Oh, this is the most educational thing I've ever seen in my life. This is everything.

Okay, maybe I'm just a constitutional geek, a dweeb, but I am loving the constitutional experts

who are testifying about what constitutes an impeachable offense. Let's join, shall we?

We have Louis Gohmert,

uh, Louie Gohmert, uh, pretending to know anything about, uh, questioning the

constitutional scholars.

This hearing is indicative of the indecency, which we come.

I told you. When instead of the committee of jurisdiction, bringing in fact witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened,

and not even having time to review the report, which, as Professor Turley indicated, is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group.

But then to start this hearing with the chairman of the committee saying that the facts are undisputed,

the only thing that is disputed more than the facts in this case

is the statement that the facts are undisputed.

They are absolutely disputed, and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay

that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know

you can't rely on hearsay on hearsay, but we have experts who know better than the accumulated

experience of the ages. So here we are, and I would submit we need some factual witnesses. We do not need

to receive a report that we don't have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance

to bring in actual fact witnesses. And there are a couple I can name that are critical to us getting to the bottom.

They worked for the National Security Council, Abigail Grace, Sean Misko. They were involved in the U.S. Ukraine affairs.

And they worked with Vice President Biden on different matters involving the Ukraine.

They worked with Brennan and Masters.

They have absolutely critical information about certain Ukrainians' involvement in our U.S. election.

...