this will welcome to this bbc news special with me, kasia madera, where, in the next 30 minutes or so, we're expecting donald trump to become the third president in us history to be impeached. the president is accused of abuse of power and obstruction of congress related to his dealings with ukraine. lawmakers in the house will vote on those two separate articles of impeachment. let's rejoin the debate. this great republic is among life's most tremendous blessings. we all know that no force on earth is more powerful than the force of freedom. it is our miraculous

constitutional system, madam speaker, defended by our men and women in uniform, it is safeguarded that freedom for 230 years. each one of us in this chamber bears a sacred duty, passed down to us through generations and affirmed in our oath of office to preserve and protect oui’ of office to preserve and protect our constitution. madam speaker, our nation's frame is recognised this republic is fragile and that extreme partisanship can be among the most severe threats to its survival. that is why in federalist 65, alexander hamilton road, quote, there will a lwa ys hamilton road, quote, there will always be the greatest danger that impeachment, the impeachment decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. here, madam speaker, our democratic colleagues have been working to remove this

president since the day he was elected. searching for an offence on which they could impeach. failing to find one, madam speaker, they have decided to assume one, rather than attempting to enforce their subpoenas in court, they have also decided to declare it a high crime and misdemeanour when the president of the united states asserts his constitutional villages. the democrats are asking members of this body to impeach, despite the fact that they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offence. let me say it one more time, madam speaker. they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offence. if anyone in this chamber still believes the democrats of proven their case, i would urge those members to ask the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr

schiff, why he failed to appear to a nswer schiff, why he failed to appear to answer questions about his report. before members vote for impeachment, they might want to know why the author of the impeachment report will not defend it under questioning. if the house impeach is here, madame speaker, it will create exactly the type of risk the framers cautioned us to avoid. it will mean that divided government can imperil a democratically elected resident based on unproven allegations and innuendoin based on unproven allegations and innuendo in the absence of direct testimony, despite all the rhetoric you've heard today, madam speaker, passage of these articles of impeachment may permanently damage oui’ impeachment may permanently damage our republic. from this day forward, a hyper— partisan bare majority can cite this precedent to try to remove a future commander—in—chief. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, madam speaker, think of our

republic, think of the constitution, think of the oath that we all swore to protect and defend the constitution and vote against these partisan reckless and dangerous articles of impeachment. gentleman from california. i'm proud to recognise mr levin from michigan for one minute. recognisable one minute. —— recognised for one minute. madam speaker, today we proclaim that no person is above the law, not even the president of the united states. donaldj the president of the united states. donald j trump abuse the president of the united states. donald] trump abuse the power of his office and violated the oath of office by installing a new and inexperienced president of a vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on mrtrump's

vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on mr trump's domestic political opponents. he then obstructed the congress, this equal branch of our government, from undertaking our duty. 0utlined in the constitution itself to investigate and check these violations. today, we do nothing more and nothing less than fulfil oui’ more and nothing less than fulfil our duty to our country into our constitution. mr trump has allowed foreign powers to interfere in our domestic affairs. he has endangered oui’ domestic affairs. he has endangered our national security and our democracy itself. for those reasons, we must impeach this president. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. gentleman from georgia. so we're watching some of the last lawmakers to make their cases heard after a full day of debate in the house of representatives, often emotive, often dramatic part is in

declarations from the floor of the us house of representatives. what is at stake is donald trump's legacy. from now on after the vote we are expect in the next 10—15 minutes, he will be the president who was impeached, only the third us president in history and is called impeachment and ugly word. gary 0'donoghue is on capitol hill for us. what do you make of it in the final ten or 20 minutes of the declaration? well, obviously huge anticipation inside that chamber and indeed around washington and around the country at this moment. it's incredibly rare, we know it's incredibly rare, we know it's incredibly rare, we know it's incredibly rare and it's meant to be and it's incredibly divisive. 0ne republican described what was happening as a verdict in search of a crime. and the democrats who were

speaking said no—one is above the law including the president. they are poles apart in this. in probably about 20 minutes longer. that is the one that is called abuse of power and it relates to president's discussions, the ukrainians any allegation from the democrats that would hold aid in order to put it on the ukrainians to investigate one of donald trump's political rivals here in the united states former vice presidentjoe biden. that is what the first article relates to and they will move a motorboat the second article entitled obstruction of congress and that relates to the insisting that many of his own officials and documents the congress requires requested, insisting they are not handed over on this people

not give evidence and congress has taken the view, certainly on the democratic side that it also amounts two an impeachable offence under the constitution. so that will be the second boat and both are expected to go through, there may be wanted to democrats who decide to oppose this and one we know of his very likely to oppose articles of impeachment, and maybe one or two others from districts where donald trump one, there are about 30 of those democrats in the position of holding a district which was actually won by the president himself in the presidential part of the election in 2016. some of those will be under a lot of pressure locally and nationally, a lot of them has said we are going to vote with this impeachment, there are a handful that haven't quite said which way they are going to go but there is a healthy majority bear in mind and house of representatives for the democrats, they hold 233 seats, the republicans have 197 so wrinkly,

they can afford to lose one or two. it just goes to they can afford to lose one or two. itjust goes to show how much sway nancy pelosi has had, that she has carried these democrats, that they are standing behind her.|j carried these democrats, that they are standing behind her. i think that's right and i think they're in mind, nancy pelosi was supposed to impeachment. she had a lot of people in her new intake into congress in the mid—term elections last year, particularly on the left, arguing ha rd particularly on the left, arguing hard for impeachment on the basis of what happened in the russian enquiry conducted by robert mueller, that was resisted by her and she resisted art because of those moderate democrats in some of those republican districts who weren't prepared to support either. there was a very small group, an interesting group of democrats with a national security background, again from republican leaning areas

where ukraine thing came along, they said this is different, this is a matter of national security, is messing with the country's national security, this is a moment to impeach and the other thing nancy pelosi took on board was that in her view and in the view of the loot te na nts, if view and in the view of the loot tenants, if you like, that the ukraine story cut through and made sense, it was simple enough to get out there, get through the political noise and be understood by a wider public. did the president make a call, lean on a guide ukraine and said unless you do what i wanted to do for my benefit, you don't get your $400 million. that is the way they tried to characterise it all along, something not too difficult to understand, focused in time and actions and that is why their minds we re actions and that is why their minds were changed. when we're talking about impeachment, we're talking about impeachment, we're talking about the of this because it is no less tha n about the of this because it is no less than accusing the president of what the q institution described as

high crimes and misdemeanours. it doesn't really get any bigger than this when it comes to the leader of the united states. no, it doesn't and the curious thing about the constitution, it's a very tiny document, don't forget and it doesn't say a lot about impeachment, quite frankly, it sets out a few of the tests like you said, that treason was an impeachable offence, that bribery is an impeachable offence. and goes on to describe these other high crimes and misdemeanours but he doesn't define them and he leaves the congress to define what counts as a high crime misdemeanour and what the president is saying, i haven't committed a crime. congress can decide what crime. congress can decide what crime is. and decided that counts as a high crime on misdemeanour and that's what they have done in this particular case so that is something that's been divisive or through, republicans have argued, look, it may not have been a good thing to do

but it doesn't rip breached the standard that the founding fathers had set out for the kind of behaviour that should lead you to be impeached as a president and they .2, the sort of ran a submit is approved, if you like, that it shouldn't be done when you just disagree with the president's foreign policy, for example, that's how they characterise it. gary, for the time being, thank you very much. we will be back with gary in the next 15—20 minutes when that boat starts, we will have a special with katty kay who will be guiding us through the whole procedure. laura trevelyan is at the white house. it's interesting to find out where the president is, he has left washington and is on his way to michigan without a word to the reporters gathered. he's actually

arrived in michigan. he told reporters when he landed he feeling good. he's holding a rally about tonight, michigan is a state he won narrowly in 2016 by less than 11,000 votes, a key state in the midwest, a state he wants to win again in 2020 apiece to get a second term were going to get this amazing split screen image tonight of the president there holding one of his signature campaign rallies, surrounded by his adoring hands, the trump faithful and then here in washington, house of representatives voting to impeach a president for only the third time in american history so it will really sum up the trump era, this president with his extraordinary campaigning style, he tends to freewheel at these rallies, and sometimes speaks for up to two hours. i'm sure he will have a lot to say tonight about what is going on in washington. it will be extraordinary, the president will be addressing that brilliant having the vote at the same time ongoing. when

it comes to his activity on twitter, he's been pretty angry about what's been happening today. he has been retreating ahead of that rally ahead of michigan. he was tweeting in all capitals which he does when he is i rate and for this president, he doesn't want impeachment on his legacy. he's been telling close friends and aides that impeachment is not something you want on your resume so is not something you want on your resume so he's very is not something you want on your resume so he's very aware is not something you want on your resume so he's very aware of the historical nature of what's going on in tonight he regards it is extremely air, as we know, he sent out this 6— page letter to nancy pelosi saying it isn't illegal partisan coup and he's managed to get republicans in lockstep because his control of the republican party base when we see the pictures, it's complete, he has a loyal and devoted

following so even republican lawmakers who do not what he did was right will not dare step out of line the fear they could face primary challenges of great criticism in their own district so it is a remark remarkable republican unity we've seen remarkable republican unity we've seenin remarkable republican unity we've seen in the house of representatives so seen in the house of representatives so farandi seen in the house of representatives so far and i don't think we'll see a single republican break ranks with the president tonight, it's not looking like it. laura, thank you. we will return to the house of representatives, because we are expecting the voting to start on those two issues, the abuse of power which relates to those discussions with ukraine, the withholding of aid and also the obstruction of congress relating to the president not handing over documents. so two votes which will be taking place by the

431 members. four vacancies, as gary was saying a little bit earlier. the last moments, then, of what has been seven hours of debates, of declarations, in the house of representatives. let's depend now for those last declarations taking place ahead of the start of this most historic of votes. let's talk about that article of impeachment, madam speaker. george washington law professor tu rley, madam speaker. george washington law professor turley, who admitted under oath that he voted against trump, spoke to this claim of abuse of power. in fact, spoke to this claim of abuse of power. infact, he spoke to this claim of abuse of power. in fact, he said, spoke to this claim of abuse of power. infact, he said, quote, if you make a high crime and misdemeanour out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it is your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you are criticising the president of doing, abuse of power. there is a house

rule, madam speaker, that requires — not allows, but requires — that the minority get a day of hearing, which we asked for multiple times. they broke this rule. they didn't allow us broke this rule. they didn't allow us to have a minority day of hearing. they didn't want to hear about the facts of this case, because it was never about the fa cts , because it was never about the facts, because there was no crime. it is about a personal political vendetta. now let's talk about obstruction of congress, as they make up these terms to impeach a president because they didn't find a crime. and they were looking. it has been an impeachment in search of a crime. but they talk about obstruction of congress and say the president defied subpoenas, subpoenaed after subpoenae. let's go through the departments. the department of state, they subpoenaed. did you know that literally just four days after the subpoenae, the secretary of state himself responded to your subpoenae? department of defence a week later responded to the subpoenae. the department of energy responded to the subpoenae. we can go on and on with all of these agencies. that's an abuse of power, an obstruction of justice? responding to your subpoenae? that's what they did. they responded. you might not like

the answer, but that's not the way this works. you don't impeach the president because you don't like his foreign policy, as so many of those foreign policy, as so many of those foreign policy, as so many of those foreign policy experts came and testified. but this isn'tjust about donald trump. they don'tjust take donald trump. they don'tjust take donald trump, madam speaker. they hate the 63 million americans who voted for this president, the forgotten men and women of this country who have been left behind, madam speaker. booing. the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. it is those men and women that their country has left behind. and what is this president doing for them? he is delivering for them, 600 jobs in pennsylvania, 1000 jobs in 0hio, jobs in pennsylvania, 1000 jobs in ohio, $750 jobs in pennsylvania, 1000 jobs in 0hio, $750 million investment for 600 newjobs 0hio, $750 million investment for 600 new jobs across 0hio, $750 million investment for 600 newjobs across this country. detroit news — chrysler, 6500 new jobs. that's what this president is doing to deliverfor jobs. that's what this president is doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who had been

left behind. it is about time somebody stands up for them, and president trump is. so it is a political vendetta. but if they are going to go through with this, madame speaker, impeachment will not just be a stain on this democrat majority. impeachment will be their legacy. the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address the remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california. madam speaker, i recognise ms custer from new hampshire for unanimous consent request. the gentleman is recognised. madam speaker, i recognised. madam speaker, i recognise the unanimous consent for entering my statement into the re cord entering my statement into the record regarding the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge in favour of articles of impeachment. thank you. without objection. mannum speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognise the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr hoyer, for one minute. the gentleman is recognised.

my colleagues... the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognised. mannum speaker, i have had the honour of serving in this house for over 38 years. i have served during six presidencies. i have been here three moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. i have seen periods of rank partisanship and patriotic bipartisanship. i have seen patriotic bipartisanship. i have seen our patriotic bipartisanship. i have seen our 2—party system work, and i've seen it break down. never in

all my years of serving in this great institution that i love, and the people of my district, did i ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a president of the united states. nor did i expect to witness such a craven rationalisation of presidential actions which have put our national security at risk, undermined the integrity of our elections, and defied the constitutional authority of the congress to conduct oversight. we have heard from republicans that this impeachment has to do with policy differences or

how we feel personally about the president, about his temperament, or that we simply dislike him. throughout the trump presidency, democrats have resisted pursuing impeachment, even as we watched with dismay and discussed at a pattern of wrongdoing —— disgust. that pattern included ordering federal agencies to lie to the public, firing the fbi director for refusing to end investigations of his campaign, siding with vladimir putin against our intelligence agencies, taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective border

wall, and setting policies that have led to the separation of families and caging of children. we have to “ we and caging of children. we have to —— we have, to be sure, deep disagreements with the policies and actions taken by this president. there's been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for mr trump, little talk about the 65 million people who voted for hillary clinton. the policy difference or those votes, this president was elected legitimately. the house will stay in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognised. because we have an

electoral college, but none of these are reasons to pursue what chairman schiff has called a wrenching process for the nation. in fact, democrats rejected that process emphatically in three specific votes. in december of 2017, democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing articles of impeachment, including the speaker and myself. we did so again in 2018, with over 60% of the democrats rejecting pursuing articles of impeachment. and again, just months ago, injuly of

impeachment. and again, just months ago, in july of 2019, impeachment. and again, just months ago, injuly of 2019, 60% of impeachment. and again, just months ago, in july of 2019, 60% of the democrats said no to pursuing articles of impeachment. just days before the infamous 25july telephone call, we did the same with 60% of democrats voting. to proceed. credible witnesses, many of whom we re credible witnesses, many of whom were appointed to office by president trump, have corroborated the details and timeline of his abuse of presidential power, which forms the basis of the first article of impeachment in this resolution. instead, i will not recount all of the witnesses or abuses that have

occurred. i congratulate my colleagues and mr nadler and his committee and mr schiff and his committee and mr schiff and his committee for setting forward a compelling case. they have been laid out fully in the colleagues' remarks. what i will do is remind americans that the house provided president trump every opportunity to prove his innocence, but the witnesses were precluded from coming forward. the witnesses who have personal knowledge did not come, either at the president's request, which he refused to show up, because he thought it was a sham, as so many of you have said, or to the committees. instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for

documents and for testimony by the white house officials and ordered his subordinates not to co—operate. perhaps they could have exonerated him. this itself, i suggest to you, is unprecedented. when president nixon and clinton were asked to hand over documents and allow officials to testify, ultimately both implied. because it is the law. such actions of the president can be taken as further evidence of his obstruction and abuse of power. it is, in and of itself, impeachable conduct, the subject of the second article of impeachment. these two articles before us concerned two very profound constitutional issues,

about the abuse of power in our republic. first, whether it is a cce pta ble republic. first, whether it is acceptable for the president of the united states, any president, to solicit foreign interference in our elections. there is a difference as to whether his than that, and the place to try that is in the united states senate —— whether he has done that. but we believe strongly there is probable cause to conclude that. to undermine our national security, the integrity of our elections, and the integrity of our elections, and the integrity of our elections, and the integrity of our democracy. and secondly, whether it is permissible for the president to obstruct congress and act as if he is above the law, and immune from constitutional oversight. 0n fourth of december, the judiciary committee heard the testimony of constitutional law experts who weighed in on these points. some

1500 historians have said the same thing, as professor noah feldman said. if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship. the votes we are about to take concerned the rule of law, and our democracy itself. let us not forget the words ofjohn locke, so influential to the founders of our republic. john locke, millennia ago, said this. wherever law ends, tyranny begins. this impeachment

asks whether we are still a republic of laws, as our founders intended, or whether we will accept that one person can be above the law. in america, as we have said over and overagain, america, as we have said over and over again, no—one is america, as we have said over and overagain, no—one is above america, as we have said over and over again, no—one is above the law. but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law, even the president, will that be true. if the house does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of allowing the president's misconduct. if we believed to be so, to be repeated at the expense of integrity of our elections, our national security and our constitutional system of separation of powers. democrats did

not choose this