susan collins knows that state and the polling also belies that people want to move on from impeachment as well. >> dana: thank you. of busy news hour today. we are on a street. thank you for joining us. i am dana perino, we will see you on "the five" that will be in a couple of hours. meanwhile here's bill hemmer. >> bill: dana, thank you. our reporting starts now, one republican will break ranks today. one hour from now, 100 senators vote on the articles of impeachment, mitt romney explaining his decision with our chris wallace. >> you say that this is the toughest decision you have ever had to make in your public life. >> i have spoken a good deal with my family, because this will have consequences. blowback of consequence not just for me, but for my family. for my wife, my son, my daughters-in-law, my 24 grandkids, they all said you have to do what you think is right. >> bill: this says that time is up for senators to speak on the floor before impeachment at 4:00 eastern time. in moments we will hear from

senate minority leader chuck schumer and majority leader mitch mcconnell, both will speak and then we will move to the vote. before that happens, chad pergram reporting live. good afternoon. how is this going to go? >> well, it is always said that history plays out in this building under the capitol dome. it happened in the past hour as mitt romney announced his decision to split his votes when it comes to convicting the president of the united states on these articles of impeachment. and it will come at 4:00 when they actually vote. the full senate will take that vote. mitt romney says he has not been getting any sleep past 4:00 a.m. every night. listen. >> i am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision. and in some quarters i will be vehemently denounced. i'm sure to hear her abuse from the president and his supporters. >> adam schiff just told me mitt romney's decision "showed a lot of moral courage."

there were questions whether moderate democrats could vote to acquit president trump, and the most vulnerable democrat facing reelection says that he will vote to convict. >> and there will be so many who will simply look at what i am doing today and say that it is a profile of courage. it is not. it is simply a matter of right and wrong. we are doing right is not a courageous act. it is simply following your oath. >> the national republicans editorial campaign committee tells us that they think doug jones "who disrespected supporter's in alabama." there are two democrats, we don't know their disposition at 4:00, joe manchin of west virginia and kyrsten sinema of arizona. >> bill: okay, chad, walk us through what happens at 4:00. >> at 4:00 they will bring the chief justice back into the chamber, the trial will technically be back in session

and they will read the first article of impeachment, then they will go through the roll alphabetically. senators will rise and clay are guilty or not guilty. then the chief justice will read the result and they will go into article 2, obstruction of congress, and they will not get close to 67 votes, it will be short of that. >> bill: we will watch the numbers, standby for that, could be some wild cards and surprises, so to the audience at home, stay tuned. team fox coverage as we await the vote, martha and bret with us now, and juan williams will join me shortly now. we have been with it for about three weeks i would say, which is a little less than many thought the trial would last, but nonetheless, bret, it all comes down to today. what is the reaction on mitt romney's decision from earlier? >> it is reverberating around washington, bill. it was not a surprise, i don't think. but to hear him explain himself

and why he is the way he is going to vote for conviction on one of those articles of impeachment obviously will have reverberation. there are a couple of democrats to watch, kyrsten sinema, joe manchin, see how they vote on the articles. but the real big vote we covered before was the witness vote in this trial. and once that happened, this today is pretty much a foregone conclusion, but history. >> bill: we have the decision, martha, from doug jones earlier today. the final tally is something that i think is, they are in lies the drama for the next hour. does it go above 52 votes in the senate? or does it stay 52-38 with mitt romney's decision on the first article, which is abuse of power? >> that is one of the questions and why we will watch kyrsten sinema on that vote. i think we have a pretty good sense of where everyone is at this point. and certainly it was a dramatic large decision permit romney to do what he did. he will be the first member of

the party to vote to convict a member of his own party in the history of the united states in a large picture, it will not matter all that much about how all of this comes out, but certainly, these are two men who are just so different. these two men are different in every way you can possibly imagine. one is very polite, the other is the opposite of that. one is a wheel ordeal businessman, the other is a very devout sort of senatorial person who is a senator from utah at this point. as he said in the interview with chris, i thought it was interesting. he said this before, i have taken a worse punishment that you can get is failing at becoming president of the united states, it does not matter what they do to me now. as a story line today, that is obviously an interesting one. i think in the long run when the vote comes down and to the president is acquitted. that will be the headline that history will pay attention to long term. >> bill: let me bring in juan

into this conversation, when mitt romney said we know each other and go back a long way. in 2012 to a losing effect as martha points out, but the speech that meant romney gave during the campaign of 2016 is seared in the minds of just about everybody who follows politics. he ripped into him as a candidate. >> don't forget, donald trump has ripped into mitt romney in terms of the failure, to defeat barack obama. so i think it is the establishment, the republican establishment, kind of like the force be with you and "star wars," the empire strikes back. and here you have a moment where lamar alexander, who is retiring i think would have voted similarly if not for the close relationship with senator mcconnell. >> bill: you think that? >> yes, i think that is pretty clear. mitch mcconnell was able to appeal and say that we need to

stay together as a united republican party. and i think that's where mitt romney broke. >> bill: on that point, and bret, i think that's what the president has fallen back on during the entire argument, he has said repeatedly republicans have never been more united than they are now, but this was an obvious break on that point. >> as i said before, i do not think it was a surprise. it was interesting to watch chris's interview in the back story of where mitt romney was. but i think in the big picture it is a blip with the president who has the wind at his back at this moment. after the speech last night that while democrats were saying it was a campaign rally, a lot of people talking about it say, really wove in the stories to hit policy issues that they are really going after, and seemed to be effective, at least it had some of the marks. he also is doing well in the polls as far as gallup and others, and obviously on the flip side, democrats are having

a tough time. >> it is a fascinating thing when you mark this moment with nine months left to go until the presidential election. we know what twists and turns can happen over the next nine months, but the president today had the acquittal this afternoon, likely acquittal at 4:00 feeling really good about where he is. democrats are kind of spinning at this moment. coming out of iowa and nancy pelosi seem to be fraying at the edges a little bit. a lot of things can happen in the month to come. >> bill: it was quite clear at the beginning of the state of the union last night that the no handshake would be a headline. but i don't think anyone could predict, juan, what happened at the end of the address, with her on camera ripping through the speech three times. >> it shocked me. i cannot believe it. normally she is such a restrained hard-nosed politician. and remember, i don't know if you recall, but at times she has

had two shrewish people and tell them to restrain themselves. and then she was reprimanded by the president about the pen that was signing with the articles of impeachment. she has always even before being reprimanded by the president, mocked. i thought she was one who wanted to make it clear, she wanted and impeachment to be bipartisan. she wanted it to be clear. this was not about politics or personality, she thought she was doing her constitutional duty. that was a moment of high personal investment. that was a moment of raw emotion. >> bill: did that help her within her caucus? did that help her within her party? you understand the difference? >> let me just say, i don't have to think, because this very morning she got a standing ovation when the caucus got together in washington. a standing ovation for having taking the speech and ripped it apart. when you speak about the party, however, the question is whether or not lots of independent or

swing voters may have been repulsed by that and say, look at the partisanship now. normally i say donald trump goes too far, maybe nancy pelosi went too far for a lot of people last night. >> bill: interesting observation, we will bring in the senator from pennsylvania on that point. >> i think that independence look at it a little bit different that may be democrats and to the caucus. also when it started there is a tradition of the house speaker, republican or democrat saying it is my high honor and distinct personal privilege to introduce the president on the united states. she did not do that. it was noticed by watchers of the house on both sides. >> bill: standby, bret, martha in d.c. to the viewers at home, we are about 50 minutes away, we will take you inside the senate and watch the vote together. but the moment mitch mcconnell comes out and chuck schumer begin their final speeches, we will take you there as well. we expect that at the half-hour

mark. in addition, there is still no winter in iowa. still. results trickling in by the hour. pete buttigieg, senator bernie sanders battling it out for first place. a close one too. joe biden, meanwhile, in new hampshire says he took a gut punch, but insisting it is not over for him. >> this is essentially the beginning. i wanted to do well in iowa, and i count to four, the first four are the key. two caucuses and two primaries. > bill: more of what he is saying today from studio age, the avenue in new york city. i am bill hemmer, back in new york today, and our coverage continues next.st memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. introducing ore-ida potato pay.

where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ nothi♪[ siren ] & doug give me your hand! i can save you... lots of money with liberty mutual! we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need!

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. ♪ spilling big a story of the hour right now, the republican breaking with the party, showing you a live look on the senate floor where mitt romney said he

would vote to convict president trump on the first article, which is abuse of power. while we are waiting, i want to talk to the other senators that will be casting votes today. bob casey is my guest from the hill. thank you for your time and good afternoon. i know that you will vote to convict on both accounts. while democrats hold the line as a party on both counts throughout this, or no? >> i don't know, we will see when the vote is taken. but this is a very serious vote for people on both sides of the aisle. it is an important moment for the country. we will wait to see how the votes come out. this is a grave offense that i believe the president committed to, and senators will make their own minds up. >> bill: i don't need to tell you that there are a few wild cards on the democratic side. we will see which way they go, but do you believe based on the interactions you have had with joe manchin, kyrsten sinema, that they can break from the party on either article? >> bill, i really don't know. on these kinds of questions, you

really do not want to have those kinds of conversations, because it is a very much decision that is individual. and not engagement by other senators has much impact. >> bill: you would concede that the acquittal is coming later this afternoon, would you not? >> yes, i would not expect the results to sway that. >> bill: if that is the case, what was accomplished during the process? >> i did not hear that. >> bill: what has been accomplished through the process? >> when you believe that a president has engaged in misconduct to that rises to the level of and abuse of power, you have to mandated under the constitution. there is no other remedy at that to you can go to. this is the one remedy that the constitution has principally in this case to stop him from interfering in this upcoming election. >> bill: joe manchin mentioned censure or the other day, it

went nowhere, how come? >> this is a process that the constitution requires you undertake. we are about to complete that process. people will vote the way they want. but this is a decision that every senator has to make. what do you believe your oath of office tells you to do? what is the public trust? what is a violation of the public trust? people will come up with different determinations. but it was required, this process, his conduct made this process mandatory. >> bill: senator, you are in the house last night watching the state of the union address, what did you think of speaker pelosi's reaction at the end? >> bill, look, we can talk for a long time about what happened at that stated the union, and personalities or conflicts. i think the most important thing we should be talking about is the policy. do you agree with where the president is taking the country on the economy or health care or

not? it is perfectly okay for any president to talk about their accomplishments if they want to about jobs or the economy, but for the president to say that he has made an ironclad commitment to protect people who have a pre-existing condition, the facts tell otherwise. the repeal bill and the lawsuit contradicts that. we should be talking about the policy, not someone's reaction. >> bill: these policies will be debated, and living in a critical state of pennsylvania, but the physical act of ripping up the sheet of paper three times by the president, what did you make of that? was that in defiance of congress, or not in your view? >> all i can tell you is that people that i represent in pennsylvania, i have won six general elections, so i know better than anybody, they are interested in what the policy is. i'm not sure that they will be evaluating the interactions between public officials. i don't think that they give a

damn about that. they want to know if they will have health care and their wages will grow. i think it is that simple. in washington we can spend a lot of time on this, but back home they want to know what is the difference between the two parties on basic policies. that could be an interesting debate. >> bill: on that point, you are right, that's what we found in iowa, the word impeachment was not brought up. i am assuming you are aware of that too, senator. thank you for your time. i will speak to you after the vote as well. talk to you down the road, we will hear from the other side in a moment. john korner from texas is my guest to live, he is up next. ♪ near 50-year lows. one call to newday usa can save you $2,000 every year. and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs.

activate your va streamline benefit now. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. and one gram of sugar. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

speak of the permanent bank president's actions demonstrate a belief that he is above the l.

that congress has no power whatsoever in examining his actions, and that all that do so, do so at their peril. >> bill: that was doug jones from alabama, he is one of those wild cards, but no longer, he says he will vote to convict on both articles. with me now republican senator john korner from texas. good afternoon to you. thank you for your time. i don't know if you have been doing a head count, but we will find out together momentarily. mitt romney said he did not consult any of his colleagues before announcing a decision with the interview with chris wallace. did you have any contact with him before he announced his decision? >> not on the ultimate decision, but he keeps his counsel, and he did what he thought his conscious required him to do. i disagree with him, but i respect his right to cast his vote the way he sees fit. >> bill: just to be clear, you are a "no" on foot both articles? >> they will not reach the 67

votes to acquit. >> bill: what is your guess on that as you count heads? >> i think that senator manchin is still a little bit of a wild card. i would be surprised given the president's popularity to convict, senator kyrsten sinema, i don't know she has announced or not yet. but it is clear that the 67 votes threshold under the constitution will not be reached. we know what the final result will be. >> bill: i don't know if you are aware, but terry nadler was asked what is next. he made it clear that the investigation that will highlight and feature john bolton will continue. i think in his words he said, i think it is likely yes when you have a lawless president, you have to bring it to the floor and spotlight that. do you see a scenario where you are back in this situation? again? >> well, i think chairman nadler is certainly consistent. and the president has been under

investigation, and the threat of impeachment since the day he was inaugurated. in the house can vote on additional impeachment articles theoretically. but i hope the message that we sent by our verdict is that don't come over here half-baked and i'm prepared to present a case. don't expect us to take all of our time in the senate to help you develop a case that you should have done in the house but did not because of an arbitrary christmas deadline. >> bill: have had a series of events this week. he stated the union address last night. we may hear from the president later today. what was the last time you spoke to him? did you get a sense of how he was receiving this trial? >> obviously this as i said, the third time in american history that this has happened. i know that he is paying attention. but he is well represented by the white house counsel and the representative in the trial, and as you know, casting the final verdict here shortly, but my

hope is that we will move on and will learn from this experience. this is a misguided partisan impeachment. that's what nancy pelosi called it last march, and it proved to be the case. so the outcome really was not in doubt. i hope that we will move on together. >> bill: i understand, i just take it from your answer you have not had contact for some time. i don't know how long that has been . >> probably a matter of days, but since i have talked to the president, we had a visit about nuclear modernization a week ago from the white house in the last few days. >> bill: understood, your reflection on last night and what went down in the house, what did you think? >> i thought the speech was reagan-esque, i think it was ronald reagan that started the inner tradition of introducing people. we saw that on steroids, and of course, they had great heartwarming stories.

and i thought the president appealed to the better angels of our nature and to our hopes and aspirations rather than the negativity that we feel that weighs us down here in washington. but i'm fortunate, the speaker could not rise to the occasion. and i thought really did herself a disfavor by going through that petty exercise of tearing up the speech at the end. >> bill: do you know if her other colleagues, any of them feel the same way that you do? >> my sense is, i have not taken a poll, but i think that that is the general feeling, yes. >> bill: senator, thank you, 30 minutes away from the vote. thank you for stopping by today. in a moment senator chuck schumer will take the floor, followed by mitch mcconnell. we will follow both men there teeing up the vote ultimately at 4:00 eastern time on the two articles of impeachment. they are with lindsey graham, we will take you there in a moment as it gets underway. in the meantime, what we are hearing from the white house next. ♪

i use rakuten to get cash back in-store and online. rakuten is free to sign up and it's in over 3,000 stores.

i use it to buy makeup... travel... ...clothes, electronics. to me, rakuten is a great way to get cash back on anything you buy. sign up today and rack it up with rakuten. are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure. as a mom, i knew it had to work. >> bill: we are getting closer to the moment, chuck schumer on the floor of the senate beginning his speech. followed by the majority leader mitch mcconnell, than we believe based on the schedule, the vote will follow senator mcconnell. drop on in the floor of the senate in washington.

>> , meaning him. and investigate his political opponents in order to elicit these political investigations, president trump withheld the white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance from an ally at war with russia. those extensive documentation in the record proving this quid pro quo and the corrupt motive behind it. the facts are not seriously in dispute, in fact, several republican senators believed that the president committed this offense with varying degrees of program. inappropriate, wrong, shameful, almost all republicans will argue, however, that this reprehensible conduct does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. the founders could not have been clearer, william devi, a delegate to the constitutional convention deemed impeachment "an essential security with the

president spares no efforts or means whatsoever to get himself reelected." james madison offered a specific list of impeachable offenses during the debate in independence hall. a president might lose his capacity or embezzle public funds. a despicable soul might come to bribes while in office. madison then arrived at what he thought was the worst conduct a president could engage in. the president could betray his trust to foreign powers, which would be fatal to the republic. madison's words, when i study the constitution and "the federalist" papers in high school, admittedly i was skeptical of george washington's warning that "foreign influences one of the most dangerous foes of republican government." it seems so far-fetched, who would dare? but the foresight and wisdom of the founders indoors. madison was right.

washington was right. there is no greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside of our borders to determine elections within them. if americans believe that they don't determine their senator, their governor, there president, but rather some foreign potentate does, that is the beginning of the end of democracy. for a foreign country to attend to such a thing on its own is contemptible. for an american president to deliberately solicit such a thing, to blackmail a foreign country into helping him win and election is unforgivable. now does this rise to the level of impeachable offense? of course it does. of course it does. the term high crimes derives from english law. crimes were committed between subjects of the monarchy. high crimes were committed

against the crown itself. the framers did not design a monarchy. they designed a democracy. a nation where the people working. high crimes are those committed against the entire people of the united states. the president sought to cheat the people out of a free and fair election. how could such an offense not be deemed a high crime? a crime against the people? as one constitutional scholar in the house judiciary hearings testified, if this is not impeachable, nothing is. i agree. i judge that president trump is guilty of the first article of impeachment. the second article of impeachment is equally straightforward. once the president realized he got caught, he tried to cover it up. the president asserted blanket immunity. he categorically defied congressional subpoenas. ordered his aides not to

testify, and withheld the production of relevant documents. even president nixon, author of the most infamous presidential cover-up in history permitted his aides to testify in congress in the watergate investigation. the idea that the trump administration was properly invoking the various rights and privileges of the presidency is nonsense. at each stage of the house inquiry, the administration conjured up a different bad-faith justification for evading accountability. there is no circumstance under which of the administration would have complied. when i asked to the president's counsel twice to name one document, or one witness the president provided to congress, they could not answer. it cannot be that the president by legal shamelessness can escape scrutiny entirely. once again, the facts are not in

dispute. but some have sought to portray the second article of impeachment as somehow less important than the first. it is not. the second article of impeachment is necessary if congress is to ever hold the president accountable again. democrat or republican. the consequence of sanctioning such category will obstruction of congress would be far-reaching. and they will be irreparable. i judge that president trump is guilty of the second article of impeachment. the senate should convict president trump, remove him from the presidency, and disqualify him from holding future office. the guilt of the president on these charges is so obvious that here again several republican senators admit that the house has proved its case. so instead of maintaining the president's innocence, the president's council ultimately

told the senate that even if the president did what he was accused of, it is not impeachable. this has taken the form of an escalating series of dershowit dershowitz-ian arguments. "the president can be impeached for noncriminal conduct, but he also cannot be indicted for criminal conduct." "if a president believes his own reelection is essential to the nation, then a quid pro quo is not corrupt." these are the excuses of a child caught in a lie. each explanation more outlandish and desperate than the last. it would be laughable if not for the fact that the cumulative effects of these arguments would render not just this president, but all presidents immune from impeachment. and therefore above the law.

now several members of this chamber said that even if the president is guilty, and even if it is impeachable, the senate still should not convict to the president because there is an election coming up. as if the framers forgot about elections when they wrote to the impeachment clause. if the founders believed that even when a president is guilty of an impeachable offense that the next election should decide his fate, they never would have included an impeachment clause in the constitution. that much is obvious. alone each of the defenses advanced by the president's council comes close to two being preposterous. together they are as dangerous to the republic as this president. a fig leaf so large as to excuse any presidential misconduct, unable to defend the president, arguments were found to make him a king.

let future generations know that only a fraction of the senate follow these fantasies. the rest of us condemn them to the ash heap of history, and the reason of first-year law students everywhere. only the third senate in history to sit at the court of impeachment for the president. the task we were given is not easy. but the framers gave the senate this responsibility. because they could not imagine any other body capable of it. they considered others, but they entrusted us to us and to the senate failed. the republican caucus with outrage not on the conduct of the president, but on the impeachment process in the house deriding falsely and alleged lack of fairness and thoroughness. the outrage, the conjured outrage was so blinding that the republican majority ended up

guilty of the very sins it falsely accuse the house of committing. it conducted the least fair, least thorough, most rushed impeachment trial in the history of this country. a simple majority of senators denied the senate's right to examine relative evidence. to call witnesses to review documents, and properly try the impeachment of the president. making this the first impeachment trial in history that heard from no witnesses. a simple majority of senators in deference to an most likely in fear of the president of their party perpetrated a great miscarriage of justice in the trial of president trump. as a result, the verdict of this kangaroo court will be meaningless. by refusing the facts, by refusing witnesses and documents. the republican majority has

placed a giant asterisk, the asterisk of a trial next to the acquittal of president trump written in permanent ink. acquittal and unfair trial with this giant asterisk, the asterisk of a sham trial is worth nothing at all. to president trump or to anybody else. no doubt the president will boast he received total exoneration, but we know better. we know this was not a trial by any stretch of the definition. and to the american people know it too. we have heard a lot about the framers over the past several weeks. about the impeachment clause they forged, the separation of powers they rot, the conduct of the most feared in our chief magistrate. but there is something the founders considered even more fundamental to our republic. truth.

the founders have seen and studied societies, governed by the iron fist of tyrants in the divine right of kings, but none by argument rational thinking facts, debate, hamilton said the american people would determine "whether societies are really capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or forever destined to depend on accident and force." and what an astonishing thing the founders stated. they placed a bet with long odds. they believed that reflection and choice would make us capable of self-government. that we would not agree on everything, but at least we could agree on a common baseline of fact and truth. they wrote the constitution with the remarkable idea that even though the most powerful person in our country was not above the law and could be put on trial, a

trial of a place where you seek truth. the faith are founders put in us makes the failure of this senate even more. the nation was founded on the idea of truth, but there was no truth here. the republican majority could not let truth into this trial, the republican majority refused to get the evidence, because they were afraid of what it might show. our nation was founded on the idea of truth, but in order to continence this president, you have to ignore the truth. republicans walk through the halls with their heads down. they did not see the tweet. they cannot respond to everything he says. they hope he learns his lesson this time. yes, maybe this time he learns his lesson. our nation was founded on truth. but in order to excuse this president, you have to willfully ignore the truth and indulge in the president's conspiracy theories. millions of people voted illegally, the deep state is out

to get to them. ukraine interfered in our elections. you must attempt to normalize his behavior. obama did it too, they falsely claim. democrats are just as bad. our nation was founded on the idea of truth, but this president is such a menace, so contemptuous of every virtue, so dishonorable, so dishonest that you must ignore in deeper sacrifice the truth to maintain his favor. the trial of this president, his failure reflects the central challenge of this presidency, and may be the central challenge of this time in our democracy. you cannot be on the side of this president and be on the side of truth. and if we are to survive as a nation, we must choose truth. because if the truth does not matter. if the news you don't like is

fake. if cheating an election is acceptable. if everyone is as wicked as the wickedness among us, then the hope of the future is lost. the eyes of the nation are upon this senate. and what they see will strike out in the heart of even the most ardent patriot. the house managers establish the president abused the great power of his office to cheat an election. and the senate majority is poised to look the other way. so i direct my final message, not to the house managers, not even to my fellow senators. but to the american people, my message is simple. don't lose hope. there is justice in this world, and truth. and right. i believe that. i would not be in this government if i didn't.

somehow in ways we can't predict, with god's mysterious hand guiding us, truth and right will prevail. there are been dark periods in our history, but we always overcome. this tenant's prayer yesterday was amos 5:24. let justice roll down like water. righteousness like an ever flowing stream. the long arc of the moral universe, my fellow americans, does bend towards justice. america does change for the better. but not on its own. it took millions of americans hundreds of years to make this country what it is today. americans of every age and color and creed who marched and protested. who stood up and sat in. americans who defended this democracy, this beautiful democracy in its darkest hours.

on memorial day in 1884, oliver wendell holmes told his war weary audience that "whether one accepts from fortune her spayed and will look downward and dig it, or from aspiration her acts and cord and will scale the ice, one and only a success, which is yours to command is to bring to your work in a mighty heart." i have confidence that americans of a different generation, our generation will bring to our work a mighty heart. to fight for what is right, to fight for the truth, and never lose faith. yield the floor. >> bill: we anticipate the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will follow chuck schumer. his speech on the floor of the

senate as we prepare for the vote. which on the schedule is 4:00 eastern time. about 11 minutes from now. article 1 abuse of power, article 2 obstruction of justice. chuck schumer at one point saying these are the excuses that a child would use in reference to president trump. i understand that mitch mcconnell is approaching, so we will stand by in a moment here. we do not want to miss a word. he is already scheduled a media availability at 4:30 eastern time. which would suggest that this vote could come quickly. here we go. >> was made for moments like this. the framers predicted that factional fever might dominate house majority is from to time. they knew the country would need a firewall to keep partisan flames from scorching. scorching a republic. they created the senate.

out of necessity james madison wrote "of some stable institution in the government, of some stable institution in the government." today we will fulfill this founding purpose. we will reject this incoherent case that comes nowhere near, nowhere near justifying the first presidential removal in history. this partisan impeachment will end today. but i fear the threat to our institutions may not. because this episode is one of a symptom of something much deep

deeper. in the last three years, the opposition to this president has come to revolve around a truly dangerous concept. leaders in the opposite party increasingly argue that if our institutions don't produce the outcomes they like, our institutions themselves must be broken. one side has decided that defeat simply means the whole system is broken. that we literally tear up the rules. and write new ones. normally, normally when a party loses an election, it accepts defeat. it reflects andrew toole's. but not this time. within months, secretary clinton was suggesting her defeat was

invalid. she called our president illegitimate. former president falsely claimed that president trump did not actually win. he lost the election, the former president said. and members of congress have used similar rhetoric. a disinformation campaign, weakening confidence in our democracy. the very real issue of foreign election interference was abused to fuel conspiracy theories. for years prominent voices said there had been a secret conspiracy between the president's campaign and a foreign government. but when the mueller investigation debunked to that,

it did not stop. remember what chairman schiff said on the floor. he suggested that if the american people reelect president trump in november, that election will be presumptively invalid as well. that is chairman schiff on this floor. saying if the american people reelect president trump this november, that election will be perceptively invalid as well. so they still don't except to the american voters last decision. and now they are preparing to reject to the voters next decision if they don't like the outcome. not only the last decision, but the next decision. and if we win, heads. details, you cheated. and who can trust our democracy anyway, they say?

this kind of talk creates more fear and division then our foreign adversaries could achieve in their wildest dreams. as dr. hill stified, our adversaries seek to divide us against each other. degrade our institutions and destroyed the faith of the american people. and our democracy. and as she noted if americans are consumed by partisan rancor, we can easily do that work for them. the architects of this impeachment claim they were defending norms and traditions. in reality, it was an assault on both. first, the house attacked its own precedents on fairness and due process. and by rushing to use the impeachment power as a political

weapon of first resort, then there are articles that attacked the office of the presidency. then they attack to the senate and called us treacherous. then the far left try to impugn the chief justice for remaining neutral in early trial. and now, and now, for the final act, the speaker of the house is trying to steal the senate's sole power to render a verdict. speaker says she would just refuse to accept the acquittal. speaker of the house refuses to accept the acquittal. whatever that means. perhaps she will chair tear up the verdict like she tore up the state of the union address. so i would ask my distinguished colleagues across the aisle, is

this really, really where you want to go? the president is not the president. and acquittal is not an acquittal. attacked institutions until they get their way. even my colleagues who will not agree with this president must see the insanity of this logic. it is like saying you are so worried about a bull in a china shop that you want to bulldoze the china shop to chase it out. and here is most troubling part, the most troubling part, there is no sign this attack on our institutions will end here. in recent months, democratic presidential candidates and senator leaders have toyed with a filibuster. so the senate could approve radical changes with less persuasion.

some of our colleagues, senator briefing the supreme court threatening political retribution if the justices did not decide the case the way they wanted. we have seen proposals to turn the sec, the regulator of elections and political speech into a partisan body for the first time ever. all these things, mr. president, all of these things, toxic temptation to stop debating policy within our great american governing traditions and instead declare a war on the traditions themselves. a war on the traditions themselves. so colleagues, whatever policy differences we may have, we should all agree that this is precisely the kind of recklessness, the kind of recklessness that the senate was

created to stop. the response to losing one election cannot be to attack the office of the presidency. the response to losing several elections cannot be to threaten the electoral college. the response to losing a court case cannot be to threaten the judiciary. the response to losing a vote cannot be to threaten the sena senate. we simply cannot let factional fever break our institutions. it must work the other way, as madison and hamilton intended. the constitutions must break the fever. rather than the other way arou around. the framers built the senate to keep the rage from doing

permanent damage to our republ republic. the framers built the senate to keep temporary rage from doing permanent damage to our republ republic. that, mr. president, is what we will do when we entered this precedent breaking impeachment. i hope we will look back on this vote and say this was the day that fever began to break. i hope that we will not say this was just the beginning. i ask you to let the senate recess so to call the chair. >> without objection, senate stands in recess, subject to the chair. >> good afternoon from