>> ms. macullski. >> i do. >> and then you go to the well and sign a book for all of history where i hear by, u.s. senator from maryland, do pledge to render impartial justice on matter of impeachment. now, you know, your hand shakes with that kind of historical and immediate commitment. >> the impeachment of president trump today, the house votes on impeachment manager, sending the article from abuse of power and obstruction of congress to the senate. follow the process live on c-span on demand at c-span.org/impeachment and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this afternoon at 5 p.m. eastern we expect the senate to receive the articles of impeachment on president trump

to from the house of representatives. it's 20 minutes at 10:00 eastern this morning. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. until then some of the debate from the senate from yesterday. >> tomorrow will be four weeks, four weeks since house democrats impeached the president of the united states with purely partisan support. speaker pelosi and chairman schiff did not wait to fill out the factual record. they did not even wait to see their own subpoenas through the legal system. they plowed ahead for two reasons, they said impeachment was too urgent to wait, to urgent to wait and they said they'd already proven their ca case. but since then, house democrats have spent four weeks contradicting both of those

claims. they spent four weeks demonstrating that impeachment is not actually that urgent, not that urgent, and maybe not actually have that much confidence in their case. an arbitrary four-week delay does not, madam president, show urgency. and these demands for the senate to pre commit to opening the house investigation do not show confidence. there's a reason why the house inquiry that led to president nixon's resignation took 14 months of hearings in addition to the separate special prosecutor. there's a reason why the clinton impeachment inquiry draw on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. that's because both of those houses of representatives knew

they had to prove their case before submitting it to the senate for judgment. both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege. extensive litigation, both times, not after a trial had been added to the senate, but beforehand when the case was actually being compiled. mountains of evidence, mountains of testimony, long legal battles over privilege and none of this discovery took place over here in the senate. the constitution gives the soul power of impeachment to the house. if the house majority wants to impeach the president, the ball is in their court, but they have to do the work. they have to prove their case. nothing, nothing in our history or our constitution says a

house majority can pass what amounts to a half baked censure resolution and then insist that the senate fill in the blanks. there's no constitutional exception for our house majority with a short attention span. look, i think everyone knows in process has not been some earnest fact finding mission with house democrats following each thread wherever it leads. the speaker of the house did know the reluctantly decide to impeach after pouring over secondhand impressions of civil servants. this was a predetermined political conclusion, members of their conversation had been publicly promising it literally for years. that's why the investigation stopped long before the house had come anywhere near proving what they allege.

they pulled the plug early because the facts were never the point. they were never the point. the point was to check a political box. for goodness sake, the very morning after the house's historic vote, speaker pelosi literally chastised supporters for asking too many questions about impeachment. she tried to change the subject to economic policy. she said any other questions? anybody want to talk about the salt tax? i'm not going to ask any more questions on this, referring to impeachment. really? really? you impeach a president of the united states and the very next morning, there's nothing to see here? does that sound like a speaker of the house who really thinks the survival of the republic is on the line? does anyone really think that

if democrats truly believe the president of the united states was a criminal who is imperiling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didn't want to make time for due process? that they would have pulled the plug on the investigation just because it sounded good to finish by christmas? that they would have delayed the trail for a month while they test drove new talking points? that they would have been trying to change the subject 12 hours after the vote? madam president, i cannot say what democrats do and do not really believe. but they certainly do not seem to display the urgency or the seriousness you'd expect from people who actually thought they had proven the president should be removed. last weekend on television the

speaker bragged that this president is impeached for life, regardless of what the senate does. regardless of what the senate does. as if the ultimate verdict were sort of an afterthought. likewise, senate democratic leader recently said as long as he can try to use the trial process to hurt some republicans reelection chances, quote, it's a win-win, that's what this is all about. the democratic leader just laid it right out there in case anybody had any doubt. what a revealing admission. forget about the fate of the presidency, forget about the constitution, as long as the process helps the democrats' political fortunes, our colleagues, democratic colleagues call it a win-win. do these sound like leaders who

are really -- who really believe we're in a constitutional crisis, one that requires the most severe remedy in our entire system of government, sound like that? here is how deep we have come into bizarro world. the latest democratic talking point is that if the senate conducts a trial based on what the house itself looked at, we'll be engaged in a coverup. did you get that? unless the senate steps outside our lane and takes it upon ourselves to supplement the house case, it's a coverup? do they think the entire country has forgotten what they were saying just a couple of days ago? we heard over and over that the

house case on its own was totally damning and convincing, that's what they were saying a few days ago. clearly a majority of the house felt it was sufficient to impeach. and a number of senate democrats were happy to pre-judge the case publicly and suggest the house had proven enough for removal. but now, madam president, all of a sudden, the story has reversed. now we hardly know anything. now the investigation is just beginning. now that the house has produced it's so weak they're calling their own investigation a coverup. who would be the author of this coverup? chairman schiff? we've arrived at a simple contradiction. two things cannot be both true.

house democrats case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place, but also so weak that the senate needs to go fishing. if the existing case is strong there's no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. if the existing case is weak, house democrats should not have impeached in the first place. i think i'm beginning to understand why the speaker wanted to change the subject to tax policy. but unfortunately, no matter how irresponsibly this has been handled across the capital, impeachment is not a political game and the united states senate will not treat it like one. madam president, the senate is not in order. >> senate come to order!

>> the house majority fueled by political animus may have started this with frivolity, but it will fall to us to do what the founders intended, to take the long view, move beyond partisan passions, and do what the long-term good of our institution and our nation demands. >> now, the house of representatives has impeached the president for a very serious offense. coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our election, using the powers of the presidency, the most powerful public office in the nation to benefit himself, to actually influence the election, which should be decid