People are passionate about our country, current events, and the obligations and nature of fairness.

There are questions worth exploring, even if we do not agree on the answers.

I'd be interested in your perspective. Q1: What is the appropriate evidentiary standard by which articles of impeachment should be proven? Preponderance? Clear and convincing? Beyond a reasonable doubt? How would you define those terms to someone unfamiliar with our justice system?

Elijah Cummings was one of the most powerful, beautiful & compelling voices in American politics. The power and the beauty came from his authenticity, his conviction, the sincerity with which he held his beliefs. We rarely agreed on political matters. We never had a cross word outside of a committee room. He had a unique ability to separate the personal from the work. The story of Elijah's life would benefit everyone, regardless of political ideation.

This weekend @DevinNunes, @RepGoodlatte and I met to discuss the new FBI text messages and possible next steps in our oversight of these agencies. The contents of these text messages between top FBI officials are extremely troubling in terms of when certain key decisions were made by the DOJ and the FBI, by whom these decisions were made, and the evident bias exhibited by those in charge of the investigation.

This week I spent more time with and asked more questions of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe than any other member of congress, Republican or Democrat. Never once was a voice raised. These were interviews, not "grillings". Never once was the witness "attacked". Never once was Special Counsel Mueller "undermined". I've never expressed "dissatisfaction" with any of his answers, publicly or privately, because his answers are just that - his answers.