the beginning of the impeachment inquiry. as elected representatives, he where are we? said, of the american people, we right now it's a lunch break. speak not only of those who are we'll follow on the live here with us now but of pictures. as the senators reconvene, generations yet unborn. our voices today are messages to you'll see the house managers come in, the defendants come in, a future we may never see. when the history books are counsel. we're looking for the chief written about this tumultous justice, obviously, because he has to be there. he will reinitiate the process. why did i mention the house managers? they're done, aren't they? no. one of the ways this process is similar to a real trial, and i here -- era, i want them to know emphasize that a lot because this has not been a trial, i don't care how often they use the word. i stood up to tyranny. you don't have witnesses, you don't have a trial. but one of the ways it's similar just as you are not here to is that the prosecution, who is prove the president's guilt or technically the house managers, they go last if they want to. innocence for yourselves alone. so they had a chance to reserve you and we represent the american people, the ones at some of their time, and you home or work who are hoping heard them say that at the end, their country will remain what we reserve the balance of our time. it's always believed it to be, a that means that after the defense counsel for the beacon of hope, democracy and an president goes, you will see the inspiration to those striving

around the world to create their house managers come on again to own more perfect unions. for those who are standing up to conclude. what will they say? who knows at this point. lawlessness and to tyranny, but you will see them again. it is not over. donald trump has betrayed his oath to protect and defend the talking. i'm here with the panel with constitution, but it's not too late for us to honor ours, to alan fruman, ross gar ber, susan wield our power to defend our glasser. adam schiff seemed at one point democracy. as president abraham lincoln that he was reading the credits said at the close of his cooper at the end of a movie, and union address on february 27, that's how he used his time, 1816, neither let us be probably so he wouldn't have to do it at the end. slandered from our duty by false >> we know this is happening accusations against us nor here, so in case i don't get frightened from it by menaces of this in at the end, i thank my destruction to the government nor of dungeons to ourselves, staff. look, this has been a trial that isn't really a trial, and these let us have faith that fight are arguments aimed not really at the jury, which is not really a jury at all, anyway. makes might. it's a very -- it's a let us, to the end, dare to do frustrating thing and a time in our democracy when people are our duty as you understand it. already convinced that outcomes are raven. evidence of the president's

you have the president of the guilt, and knowing left in united states who says things office he will continue to seek are rigged. foreign interference in the next you have bernie sanders campaigning in iowa. he'll leave the senate floor from a trial that isn't a trial election, vote for the articles to go to the real election in iowa tonight. of impeachment and to remove the he also says the system is rigged. it's hard not to be cynical president of the united states, donald j. trump. about this process and to chief justice, we reserve the wonder, who are these folks speaking to? balance of our time. i agree with jeff toobin, my colleague from new york, that there was a sort of air out of >> the majority leader is the balloon quality to some of recognized. >> mr. chief justice, colleagues the arguments this morning, like we're going through the motions will take a 30-minute break for here. >> it is no small irony that lunch. >> without objection, so senator sanders is leaves us to go to iowa. by the way, that's not a real ordered. straight vote, either. that's the caucus system that has its own complications. and they are taking a lunch alan, jeffrey toobin said this break. what's interesting here, let me is a triumph for senator mitch go straight to you, jeff toobin. you now have heard the mcconnell. we get his reasoning. democrats, the managers, make he got the outcome he wanted, as their case. they had two hours to do so and he did with merrick garland, but they did not even use a full hour, just under a full hour. as someone who studies the >> i think they know what the procedures, the legacy of this, the precedent of this, can you senators have heard, that this call this a triumph.

is familiar news to them at this point, and i think it is >> this is on the floor of the probably wise that they don't need to revisit this issue. center. i'm more concerned about the they know that the president is results than the process. going to be acquitted at the end the result was ordained but the of this vote, and i think they process wasn't. there was drama, at least i are finishing on a high road, believe there was drama leading up to the vote on whether or not that they are not going to to have witnesses. i'm also concerned that belabor these issues more than process-established precedent, and precedent for the future, up they have in the past. until this trial, every trial they do have the chance to reply. they will get the last word has had witnesses. now we have a trial without witnesses. after -- >> so they have over an hour, and in the future, i suspect that will become the model. about an hour and 4 minutes, by and that is, shall we say, a my count, to do so if they chose. >> right. defining process. >> i don't know how bastardizing these are very competent speeches, but i think there is a process is a triumph. an element at this point of i understand what jeffrey is phoning it in. saying, and i get it. they gave it their best shot, they're going to lose on but this was supposed to be acquittal, and i think they want to go out on a dignified note. better than politics. this, as the chief justice said, >> just to make a point here, is supposed to be the ultimate obviously, not all of them spoke. delivering body. jerry nadler is not there, his which is the better position? wife is ill, but you had you have two choices as a gop senator. he did nothing wrong so i didn't congressman crow, congressman have the vote for witnesses and

i'm not removing him, or the schiff, congresswoman demings political heads, which i think we're going to hear a little bit and they did not start with more than has been suggested here. schiff. if joni ernst is using it, the congresswoman garcia and obviously congressman nadler. idea of, oh, it was wrong. >> they recognized that the i would never do it, which i senators have heard their pitch, and they have rejected it. think is the key question for and their appeal is now to the these senators to be asked no matter what they say afterwards. would you do it this way? public. i think they recognize in the middle of the day they're not no, no, i wouldn't do it this going to persuade uncounted way. but not enough for the power millions of people who haven't i've been given for removal, but heard this story before. so i think they are going out on i didn't vote for witnesses, the high road. either. which of those two positions do i anticipate that in the you think is the strongest? ross, you will say that saying, response to the defense arguments, you'll see a little more fire, particularly probably i believe that nothing here was from adam schiff. done wrong, that's why i am but for this initial consistent. presentation, they thought less that would be your favorite is more, and i think that's position. probably wise. >> no. >> i'm making you adopt it. >> and chairman schiff, who is >> i'm not going to do it. obviously the lead manager, finishing it up, going the i'm actually interested to hear shortest amount of time and these positions because the invoking abraham lincoln and notion of kind of justifying cooper union. >> he's trying to remind, i this vote is fascinating. think, the senators that they >> which vote? >> the acquittal vote, right? have a historic responsibility, the notion of saying, yes, as

that this is not just an issue marco rubio suggested, i think of a quitting one mcquitting ons there were high crimes and misdemeanors. but i'm going to vote to acquit is a standard to set for the is also interesting. future. that may be what they return to, anyplace on the spectrum, i by the way, at the end when they think it's going to be listen to the president's fascinating to hear their defenders. are we going to live in a arguments, because the notion country where presidents can is, impeachment is for high assume that they can abuse power crimes and misdemeanors, and not pay a constitutional bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. price? the house managers actually you go in the trial in the succeeded in one way. senate and you vote to convict if you find those things their narrative was accepted by occurred. the reality, though, as we're many in the senate. going to see play out, is that >> in terms of he was guilty of what he was accused of doing. politics and things like >> that's a big deal. elections coming up soon, those now what is the consequence? are going to matter. is the consequence, that's okay, things like your perception of or as mick mulvaney would say, get over it? or is the consequence, we need how bad a high crime and misdemeanor it is matters. to think through what abuse of i'm going to be very interested power is and how we don't like to hear those arguments. >> he's ducking a little bit of it? and we'll see what the managers the question, which is how do say at the end when they listen you make that argument but you didn't vote for witnesses? to the president's vote. it was wrong, they reached their threshold, it was impeachable

>> we'll take a half-hour break, but no witnesses. >> it's hard tofor me to get in which is just under 30 minutes the mind of a hypocrite, because from now. then you'll hear the senate come that i am not. the idea of trying to figure out which are the lesser two evils to convince my constituency that in. do they say they'll let the i smell like roses is why people voters decide, it's a statutory hate politicians, why they speak out of two sides of their mouth. what i really want to say, though, is, in defense, maybe cri crime? >> i think at this point it's up it's the prosecutor in me. to the voters. i'm surprised we didn't hear i don't think these individuals phoned in at all today. from the house managers about the comments that we heard over the reason why adam schiff invoked the cooper union speech the weekend from joni ernst in particular, where they admitted was because the one key phrase that what the president did was was let us do our duty to the wrong and they wouldn't do it that way -- end as we understand it. >> lamar alexander was so it was a foregone conclusion he direct. >> cannexactly. would be acquitted, but the idea that he would not pursue that being said, joni ernst justice. being asked, what happens if the president does it again? val demings laid out very eloquently and passionately her answer, he knows better. about the exact chronology of he'll call the fbi. events. she knew she was going to force i'm surprised the managers didn't invoke that. people to say, here's why i'm a hypocrite. i laid it all out there. given they've had time over the last week and a half, they knew it's not weathhether, it's whati

they had delivered everything the senators absorbed at this going to do about it? point, you had them reminding are we really going to be in a people of what ukraine means to position right now we're going to vindicate a president who has the united states, being invaded by an adversary, and then i cheated but then condemn those thought it was actually poignant who have spoken out about the to hear from adam schiff naming his staffers and talking about conduct? this is not the jury pool any longer. the senate, fine. give us your lip service about the level of uncivility, why you should be the person everyone looks at with honor, incivility, whatever the word is, in the country right now, but at the end of the day, the and that these are brilliant people working in the country voters have to look at this and and had their lives threatened say, it's clear as day to me what happened. and grotesque things happening why did one plus one not equal and saying it is not acceptable in this country. two? >> i do think also you will see that is the calculation at the the defense also not take the end that will really matter. as far as you can justify first two hours. there is an old saying in saying, i believe it but i don't want to remove it, they're ir politics, no politician ever lost an election for something they didn't say in the campaign. in other words, if you don't say anything, you can't be reckoncilkirrec criticized for it. i think the less -- the defense con silable positions. lawyers have won this case. >> the senators are talking to they've won on witnesses, reporters. that means we have more time to they've won on the merits. go. when we come back, we'll talk there is nothing they need to

about this. you'll start to hear the word persuade anymore. so you should just sit down and foustian a lot. shut up. >> adam schiff won on convincing there is a fou srkfoustian deal many republican senators that the president did -- they decided, okay, he did what he made here with the devil. did and he did what you said he the first big moment of the 2020 did, and we don't need anyone to tell us what he did because we election cycle, the iowa caucus. know he did what he did, we just more live cnn coverage after a don't think it's impeachable. quick, quick break. ♪ does schiff feel a sense of vindication about that at all? >> i can't answer that. there is certainly an element of vindication there. what will be particularly interesting over the next three days when we start to hear the republicans explain their vote is how many of them go the lamar alexander rule and say, inappropriate but not impeachable, and how many of them go, perfect phone call route. those are very different ways of voting the same way, and that will be significant to know how many go in each direction. >> that's the crucial thing where, did adam schiff move the needle and the other managers on

that? manu raju is with us as well. manu, as they filed out and not using the rest of their time, and they can reserve it and use it again when team trump has made their argument. you've had a chance to talk to some of the senators as they filed out for lunch. what have you heard? >> reporter: a lot of them are not going the route of lamar alexander saying the president did something wrong but it did not rise to the level of impeachment. lisa murkowski did move forward on saying no to witnesses. i asked her if she thought the move was inappropriate. she said, i would concur. she said she's made up her mind but wouldn't go further than it's velveeta shells & cheese that. i did catch up with other versus the other guys. republican senators who are not ♪ agreeing with lamar alexander. they said the president did clearly, velveeta melts creamier. nothing wrong, the president was acting in his rights. senator blackburn, who is close

to president trump, she would not criticize his conduct. lamar alexander said he had conditioners about the president's conduct. did you have any concerns about the president's conduct as far as ukraine? >> we want to make sure we finish up this impeachment, that we move away from this and get back to things people want to focus on. we always want to be certain that people act appropriately within their offices. >> reporter: what do you think of lamar alexander saying the president did not act appropriately. do you agree with that? >> my argument has to do with the merits of the case. >> reporter: what do you think of lamar alexander saying the president did not act appropriately? do you agree with that? >> that's lamar's opinion. >> reporter: do you agree with that? s. >> i don't. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. >> reporter: he has defended the so when my windshield cracked...

president's actions. the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. we have not yet seen any of these vulnerable republican >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. senators break ranks and >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? strongly criticize the president the way lamar alexander has. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ susan collins voted, of course, with moderate to severe treplaque psoriasists uncover clearer skin that can last. for witnesses. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® she hasn't said how she'll come in providing significantly clearer skin. down in that ultimate vote. it will come down to the senate tremfya® may increase your risk on the floor tomorrow and into of infections and lower your ability to fight them. wednesday. >> tell us when you get more tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. information. tim, one thing when you hear susan collins, susan collins and serious allergic reactions may occur. mitt romney voted for more witnesses. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. then in the procedural votes about witnesses and the resolution of how they were going to conduct the end of this janssen can help you explore trial, they continue to vote for cost support options. john bolton specifically. remember, you have out the hilton app. susan collins said she didn't can the hilton app help us win? care how long it took, she hey, hey-we're all winners wanted senators to have a chance to make their speeches. with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? mitch mcconnell didn't want any man, you guys are adorable! of this. he wanted all this done on alright, let's go find your coach, come on! friday night. so the reason we're here and the book with the hilton app. expect better. expect hilton. senators have a chance to go to the floor, some of them have hea country that puts working already won it, is because of together ahead of susan collins and mitt romney. standing apart.

>> yes. when this all started, it became where we find common ground to clear that mitch mcconnell expand health care and build a didn't have an iron grip on his stronger, fairer economy and caucus. after all, mitch mcconnell save our planet. i'm a problems solver, i build teams, floated a senate resolution that in the end he had to alter. i nurture good ideas, not only did he have to alter i hold myself accountable for results. it, he did it by hand. so it's clear that he had a it's how i led a complex, diverse city and it's how i'll couple recalcitrant swing unite and lead this country. senators, if you will -- i wouldn't say moderate but swing i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. senators that he's been trying to keep together with the rest. and they had an effect. the problem is not much of an effect, because in the end, john bolton did not have to testify. so it's clear that not every senator followed mitch mcconnell's approach and we'll see that when they start giving their speeches. my fear, my great concern, okay, is that this important distinction that the president did something wrong is going to get lost and that if we have only two senators or three senators saying that in the end, it won't be part of the legacy

of this experience, that the legacy of this experience is the president can do what he wants in foreign policy and he's not . as we await senators to come going to pay a price. and i think that would be very dangerous for this country. back from lunch for team trump >> boy, i just -- i disagree to give their final closing statements, we're also hours about mitch mcconnell. away from the iowa caucuses. i think this is a triumph for you see senator klobuchar in mitch mcconnell, this whole washington, but her focus is on operation. this ranks right up there, or down there, depending on your tonight. this tonight will be our first real look from voters at the perspective, with his refusal to 2020 democratic race. give merrick garland a vote. pete buttigieg right now is the fact that he managed to avoid witnesses, get a prompt campaigning in west des moines, iowa this hour, using every acquittal, this just shows his moment he has. he has done 55 town halls, he incredible control of his says, since january 12th. caucus. >> in the end he got it, but he you can do the math. it's february 3rd. had to work at it. i'm sure we'll find out -- brian todd is live from sioux let's take a quick break city, iowa. we see senator klobuchar on one here as the senators are side of our screen, brian, expected to come back into session after a quick lunch break. more live news coverage talking to roreporters as she continues after this quick heads back into the impeachment trial. you and other democrats are break. watching at a precinct in sioux city.

what are you expecting? >> erin, we expect some real buzz around here. as you mentioned, the first votes of 2020. it's getting real exciting around here. we're in precinct 6 in sioux city at the training center. what's interesting about the iowa caucuses is it's a physical way where you show your preference to a candidate. it's not like going into a standard primary and casting a ballot behind a screen anonymously and then leaving. you have to be physically counted for your vote. they're going to section off little corners of this hall corresponding to a candidate. there will be a sign for each candidate. people who want that candidate, they go to that corner. they basically raise their hand. they count them in the first round. it will be marked off alphabetically. it will be here with joe biden, michael bloomberg and so on in

each corner of this room. they do that with the first round of counting and people fill out this thing. this is the iowa preference card. you put your name in there, your first preference. that's how they count the votes in here in the first round. then they determine who is viable to move forward as a candidate and who is not. if you don't get 15% of the votes in this room, you will not be viable. those votes won't be counted. but what's really cool about this is if you support a candidate here that does not get 15% of that vote, you have the option to go to another candidate, so then they go to a second round of voting and they count those votes and people fill out this side of the preference card, their second preference. and that will be -- the final count of the evening will be he wanted a man cave in our new home. what determines who wins this precinct and about 1600 other precincts across the state of iowa. it's a very exciting way to look at the vote. it's a significant way to count votes, and that's what makes the iowa caucuses so cool to watch and cover. we'll be showing that to you in realtime tonight, erin, and it will be happening in just a few

hours. >> all right. it is a fascinating and interesting way. of course, so much debate on iowa and its role and whether this caucus system is the best thing or not for the democratic party. we are going to take a brief break. i will say before we go to that, in one college campus in iowa, a student says in terms of door g attention, two, senator sanders. we're going to get back to the action on the senator floor. coming back in after their brief lunch break. we're going to the white house next as we wait for senators returning and talk about the president and how he is watching so carefully what's happening on the senate floor today. more live coverage after a quick break. any comments doug?

but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting gei yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be.

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

but one blows them all out of the water. hydro boost with hyaluronic acid to plump skin cells

so it bounces back... neutrogena® and for body... hydro boost body gel cream. you decide these articles will have the lasting implications for the future of the presidency, not only for this president but for all future presidents. whether or not the office of the presidency of the united states of america is above the law, that is the question. >> president trump weapon onniz our government and the vast powers entrusted to him by the american people and the constitution to target his political rival and corrupt our precious elections, subverted our national security and our democracy in the process. >> house managers are banging this morning on two very obvious

messages. one, you know what you're doing, gop, and you know it's wrong and it's not just about now, it's about what this will mean going forward. probably not. but it may have political implications, and surely it's going to affect how these senators are covered going forward and how they'll have to answer for what they do over the next couple days. let's bring in cnn's kaitlan collins. she's at the white house, of course. kaitlan, from the president's perspective, what is he putting out? what's resonating with him? >> reporter: it certainly doesn't seem to be this idea that people like senator alexander what he said yesterday in an interview, that he thinks the president will learn his lesson from all this and he will not repeat it. the president doesn't think there is anything to learn from here except he thinks the democrats has orchestrated this argument against him. the president has been watching closely and of course he's been

tweeting. he just tweeted a couple minutes ago that he hopes the publ republicans and the american people realize this was a hoax and nothing more, a hoax. the president does not believe he did anything wrong here, so it's really hard to see, based on the people we've spoken with, that he's going to prescribe to that idea that senator alexander is pushing here, so of course the question is going to be, how does this affect the rest of his presidency going forward? the other thing he's doing here today at the white house is getting ready for that "state of the union" address tomorrow night. he won't be on the senate floor like you saw the house managers, but he will be in the house chamber. chris, it's going to be really notable in the first few moments of when he arrives to see the interaction between president trump and the house speaker nancy pelosi. what we're hearing from a pelosi spokesman is the two of them have not spoken since october. it's been months since the two of them have had any interaction at all, so it will be notable to see how it is tomorrow.

remember, the last time they did interact was when they had the syria briefing at the white house, or what was supposed to be the syria briefing, but the president came in and said he didn't even want them there, that they were the ones who wanted that briefing, and it ended up with an insult lodged at pelosi. it will be interesting to see if they even shake hands. what will that interaction be like tomorrow night? >> kaitlan, thank you. i appreciate it. the president has absolutely learned a lesson, and the lesson is he owns this party. he has them in his hand, and when he squeezes his hand, they squeal. he knows he can do whatever he wants. he has more power than any president i've seen in my lifetime within his own party. he's also right that it is a hoax. because the idea of finding things to be wrong and sitting as a senator on a tribunal where

you're supposed to be a tryer of the facts and not having witnesses is a hoax. and that's why the other night i said, go back and look at the movie network. 1974, patty chiafsky wrote it, and it's just as true today, and you have every reason to be as mad as hell with what these senators have done in your name and with your power. the idea that the president's perspective on this, laura, which is, boy, has this been unfair. i said it was faustian. you'll start to hear this. faust made his deal with the devil. he wanted everything now and he would sell his soul later on. the crossroads here is the vote on witnesses. when you went bad on witnesses, you surrendered your dignity as a senator who was doing a job pointed by the constitution. >> it's an interesting argument you're making, because that's exactly what hakeem jeffries and schiff and others have been

saying throughout. the lesson that needed to be learned was not by the president of the united states. he feels empowered and emboldened ever since the mueller report where they did this pressure campaign. the republicans in the senate, at some point those tables are going to turn, and at some point everyone will have to pay the piper. right now making yourself an impotent branch by saying, i'll give the power away. i've always been struck by the obstruction of congress article of impeachment, because the senate could have gotten behind like a mama bear behind a cub and actually roared in advance and said, hold on a second. it was a congressional subpoena that went out, not just a house one, a congressional one. now if i take away and say, i'm not going to fight for that, it's not the president who has just gone above the law, you've put him there by saying, i will

cede my power. that will be consequential down the line. >> it is a use it or lose it proposition. ross, let me hold for a minute. we're going to take a break and figure out what the time limit is here, what's going on. check with us. we'll be back in just a moment.

you know, even if you have an accident. - i know when i'm driving, i'm covered. - [announcer] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. to get your free no-obligation quote and see how much you could save, call the hartford at the number on your screen. or go to the website on your screen. the buck's got your back. no. uh uh, no way. ♪ come on. no. no. n... ni ni, no no! only discover has no annual fee on any card.

welcome back. senators are heading back in after their lunch break. we anticipate team trump's response here. their closing arguments will begin momentarily. as we get ready for that, jeff, just to give people a sense of what's happening, senators have been milling around outside. we obviously saw senator klobuchar, senator mcconnell is out there. the senator from arizona is currently undecided, purple state. she was having a conversation with the vote counter on the republican side, john thune. senator murkowski joined. we understand the conversation was casual, but nevertheless, certainly talking to senators. >> it's a data point. i don't know what it means. as we look ahead to what the president's lawyers are going to say, it's a time for the hipocratic oath. don't say anything that will upset the apple cart that will

cause controversy. revisit the arguments that you've made in the past that this is something that should be decided by the voters, that the house investigation was inadequate and unfair. i think those are arguments that everyone has heard before, but what will be interesting is to see how much they want to appeal to their client by going with the, it was a perfect phone call. how much are they going to actually defend the conduct as above rapproch. my guess is as they've done throughout the trial, they will say that, but they won't spend a lot of time on it because, for one thing, it's difficult to -- and now we'll know because there they are. >> they are sitting down and get ready to hear what team trump will say. let's get ready for the closing argument. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators. thank you very much on behalf of

all of us for your continued attention. today we are going to complete our argument and finish our closing argument. we will complete that in a very efficient period of time. you understand the arguments that we've been making, and at the end of the day, the key conclusion, we believe the only conclusion based on the evidence and based on the articles of impeachment themselves and the constitution, is that you must vote to acquit the president. at the end of the day, this is an effort to overturn the results of one election and to try to interfere in in iowa. and we believe that the only proper result, if we're applying the golden rule of impeachment, if we're applying the rules of impeachment that were so eloquently stated by members of the democratic party the last time we were here, the only appropriate result here is to acquit the president and to leave it to the voters to choose their president. with that i'll turn it over to

judge ken starr and we'll move through a series of short presentations. thank you. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, majority leader mcconnell, minority leader schumer, house impeachment managers and their very able staff. as of world war i, the war to end all wars, was drawing to a close, an american soldier sat down at a piano and composed a song. it was designed to be part of a musical review for his army camp out on long island, suffolk county. the song was "god bless america." the composer, of course, was irving berlin who came here at the age of five, son of immigrants who came to this

country for freedom. as composers are wont to do, berlin worked very carefully with the lyrics. the song needed to be pure. it needed to be above politics, above partisanship. he intended it to be a song for all america. but he intended it to be more than just a song. it was to be a prayer for the country. as your very distinguished chaplain, admiral barry black, has done in his prayers on these long days that you've spent as judges in the high court of impeachment, we've been reminded of what our country is all about and that it stands for one nation, under god. the nation is about freedom. and we hear the voice of martin

luther king jr. and his dream-filled speech about freedom echoing the great passages inscribed on america's temple of justice. the lincoln memorial which stood behind dr. king as he spoke on that historic day. dr. king is gone, felled by an assassin's bullet, but his words remain with us. during his magnificent life, dr. king spoke not only about freedom, freedom standing alone, he spoke frequently about freedom and justice. and in his speeches, he summed it up regularly the words of a unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, theodore parker, who referred to the moral arc of the universe, the long moral arc

of the universe points toward justice. freedom and justice. freedom whose contours have been shaped over the centuries in the english-speaking world. justice benjamin cardozo called the authentic forms of justice through which the community expresses itself in law. authentic. authenticity. and at the foundation of those authentic forms of justice is fundamental fairness. it's playing by the rules. it's why we don't allow deflated footballs or stealing signs from the field. rules are rules. they're to be followed. and so i submit that a key question to be asked as you begin your deliberations, were

the rules here faithfully followed? if not, if that is your judgment, then with all due respect, the prosecutors should not be rewarded just as federal prosecutors are not rewarded. you didn't follow the rules. you should have. as a young lawyer, i was blessed to work with one of the great trial lawyers of his time. and i asked him, dick, what's your secret? he had just defended successfully a former united states senator who was charged with a serious offense, perjury before a federal grand jury. his response was simple and forthright. his words come from prairie

lawyer abe lincoln. i let the judge and the jury know that they can believe and trust every word that kochcomes of my mouth. i will not be proven wrong. and so here's a question as you begin your deliberations. have the facts as presented to you as a court, as the high court of impeachment, proven trustworthy? has there been full and fair disclosure in the course of these proceedings? fundamental fairness. i recall these words from the podium last week. a point would be made by one of the president's lawyers and then this would follow. the house managers didn't tell you that. why not? and again, the house managers didn't tell you that. why not?

at the justice department on the fifth floor of the robert f. kennedy building is this simple inscription. the united states wins its point when justice is done its citizens in the courts. not, did we win? not, did we convict? rather, the moral question was justice done. of course, as it's been said frequently, the house of representatives does, under our constitution, enjoy the sole power of impeachment. no one has disputed that fact. they've got the power, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. it doesn't mean that the house cannot be called to account in the high court of impeachment for its actions in exercising

that power. a question to be asked, are we to countenance violations of the rules and civil procedures that have been followed scrupulously it prior impeachment proceedings? and the judiciary committee, the venerable judiciary committee of the house of representatives. compare and contrast the thoroughness of that committee in the age of nixon. its thoroughness in the age of clinton with all of its divisiveness within the committee in this proceeding. a question to be asked. did the house judiciary committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? did it carefully gather the facts, assess the