's about to begin. >> harris: there is represented of steve scalise now. >> melissa: let's listen in. >> we just had a vote on the floor. in march of this year,

speaker pelosi said this about impeachment -- "impeachment is so divisive to the country, unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country." today, the country just witnessed the only bipartisan vote on that floor was against. the question to the speaker are the same questions i provided ie unfair process that we had. at what has since march at all the hearings, there is nothing compelling. nothing overwhelming. so the speaker should follow her own words on what bipartisan vote on the floor and in the sham that has been putting this country through this nightmare.

that is exactly what this vote shows today. i want to call up our whip, steve scalise. >> thank you, kevin. when we talk about the vote, i think it's important to note, when you see that not only did every republican reject the soviet-start impeachment process, but we were joined by democrats who couldn't stand it anymore. if you look at where we are right now, were at an important point in history. clearly there are people that we serve with that don't like the result of the 2016 election. that is their prerogative. but the country next year will be deciding who our president is going to be. it should not be nancy pelosi and a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president. if you look at the resolution today, they talk about fairness. if they really think they can tell people it's fair, that only the chairman gets to decide who the witnesses are, and they give

us an opportunity to call witnesses, but if the chair says they don't like the witnesses, the witnesses don't come forwar forward. they allow the president to have legal counsel in the room, unless the chair decides they don't want the president's legal counsel in the room. that has never happened before. with the clinton impeachment, the nixon impeachment, republican and democrat alike, both sides were treated equally. both sides could call witnesses. the legal counsel was in the room, not at the discretion of the chair but because it's fair. when you look at this soviet-style process, it shows you that they don't really want to get to the truth. they want to remove a sitting president. in fact, the author of the articles of impeachment said if they don't impeach the president he will get reelected. now, that's not why we have impeachment. alexander hamilton made it very clear, his concern when they were trying to promote the

constitution was that he didn't want to see impeachment used for political purposes. yet, that's what happened today. he predicted it. it happened today. it's a sham. it should never happen. it's a tainted process that adam schiff has been conducting, that jerry nadler might one day conduct. the house deserves better. the people of this country deserve better. we should be tackling real problems. we could have lower prescription drug prices today, but pelosi won't bring those bills to the floor because she's infatuated with impeachment. our troops could be properly funded. but policy is infatuated with impeachment. we could have better trade relations with canada and mexico and create 160,000 new jobs today, but pelosi is infatuated with impeachment. we deserve better. our conference chair, liz cheney. >> thank you very much, steve. i want to make sure everybody is focused on a couple of things. you will hear from a number of our members here today about

this. the first one is that the democrats cannot fix this process. they have now created a record over the course of the last several weeks we witnesses they selected. we know there are circumstances where chairman schiff told witnesses not to answer questions that our members were asking. we know there have been circumstances where our members have attempted to go read transcripts and they've been told by staff members that they are not allowed to read those transcripts. this is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. the president has had no rights and safety's hearings. his counsel has not been able to be present. for them now to claim they are suddenly going to open the process up -- which, by the way, this resolution does not do -- the resolution says they're agreed to continue what they want to do. it gives authority for open hearings. but they cannot go back and fix what is a fundamentally tainted and unfair record. the second thing, it's very important for the american people to understand -- and you are the leader and the web talk about the things that are not getting done here. there is a long list of things the american people deserve to

have done that simply are not being addressed because the democrats' obsession with impeachment. think about what speaker pelosi has done for the last several weeks, and what she codified today. what she did today was said that she is going to take the intelligence committee of the house of representatives, which is arguably the single most important committee when it comes to our oversight, the national security of this nation, and she has told them to stop all focus on any issue that has anything to do with national security of the nation. you saw democrats studying on the floor of the house, arguing it was somehow republicans putting politics above national security. there is no one who has done that the way that nancy pelosi and adam schiff have done that. history will hold them accountable, history will judge them. we are at a moment where the nation faces a grave, ongoing threats. she is completely neutered the intelligence committee. that they must be focused on a

partisan impeachment process and not to their oversight obligations, the body we have is an important branch of this government. they will be responsive over that. i turn it over to mr. jordan. >> thank you, liz. this morning i was in an impeachment deposition but then had to leave that to come to the floor for a vote on the rules for impeachment. that says it all about this entire process. it is a sad day. it really is, for this country. with the democrats have put our nation through, for now almost four years, you go back to july of 2016 when they opened an investigation into the president -- the uncandidate trump -- and spied on two american citizens associated with the president or campaign. i bet that has never happened in american history.

>> harris: with republicans' fire down my furry words, liz cheney saying the democrats are obsessed with impeachment, turning the intel committee and should be impeachment committee. and in fact, the house until chair, adam schiff, is speaking now. simultaneous events. let's go there life. >> for lengthy periods of time come to do sustained questionin questioning, followed by member questioning. we have used this, i think, to great success for both parties during the course of the depositions. in the depositions we have alternated one hour for the majority and one hour for the minority. 40 minutes for the majority, 45 minutes for the minority. in those depositions, over 100 members have been eligible to participate. i should tell you, notwithstanding those who have complained about lack of access to the depositions, most of the members who have been permitted to attend have failed to attend. have not made use of the availability of attending each

and every deposition. but those that have on both sides of the aisle had an equal opportunity to question the witnesses and indeed, when we move into the open session, both parties of an equal opportunity to question any witnesses that are called. the resolution will also permit me as the chair to release and begin releasing the transcripts of the depositions. i think you will see when those are released just with equal opportunity members of both parties have had. we recognize the seriousness of this undertaking. we recognize that we have been compelled by the circumstances to move forward. when the president abuses his or her office, when a president sacrifice is national interest, when the president refuses to

defend the constitution and does so for the purpose of advancing a personal or political agenda, the founders provided the remedy. i make no prejudgment as to whether that remedy will be warranted when we finish these hearings. i will wait until all the facts are put forward. we will undertake this duty with the seriousness it deserves and to the best of our ability. thank you. i now yield to the chair of the judiciary committee, mr. nadler. >> thank you very much. no person, republican or democrat, president or anyone else, should be permitted to jeopardize america's security and rip the session don't act on mike reputation for self-serving political purposes no president, no official can demand that an ally of the united states do anything in particular to help his or her

political ambitions as a condition of receiving help from our country. if after a fair and thorough inquiry, the allegations against president trump are found to be true, they will represent the profound offense against the constitution and against the people of this country. it is the duty of the house to vindicate the constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that this kind of conduct is proven and a front to the public trust they place in him or her. this resolution that we passed today lays the groundwork for open hearings in both the intelligence committee on the judiciary committee. the house and the american public must see all the evidence for themselves. the resolution makes clear the ample safeguards in the process

that will be given. and that will be here, too. the resolution is necessary to ensure our constitutional order remains intact for future generations. what we have seen are allegations of conduct on many levels that, if proven to be true, are a challenge to the democratic order, to the democratic norms in which we all depend. we must hand this country to our children with its democracy in as good a shape as when it was handed to us. we simply have no choice, because no one can be above the law and we must enforce that. i will now yield to the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. engel. >> figure, i'm eliot engel, chairman of the foreign affairs committee. for the last few months we've been working lockstep with the intelligence and oversight committees on this impeachment

inquiry. so far we have seen damning evidence that the president abused his power and jeopardize our national security to help his own political fortunes. he pressed for another round of foreign interference in an american election. it is what the framers feared the most. >> harris: we've heard from a couple of the chairman on committees come on the democrat side, after that impeachment inquiry vote was taken today. let's right away go now back to the republicans and a very outspoken congressman, lee zeldin, of new york. >> a couple days ago, he crossed into this new territory called witness coaching, and he wasn't very good at it. and it's not just getting close to the whistleblower. get this -- the jurisdiction of the intelligence committee is to look into intelligence-related matters. but adam schiff decided to days ago in his most recent rule

change that in no way, shape, or form can you ask any question that has anything to do with the intelligence community. now, you all are being used. some of you are happy about it, some of you are not. many of you are reporting 0% of the story. there is one story that came out and politico that was filled with falsehoods. somebody lied to you. i watched cnn last night and i saw a host, one allegation after another, say stuff that wasn't true. your sources, those dems and that bunker, are trying to create a narrative. because adam schiff aspires to write the world's greatest parity. i will tell you what -- as we are here right now, two floors below us in the bunker, adam schiff's bunker in the capital basement, adam schiff is

tearing up his parody. he is going to have to rewrite it. why is that? well, we can't talk about, they say, "the substance of the depositions." we know what's going on with tim morrison in his deposition? why is it that you don't have the information? the opening statements? he was alex vindman's boss. on the substance, as jim jordan just pointed out, the ukraine aid was not even known to be held up by ukraine. they didn't say anything to us until just before he was released. and then it was released. as jim jordan pointed out, guess what ukraine had to do in order to get -- >> harris: representative lee zeldin now taking down his reasons for why impeachment of president trump is not real, in his estimation. an hour, up until this point, it's been based on things that were factually incorrect. both from the media and what he

says there, democratic sources. what are your thoughts on this, jason? >> jason: i think democrats don't micro republicans point back to july 2017. there was a headline about impeachment proceedings having begun. the democrats have always presuppose the outcome. i think they thought mueller was going to deliver the goods. he didn't. i think they panicked. i don't see the evidence here. when donald trump released the transcript of the call, i don't think there is every utterance of there. my best evidence of that is that adam schiff had the lion make it up in the committee. i also think the horowitz and durum reports are coming out. the show vote out there, it's because they know that the horowitz report could be released at any time. that durham is on the tail of the origins of this, and there are a lot of us that really do believe democrats want to be

able to say, "this is donald trump lying politics because of impeachment." which is so far from the truth. >> melissa: at the same time, this does seem preemptive. but we don't know what we don't know. they could bring out evidence. at this point you say, "show us the money." they could bring out evidence at this point that would sway republicans. i do think once things are out in the open it's totally possible it could go on the other direction. we don't know what evidence we haven't seen it. we just know it doesn't seem compelling, right? >> jason: and they haven't made the case on that evidence. if they had evidence, if they had something, the vote today does not give congress the authority that it didn't already have. you can have open and transparent hearings. when i was the chairman of the oversight committee, devin nunes was the chairman of intel committee, he would regularly send things over to our committee. you don't have to have another piece of legislation that says, "we are going to be open and transparent." >> capri: can i jump in here

real quick? it was interesting to me that steve scalise refer to this as articles of impeachment. or at least that's how i gleaned it. he said, "the author of the articles of impeachment," as if these are articles of impeachment. we've all talked about how that's on the case. >> harris: can ask the executive producer? we see represented of doug collins, he's been vocal on this issue. can we step in and watch what is life i don't know if they were listening to me. >> you are looking for an answer you've already determined. notice what they've done. we are only putting it in adam schiff's purview right now. you've already heard of that's unprecedented. but i'm going to go to the committee that is always historically the committee of impeachment. and the impeachment committee should be the judiciary committee. if you want to do this right, madame speaker, do it right. do not lie to the american people and say, "these procedures of the same as nixon and clinton."

i challenge the rules, chairman, to say that if you want to have that argument, i will have that argument. give us plenty of time and i guarantee i will win. why? because you're right. nine hundred i saw pages saying that adam schiff's committee gets to do whatever they want, continue the president though my process without evolvement, scrutiny, anything else of fairness or bipartisanship. how can they stand before you? when you go talk to them a little bit, ask them, how is that fair? than to give it to the judiciary committee that has been completely neutered of its power. they've shown for ten months they were completely inept at handling the russian investigation. you have to remind you of john dean? this is pathetic. then when it came to writing the rules, for us, the rules committee actually had to write the rules for the judiciary committee because they didn't even trust them enough to do

that. so i ask you as members of the media, how can the american people trust this judiciary committee, which the speaker of the house doesn't trust to handle and impeachment article? i tell you what, when it gets to the judiciary committee, i do have one thing for mr. schiff. if he wants to be special counsel, he has set himself up. here's my challenge to mr. schiff. you want to be ken starr? beacon star. come to the judiciary committee. be the first witness and take every question asked of you. [applause] starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower. folks, this ain't over. get ready. the cloud that is dropping will be dropping on their heads, because process matters, and substance will always win out in the end. and this president has nothing to worry about on substance. i yield back. [applause] >> congress will go back to their districts for a week. tomorrow will be november 1st.

one year before -- >> harris: all right. you heard my call to listen to represented of doug collins. did you hear what he just said? he has now called the chairman of the house intel, adam schiff, as a witness in front of the house judiciary. he said, "this is far from over." literally, on the left, the left side of the screen when we split them out, the democrats now are taking questions from the media. we've been toggling back and forth. our team will tell me if we want to do that. meanwhile, there is a lot of meat on the bones to talk about here, jason chaffetz, in terms of what just happened with doug collins. >> jason: welcome he is the ranking member. that means he's the senior most on the judiciary committee for the republicans. to call out adam schiff like that, i think a lot of republicans are going to applaud that. you know what? adam schiff has kind of been the whistleblower whisper. there's been a lot of suspicion about the coaching and the development and how this document came to be.

remember, it was adam schiff that was making the case, that we have to hear from you was a boy. "donald trump is going to hold him back." i argued on this couch on a previous be 25, when donald trump releases the transcript, what difference does the whistleblower make? but that's going to be the impetus. you have the actual transcript, and then you have the democrat version of what was said. if that's going to be the case, then you are going to have to figure out what adam schiff did in bringing that whistleblower case forward. speech to the point he also made was democrats are saying these are the same rules that happened every other times this has happened. he said, "no, these are not the same rules. the chairman gets to decide and approve every single move republicans make." how do you reconcile that? somebody is right and somebody is wrong. one side is saying it's the same, the other isn't. do you want to take that one? >> capri: i've been stuck on this. in listening to both sides, we listen to jamie raskin saying that these are the exact same rules. we just heard it as well from

that press conference, and you hear steve scalise other public and that that's not the case. the ranking member on judiciary saying, "judiciary is where the impeachment --" >> melissa: does anybody on the couch know for sure does the term and approve it? it >> capri: you are a former member of congress prayed i would say elections have consequences, and often times the house rules for the majority basically give a great deal of latitude. so i don't necessarily think this is out-of-bounds. is it unfair? i think that's question number one, which i guess he would say, "yes, it's unfair. close up of the other part of this, who are we actually going to believe here? democrats are going to say, "see? it's the same." and her republicans are saying it's not. >> harris: we will ask the bring them to look it up. i'm working on it. [laughter] i'm on the computer! >> katie: what adam schiff has said previously about the trump and reinitiate

don't act on mike and his ration, not that it came true. what president trump said about his association was true. americans can decide who has more credibility in terms of president trump a adam schiff i want to go back to this new call from congressman collins for adam schiff to testify as a witness in front of the judiciary committee. this stems from the whistleblower complaint and the timing. the letter for the complaint was written to senator burr in the senate, and adam schiff, on august 12th, 2019. he didn't release it until a month later, held onto it and didn't give it to the rest of his members of the committee to look at. it previous it previous to it being released to the public, he was treating the same talking points before the complaint was public. that is why they are questioning what his role was in terms of holding onto the complaint and working with this person and their attorneys before it was given to the rest of his committee. a republican on the committee

has been questioning this now for months, as we've heard about this complaint coming forward. >> harris: some of the things you see on the screen, you've got the democrats right now. hakeem jeffries of the house, who is speaking creative got kevin mccarthy, leader of the republicans in the house, and we've been dipping in and out. right now we want white house reaction to all of it. let's bring in our chief white house correspondent, john roberts, from the north lawn. john, big day. >> yeah, no question, it's a big day. harris, if you remember, a few short weeks ago, in a letter from pat cipollone étude nancy pelosi, the white house said it would not cooperate with the house impeachment inquiry until there was a vote in the house to authorize that inquiry. the democrats say that was the vote they held today, but the white house is disagreeing and they are looking at what happened today in this resolution that they were voting on. they say it was it was

illegitimate, as the process leading up to it. in a statement from stephanie grisham within the past hour, the white house said speaker pelosi, chairman schiff, and the democrats in the initial phase conducted secret behind closed doors meeting's , blocked the initiation of participating, and offers a second round of hearings that fails to provide any due process whatsoever to the administration. the democrats, they say, want to render a verdict without giving the administration a chance to mount a defense. she closed by saying that's unfair, unconstitutional, , and financially un-american." democrats will argue that in the resolution they voted on today there is due process that is afforded to the president. that he is allowed to participate himself or have his representative, white house counsel, present and hearings. whether they are open or closed. to present their case and respond to evidence. raise objections of testimony, or a cross witnesses. what the white house is against

here is that process does not kick in until the matter is referred to the judiciary committee in the house print out intelligence committee is going to through an entire second round, that the president will not be allowed to be involved in. it's not until they get to the third round of the president would be allowed to have his counsel present to do some of these things. as it was pointed out earlier by kevin mccarthy, all of that is at the discretion of the chairman. i think it was interesting that mccarthy points out that nancy pelosi, weeks and weeks ago, said that if there is to be an impeachment it has to be a bipartisan process. and the only thing we have seen that is bipartisan is a vote on the no side. only two democrats voted no, but still, there was no bipartisan support for this impeachment process. if you look at recent polls in battleground states, opposition to the impeachment of the

president is in the majority. but the majority to support the impeachment inquiry. there's a bit of a split there in american public. they don't believe the president should be impeached but they support this inquiry. harris? >> harris: i want to thank you very much. i want to go to chad pergram, senior producer fox news on l. it got our attention out here on the couch and studio f when we are doug collins, representative, call for a witness. that witness is the chairman of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff. how would that work? >> this is why republicans have been contesting this process. if you look closely at the resolution, gives a lot of latitude to the intelligence community. but it's not clear whether the judiciary committee would have open hearings at that point presents a problem. the judiciary committee ultimately would write articles of impeachment, that is pretty clear. but what they do any open hearings? if you use the model that they used in 1998 with president clinton, but they finally did -- and this is where democrats are saying there's not a special counsel, there is not

an independent prosecutor. with the judiciary committee did in 1998 as they took cannot stars work and incorporated that into their work in the judiciary committee. there was an open hearing on november 19th, 1998, where ken starr came and testified before the judiciary committee. he was essentially the accuser. this is what republicans are saying. that adam schiff is the accuser, or maybe the whistleblower. and that david kendall, who was president clinton's attorney, he then cross-examined ken starr in the judiciary committee. not so much the members, but the president's attorney pair that was that back-and-forth due process that republicans are arguing instance. that there is no guarantee if they get to the judiciary committee that there would be such a back-and-forth. again, this historical precedent is important. it's important to note we haven't done impeachment of president's very often, so it's always going to be a little different. you take that 1998 model, who exactly then would be the

accuser? if you look at '98, it was ken starr. what republicans want to do that? that is where some republicans are thinking this could end very badly for democrats, because that's who they might want to hear from. someone like adam schiff, harris. >> harris: absolutely. >> melissa: chad pergram, thank you so much for that. what about that, jason? what about that danger? that then they bring adam schiff outcome all of a sudden this could take a different turn. >> jason: adam schiff was a joke on many different fronts. when he went to the lectern, which we just watched on fox news, that have been presupposed, nobody believe that. i can't believe he even did that with straight face. what was unprecedented and that we haven't seen before, the proceedings are going ahead and the intel committee. even though we are talking about this now and they've passed this supposed openness and transparency, they are having close doors hearings right now, today. >> melissa: this goes in coronation with the

whistleblower. that's what they are talking about. we have whistleblower, fixed on my first and we do come around for going to be ig or putting it up the chain -- and katie, i will ask you this -- they go toe most vocal enemy of the subject of the complaint to ask for advice about how to go forward. or at least he says coming to someone within his group, but not directly to him. those of the details it would be asking if they brought him forward. >> katie: and there are questions about why adam schiff held the complaint from his fellow members in the committee if he was so concerned about making sure this was immaculatee portrayal of what was going on. if you go back to september when the complaint was released, it was very detailed on the who in president trump circle was involved. therefore it was a blueprint for the judiciary committee or the intelligence committee in the house, to look at that and say, "okay, rudy giuliani is named in

this whistleblower complaint. mike pompeo, secretary of state, is named. bill barr, the attorney general, is names." but adam schiff didn't share that information with fellow members of the committee. now we are saying we can't even call the whistleblower to talk about what happened during that call or what their major concerns were. >> jason: are used to be chairman of the oversight committee. i'm almost a daily basis we had victims and we had whistleblowers that came forward. when it gets to the point they were actually going to prick the interest and move forward on something, you have to bring in the minority. they are both allowed to sit in on that room. with staff or with numbers, it's important to know that in january of this year nancy pelosi change the rules of the house where they could actually do depositions without a member of congress president. that is a total and fundamental change of how we used to do business. you had to have a member of congress there. it was a protection for the minority, protection for the

witness. and she change that rule. >> capri: i would go back to saying elections have consequences. i served in the minority for a decade and i served as leader of minority at the legislative level. i agree that it's important for the rules to have those inherent protections for the minority so they are part of -- they can purchase paid in the process. it's for the speaker to change those rules. >> melissa: you would just ask why. problem is, yes, nobody is saying you can't change the rules. >> capri: democrats would go nuts, too. >> melissa: it's not just go nuts. >> capri: f issue, we are trying to talk about why adam schiff would be a witness. >> harris: can start coming up in a few minutes next hour, we have confirmed we will have him on. he testified, you heard, from chad pergram in front of the judiciary in its mandate as the

accuser. i will ask him exactly how he's pertinent as an appellate counsel, as represented: says, adam schiff is now. >> capri: what happens if he refuses? >> katie: oh, he will. >> harris: those are great questions. >> melissa: we will have more "outnumbered" and a lot more to discuss on this busy news day. we'll be back in a moment. shrimp yeah!

red lobster's endless shrimp is back for just fifteen ninety nine. get all the shrimp you want, any way you want 'em. like new sriracha-honey shrimp... ...savory grilled teriyaki shrimp,... ...classic shrimp scampi and more! red lobster's endless shrimp is fifteen ninety nine. hurry in. wit looks like jill heading offe on an adventure. jill has entresto, a heart failure medicine

that helps her heart so she can keep on doing what she loves. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto, for heart failure. where to next? entrust your heart to entresto.

there are lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yeah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more

information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today. >> melissa: one of the essential questions making their rounds, if you pull the phone calls of other presidents, with a sound the same? the hot mic between president obama, would it sound the same as this? what do you think? >> jason: on foxnews.com i have an opinion piece that says president obama put the same here would have been a peach prehappy halloween by the way. >> melissa: are, then plug my microphone. what do you think, katie? >> katie: i think we haven't

seen the transcripts of phone calls between any previous president. something different was an appropriate come what it was or not. >> capri: we will see how it bears out in the court of public opinion. >> melissa: think you, congressman chaffetz. here's harris. >> harris: huge day on l. fox news alert, the house just approved a resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry. this is "outnumbered overtime." in harris faulkner. the democrat impeachment probe entering a new phase after weeks of secret closed-door depositions. the house setting ground rules for the investigation into president trump following a fiery debate in the chamber. the resolution largely passed along party lines. however, two democrats voted against it. four members did not vote. after the vote, house republicans unleashed saying the president has not been given due process. >> this is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. the president has had no rights and safety's hearings. h