mr. richmond? mr. richmond votes no. mr. jeffries? >> no. >> mr. jeffries votes no. mr. cicilline? >> no. >> votes no. mr. swalwell? >> no. mr. swalwell votes no. mr. lieu? mr. raskin votes no. ms. jayapal votes no. ms. demings? >> no. >> mr. correa votes no. ms. scanlon? >> no. >> ms. scanlon votes no. ms. fwarsa. >> no. mr. neguse votes no. ms. mcbath? no. ms. mcbath votes no. mr. stanton? >> no. >> mr. stanton votes no. ms. steen votes no. ms. powell votes no. ms. escobar votes no. mr. collins? >> aye. >> mr. collins votes aye. mr. sensen burner votes aye. mr. chabot votes aye. mr. gohmert?

>> aye. >> mr. gohmert votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck? >> yes. >> mr. buck votes yes. mr. ratcliffe? >> yes. >> mr. ratcliffe votes yes. ms. roby votes aye. mr. gaetz votes aye. mr. johnson from louisiana? >> aye. >> mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko votes aye. mr. reschenthaler votes aye. mr. cline votes aye. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. stuby votes yes. >> are there any members of the committee who wish to vote who haven't voted? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 nos. >> then the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will now stand in

recess for half an hour. >> good evening. you are watching the house judiciary committee debating the impeachment articles before voting. there was just a roll call vote on a republican introduced amendment. it failed to pass. 17 ayes, 23 nos. i want to go to dana bash who has been watching these hearings along with us here. what stands out to you at this point? >> you know, maybe at this .1 of the most telling comments was from a republican kind of pleading with people on both sides. but it's probably most pertinent to those on his side that they've heard the same arguments made over and over for hours. and that is true. we have heard a lot of the arguments made over and over. but for the republicans in the house, this is it. i mean, there will be a vote

next week on the floor where it will be the final moment. but for this committee, this very important committee historically on the impeachment process, it is their committee that is charged with giving the house of representatives the articles of impeachment. it is the republicans' last chance, which is why you've seen republicans put forward a half a dozen amendments knowing that they will fail to strike or to change parts of the democrats' articles of impeachment. but it's a chance to talk and a chance to make arguments for the people back home and for historical record. >> dana, i want to hand things over to chris cuomo. >> we have manu raju. there is a 30-minute recess. it's not over. they are taking a break. this was long. it was heated. there are a number of amendments that have basically been a chance to recycle the same debate. you have republicans saying that

this is a miscarriage of duty. and you have the democrats saying, no, this is what the constitution requires. and we are seeing iteration after iteration. this 30-minute break is done to accomplish what exactly? is it just a breather? >> it's just a breather because this process, as you can see, unpredictable. this can go as long as members want, essentially. because -- >> it's not like a typical congressional hearing where there is usually an end point. if they want to offer an amendment they are allowed to offer an amendment. then each member of this committee each get five minutes each to speak. so that's why we've only seen five republican amendments voted down. because each time there is an amendment offered, everyone gets a chance to speak. this has been going on since 9:00 a.m. eastern. and they are taking a break because they expect more republican amendments to be offered through the course of this evening. and jerry nadler, the chairman

of the judiciary committee does have the authority to essentially block more republican amendments. he can take that. but what we are hearing from our democratic sources, that's not what jerry nadler wants to do because that would spark republican protests. they would raise another process argument, contend that this was not a fair process. so what the democrats are doing saying, fine, offer as many amendments as you want, and we are going to just keep going. we are going to plow right through this until they ultimately get to that final historic vote which is to advance those two articles of impeachment about abuse of power and obstruction of congress for the house for its full consideration next week. expect much more theatrics, fireworks and potentially more amendments in the hours to come, chris. >> all right, medicine of couan very much. what are you hearing on the republican side of the ball? i mean, they seem to be making the same point. they've been very disciplined in terms of following talking points.

and i think often they catch the democrats looking back to history, which can be edifying for people. but they are staying very present, the republicans, about what they see here as a miscarriage of duty. dana, what are you hearing about any kind of strategy play? >> this is it. the biggest difference we have seen in the, i guess now, 12 hours that this hearing has been going on was early on in the day when the republicans started for the first time in the months since we have seen the summary of the call that now infamous july 25th phone call between the president and the ukrainian leader trying to make the case when president trump said do us a favor, though. that us was all of us, america, and that it wasn't about his personal political needs. >> it was about what america needs. it was fascinating that we heard that today, and even more evidence that the president of the united states is pushing his fellow republicans to defend the

substance of that phone call, that he has called perfect since day one. but in a way that these republicans haven't done. beyond that, you know, it's a lot of, frankly, a lot of click bait, not to sort of downplay the historical importance of this, and they are putting very important arguments from their perspective into the historical record into the congressional record. but there is a lot of look at how wonderful the president is. he's done so many things for this country. how can you do this to him, in addition to the arguments about the impeachment at hand. >> all right. well, look. this is a very interesting moment because it will be so great to see what happens when they come out of this break. i guarantee you it's almost like a half-time game not to trivialize it at all. we are lucky to have former a.g. mike mccasey with us tonight. we were actually pre-taping an interview with him when they took this unexpected break.

so, a.g., thank you for staying with me. i got lucky having you in the chair at this time. help me understand something from a legal perspective. you are not a politician. you've been an attorney, you have served the president. but just in terms of logic of thought and argument. why this insistence on denying what was pretty well established through the testimony by respectable people about what happened here and why it happened. why isn't the stronger argument for republicans, look, what he did was not textbook. maybe that's because he's not a politician. it was even wrong in some ways. but they got the aid. he never got any dirt on the bidens. the election is safe. how can this be worthy of impeachment or removal from office? why deny everything? >> well, there is a lot more going on than just deny everything. they are making the points that you made. number two, there is some legitimate question about whether what was happening at

burisma, which was a crooked operation as a great deal in the ukraine is, didn't want some taking a look. >> is that the issue? >> it's an issue. >> but in terms of how you are supposed to act as president, you want to look at burisma, you go to the doj, you exercise the agreement with ukraine, you go to your friends in the senate. you don't do what he did, which is hold up aid and leverage them to get them to announce an investigation only. that is very self-serving. >> it is self-serving. if he had an interest -- i'm sorry, a history of going by the book knowing precisely the way things happen in government and stepped out of it in this instance and did something different, i would agree with you that there is a problem. >> i hear you. >> his history has been that he is not somebody with a great deal of knowledge of or high regard for the usual procedure. >> are you one of the integrity mentors in my life creating a low bar for the president of the

united states where he usually does shady things? so let's assume that that's just pro forma? >> no. i'm not creating a low bar for the president of the united states. what i'm doing is telling you that he is here running true to form. whether that warrants removal. >> we know that if you were counsel, if he were lucky enough to have you as counsel. >> what did i ever do to you? [ laughter ] >> that's right. but, look, let's be honest. he needs as many people like you as he can get around him right now because he needs someone to help him with better judgment. but he says here's what i'm going to do. i'm not going after biden and this ukraine stuff. it'll be helpful for it to come out. i'm going to have ukraine own it. >> you tell him don't do this, this way. i don't know that that's what he said. i think he said this is a handy way to get something on biden. i'm going to do whatever i do. >> but he did it the wrong way. so why don't the republican

defenders admit that and say, but, here's our argument against removal. because denying everything it seems they are open to suggestion on everything. >> you are asking me to imagine, and you are really asking the wrong guy. >> we are living in a realtime. they are denying things that you wouldn't deny if you were in the council. >> not if i were in the council chair. i think i would council that it be done differently. but if my grandmother had a wheel, it should be a trolley car. >> except to take it away from the absurd. the country is watching this right now. what is the standard of behavior? you have the republicans pointing the finger at the left and saying you guys are just purely political, you hate the president. they haven't made any good-faith effort to do any oversight as the constitutional demands as a duty that they took an oath to uphold. they have just been his defense counsel. why not at least own what's obvious? >> what is the proper standard?

this is an impeachment proceeding. >> yes. >> you don't remove somebody from office for not meeting the proper standard. for not displaying those qualities of mind, character, and temperament that are appropriate to a president. >> what if they went to abuse of your power? >> the qualities of mind, character, and temperament that he's displayed in this were on gafr gawdy display. >> a lot of people thought he was joking with a lot of the things that he said. >> some people thought he was serious and liked it. >> do you think people would like the idea of a president abusing their power in this way? >> i think people would be understanding of it. i think people might give him a pass. >> for abusing his power? go ahead. this is tough stuff to hear. >> if the abuse consisted of asking for something that perhaps that under no

circumstances should be done, we don't know whether it was appropriate to conduct an investigation of biden's son. i don't know, you don't know. but, look, what he did, he did. i'm not excusing it. i'm not saying it was proper performance. what i am saying is that the question is whether you remove somebody from office or not over this. that's something congress is going to have to deal with. >> a little bit of it all is how they deal with it. it's up to them to make the decision. and then we can all analyze it and go through it afterwards. that takes me to your area of expertise with the a.g. you vouched for him when he wanted this job, attorney general barr and said this guy will not be pushed around by a house. help me understand how he may not be pushed around. but he seems in lockstep with protecting this president's interest even if it means going bad on his own inspector general. >> it's not, i mean, the inspector general is the inspector general. it's not his, it's not anybody's

in particular. he is not obligated to walk in lockstep with the attorney general with the inspector general. >> true. and a lot of people don't like their inspector generals because -- >> you are looking at one. >> because they are digging in your own backyard. >> and they're also reporting to -- well, he got part of it wrong is what he said. and understand that the inspector general has a limited authority and limited tools of his that are available to him. he is limited to investigating the department of justice and the fbi which is part of it. he can't investigate the cia. he can't investigate the department of state. he can't investigate the nsa, all of which, by the way i think will be shown -- >> you were looking at what the fbi did and how they did it. he comes back and says no political political animus. >> he characterized surveillance as spying. that's not an incorrect term. >> but you know they don't like the term. they take it as something that

is done in a nefarious fashion and they find that objectionable considering what they do to a citizen. if you take a look at what was done to carter page who was never charged with any crime. >> well, you don't need to charge him with a crime to do a fisa. it's a different probable cause standard. but let me stop. i am a journalist who's done a lot of investigative work. i have had lots of problems with how the fbi has done its job over the years. i think these findings, allegations are pitiful and that the fbi should be ashamed of themselves for how they did the job. >> that's not the only finding though. you say he found no -- what he found was no testimony and no documentary evidence showing of bias. but he said -- and he said that in his first report too which puzzles me because of the following exchange that he didn't discuss in his first report, didn't discuss in this one. the night that trump was nominated, lisa page texted strzok i can't believe that that

whatever, i don't know what she called him, that that bozo got the nomination. >> so what? >> now wait a second. >> it's the return text that counts. the return text was this raises the pressure to terminate mye. m.y.e. stood for mid-year exam which was the code for the hillary clinton investigation. now you tell me how does the nomination of donald trump raise the pressure to terminate the hillary clinton investigation? >> between two lovers and adding context to it when what do we know about the hillary clinton thing? you wind up getting andrew mccabe jammed up because he wanted to investigate it more. you have comey come out to say he was investigating it doing more damage to her campaign. clearly the fbi wasn't out to help her. >> the fbi was out to help the fbi and make sure that nobody criticized them for covering it up. the text said that this raises the pressure to terminate that investigation. >> but there was no termination.

>> of course there was. >> not for that reason. they dragged it out as much as they could. no, they didn't drag it out as much as they could. they ended it as soon as they could. >> they came out and did something we have never seen with an investigation before. you guys never talk about ongoing investigations. he comes out and talks about it not once but twice both times putting stink on clinton. >> obviously he didn't want to be criticized for covering it. >> he made his choices. but what i do see is you adding value to nuanced issues that are going on right now and i appreciate it. mike mukasey. all right. we are in the middle of a 30-minute break. why? because this has been going on for over 12 hours. and the way it works this procedure, this isn't something they do all the time. there is flexibility in how many amendments can be made. and each one of the calls for an amendment warrants debate. it can be somewhat open-ended as we have seen tonight. now, what is the strategy at play? we asked ana bash. she said the word she hears is you are looking at it, keep

coming, keep pounding the democrats, extend this show how tortuous it is, see how difficult it is and divisive it is. so now let's get it from the democrat perspective. a democrat, washington, what is it like in the room, what do you think of this strategy at play? >> well, i think, chris, that we have been all day, democrats have been laying out the facts substantive facts that are on the record, that are uncontested by anybody except the republicans who are in this room who are essentially trying to distract us from anything that is substantive. so they want to talk about, you know, peter strzok. they want to talk about all kinds of other investigations. but they don't want to talk about the fact that the president abused his power, coerced a foreign ally to interfere in our elections and is consistently going on to do that. the president is a smoking gun. he has reloaded that gun. and whether or not he fires it

is up to us if we can stop him from using his office and abusing his power. >> so they have three pushbacks. i will do them in reverse order. one is, oh, he's not a continuing threat, you are the continuing threat because you hate him and you want to get him. that's their pushback to that. the second point of pushback is we're not going to deal with the facts because there are no facts because this entire procedure has been a sham. and then they do have -- and those are political arguments that i tee up for your response. the third one though has more teeth. you've had members of your caucus talking about impeaching him a long time ago. and now it shows that it wasn't just a style problem. it's a substance issue for you to deal with. and it winds up dovetailing with not including specific crimes in the article of impeachment, which is now fueling a political argument by the republicans that you don't have a crime. what's your response to those as a basket of arguments? >> well, you know, on the process argument, this is a very

fair process that has been going on actually for eight months. the intel committee had 17 witnesses. they had numerous people come in. the republicans had a chance to cross-examine those witnesses. here in the judiciary committee we have had the ability to bring in, and we have invited the president and his legal counsel to come in for both of the hears that we've done. the president has refused. that is consistent with his behavior. it is unprecedented when we talk about process, it is unprecedented for any president of the united states that has ever faced impeachment to refuse to give us a single witness, to refuse to give us a single document. that is just unprecedented. it's taking away the sole power of impeachment that, as you know, is in article i. it's taking that away from congress and kaying that the president is just going to obstruct congress in this investigation into the president. that's a check in balance that the framers included in the

constitution. i have forgotten what your first point was, but your third one -- >> i threw it to you in a big bundle to confuse you. [ laughter ] the first one was that they're not going to deal with the facts because they say the process is a sham. and they also say that you guys have always wanted to impeach him. >> okay. that was your third point. >> and that's what this is about. and the third part for you to deal with is their idea of not having this specific crime in the article of impeachment. because you guys don't have the proof. >> but here's the thing. the constitution is the ultimate -- the supreme law of the land. and so what we are saying is that the constitution and the highest crimes in violation of the constitution are abuse of power and obstruction of congress because they get in the way of the very things that the framers were so afraid of. so we are charging him with the highest crimes, constitutional crimes, that we can find. and so i think that that is very, very important. but on this thing of

impeachment, that's just a red herring. they keep saying it over and over again. there might've been some members of congress who actually said we are ready to impeach him. but the votes that they talk about on the floor were simply to refer articles of impeachment or impeachment inquiry resolution to the judiciary committee. they were not final votes on impeachment. and i think that it's just a red herring. and so much of what they have said today has been to distract, to obstruct, and to stop us from actually dealing with the facts. one thing i want to say, chris. >> go ahead. >> i asked them directly. i turned to them at one point, and i said forget about trump. just forget about donald trump. will any of you on the other side say that it is wrong for a president to ask a foreign country to interfere in our elections? now, crickets, we saw nothing. later on john ratcliffe said he

sort of reworded the question to say involvement instead of interfeerps. i'd love to know what the difference is between those two. he said absolutely it's okay to ask a foreign country to involve themselves in our elections. i think that is a stunning thing for him to say. >> certainly something he is going to have to explain because it is one of the few things that everybody agreed to after the mueller probe was that you've got to keep foreign powers out. the founders want it and so does our legal structure when it comes to campaigns. i wish you good energy because it seems like you -- >> we're going to go all night. >> and we will be here too. >> all day. 100%. a few people have had a front row seat to impeachment to one president, let alone two. very often in my life i have turned to sam donaldson for example, for advice, and the veteran white house correspondent is going to join us after this break about what matters right now. what do we have to keep pointing

out to you? how will this be remembered and why? a word from the master, next. at t-mobile, we're lighting up 5g, and when you buy a samsung note 10+ 5g, you get one free. plus you can experience it on the nation's largest 5g network. so do this. on that. with us. buy a samsung note 10+ 5g and get one free when you add a line. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh! i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on.

up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness.

sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep.

we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card, i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

while democrats push ahead on impeachment, the president's party remains staunchly behind him. i would argue to you we've never seen anything like it. now, that demands some historical perspective so let's get some. i have legendary journalist sam donaldson with me. he was with abc news forever. he was the chief watergate correspondent. he was the white house correspondent during president clinton's impeachment and full disclosure, he is a mentor to me and someone that i always pray to my absolute best day i be half as good as. sam donaldson, thank you. [ laughter ] it's the first time you've ever listened to anything i said. >> no.

you are blowing a lot of smoke there. it's good. i don't go on someone's show who is not. >> this is tricky times to understand what is happening before the american audience, why it matters, which part of it to focus on, what is your perspective? >> well, i think it matters because of the case the democrats are making. what your last guest just said. do we all believe that it's great to call on a foreign power to aid you in your re-election campaign to the united states? as you said earlier, chris, we have money, restrictions, foreigners can't give money, china can't send money. ukraine can't. vladimir putin can't send money on the table. but this is okay? no, it's not okay. so the democrats have the case. the republicans don't argue the case. they argue the process. they say it's your witch hunt, you are out to get him, you have always hated him and they pound the table like a lawyer who doesn't have the case. >> and people repeat it to us. >> it's emotional, it's true.

but let's face it. tactics tonight don't matter. this committee is going to vote those two articles out. the democrats have the majority. next week the democrats have the majority. they are going to vote impeachment of this president. and the thing that interests me is that nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell both agree they want a short trial, they want to get it over with for different reasons. and then they want to get on with the election. >> where does it leave us? >> and that's what i think we are going to see. well, it leaves us with bad taste in our mouths on both sides. you pointed out, everyone's pointed out correctly, we hate each other in this country these days. let's have a beer, you are not a good american because you don't agree with me. and therefore we've got to stop you in any way possible. any way is fair to stop you being a bad american. well, no. there is no america if we were at each other's throats. >> how does this compare to '98? >> well, in '98, when bill

clinton went before the united states senate and the trial was held, 70% approval rating among the public. the republicans had no chance to remove him, none whatsoever. there were only 45 democrats but they needed a lot of other help, you know, and they got it. they got ten republicans to make certain that on article i, 155 to 45. no two-thirds vote. i mean, and on article ii it was a 50/50 vote so they couldn't even get 51 votes against him. everybody decide, maybe wrongly, because he did commit perjury. he admitted that on his last day in office. or else the robert ray would've brought him into court. a lot of people don't like this president, they don't want the senate to remove him. he is not going to be removed by the senate. and why? because if he's removed and there is president pence, president pence can pardon him. and they don't want him

pardoned. >> they'd also have to have a second vote to disqualify him. so they could remove him from his office but they don't get the votes to disqualify and then he'd be able to run again. my last question for you, they are starting to reassemble in the room. we don't know exactly when it's going to end or resume, as it does we will go right back to coverage. but from what you learned through nixon, through clinton, have you ever seen the president's party in lockstep during a proceeding like this the way we've seen with the republicans, at least in the house? >> no. when the first article gets to richard nixon, the roll call was called. six republicans on the judiciary committee voted aye. how many republicans tonight are going to vote aye? >> zero. >> how many republicans in the senate are going to vote convict? none. so whatever evidence that you and i or anyone else thinks as they are on the table is

disregarded by today's republican party as represented by their washington representatives. there are a lot of good republicans in this country and i hope the party is reconstituted as it once was. we need two good parties with good people on both sides contending over the years in different ways for their constituencies. >> maybe this is proof that we need five good parties. sam donaldson, certainly -- >> that's italy. [ laughter ] >> that is italy. maybe that's my roots talking. sam, thank you so much for being with us. thank you for your example and your perspective on such an important night. be well. >> thank you, chris. >> all right. so they are starting to come back into the room. this has been a surprise. the number of amendments a surprise. the volume of argumentation, a surprise. we thought they were going to the white house christmas party tonight. the event at the white house tonight, not the christmas party. the republicans didn't. they are coming back soon. and when they do, we will. stay with cnn. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message.

climate is the number 1 priority. i would declare a state of emergency on day 1. congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever. this is a problem that continues to get worse. i've spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies... stopping pipelines... stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. how are we going to pull this country together? we take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the world and do it together. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain?

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

we are waiting for the judiciary committee to reassemble. it's slow going. the break was random. it was a surprise. we were told it was 30 minutes. when they get back after it. so will we, but let's bring in some of our political and legal minds. dana bash, elliot williams and tim naftali. dana, keep me honest. if you hear that they are coming in or hear something, let me know. tim, you were moved the same way i was by talking to a.g. smart guy, not a politician. but he was iterating very honestly the argument that is coming across more subtlety from these lawmakers, which is, tim, this is who he is. you want to impeach him for who he is? he's not a political tactician, this president. he is rough, he is a power player. and this is who he was and this is who he's always about so you can't impeach him for who he is. in 1974 i believe the house judiciary committee was the gold

standard for running an impeachment. and i think they helped define high crimes and misdemeanors. and one of the most powerful high crime and misdemeanor was article ii which was the abuse of power article regarding richard nixon. they documented the efforts that richard nixon made to use instruments of government to hurt his enemies. i think for the american people, that is the most powerful misuse of power imaginable. imagine if your president because he doesn't like you, can go after you and can use the irs against you or the fbi. it's ironic to hear jim jordan and others talk about 63 million americans that are hated by democrats. this is the issue of whether the president can hate one person and hurt that one person. so i think we have a standard for abuse of power that was given to us in a bipartisan manner by the house judiciary committee in 1974. i ask all americans to read that article. then think about what it means and then apply it if you think you can to this president. what i want to hear from the republicans is why it doesn't

apply. one of the challenges for us today, and i think a source of real pain is that we don't have one set of facts. we are arguing two separate sets of facts. >> you have a set of facts. what people do is they ignore the facts unless they agree with them. but when you listen to these folks talking, the democrats have the facts, they are based on all the testimony. and the republicans are in some other fantasy land. that's a danger -- >> they are not arguing the facts. they are arguing, dana, to the point you've made many times to me and others that this process is unfair because they just don't like the president as mukasey expressed, you don't like who he is, but this has always who he's been so this process is really a personality test. >> yeah. that's a lot of what they are arguing, a lot of the process. they did begin to -- as they mentioned earlier, kind of wade into the notion of the president and the substance of what the democrats say he did that is an impeachable offense, that phone call never mind standing on the

white house lawn and saying please ukraine and china, investigate joe biden. them trying to explain it away, them trying to justify it. and in large part to say what mr. mukasey said to you. but also to say that it's not just that it's let trump be trump, and that's who he is and that's who we elected. it's, it's totally appropriate, which is, you know, what the congresswoman was saying to you that she tried to press them on. >> that's why they dumped the question of would you do it. exactly. would you do it? because the answer is no because they would get in big trouble. >> that's right. they duck it. elliot, let me bring you in here for a little legal analysis on this aspect. did the democrats give them a little bit of a break? i get the argument of it's all in their abuse of process is the most dangerous crime there is when it comes to impeachment. but by not including bribery, the low fruit satisfaction of

here's the crime. i know it's not necessary, but for the regular people that are watching at home, they are used to hearing about a crime being articulated. and they are not getting one. >> right. but, again, chris, the point has to be made that a crime is not necessary for an impeachment. >> that's unsatisfying to hear. i know it's unsatisfying to hear. but that's the law and that's the constitution. they're two different standards. >> so you're going to impeach somebody for not break the law? >> yes. >> from persuasion. >> yes, you are not going to impeach someone for not breaking the law because they haven't been charged with a criminal offense. the constitution uses the words bribery, treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. it does not say that someone ought to be charged with a crime. and there is, frankly, throughout history federal judges, tim can talk about this too. federal judges, not just presidents have been -- but was conduct that was unfit and incompatible with the oath of office. >> when you look at the

dovetailing of law and politics, and we are watching as soon as they get back and they stop looking at their phones we will pick up the proceedings right away. don't worry, we are watching it. and dana's got her eyes on it as well. if you didn't have the burglary against nixon, would it have been as bad? if you didn't have the lie under oath with clinton, would it have been as bad? >> if you didn't have tapes, richard nixon would have completed his second term. >> that's proof. >> when richard nixon fired archibald cox. >> but if they didn't have the burglary, do you think it still winds up the same way? >> the burglary -- is it pushes the special prosecutor to work with the judge to move grand jury information to the house. so i think that the fact that you had an underlying crime was very significant. yes, in the movement of materials. >> with clinton they started with a land deal. they wound up with monica lewinsky. >> there was no clinton

impeachment without the perjury. the reason why the republicans make the argument about impeachment. and by the way it was a wrong argument in 1974 richard nixon was found guilty of cheating on his taxes but he was not impeached for it? why? because it's a crime but it's not a high crime. you don't impeach somebody -- >> foreign interference, there wasn't corruption of bribery, he wasn't playing with his power. >> when bill clinton lies under oath, you don't overturn an election because somebody lied under oath. >> and they made all -- some of them, only few are left. but they made these arguments, lindsey graham most notably, it's not about a crime, tim, it's about cleansing the office. this is about the kind of a behavior and decency we expect from a president. and then of course people like pence made a lot of moral majoritarian arguments. and now he is standing next to a man who is a repository. but now they are arguing you don't have a crime, you can't impeach.

>> well, it's cynical. this is all cynical. i don't want to say it's all politics because i believe politics can be honorable and i'd like people still to go into politics. but it's completely cynical. >> all right. so jerry nadler's walking up to his aforementioned position as the chair of this. we will give it a couple more beats. dana, how long do we expect this to go? what word are you getting? >> late. it could go very late. let's see. it's a quarter to 10:00 eastern time. it could go at least a couple more hours. >> and the point of duration is what from the perspective of the republicans because they are pushing the clock? >> just -- to make this as long and as painful for everybody as possible rhetorically and when it comes to being sleep-deprived. and because this is their chance because the white house chose not to bring witnesses. the white house chose not to participate. this is the republicans' chance,

according to the house judiciary rules, to show their opposition to the substance of these articles. and so they are going to keep going. they've done about a half a dozen amendments that have gotten voted down because they know they have no shot because they don't have the votes. but they are going to be keep doing it for a little while. >> it's an interesting contrast of perceived strategy, elliot. because here you have the let's run the clock, let's make this as painful and as divisive as possible. but in the senate he is looking to do it very quickly and avoid any of this. all right. the chairman is taking his position. that assumes that this is going to resume. so our coverage will as well. thank you, everybody, for being with me during this time.

>> the pending matter before the committee is the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> mr. chairman. >> does anyone -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> strike the last word in the amendment of the nature of substitute. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, this debate is going to be the last of a very long day that we've had. i would like to start out by commending the chairman for following the rules. i think that this markup has been a lot better than it could've been. and i think the chairman has been probably very evenhanded on that. that being said, let me say that

the chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead wrong on all of the issues that we've been debating both today and last night as well as beforehand. the constitution says that the president and other civil officials can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. i think it's very obvious that there was no reason of bribery alleged here. it goes down to what has been alleged in these two articles, whether they really are high crimes and misdemeanors. i would submit the answer on both of them as an emphatic no. what is accused of being, you know, an abuse of power is in my opinion a policy disagreement on how the president should've approached the issues that are outlined there. and let me say that as far as

the issue of the $391 million goes of foreign aid to ukraine is the one in the center is that practically every bit of foreign aid that the united states disperses following a congressional appropriation is contingent on something or another. and one of the common threads, whether it's so stated in the foreign aid enactment is whether or not there is any type of corruption that is involved in that. i think we all have conceited that ukraine has been a pretty corrupt country and that president zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform, and we wish him well in cleaning the place up. i think the president would've been derelict in his duty, at least, had he held off or just given the foreign aid without trying to check on corruption.

and that was what was going on. as far as obstruction of congress is concerned, earlier today i talked a bit about the fact that this article is drafted so loosely and so weakly that it turns the united states into a parliamentary form of government. and the consequence of that is that whenever we have a president the majority of the house of representatives controlled by opposite parties, you are going to attempt to see the majority in the house of representatives try to impeach the president. i would like to finally say that we have heard an awful lot about the fact that if donald trump is not impeached or removed from office, he is going to steal the 2020 election. that is one of the most outlandish predictions that i have ever heard. the 2020 election is going to be

looked at very closely, representatives of both of the candidates by the news media by a lot of citizens, whether they are involved with the campaigns and it's going to be pretty darn hard to steal the 2020 election after all of this has happened, but what's happening here is there's an attempt to steal the 2016 election three years after the fact because if donald trump is impeached and removed from office based on this flimsy record, based upon all of the problems of extinguishing minority rights, both in the intelligence committee and before tonight here, and that will end up stealing the 2016 election. it will end up voiding the votes of the 63 million people who

voted for donald trump for president of the united states, and i think that that will be something that will haunt this country for decades to come. the time to stand up for the constitution is now. the time to determine how you stand up to the constitution is by voting no on both articles of impeachment, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time, for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> the gentleman's recognized. >> thank you, sir. >> i joined with mr. sensenbrenner in commending the chairman on his running this committee tonight. it's been very difficult. it's been a long day, and we're a little bit toureired, at leas am, and the chairman's done a great job, but i totally

disagree with chairman sensenbrenner with his summation in what we have before us. i think they are dead wrong in their opinion on articles of impeachment. there are two articles. this is no way stealing an election. if donald trump is removed from office, the election of 2016 is not nullified. mike pence will be the president, and that's no walk in the park. it's the same policies, some of them may be even worse, maybe a little bit better ethics and morals and a little bit more civility, but as far as policies they'd be about the same. there's been a lot of discussion of what we've had here, but basically this is an issue about abuse of power based on testimony of lieutenant colonel vindman, ambassador yovanovitch, ambassador taylor and dr. hill. these are four independent class acts, people we should all look to. i mean, we all talk about them

as patriots, they are patriots, but they are career foreign service folk who have done great jobs for america, are non-partisan, and they came forth out of a sense of duty to testify, and what they've testified to what happened is ukraine was wrong, that there was an abuse of power, and that's why they came forth, and to say that this whole process is corrupt is basically an affront to each of those four patriots who came forward, to those four career foreign service officials, those four people who are nonpartisan. they did a service to this country. the fact is the facts are indisputed that what happened was a favor, although i would like to ask you for a favor though, and then mulvaney going out. get used to it. that's politics. that's what happened, and then we had sondland say they were all in on it, and it was a requirement, and to get the military aid you've got to have

the -- announce the investigation. there's nothing other than that, and we've been here the last few hours. maybe use it as a campaign ad for trump. yeah, the market's up, all that kind of stuff. snap payments are being cut drastically, and poor people are going to be hurt, and they didn't benefit from the trump tax scam. bob corker who served in the senate said the two biggest mistakes he made when he was up here is voting for the tax scam and voting for the budget that came afterwards, exploding the debt. and somebody on the other side talked about how we need to be up here fighting the -- they've been exploding the debt. they have no traditional republican philosophy whatsoever, the kurds sayonara, they've ruined us in the middle east forever. trump just sold them out for his friends in turkey, and the kurds

were the hell with you and we gave syria to the russians. just yesterday trump met with lavrov, the russian ambassador, no report of what they talked about, except the white house said they talked about influence -- not to have influence in the next election, that trump told him you shouldn't try to influence our next elections. lavrov said we didn't discuss the elections. that's not true. it's hard to figure out which one's lying. neither one of them have a very good track record. so i hope we can get finished today, pass these two articles and do what's important to protect our democracy, defend our -- support our oath, abide by our oath, support the constitution, and support our national security because all of which have been jeopardized by donald j. trump by his self dealing with ukraine. i said earlier today that the president of ukraine was an actor and a politician. i wasn't saying anything bad about him. a lot of actors are great. i love actors. i love politicians.

i am a politician, but that's why he couldn't say that there was -- he was under any duress or any influence, and he felt like he was being pressured. he couldn't say that because he's in an inferior position. it's like a battered wife with her husband around who beat her up. he can't say to the police -- she can't say he beat me up because he's there and when the police leave he'll do it again. and so he was in a terrible position. i look forward to meeting him. i'm going to be in ukraine in february, and i think he's going to do a wonderful job, and for some people over there who said ukraine was the third worst in the world, it's like 120th in the rankings out of 180, not good, but not the third worst. i yield back the balance of my time. god bless the united states of america. >> gentleman yields back. i think we all share those sentiments. who else seeks recognition? what purpose does -- >> strike the last word, mr.

chairman. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i have to respond to the gentleman from tennessee who made a couple of remarks. i would start off by saying i really like the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. it's mutual. we've worked on a number of bills together, introduced -- he's really a good guy, but he's flat out wrong about the taxes. the tax cuts have really helped this country. it's one of the main reasons we're seeing the economy take off and people's bank accounts and their savings accounts and their retirement accounts are so much better and more positive right now because the president and a republican congress passed those tax cuts without a single democratic vote, and the difference, one big difference between the two parties is republicans want to cut your taxes and democrats in general, most of them want to raise your taxes. just the big difference, but relative to impeachment, back in the early 1970s i was a college student, and our nation was going through another impeachment at the time, richard nixon. i had actually voted for him. he's the first president i voted for in 1972, and obviously he

got in trouble and was going to be impeached, but he resigned before -- he was -- articles of impeachment were voted on by the judiciary committee, but then before the house took it up, he resigned from office, and little did i know that about 25 years later our nation would be going through another impeachment, and that was bill clinton, obviously, and that i'd be very closely involved in that. and of the 41 people on this committee, five of us were here in those days. mr. sensenbrenner and i on the republican side and chairman, mr. nadler and ms. lofgren and ms. jackson. all five of us. mr. sensenbrenner and i happened to be house managers, the prosecutors in the case, and some of the folks on the other side are going to get that opportunity and good luck. mr. sensenbrenner remembers henry hyde was our leader at the time, and he said we're not going to be very welcomed over there, and we weren't, so we'll

see what happens when you all are over there. but he was -- you know, bill clinton, he was impeached by the house, and then the senate obviously did not remove him from office, and i think it's very likely that's what we're going to see happen in this case, but -- excuse me. back then bill clinton had put his hand on the bible, and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then he lied. he committed perjury, and that's something hundreds of people were in jail across the country for at the time, and i thought ask still think the president shouldn't be above the law. he had committed a high crime and misdemeanor, very different from this case. they're not even alleging a crime in this case. there's clearly not a high crime and misdemeanor. that's why i'll be voting against impeaching the president in this instance, and i think the democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach this

president for a long time now. in fact, when they took over the house, one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day and really since inauguration day many wanted to impeach him. this is really all about in my view, it's all about politics. it's all about hurting the president, hurting his reputation. they dislike him intensely. as i mentioned the other day they really loathe this president, and they're trying to hurt his chances in the next election. it may well do just the opposite. one of my real concerns, and af lot of them about this whole thing. i mentioned this earlier today, i'm very concerned about is that the democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. it's becoming too routine. it's becoming the new normal. for 200 years in our nation we'd had one impeachment, one in 200 years, andrew johnson and now in less than 50 years we're in our third one this time around.