Subtitles section Play video Print subtitles BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY ARE STILL PUSHING THE MUELLER REPORT. GET TO THAT SHORTLY. BUT FIRST, REPUBLICANS FIRED UP ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE EARLY WITNESSES LACK FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, LEAVING SEVERAL OF THEM TO LIE ON ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION, AND SPECULATION. >> MY ASSUMPTION IS HE DID IT IN A CLOSED-DOOR SPECULATION. IT WAS A PRESUMPTION. SO PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THEM, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> THEY ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING THAT I CANNOT BRING FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. THESE INCLUDE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25TH 20 TIGHTENING 202019 CALL WITHPRESIDENT ZELENS 202019 CALL WITHPRESIDENT ZELENY 202019 CALL WITHPRESIDENT ZELEN. >> MY FIRST DAD WROTE A NEW OP-ED SAYING "ALLEGED BAD THOUGHTS" ARE NOT CRIMES, OUTSIDE OF GEORGE ORWELL'S DYSTOPIAN NOVEL "1984." IT'S VICTOR DAVID HANSON, JOINS ME NOW. GOOD TO SEE YOU. >> GOOD TO SEE YOU, ED. >> Ed: YOU MAKE THE CASE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN "A THOUGHT CRIME." WHAT DO YOU MEAN ABOUT THAT? >> IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW, AT LEAST IT WASN'T UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO THINK SOMETHING. IF I WANT TO THINK ABOUT SPEEDING AT 80 MILES PER HOUR AND I TALK ABOUT THINKING ABOUT IT BUT I ACTUALLY DON'T, I'M NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN HARBORING A BAD THOUGHTS. TRUMP MAY OR MAY NOT, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW, THERE IS EVIDENCE SUGGESTING HE DIDN'T COME OUT DELAYING AID AND EIGHT WAS DELAYED, BUT IT WASN'T CAUGHT OFF. THAT'S NOT A CRIME. THERE WAS A HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANY HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANO HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANY HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANI HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANN HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANU HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANR HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANI HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF ANE HE DIDN'T FORCE THEBUYERS OF AN, DIDN'T INTERFERE IN THE SANDS HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DID HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DI' HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DIT HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DIR HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DIA HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DIL HE DIDN'T DOANYTHING LIKE IT DIY COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS. >> Ed: ON THE FIRST POINT, WHETHER THERE IS A THOUGHT OR NOT, WHEN YOU HAVE OMB BEING COUNTERS, THEY WERE GOING AROUND DEBATING BEYOND EMAILS OUT OF THE TESTIMONY, SAYING IS THIS LEGAL TO HOLD IT UP, IT WASN'T JUST A THOUGHT. IT MAY HAVE ONLY BEEN DAYS ARE A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT THE AIDE WAS HELD UP. >> IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO HOLD UP AID. EVERY ADMINISTRATION HAS THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE, CROSS-EXAMINE, DOUBLETHINK ABOUT THE AID FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. MAYBE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS CORRUPT. THEY SAID UKRAINE COULD BE TRUSTED UNTIL THEY HAD VERIFICATION THE NEW PRESIDENT WAS RELIABLE. MAYBE THEY THOUGHT DONALD TRUMP WAS TOO SENSITIVE ABOUT GETTING AID TO ANYBODY. THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT REASONS TO DELAY OR INTERRUPT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS HE DIDN'T CUT IT IN THE END. IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONVICT PEOPLE OF THOUGHT CRIMES WERE CONSIDERING CUTTING, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU SAID, WELL, BARACK OBAMA NEVER GAVE THEM LEGAL AID AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF THAT? BUT WE AREN'T IMPEACHING BARACK OBAMA FOR THAT. THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE AS A PRESIDENT TO SAY I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE ANY LEGAL AID TO THE UKRAINIANS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT GIVING THEM LETHAL AID. REPUBLICANS IT AND SAY WE ARE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT, DIDN'T GIVE HIM LETHAL AID. >> Ed: TO YOUR POINT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT JERRY NADLER WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OVER FOR ADAM SCHIFF BECAUSE IT'S GOT OVER TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAYS IN HIS LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, BY THE WAY, WE ARE STILL LOOKING AT ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION IN THE MUELLER REPORT AND THAT COULD BE AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DEALT WITH THAT. >> WE DID. THE ONLY FOUND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, ROBERT MUELLER SAID THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIONABLE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN INDICTMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT AND WHEN HE WAS QUERIED ON THAT, THAT WAS NOT BECAUSE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT. IF HE HAD BEEN ANYBODY ELSE, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDICTED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T THE EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE SUBTEXT OF ALL OF THIS? THERE IS NO NEW WITNESS IS FOR THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARIAN EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO SPECIAL COUNSEL. THERE IS NO LEON JAWORSKI, THERE'S NO KEN STARR REPORT. UNLESS THEY CAN BRING IN A MARQUEE WITNESS LIKE JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS NEW INFORMATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY IN CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, THERE IS NOTHING. THEY KNOW IT. THERE IS AN IRONY HERE, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT NOTHING HAD BEEN HARMED OR IMPERILED THE AMERICAN ELECTORAL PROCESS LIKE COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS, AND BARACK OBAMA AS HE WAS EXITING OFFICE SAID TO DONALD TRUMP, QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE ELECTION ELECTIONS. THAT COMPLAINT IMPERILS THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS. WHAT HAVE WE HEARD SINCE THEN? WE'VE HAD HILLARY CLINTON QUESTION THE INTEGRITY, NANCY PELOSI GOT A FUND-RAISER QUESTIONING THE