DANA BASH: You are a member of the President’s defense team, as are several of your other fellow House Republicans. The President was in Davos during the first day, you spoke with him, what is his feeling so far?
REP. MARK MEADOWS: Well, I think for most Americans they agree with the President that they want to get this over with. Certainly, he’s been monitoring it and so while he’s talking about the great economy at Davos and how he’s helping the American worker, he’s certainly connecting and making sure that he stays connected with the defense team. I think probably the frustrating thing was all the different amendments that were given at two o’clock in the morning before it got over with. I think everybody wants to get to the facts of the case and say, does it support impeachment or not?
BASH: Okay, so on that note, what the House managers and the Senate Democrats argue that they were doing until two in the morning is trying to do that, is trying to get the facts that the White House has been withholding, the witnesses that the White House has not let come up and testify–
REP. MEADOWS: Dana, that’s a false narrative. You’ve covered it, I was in the SCIF with Adam Schiff —
BASH: I wasn’t there.
REP. MEADOWS: Well, you weren’t in the SCIF, but you were down there covering it and you know what they’ve done. If they were serious about witnesses, if they were truly serious about witnesses, not only would they have subpoenaed the witnesses they want and left those subpoenas in place, but they withdrew those. But here’s the other interesting thing, they somehow believe that their ‘perfect’ case, you know, when they look at it, they have an ‘undisputable’ case—their words, not mine—and yet, here we get to the Senate and now they’re wanting more witnesses.
BASH: Let’s talk about witnesses in a second. Let’s just talk about some of the documents and the information that they say could and should bolster their case.
REP. MEADOWS: Well, ‘could’ is the key word.
BASH: They don’t know because they haven’t been able to see them. What they argue is that they’re prosecuting–
REP. MEADOWS: You don’t impeach a President and then go on a fishing expedition in the Senate. It’s just not the way our Constitution is set up, Dana.
BASH: Well, but how do we know that? The Constitution allows for the Senate to work—there aren’t specific prescriptions for how the trial–
REP. MEADOWS: Well, there are. For the House, it is their job to investigate.
BASH: But when it comes to the trial, if you are a juror, Republican or Democrat, why not get as much information so that you can make the right decision based on all of the facts, not just the facts that the White House wants to provide or not provide, because, perhaps, they’re worried about what it would do for their case?
REP. MEADOWS: That’s saying that they’re guilty until proven innocent and that’s not who we are as Americans.
BASH: And do you think that withholding it suggests that he’s guilty? So if he’s not guilty, why not give it over?
REP. MEADOWS: Because that’s suggesting that someone’s guilty without the facts. Here’s what we do know: We know that indeed the House has a job to investigate. If they wanted additional facts, additional witnesses, then what they shouldn’t have done is impeach 30 days ago right before Christmas. Why the rush? I mean, we’ve got an election coming up in November, but yet here they are trying to make a compelling case on the Senate floor that somehow their case, that they believe is ironclad, is not ironclad—they need more witnesses, more evidence, and here’s the interesting thing, it’s a false narrative. We already have President Zelinski saying he wasn’t pressured. We have five different people that actually have had direct communication with the President of the United States that said there’s no crime here and there’s no impeachable offense.