defense and diplomacy. 2020 20 this weekend, we are live in iowa presidential candidates. on friday beat buda jags speaks with students, and on saturday at 3:00 former vice president joe biden and mayor pete buttigieg and senators amy klobuchar, bernie sanders and cory booker speak in a cedar rapids. on sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern bernie sanders speaks with supporters in indianola. life campaign 2020 coverage from iowa this weekend on c-span. watch anytime at c-span.org and listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> republican leader kevin mccarthy reacted to pelosi's decision to move forward with

articles of the peach meant -- impeachment saying it weakens the nation. his comments came during a weekly news conference with reporters on capitol hill. rep. mccarthy: this morning i listened to speaker pelosi give us historical references. the one that she skipped was alexander hamilton when he wrote, there will always be the greatest danger that the decision to use the impeachment power would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. today is the day that hamilton warned us. today, with the speaker's announcement, she has weakened this nation. it was not new news.

they always had this prewritten timeline from the day they got sworn in. let's go through their timeline. after winning the majority they had to decide who would become the chairs of their committees. impeachment committee, judiciary, had a campaign for it. nadler campaigned on the theme that he would be the best for impeachment, and he won the position. on the very first day of swearing-in by their new freshmen that got them the majority, after holding their hand up and swearing to the constitution in celebration that night, congresswoman talib said, we are going to impeach the mother. that was their goal from the beginning. or in may of 2019 of this year, al green, who has entered the impeachment from the very beginning, said if we do not impeach the president, he will get re-elected, to show them the true reason why their timeline is written. the sad part about this timeline, they have always had

it written, they just never had a case or proof so they had to bring professors in. speaker pelosi spent at least 48 hours and waited until the transcript came forth, america would not have to go through this nightmare. if speaker pelosi would have paused and actually listened to the hearing yesterday, she probably would not have made the decision that she made today to try to change her own timeline. had she listened to the democrat constitutional scholar, jonathan turley, he said there was no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power. he said this would be the fastest, thinnest, weakest impeachment in u.s. history. this is from the individual who did not vote for the president. this is from an individual who is not a republican.

the further they get from their timeline, the further they get away from their own requirements of an impeachment. even of this year of march the speaker of the house said impeachment was so destructive to the nation that it had to be overwhelming, compelling, and bipartisan. that was the criteria she laid out for the nation and for her conference. it's just not the criteria she held herself to. this is the day that alexander hamilton feared and warned would come. this is the day the nation is weaker. because they surely cannot put their animosity or their fear of losing an election in the future in front of all the other things that the american people want. they don't even have a budget.

we don't even have a trade agreement that was signed more than a year ago to make this country stronger. for not lowering drug prices. we are not rebuilding this nation. why? because the timeline that they started from the day they were sworn in, down to the very freshmen announcing what they would do on the night they were sworn in to the selection of the chairs who would oversee the impeachment has come true today. it's not a day that history will be proud of. it's not a day i hope america ever repeats. take your questions. yes. reporter: in 2016 you said that then candidate donald trump was one of two people who were paid by putin the other people former congressman dana rohrabacher. do you still believe -- rep. mccarthy: that's embarrassing that you would even

ask that, yes. reporter: you mentioned that speaker pelosi wanted bipartisanship. can you guarantee there will be no defectors, the republicans will be united? rep. mccarthy: if she laid out a criteria, the speakers of the house, telling the american public of march of this year that impeachment was so divisive that it would divide the nation, that the only way we could move down it had to be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. we have had that vote on the floor for an impeachment inquiry. and the only bipartisan vote that turned out there was not to move forward. so the standard that she gave to the nation, that she gave to her own conference, she will not hold her own self to. why? because she wrote this timeline before she was even sworn in for president. she picked the committee chairs based upon what she wanted to accomplish in the timeline. the freshmen that gave them the

majority said it on the night they were sworn in. the individuals that first moved the impeachment said the reason why they were afraid of losing. the committee it went to yesterday, 2/3 of them, if this is the jury, had already voted for impeachment before they heard. if they had listened, and who'd they select? three democrats to a witness that republicans could invite, we invited a democrat. we didn't invite a republican. we invited a constitutional scholar, someone who didn't even vote for the president. why? because this is too important. we would stick to our own standards of constitutionality. what did that individual say? it's the weakest, the thinnest, and it's the fastest impeachment in history. he said there was no bribery. you know what's more important what turley said? he said if there is abuse of power that you want to impeach this president over, that's not the case. it's actually the abuse of congress if you move forward. based upon what they want to do.

why would they not listen to that? why would she not hold herself to the standard she said to move forward? reporter: that vote was before we heard from any witnesses. that was before this investigation. now, are you confident that not a single republican will back this? rep. mccarthy: i'm more confident that the bipartisan vote on impeachment that comes to the floor will be no. reporter: including mr. turley expressed concern about the obstruction part of it. the president's refusal to comply with subpoenas. why shouldn't the president of the united states have to comply with the lawful subpoenas from congress? are you worried that this sets an example for a democratic president who might do this in the future. rep. mccarthy: i watched president obama do this. if you watched the hearing yesterday, turley was asked the question from john radcliffe, and he agreed no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power, that was the answer.

i do not understand what they have going forward. they have a timeline but they have no proof so they brought professors in. they selected professors that were donors to the democratic party. we selected a democrat who did not vote for the president. we selected an individual who's probably the one that is respected the most when it comes to a scholar on constitutionality. because we take this so important and we believe exactly what the speaker said back in march, that this is so divisive, you need something overwhelming. you need something compelling. it doesn't meet the criteria. reporter: why shouldn't he have to comply with the subpoena? why shouldn't the investigation -- rep. mccarthy: if you watched the president's or read the president's letter from his attorney from the white house, if he had a process the same as bill clinton, so your first question should be, why didn't the speaker, if she wanted to go through impeachment and she's not going to stick to her own criteria, why wouldn't she

create a fair process. why wouldn't she create the same process that bill clinton or richard nixon had, because it didn't fit their timeline. why did we extend one more week in december in a continuing resolution? because that met the timeline of what they want to do in impeachment. in that letter the president said he would comply if he had a fair process. reporter: have you spoken to the president in the last couple days? do you expect to speak with him? how do you look at the decision of whether the president should participate going forward? rep. mccarthy: i spoke to the president twice yesterday. and to tell you what the president i talk about, the things america should be doing. usmca. we talked about trying to get usmca done. we talked about a number of different issues moving forward. he called me first in the morning when he was over at the nato meetings. here was the president overseas making america stronger. what were the democrats doing? dividing us further.

it's interesting of what they do and when they do it. when she first announced to move forward, the president was at the u.n. when the rest of the world was there. when they had their hearing the president was with other foreign leaders as well. i have always thought regardless of party you put this country first. we have watched from the timeline and swearing-in the party means more to them than the country. reporter: we hear from sources that the trump administration is giving pelosi weaker protection, more things on labor rights. are you worried that trump might cut a deal that leaves out republicans and that it would make it hard for you to vote for that? rep. mccarthy: i'm more worried about america missing an opportunity.

america missing an opportunity to be stronger. every economist will tell you it only makes our country stronger. i'm worried that america with their number one and number two traders when it comes to mexico and canada and negotiation with china, what the future holds, china's our number three trader. if we are in negotiation with china, we all know what the future holds. if we are going to be competing, we need to be stronger. we would get a better agreement with china if we had usmca done. we would be in a stronger position. but the speaker is more concerned about tearing the president down instead of building the country up. reporter: mr. leader, i gather you were watching just now when the speaker denied that there is any personal animus on her part that's motivating impeachment drive. representative collins suggested as much in the hearing yesterday when he intimated that the democrats are impeaching president trump because they don't like the guy. you probably also heard her invoke her catholicism. do you take the speaker at her word? do you believe her? do you believe she's telling the truth when she said she does not hate the president and that's not what this is about?

rep. mccarthy: i'll take them at their word when congresswoman talib said on her very first day in congress of what she referred to the president, which i wouldn't think anyone would want to refer to them, that she was going to impeach him. or when adam schiff continued to lie to the american public only get to the point they are today. or when he said he was going to send them back to the golden throne. reporter: i asked about the speaker. rep. mccarthy: i'll take the speaker at her word. but if she paused for a moment, she looked at just the facts, she would not have made that determination. if she paused and she actually listened to the hearing yesterday on what a democrat who did not vote for the president, who has studied the constitution, who most at any time has been a witness for democrats or republicans based upon his own ability as a scholar, that this is the weakest, thinnest impeachment in the history of america.

that there is no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power. reporter: you don't accept what she said. rep. mccarthy: i have a hard time believing it. reporter: you were saying [indiscernible] is it ever appropriate for a president to ask a foreign country [indiscernible] rep. mccarthy: let's stick to the facts. the president asked the country to participate in a case that happened in 2016. that's 100% legal. that happens every day in america, dealing with other countries. it is a case that the u.s. attorney had already opened. and every single time of every witness that the democrats got to select and control, they were asked the question, the two best witnesses they had that they started this with, can you name one article she should be impeached upon?

no one could say a word. so why are we going through this nightmare? it goes back to the very first day after the election. they had a goal. they wrote a timeline. and they had to change the basis and move it to adam schiff's committee. and they are sticking to that timeline. so the answer to your question, they have always wanted to impeach the president. you watch them at their words. watch them at their actions. watch them what they have done. the most important part here is alexander hamilton, founding father, was concerned and warned us that this day could come. history will look back today and it will be a sad day. we hope that at any time whoever has this power in this country that they never repeat what alexander warned us would come

and that this day will never happen again in america. thank you very much. >> the house judiciary committee to hear evidence in the impeachment inquiry. jerrold nadler and other committee members will hear from democratic and republican counsel on the findings from the inquiry. live coverage starts at nine :00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online as c-span.org or you can listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you coming up this morning, we will discuss the latest on impeachment and the deadline. funding

be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> live friday, the house returns at 9:00 way resolution regarding the israeli-palestinian conflict. that is on c-span. at 5:30, pete buttigieg speaks to students in iowa. at 9:00 a.m. on c-span2, the cato institute hosts a conference. on c-span 3:00 at 9:30, a subcommittee examines the impact of artificial intelligence on capital markets. and retired army general john nicholson, commando of nato fortresses --forces in afghanistan speaks on policy.

>> 2020 republican candidate joe walsh is a talk radio host and former illinois congressman. he sat down with c-span to talk about why he is challenging president trump and his displeasure with fellow republicans. this is 30 minutes. steve: joining us is former illinois congressman and republican presidential candidate joe walsh. thanks for being here. my opening question, why are you running? mr. walsh: good to be with you, steve. i'm running because i think donald trump is unfit. i think he is a danger to this country. taking on a sitting incumbent president is a pretty big deal. it is a tough thing to do. you had better have a good reason for doing it. and i do. i think trump is a danger. i think the country would be in real trouble with four more years of him. steve: this is in contrast to what you wrote in twitter in 2016, saying, "i'm voting for trump on november 9.

if trump loses, i'm grabbing