browbeat his enemies within the party to pressure them. i'm curious if without these platforms that loosens his grip on voters that might have otherwise stuck with him post presidency. david: such a great point, such a great point, almost feels like oxygen to john will jay trump and there's a report today that i saw that he's considering moving to another platform with jared kushner. i wouldn't be surprised if donald trump figures out some way to reach his audience. he likes to be in the limelight. further i think is to understand what we in the media are not covering as much, let the frank, i don't remember any president that has been the lead in so many newscasts for four straight years. he has gotten an awful lot of attention.

>> social media, media, everyone, has something to ruminate on at the moment. let's go to capitol hill and bring in emily wilkins, who has been there for the vote. republicans, 10, not as many as the highest expectations but still a notable turn there. >> when you consider that no republicans did this last time, one of those is the republican conference chair, liz cheney, someone in leadership. she has broken by the other leaders to say that trump should be impeached. david: what price might she have to pay for that? it may indicate the future of the republican party. jim jordan and others, prominent supporters of donald trump, jim jordan of ohio, calling for her to be removed from leadership.

is that likely? emily: she has said she will not be stepping down. the vote on leadership was already held for this congress. she has this position and is going to be going forward with an eye on this divide we are seeing now within the republican conference. trump supporters that voted to oppose approving the electoral college vote. not just for impeachment but those who supported the electoral college. they have played and in addition to this vote, there's a capital that they have to prepare for at the capitol, but a stripped down

inauguration at some point that gets back to business with violence they haven't seen against the federal building in a couple of decades here. i'm curious as to what the security measures are to ensure a peaceful transition of power. emily: this was not something we had seen in previous inaugurations for president. i haven't measured it. i have heard eight, i have third 10 around the capital, it's not supposed to be easily scaled. there's going to be far more security for this than previous we have seen and even inside the capital there's a focus on impeachment and that on the trial, but there are conversations underway among house members and senate members about how they're going to hold

the capitol police accountable and how other members will potentially be held accountable and we will see congress undertake what could be months or essentially a year of investigation into the insurrection that we saw last week. joe: david, i want to go back to you about the politics that we will see after this. there won't be a senate trial for the next several days. we don't know the results, presumably if action is a tall order, but not impossible. how are republicans thinking about it? presumably they don't want to alienate the trump supporters with an eye on 2020 for. politicians with an eye on 2024 may not hate to see trump ineligible or convicted or eliminate one of their potential competitors. david: i would speculate that there are those who might want to see him go away for just the reason that you identified. happy to have him go, have a clear shot moving forward. there will be this fight.

there are those saying that there are two parties there. one is a republican party, one is a trump party and those who demand the most a lay-ins. 74 million people is a lot of people. there are more people who voted for donald trump, it's the second highest vote in u.s. history. the first is biden of course, he won. the second-highest person to get votes is still donald trump. >> it's extraordinary, really, emily as well, the business reaction to this. never have we seen such a pulling away from politics in general, i'm sure. business and politics are so interlinked in the united states , distancing themselves from trump or the republican party, notably the republicans who voted against the electoral college. your perspective on what it means for the lawmakers. how are they feeling?

emily: the time that lawmakers need to raise funding is to get things passed for two years and they have six before they have to worry about raising a lot of funding again. the question, the thing i'm looking for, with these companies, how long do these last? is this something that eventually gets dropped a year down the line when the events of the past week are further in the rearview mirror? a number of companies are going ahead to distance themselves and it's a question of how long the distancing lasts. joe: thank you to emily wilkins. now we want to bring in rick davis of stonecourt capital. dave westin will be sticking with us. thank you for joining us. come in here. your take on this? we have been talking about the gop post trump, the pressure on some to be the heir apparent

while having him out of the picture. how are possible 2020 for candidates thinking of the politics of what comes next? >> it's a mix, right? there's a lot of senators and congressmen running for reelection in 2024 and they might have a different calculation. the theory goes that you need trump supporters to win a primary in the republican party. they are a consolidated group. if they vote in mass, trump says vote for my friend against this incumbent and it's a high probability today that you will lose that primary. but the stink on the trump presidency is on every republican in the general election. so, can you win a general election in any of these districts if you haven't distanced yourself from donald

trump now? and we are only two years away from that vote. so, the calculation can be that if you stick with trump, you can win a primary but lose the general election but if you oppose trump you lose the primary and are in a position to win the general election. a tough spot for every republican to be in. >> the final vote has finally been tallied, 232 to 197 to impeach president trump. 10 republicans voted in favor of that. a lot of people thought it would be a lot more than that. saying that if what happened last week wasn't enough to sway these republicans off the trump train, with there be anything that would? i'm not seeing a lot of things on this list that are much of a surprise. >> it was pretty much a predictable crowd. the most supplies and -- surprising is liz cheney in leadership, she was probably hoping that would generate more

rank-and-file republicans in the caucus to go with her, but remember we had a lot of these, the caucus was actually part of the group that opposed the electoral count. these are hardened trump supporters by and large in that chamber. what you saw today was a real reflection of that. david: i'm curious about the effects on the next election. they have a 50-50 split, as you know so well in the senate. how might this impeachment proceeding affect the likelihood of president biden when he's president having a minority in the senate or the house? >> typically it's difficult to make everybody happy in the first few years of your term.

it would easily flip the house of representatives. those republicans we are talking about walking the plank on the impeachment resolution just now and are probably thinking they have the wind at their backs into years when they run for reelection. i would say in the senate that it might be a different construct because you have people, seats up like in pennsylvania that this time went for joe biden in that seat would be a plus one for democrats. that's a good example of how these battleground states will see action two years from now for the senate and if it follows the buying lead it could spell trouble for control flipping back to the gop. >> you helped to steer the campaign for knowledge of the

republican party being a manual perspective therefore on the division that we now see for the incoming administration and many republicans are now saying that they will not go along with further violence. is that a real threat here and how much do you think this helps or hinders the next administration? >> security is the best one about whether or not we risk further violence. certainly the fbi has been warning that we are not out of the woods yet and there are expectations of additional violence perhaps at the state capital level. i would say that one thing that is a calculation is the approval rating as donald trump leaves office, david said earlier that he won the second highest number of votes when his approval rating was 50% at the time of the election. today he is at 35%, a significant drop.

he would have to work hard over the next two years to be in the position to be a sizable factor politically. if his approval rating is still that low, which is as low if not lower than george w. bush when he left office, it's unlikely he will have that big of an impact on the 2022 elections. joe: are you surprised? only 10, none of the names were particularly surprising. this was after the loss of both of the georgia seats. after both of those really stood by trump and came pretty close to standing by his claims, i'm not sure if they went all the way, but a lot of his claims about election fraud and theft, then they performed poorly. even then they were associated

with him in that election. still most republicans are sticking with him. >> you are right on the spot. republicans the house think they made out by winning less than a dozen seats so at a time when the senate flips the democrats and we lost the president, the reality in the house is they won seats and they think that is because they have been, you know, sort of tailing the trump movement in their districts. now that is a function of gerrymandering where in those districts there are, by and large, right of center electorates that are going to support people like that. the fact that they gained seats when others lost seats is part of what has emboldened the attitude that they are in the right place and everybody else is in the wrong place. joe: all right, really appreciate your perspective. thanks to rick davis and david

westin, who will be covering the story throughout the evening. from new york, bloomberg. ♪

joe: for historical perspective on the moment. i want to bring a professor of studies at university -- university of virginia. what do you think, how are you going to remember this moment? >> we never had a president impeached twice. certainly never a president impeached at the end of a term. and i think we will view this as part of the unprecedented nature of donald trump the man and donald trump the president.

he was unprecedented in his demagoguery and took a chaotic approach for four years, so it's not surprising and its historic and unprecedented. romaine: headline crossing the wire, president trump is expected to impeachment by video. we have not heard from the president himself yet, but when we do we will somehow relay you that information. barbara, let's get back to the historic nature of this. i guess really the idea here of what is the actual impact, you are impeaching a president one week before he scheduled to leave office anyway. a president who our previous gas pointed out got the second most votes in history for a presidential candidate. he's ill relatively popular

among a certain cohort of people. -- he's still relatively popular among a certain cohort of people. what's the damage to him? x this is the legal line and constitutional -- >> this is the legal mind that democrats and some republicans even have chosen to draw. everything else that had been done by donald trump, republicans have said that's ok, basically, and we support him on what he's done. and his policies. therefore we don't take action against him. but the history books will note that this was the bridge too far . inciting insurrection, inciting attack on the capital, and inciting an attempt to stop a constitutional role of congress is a bridge too far. romaine: but was it, really? the vote here only swayed 10 republicans. this was still relatively a partyline vote and only 10 republicans saw it as a bridge

too far. this is the leader of their party. >> except for mitch mcconnell saying that this is maybe a way to purge him. you are talking about the true believers in the house as your guests noted, they come from the reddest of the red districts by gerrymandering and will go down with the captain, trump bennett. -- the ship, the captain, trump in it. caroline: unconstitutional, but many still feel that the senate will not vote to impeach and therefore whether he can still return to office remains more likely to a certain extent. another run for it is another question entirely. pushing it forward, professor, how do you see this impacting future presidencies and trumpism going forward? >> this remains to be seen.

i'm better looking back then going forward, but we don't know that his unprecedented presidency, the actions of last week, and the actions he took leading up to it, yeah, to this moment the long-term damage to our democratic system, or system of elections, and our constitutional system. my concern has always been that you have someone nominated in 2015 by the republicans who had no experience in military, government, politics, and tended to be a demagogue. would that unleash others who had that background and run? i fear the answer is yes. joe: tell us about impeachment high crimes and misdemeanors. what does that mean? looking ahead to the senate trial, we don't know how extensive or long it is going to be, but from a sort of constitutional standpoint, what is the, what is the prosecutor who needs to establish it in order to meet get a commission

-- in order to get a conviction? >> they need to establish fomenting insurrection in an attempt to perpetrate a coup against the united states to remain in office is a high crime and i'm not a lawyer but i do study the constitution is a political scientist and i think even i know that's a fact and as some lawyers and prosecutors have said, it's all captured on tape. a drug deal filmed by the perpetrators, the buyers, the sellers, posting it online. exactly what i prosecutor would want. in that sense it's an open and shut case. romaine: you are not a lawyer but you are a political scientist and historian. we have been here before. a lot of parallels drawn to what happened during the nixon years. obviously he wasn't impeached, but he was effectively forced from office. when you look back at the other times we have been here, did the

nation actually learned something from that? did the political process change in such a way to address the wrongs? >> yes, indeed, and thank you for pointing to nixon. even when he left office, he still had one quarter of the american public with him in approval. and richard nixon was going down with his ship and had some people going with him. not all the rats left. we learned the constitutional system worked. the courts stood up against him. he said he wasn't impeached. the reason he left office is because leaders of his party went to the white house to say you will be impeached, you will be convicted in the senate, you will lose the votes of your own party and be the official leaders of the minority at this time and the 1964 presidential standardbearer said you won't even have our vote. you will lose the pension and the perks of being a

post-president, it would who view to resign. -- behoove you to resign. sunshine laws were passed, so-called, after that, and we learned that a vigorous and free press is important unconstitutional and illegal presidencies. caroline: the historical nature of nixon, that he wasn't impeached and he left before, now that he has won twice, what does it mean for the active impeachment going forward? >> our constitutional system and party structure. they don't have to be so polarized but it concerns me that this will become the norm, that any time one party might disagree with a president, the

impeachment process would start. given the unprecedented nature of donald trump's activity, i would hope that we can say that a lot of this started with the bill clinton situation in the late 1990's. both parties, one could argue, have been perhaps a little too quick to jump to impeachment. i don't think that is the case in the last week. joe: impeachment aside, broader question, you mentioned polarization and it just seems to be getting more extreme. are there any curbs, looking at it from a historical perspective, any reason to think it will be curbed at some point and we could see the momentum swing back the other way? have there been times in history in which the parties were extremely polarized and then came back or are we in uncharted waters here? >> this is a cycle that goes almost all the way back to the

founding. the founding fathers walked out of philadelphia with a new constitution that hadn't been ratified, it would have to be ratified and they didn't even mention the word political parties in the constitution that they wrote in 1787 and it was ratified in 1789 and as soon as they walked out in philadelphia they divided into two camps, those who supported it as written in philadelphia and those who did not and that is the basis for our polarized political parties. yet by the 1820's we have was called the era of good feelings. the federalist party, the party of adams, marshall, was beginning to wane in a natural cycle and the whigs came on the scene. the democrats were still flowing out of the jeffersonian tradition and then we get to the pre-civil war days of the 1850's, with more polarization based on slavery and you have the republican party come into play.

we have gone through cycles before that have always been polarized, but we have had parties that tended to be bigger tents. then what you have to find is the moderates of each party who are willing to work together for the good of the country. caroline: the wedge issues continue. fetzer perry, really great to have this context from you. guys, another extraordinary day, one week on exactly from the violence that overtook capitol hill. and now we all wait with bated breath really for the response from trump to the impeachment. joe: as you say, extraordinary, unprecedented. it's very strange because we are on this mark towards a new president in a matter of day -- in a manner of days. some things remain extremely normal. the market, the economy that we

normally talk about on the show. just another day. starting from, well, starting from a long time ago, the political situation gets weirder and weirder and weirder into new territory we've never seen before. romaine: we will have to wrap it there. "bloomberg technology" is up next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: -- david: welcome to bloomberg technology, i'm david -- david westin sitting in only for the moment for emily chang. first a look at the markets, optimism that the economy will benefit from government support after hours where it was all about the impeachment. ed