Ratcliffe: Schiff is Unfit to Lead Dems' Impeachment 3.0

We'll try and move this forward. We believe public hearings will happen, perhaps within two weeks. Who was the strongest witness for Adam Schiff? Who would he call first? Well, it wouldn't be Adam Schiff, even though he's a material witness. You know, I don't know who the Democrats would bring forward because there hasn't been any witness who has credibly put forth any information that would support that something illegal happened on the call. As Catherine Herridge just reported, Tim Morrison was just the latest to confirm that there was nothing illegal or improper. Witness after witness that the Democrats have brought in have expressed concerns about the policy of Donald Trump, but can't articulate any high crime or impeachable offense. So I'm eager for public hearings. I'm eager for the public viewing of what's been happening behind closed doors. And again, Adam Schiff ought to be the first witness to testify. Okay. I was going to ask you who would you call first. I think you just answered that question. What I'm trying to drive at here, sir, is who makes their case the best? You've heard all the evidence so far. Who is it? Well, again, think about it this way, Bill. Yesterday, Democrats passed a resolution to give Chairman Schiff the most authority in the impeachment process moving forward. Adam Schiff is someone who has tried to impeach the president not once, not twice, but now three times. The first time he accused the president of treason and said he had evidence to support collusion with Russia. That wasn't true. Then he said we should impeach the president because he obstructed justice and promised Bob Mueller would breathe life into that until Bob Mueller admitted that his obstruction analysis was under a legal standard and burden of proof that didn't exist. So now we're on to fake impeachment effort number three, surrounded by a whistleblower. A whistleblower who first met with, yeah, that's right, the staff of Chairman Schiff. The details of that haven't been released. Chairman Schiff won't release the inspector general's sworn testimony, which will confirm the contacts between Chairman Schiff and the whistleblower. It's like this, Bill. If we had a trial, the person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake evidence. So you're making the case here there was nothing illegal, it was just a question of policy disputes and if that's the case, then the American people will decide whether or not they think something was untoward. Does it appear, however, that the ship has sailed, that Democrats in the House will impeach this president? I think so. Unfortunately, you saw it yesterday, only two Democrats had the courage to really look at the facts here and say, listen, we've got to stop trying to impeach this guy and get on with the business of the American people. We have a public hearing of this. There's nothing to this and the American people will see that. Donald Trump is not the guilty one. Two more things quickly here. Mike McCaul was here two days ago. He said the whistleblower was complicit with Adam Schiff. If that is true, can you prove it in a public hearing? Well, we can if we have access to either sworn testimony of the whistleblower or Chairman Schiff and his team, but we shouldn't be wasting any more time on this. No Democrat can even articulate a high-crime or impeachable offense here. They've defaulted to some sort of abuse of power where they can't establish a quid pro quo involving the withholding of military aid or security assistance. They just keep articulating that they think the president did something wrong. We shouldn't be wasting our time on this and the American people shouldn't have to watch this spectacle. John Bradcliffe, thank you for your time, sir. You bet. Thank you.