>> another historic day on capitol hill. tomorrow morning will be the post-game show. >> sandra: fox news alert. president trump on the verge of becoming the first president to be impeached twice. the house is gearing up to vote on a single article of impeachment charging the president with inciting insurrection at the capitol a week ago today. i'm sandra smith. hi, trace. >> trace: good morning, i'm trace gallagher. as we await that vote republicans are split over today's proceedings. sources telling fox news that mitch mcconnell is furious with the president and believes impeachment could help purge the party of his influence. meantime five republicans including the third ranking gop member in the house liz cheney

say they support impeachment. andy biggs is blasting the move and calling on cheney to step down. >> i've called for her resignation. i don't think they should be the chair of the republican conference anymore. the reality is she is not representing the conference, not representing the republican ideals. >> sandra: fox team coverage jennifer griffin has the latest on security ahead of inauguration today. we have analysis on impeachment. we begin with chief white house correspondent john roberts live from the north lawn. the fallout continues for the president following the riots on capitol hill next week. what's next for him? >> it all depends on the house. good morning, sandra and trace. we're at a real inflection point here as a nation. as you pointed out at the top if the house votes to impeach president trump today, there is every indication it will, it will become only -- he will become the first president in history to ever be impeached

twice, though still no presidents have been convicted. last night the house voted to call on vice president mike pence to remove the president from office. he sent a letter to pelosi saying he had no intention of doing that. in texas yesterday the president said he is not worried about a 25th amendment action and slamming democrats for trying to impeach him again. listen here. >> president trump: the 25th amendment is of zero risk to me but will come back to haunt joe biden and the biden administration as the expression goes, be careful what you wish for. the impeachment hoax is a continuation of the greatest and most vicious witch hunt in the history of our country and causing tremendous anger and division and pain far greater than most people will ever understand, which is very dangerous for the usa, especially at this very tender time. >> while the president will be

gone from office by the time a trial could be held in the senate nancy pelosi insisting it's extremely important. >> the president's actions demonstrate his inability to discharge the most fundamental duties of his office and therefore he must be removed from office immediately. removal of the president is an unprecedented action but it is required because he is an unprecedented moment in history because the danger that he poses. >> you mentioned at the top so far five republican congressmen have signed onto the effort including liz cheney, third ranking member of the gop conference in the house. adam kinzinger, fred upton, republican from michigan and butler republican from washington byron donalds from florida heaping a lot of criticism on

his colleagues who voted in favor of impeachment. listen here. >> there have been no hearings, no ability for him to defend himself. we would never allow anybody in the united states to be convicted without a trial without an opportunity to defend themselves. the president hasn't had it. for five republicans to go along and agree with this is flat out wrong and wrong for the party and wrong for the nation. >> another one of the president's social media accounts suspended. youtube announced it would suspend his account for seven days. in light of concerns about the ongoing potential for violence we removed new content for the donald trump channel and inciting violence. at the impeachment vote tonight it is expected that more republicans will sign on. the white house believes anywhere between 10 and 20 possibly more could do that. one other note security here in washington in terms of road closures has been locked down. if ever there was a time to

work from home if you work in washington, d.c., this is it. they are prepared for that f.b.i. warning, streets all around the white house and capitol are blocked off. it is a nightmare trying to get around washington, d.c. today. >> sandra: glad you made it for the top of the hour. >> it was close. >> trace: meantime new developments on last week's riot at the capitol. authorities announcing more than 170 people charged in connection with the violence and the arrests are just the beginning. >> the scope and scale of this investigation and cases are unprecedented not only in f.b.i. history but probably d.o.j. history in which essentially the capitol grounds outside and inside are essentially a crime scene. we're going to have i believe hundreds of criminal cases. >> the f.b.i. said it's appeal

to the public gave them lots of evidence. deploying as many as 15,000 armed national guards troop to washington as acting attorney general jeff rosen issues a stern warning overnight about the possibility of more violence. >> the department of justice will seek to hold any violators accountable to the fullest extent of the law. anywrongdoers will be caught and accountable. >> trace: jennifer griffin live on capitol hill. good morning to you. what is security like at the capitol today? >> trace, we just saw dozens of national guard walking the perimeter around the capitol. you see that fence behind me. we can't get close enough to show you all of the national guard on capitol hill. the scene different from what it was exactly a week ago. it looks a in baghdad than it

did like last week when you could walk right up to the capitol. that is no longer the roads are blocked as john roberts reported. they will be more blocked as the days go on closer to the inauguration. there are 15,000 national guard who have been mobilized and called up brought to the city. some of them even slept in the capitol with their weapons last night. i can confirm after speaking with senior military officials the morning the acting defense secretary chris miller has delegated authorities to the army secretary ryan mccarthy to command and control these forces. another change from last week. secretary mccarthy has authorized these troops to be armed. in a rare statement sent to the entire u.s. military, all eight members of the joint chiefs of staff signed a letter to the force condemning the insurrection and warned service members not to do anything to impede president-elect joe biden's inauguration. the violent riot in washington,

d.c. on january 6, 2021 was a direct assault on the u.s. congress, the capitol building and our constitutional process. we witnessed actions inside the capitol building that were inconsistent with rule of law, the rights of freedom of speech, and assembly do not give jae one the right to resort to violence and insurrection that signed by dr. mark millie and the rest of the joint chiefs. rosen went further. >> we will have no tolerance whatsoever for any attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on january 20th. there will be no excuse for violence, vandalism or any other form of lawlessness. >> there are about 2,000 national guard on capitol hill as we speak. more and more will be coming into the city this weekend. the threat level we're told by a defense official is much higher than is even being reported in the press right now.

>> trace: we'll talk more about that. jennifer griffin, thank you. >> sandra: for more on today's impeachment vote let's bring in bret baier. thank you for being here to kick things off. as we know the house convened a few moments ago and took a brief recess. we'll see what happens in a few moments. first the rule debate governing the parameters of the actual impeachment debate for later in the day. what are we about to see? >> a couple of hours of debate on the rule. you'll pass the rule and get debate on the article of impeachment inciting this riot. we're looking probably, sandra, at 4:00 for final passage of impeachment and they are going to have the votes. nancy pelosi is not going the lose any democrats not likely. with liz cheney the house republican conference chair, with her very strong statement saying she supports impeachment and we've seen a few other republicans announce their intentions, it could as john mentioned have 10, 20, maybe

even more republicans join on to impeachment. liz cheney no up side politically for her to go out on this limb. she did it in her statement on principle but by doing that it opens the door. there is obviously everything in washington a political calculation. when the calculation about being primary by president trump or trump supporters is less than the calculation of losing funding and any support you have for future runs or your political future, it's greater than the entire decision changes. so it is not only principle but there are politics behind this as well. >> sandra: karl rove went on with martha and had a warning moving forward with this process suggesting that this will be bad for the country. >> the rush to judgment in the house, the lack of a thoughtful process and an immediately

dumped on the united states senate to fill in the blanks of whether you are in favor of removing the president from office or not, this is unseemly and however it goes forward it won't be good for the country. >> sandra: you have mitch mcconnell as we just heard reports saying he is done and furious with the president and now supports democrats moving forward with initiating this process, bret >> two sides of this. one is karl is right. there is not an ample opportunity for the president to defend himself at least not yet and a trial seems like it would be rushed in this scenario ahead of him leaving office. so there is concern about the process. but on the political side, there are really angry republicans about what happened last wednesday and the political power of president trump diminished, if not was devastated by the actions on capitol hill. so you have republicans who want to -- who are debating whether they go for this punch to try to keep him on the map,

president trump, or they step back and they let him fade away. the problem for the latter is that some of these republicans, institutional republicans, have been trying to have president trump and trumpism fade away since he went down the escalator in trump tower and it never happened. so the other side is if you do this punch and vote for impeachment and move forward you could somehow empower him and his political movement after that. so that's what's happening in the minds of republicans on capitol hill. >> sandra: that will be discussed and debated for some time to come. meanwhile, concern just one week out now from these riots in the capitol that tensions are very high. steve scalise is writing about that in a new opinion piece in the "wall street journal" saying politics has no place for violence. in it he says it would, however, be naive to think the shooter referencing to his incident in 2017 arrived at his decision in a vacuum and

equally naive to think the capitol high otters arrived at their decision in a void. violent rhetoric affect people. we have responsibility to condemn political violence and violent rhetoric across the board, not only when it's politically convenient. i read his words ahead of inauguration day. you heard reports about the amount of security we're seeing in washington ahead of that. but does steve scalise have a point with that piece? >> 100%. taking down the temperature in this country is the goal -- should be the goal of every politician because that rhetoric is what is firing up a lot of the fringe. let's not pretend it is just the right fringe. we've seen fiery rhetoric on the left as well.

to have the national guard ramped up, this level of security is there shows you as jennifer was pointing out the serious threats that they are taking seriously not only in the nation's capitol but in all 50 state capitols around the country. >> sandra: appreciate you being here with us early this morning. we'll see you tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern on "special report". thank you. >> trace: our next guest says there must be an impeachment it should be real and deliberate, not partisan stunt writing this. don't play pelosi's game of politicize impeachment. andy mccarthy is a former assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor. great to see you. i want to clarify you believe the president has committed impeachable conduct and yet you do not think this article of impeachment is accurate. square those quickly if you can, and -- andy.

>> what you just had karl rove talking about. you could accurately describe what the president did here in the way of impeachable conduct and at the same time stay away from loaded terms like incitement and insurrection which are dubious in this context. it is one thing to say rhetoricly it was an insurrection mob but to take one example, this article of impeachment is called incitement to insurrection. at the same time, the democrats are talking about invoking section 3 of the 14th amendment which would disqualify from public office anybody who was seen to have basically aided and abetted an insurrection. so if you without hearings, without testimony, without anything decide that what happened last week qualifies as a matter of law as insurrection, it is not just

president trump, it is anybody that democrats later want to say aided and abetted this that could be disqualified from public office. i'm not here to say that it is right or wrong. i'm here to say that in american history we have hearings and we have our eyes open before we do stuff like that. >> trace: you say the following here, if there must be an impeachment it should be a real impeachment, not a political exhibition and not a partisan scheme to spring a trump senate trial at a future date when it would be useful to democrats. republicans should not be duped like they were last time but demand a commitment from speaker pelosi if the house approves an article of impeachment she will appoint managers and transmit the articles to the senate whose rules require a trial forth with. do you believe this is a political stunt in essence, andy? >> well, i again think there is impeachable conduct here but there is no reason to do this

in a fast and nasty one-day proceeding if you can't immediately remove the president because there won't be a trial. there is no excuse not to have formal and proper due process unless there is such an emergent need to get this guy out of the white house that we have to do it forth with and the senate will drop everything and have an impeachment trial. that's not going to happen, so what's the rush? >> trace: jonathan turley made the same point. i want to get your response as we look live at the house. watch. >> my misgiving is over the use of a snap impeachment. they did not even hold a single hearing to talk about the implications of creating this type of fast track to impeachment. and so impeachment is not supposed to be some bang, bang play. not supposed to happen on impulse. >> trace: there are some, andy, that are worried about this thing being dragged out well into the next administration.

>> trace, i think there is a happy medium between the two. i'm not as worried as john is about the lack of due process. if we woke up tomorrow morning and we had a president and slam dunk evidence he was a chinese spy to get him out this minute and the 25th amendment didn't apply because it wasn't a medical disability, the national security of the united states would demand that due process take a back seat so we could get the president immediately out of here. i get that and am for that. the problem is no one has acted like this is that situation and there is not a prospect of immediately removing him. so i wouldn't let it be politicized so they can stick the impeachment in their back pocket and then have a trial at some politically expedient time. >> trace: good to talk to you, sir. thank you. >> thanks, trace. >> sandra: we'll watch the house floor. a new warning from the cdc to

all international travelers. find out what everyone flying into the united states will soon have to do. plus another tech company blocking the president but is this latest move a bridge too far? >> they have no idea how they appear to others. they can't see themselves. they lack even a glimmer of the ironic self-awareness that is prerequisite for wisdom. y pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>> trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani called for trial by combat. then donald trump told the crowd we're going to have to fight much harder. you will never take back our country with weakness. even though according to his own administration at this

election was the most secure in our history, donald trump repeated his big lie that this election was an assault on democracy. vice president pence, he said, was going to have to come through for us. trump then told this mob to walk down to the capitol. the signal was unmistakable. these thugs should stage a coup so donald trump can hang onto power. the people's will be damned. this beacon of democracy became the site of a vicious attack. rioters said hang mike pence. capitol police officers were beaten and sprayed with pepper spray. attackers hunted down lawmakers to hold them hostage or worse. staff barricaded doors. people sent text messages to their families to tell them they loved them.

they thought they were saying goodbye, mr. speaker. this was not a protest, this was an insurrection. this was a well-organized attack on our country that was incited by donald trump. domestic terrorists broke into the united states capitol that day and it's a miracle more people didn't die. as my colleagues and i were being evacuated to safety i will never forget what i saw when i looked into the eyes of those attackers in the speakers' lobby. i saw evil. our country came under attack not from a foreign nation but from within. these were not protestors, these were not patriots, these were traitors. they were domestic terrorists, mr. speaker. and they were acting under the orders of donald trump. some of my colleagues on the other side have suggested we just move on from this horror but to gloss over it would be an abdication of our duty. others on the republican side

have talked about unity but we can't have unity without truth and without accountability. and i'm not about to be lectured by people who just voted to overturn the results of a free and fair election. america was attacked and we must respond. even when the cause of this violence resides at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. each of us, each of us took an oath last week. it wasn't to a party, it wasn't to a person. we vowed to defend the constitution. the actions of donald trump have called each of us to fulfill that oath today. i pray that we rise to this responsibility because every moment donald trump is in the white house, our nation, our freedom, is in danger. he must be held to account for the attack on our capitol that he organized and he incited. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying article. the damage this building sustained can be repaired, mr.

speaker, but if we don't hold donald trump accountable, the damage done to our nation could be irreversible. >> gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> mr. speaker, before i begin my formal remarks i want to ask for god's blessing and protection on you, for my friend, mr. mcgovern and all who come to this chamber today to speak and to vote for our wonderful staff that makes this possible and most especially for the men and women of the capitol police and the other affiliated law enforcement agencies here to protect everybody and to make sure that this proceeding can go forward. with that, mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts, my very good friend mr. mcgovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today is a sad day for all of us. for me personally, for the

rules committee, for the entire house of representatives and most certainly for the american people. for the second time in 13 months we're meeting to discuss the impeachment of the president of the united states. our meeting today does not arise in a vacuum. it comes at what i hope and pray is the end of a tumultous period for our country. less than one week ago congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. what started out as a peaceful protest turned into a riot. as an untold number of individuals stormed the capitol building, six people died as a result of this mob and it is only by the grace of god and the brave acts of the u.s. capitol police, the washington, d.c. metropolitan police, the f.b.i., atf and other responding agencies that there was not more blood shed. violent acts such as these have no place in our republic. these shocking and sobering events rest high on our minds today as well they should.

certainly january 6, 2021 will live in my memory as the darkest day during my time of service as a member of this house. after these grave events, we as a nation and as an institution have an opportunity to come together. president trump has conceded the 2020 election. congress certified the results of the election and next wednesday president-elect biden will be sworn in as the president of the united states. congress and the nation can move forward knowing the political process was completed as designed and the constitutional framework that has governed our republic since 1789 held firm. instead of moving forward as a unifying force majority in the house is choosing to divide us further. with only a week to go in his term, the majority is asking us to consider a resolution impeaching president trump. and they do so knowing full well that even if the house passes this resolution, the senate will not be able to

begin considering these charges until after president trump's term ends. mr. speaker, i can think of no action the house can take that's more likely to further divide the american people than the action we're contemplating today. emotions are clearly running high and political divisions have never been more apparent in my lifetime. we desperately need to seek a path forward healing for the american people. so it's unfortunate that a path to support healing is not the path the majority has chosen today. instead the house is moving forward erratically with a truncated process that does not comport with the modern practice and it will give members no time to contemplate the serious course of action before us. in every modern impeachment inquiry an investigation and committee action has preceded bringing an impeachment resolution to the floor to make sure members have the opportunity to engage expert

witnesses and have a chance to be heard. it also provides due process to the president of the united states and again, in every modern impeachment inquiry the president has been given an opportunity to be heard in some form or another. this is necessary in order to insure that the american people have confidence in the procedures the house is following and also necessary not because of the president's inappropriate and reckless words are deserving of defense but the presidency itself demands due process in the impeachment proceedings. unfortunately the majority has chosen to race to the floor with a new article of impeachment foregoing any investigation, any committee process, or any chance for members to fully contemplate this course of action before proceeding. professor jonathan turley is correct when he called this a quote dangerous snap impeachment. an impeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of

the traditional hearing. professor turley also noted that quote, the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous. however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment. unquote. if the majority seeking consensus this is hardly the way to create it. the majority is failing to provide the house with an opportunity to review all the facts, which are still coming to light. to discuss all the evidence, to listen to scholars, to examine the witnesses, and to consider precedents. this is not the type of robust process we have followed for every modern impeachment and the failure to do so does a great disservice to this institution and to this country. mr. speaker, i can think of nothing that will cause further division more than the path the majority is now taking. rather than looking ahead to a new administration, the majority is again seeking to settle scores against the old one. rather than seeking to heal

america, they are seeking to divide us more deeply. and rather than following the appropriate processes the house has used in every modern impeachment, majority is rushing to the floor, tripping all over themselves in their rush to impeach the president a second time. what's worse though the majority seems to believe that this course of action itself -- it is not the case. i have to tell them it's not. members that have reviewed the same conduct and have come to dramatically different conclusions. legal scholars like professor turley and professor alan dershowitz say -- given this difference of opinion shouldn't we have a better process than this? shouldn't we have a chance to examine witnesses, discuss the matter with legal scholars and consider it in committee on a matter as grave as

consequenceal as impeachment shouldn't we follow the same process we've used in every modern impeachment rather than rushing to the floor? on behalf of generations of americans to come, we need to think more clearly about the consequences of our actions today. the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, there is no reason to rush forward like this. other than the very obvious fact that there are only seven days left until a new president takes office. what's worse as professor dershowitz has pointed out, because of the senate's rules the case cannot come to trial in the senate until 1:00 p.m. on january 20th. one hour after president trump leaves office. this is an ill-advised course in my opinion, mr. speaker. even senator joe manchin, a democrat agrees. he is quoted this week as having said, quote, i think this is so ill-advised for joe biden coming in trying to heal the country and being the president of all the people

when we are so divided and fighting again. let the judicial system do its job, unquote. so what then is the point of the rush to impeach? we're coming off a horrific event that resulted in six deaths. we have an opportunity to move forward but we cannot if the majority insists on bringing the country through the trauma of another impeachment. it will carry forward into the next president's term insuring he will struggle to organize his administration. what's worse, it will continue to generate the bitterness so many of us have opposed. why put us through that when we can't actually resolve this before the end of the president's term? mr. speaker, i think my colleagues in the majority need to think about this more soberly. we need to recognize we're following a flawed process. we need to recognize that people of goodwill can differ. we need to recognize that while the house may be done with this matter after today's vote, it will not be done for the country. it will not be done for the

senate. and it will not be done for the incoming biden administration. the house's action today will only extend the division longer than necessary. finally, mr. speaker, i would note that there are other remedies that can be pursued. the president is expected to face litigation over his role in last wednesday's event. there will be criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. i hope all of those who stormed the capitol will be brought to justice. and some members have proposed an alternative procedure censuring the president. which could garner significant bipartisan support in the house. i do not think impeachment is a wise course, mr. speaker. i would urge my friends in the majority to reconsider. there is still time to choose a different path. one that leads to reconciliation and hope for a better and brighter days. with that i urge opposition to the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

>> i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the powerful statement by congresswoman liz cheney who is the chair of the house republican caucus entitled i will vote to impeach the president. >> without objection. >> i want to be clear about one thing. if we vote to impeach the president today and we send it over to the senate, there is nothing to prevent the senate from taking it up immediately if senate majority leader mitch mcconnell decides that he wants to proceed. number one. number two, we want to talk about unity. i can't think of anything that would unify this country more if there was a bipartisan vote in favor of impeachment. every second that this president remains in office is a danger to this country and to the world. we have no idea what he is capable of doing, whether he will pardon the terrorists, whether he will go to war. i urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the

impeachment resolution. i yield to ms. choo for one minute. >> last week i hid in an office for hours terrified to open the door because i did not know if a rioter was on the other side ready to attack, kidnap or murder me. but my experiences were the tip of the iceberg. the u.s. capitol was targeted, besieged and ransacked on january 6 by a murderous mob holding a noose for vice president pence and targeting speaker pelosi. their rampage resulted in destruction and five people dead. we were attacked by terrorists but this time the terrorists were radicalized right here in the united states, worse, they were radicalized by the president who intentionally lied to his supporters that the election was stolen and then told them when to come to d.c., where to protest, and who to direct their anger at. the need to remove this president could not be more

urgent. he is too dangerous to remain in office. donald trump must be held accountable. he must be impeached. >> gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution establishing a bipartisan national commission on the domestic terrorist attack on the united states capitol. this proposed bipartisan commission will be tasked with examining and reporting upon the terror attack on the capital that occurred next wednesday. modeled after a 9/11 commission and fully empower to undertake a full investigation and make recommendations to the president and to congress. i can think of no more appropriate path for congress to follow than by ensuring a bipartisan commission reviews all evidence and reports back to us on this horrific event.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous content so insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question. with that -- >> without objection. >> i urge a no vote and yield four minutes to my good friend mr. davis of illinois, ranking republican member on house administration for a further explanation of this amendment. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> i first want to thank the u.s. capitol police, sergeant-at-arms employees who were here on the front lines protecting this capitol last week during the unprecedented attack. it is imperative we focus on insuring a safe inauguration day, protecting members and staff during this time of increased threats and making sure that our capitol police officers have the support that they need. we need to insure that what we saw happen a week ago today

never happens again. yesterday i introduced, along with representatives a bill to create a national commission on the domestic terrorist attack upon the united states capitol. the bipartisan commission would consist of 10 members, five republicans, five democrats, appointed by the next president and by house and senate leadership. this commission would be tasked with investigating the domestic terrorist attack that occurred in this building just a week ago. and it will provide us recommendations to prevent similar attacks from happening in the future. what we saw last week scared all of us who were here, but also showed adversaries what it takes to take out a branch of government. when this commission is done

with this investigation, it will submit a report to the president and to congress detailing its findings and recommendations to insure that no foreign or domestic adversary could accomplish what was done on january 6th. we need to insure we fully understand what took place last week and any and all issues that occurred during our response. republicans and democrats need to work together. we must unite to prevent any attacks like this from happening in the future and we must protect this institution not just for us, but for the american people. that's why we should defeat the previous question so we can establish this bipartisan commission to equip us with the information that we need to support our capitol police and the men and women who work in these buildings. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. gentleman from oklahoma reserves, gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

>> i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, majority leader mr. hoyer. >> he is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman of the rules committee for yielding. congratulate him for his efforts and that of the rules committee enacting swiftly. i appreciate the remarks of mr. cole for whom i have great respect but i disagree with his sense of the lack of urgency in action. i do agree with him of the consequences of our action. there are consequences to actions and the actions of the president of the united states demand urgent, clear action by the congress of the united

states. the chairman of the committee introduced the remarks and put them in the record. but i want to reference the remarks of the chair of the republican conference which is the analog to the democratic caucus. it is all the republicans elected to the congress of the united states in the house of representatives and they elected liz cheney, the daughter of the vice president of the united states, a former whip of this house, dick cheney, with whom i served in the 80s. representative cheney from wyoming, a conservative republican, said this. the president of the united states summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

that is not some irresponsible new member of the congress of the united states. this is the daughter of the former republican whip and former vice president of the united states of america. she knows of what she speaks. she said this as well. there has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the united states of his office and his oath of constitution -- to the constitution. this is not, as liz cheney says, just some action. she characterized it as the biggest betrayal of any president of the united states in our history.

mr. john katko. not a back bench republican. he is the ranking republican on the homeland security committee. he says this: to allow the president of the united states to incite this attack without consequences is a direct threat to the future of democracy. this is not some back bencher on their side of the aisle, mr. speaker. it reflects the sense of outrage, the sense of historic disciple dyssimilarity from the actions of any president. then mr. adam kinzinger, i have

a member from wyoming, a member from illinois and a member from new york. there will be others on this vote who will join them and mr. kinzinger said this, if these actions -- he hasn't had any hearings or he doesn't need any long, drawn-out consideration. if these actions are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense? there is no doubt in my mind that the president of the united states broke his oath and incited this insurrection. i tell my friend, mr. speaker, a gentleman for whom i have great respect. he is my friend and i say that honestly, not just as rhetoric as we say on this floor. there are some that i don't

consider friends and whose values you do not share. that is not mr. cole. we have a difference. liz cheney, john katko, adam kinzinger and other republicans who i have talked to within the last 24 hours believe this action is required. now, let me say -- i see the gentleman from ohio is on the floor. he likes to say that we democrats were elected and the first thing we wanted to do was impeach this president. he is shaking his head in agreement because like the president of the united states, he denies the facts. trump-like, fake news. december 6, 2017, mr. green who i will refer to offered a

motion because he saw the danger that confronted our country. and he filed a resolution of impeachment. and on december 6, 2017, we had a vote on that and the majority of democrats voted no. actually they voted yes to table. so that we did not proceed. in 2017. the gentleman from texas, mr. green, thought, however, the next year that there were still a danger to our country. some of us shared that view, but we were not confident that the case could be made or that the transactions that have proceeded would lead to conviction. so on january 19 of 2018 we had

a motion to table mr. green's resolution. and the majority of democrats voted to table that resolution. what a rush to judgment. and then on july 17th, 2019, nine days before the call to ukraine to get the ukrainian leader to act on the political behalf of the president of the united states and withheld money to defend the ukrainian people from russian involvement and offered that as a bribe, on july 17th the majority of democrats voted to table that resolution. so mr. speaker, there was no rush to judgment. and then that call to which i just referred was on july 26th.

nine days later. i call that the uh-huh moment. i knew what i thought, but that was proof and the gentleman -- some gentleman have lamented we didn't know the whistleblower. after all, if we knew the whistleblower we could intimidate everybody else from coming forward. and this president has done everything he can to intimidate whistleblowers, people who came forward and told the truth and we had witness after witness after witness who confirmed what the whistleblower brought to our attention. so the reason i rise today and i will speak on the resolution itself at some later time is to recognize the contributions that al green of texas has made of getting us l the resolution but i want to read from excerpts from the resolution he has introduced.

we won't be considering his resolution. we'll be considering mr. cicilliney and over 200 others who have signed onto the resolution. mr. green had a resolution resolve the donald trump, president of the united states, is impeached for high crimes and miss demeanors and the following articles of impeachment be exhibited in the senate. article 1 says in his conduct with the president -- excuse me. in his conduct while president of the united states unmindful of the high duties of his high office and dignity and proper pry tease there of and the harmony and courtesy necessary for stability which my friend spoke, the gentleman from oklahoma, donald trump in violation of his constitutional and oath to execute the office of president has harmed the

society of the united states, brought shame and dishonor to the office of the president of the united states, sewing discord among the people of the united states by weaponizing hate for political gain. he went on to say on january 6, 2021 in a speech president trump weaponized the hate, an assault on democracy and insurrection against the capitol of the united states of america by inciting a mob. who said that? liz cheney said it. and al green said it. infected with without wearing shirts and hateful messages and made a noose such as camp

auschwitz, work brings freedom and maga civil war january 6, 2021. maga civil war. they had the hats on of the army of maga. which i refer to as make america grieve again. we grieved at fort sumter. we grieved on december 7th, 1941, and we grieved on 9/11. and yes, we grieved on january 6 of this year. he goes on to say what the president told this mob that liz cheney said was recruited by the president of the united states. and i quote, this is the

president talking to this mob. all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by a bold and radical left democrats. like the secretary of state in georgia and the governor of georgia. which is what they are doing. and stolen by the fake news media. inciting, rileing up, creating anger with the fake news and lies that the president of the united states said to these folks. that is what they have done and what they are doing, the president continued. we will never give up. we will never concede. it doesn't happen. you don't concede when there is

theft involved. and so what did they do? incited by this president, as liz cheney said, as john katko said, as adam kinzinger said, and frankly, what secretary ciao acted upon and the secretary of homeland security acted upon and what so many others in the administration have acted upon. disgusted, dismayed, disheartened by what their president had done. they got out. they quit. the president further emboldened them saying this is the green resolution. we aren't considering it but the green resolution the president further emboldened them saying you will never take back our country with weakness.

we had a display of non-weakness, criminal insurrection-like conduct. recruited by and deployed by the president of the united states to come to this capitol and stop the steal. the steal, of course, was we assembled accepting what all the courts that considered it said was a fair and accurate election of joe biden and kamala harris as president and vice president of the united states. after his national mall speech a mob of his supporters proceeded to the capitol complex. we know that. and so mr. green's resolution ends with to prevent national

harm to our society, donald john trump by such conduct warrants immediate impeachment trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states constitution and the 14th amendment. so in conclusion, mr. green is going to speak after me, but in conclusion, mr. speaker, let me tell my friend, mr. cole, i've been here sometime. he has as well. i served with ronald reagan, with george h.w. bush and george bush. i had respect for all of those presidents. they cared about our country. they honored our constitution, and they executed the duties of their office consistent with the constitution and laws of

our country. that is not true of this president. and therefore he ought to be removed and we have that opportunity to do so. is there little time left? yes. but it is never too late to do the right thing. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i would like to yield to mr. green. >> gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i had tears to well in my eyes as i heard mr. hoyer and i know that hearts are hurting. it's a very sad time in the

history of our country. no one is celebrating. no one wants to see this occur. i was at the rules committee by way of zoom. i was there for the entire hearing. those members on the other side, this is something that they understand and they take seriously regardless as to what is said, i could sense that they are hurting, too. so i just want to thank everyone for all that has happened and the appreciation that has been shown. and i want to say that the healing that we talk about that has to begin, that may i have just 30 seconds?

>> i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. >> thank you. the healing -- it has to start with some of these people who were there initially, who helped to lay this foundation, 110 people. i want to recognize maxine waters, congresswoman. >> sandra: debate continues on the floor of the house of representatives there. you heard from steny hoyer a moment ago saying it is urgent for congress to act. he said in an earlier interview he plans to send impeachment to the senate this week. house impeachment managers names let's bring in chad pergram with the latest on capitol hill as we expect a lengthy vote series, chad, to take place. you are suggesting 10:30 a.m. eastern time about a half hour from now and that will run into the noon hour eastern time. tell us what we're about to see, chad. >> probably a little bit longer than that because they usually give deference on the house floor to the leaders. steny hoyer took more than was

the allotted time. this pre-debate. the debate on what we call the rule which sets the parameters. you have to first agree to how you'll play baseball or basketball that day on the house or senate floor. once they've established the rule, then they can get on to the actual debate later on probably midday. i would suspect that it will be later now because steny hoyer spoke for quite a long time. i want you to consider the significance of the day. this is the second time in just 13 months that they are impeaching president donald trump. there have only been two persons, including president trump later today, who have been impeached twice. only 20 impeachments ever by the house of representatives. only one article of impeachment in this particular instance. the charge is incitement of insurrection. keep in mind the house of representatives kind of operates like the grand jury. they basically are bringing a charge against the president of the united states. he alluded to steny hoyer there. what they have built into this

rule, which they will vote on later today, that triggers the impeachment managers and sends the resolution to the senate. jamie raskin, the democratic congressman from maryland who lost his son just before new year's, he will be the lead impeachment manager. you remember a year ago it was adam schiff from california. so they basically prosecute the case before the united states senate. and that could potentially start as early as this week. there is some mechanical things that actually happen when you impeach in the house of representatives how they send things over to the senate. the senate is technically out of session right now. you can actually start an impeachment trial after someone has left office. there is precedent for that. i mentioned the second person only to be impeached twice president trump and william blout, a senator back in the 1790s was impeached twice by the house and they dismissed the charges in 1799 and the

secretary of war in 1876 and resigned before they started the trial. they went ahead with the trial and they acquitted him. we also have a more contemporary example where they didn't have a senate trial when they sent over an article of impeachment. only happened 20 times in american history. samuel kent, a federal judge in 2009. they sent the articles of impeachment to the senate. before they started the trial he stepped down. so the senate had to have some sort of a vote to flush that out to complete the process. but that's where we are. the other thing to watch for today is just how many republicans are willing to vote for impeachment. i spoke this morning with steve scalise, the republican whip and he indicated it was fewer than 20. we know of five already. notably liz cheney the republican conference chair. she is the number three ranking republican in the house of representatives and the fact that there is a break between her and kevin mccarthy and a lot of republicans are having

to weigh this. others like adam kinzinger who has been critical of the president. john katko and a moderate republican. they are among the five. i asked scalise if that number would be closer to about 20 republican defections or closer to five. he thought it would be closer to five. so that vote to run through schedule we were thinking sometime in the 3:00 hour. because things usually the end to bleed later. what we call here on capitol hill if you are a soccer fan injury and booking time. it takes longer to finish the half. so i would expect that vote in the house to impeach the president probably to come sometime after 4:00 but a resolution before 5:00 or 6:00 at this stage. sandra. >> sandra: chad, thank you. trace, you want to jump in here? >> trace: i was curious. you talked about the possibility of this thing going faster than we thought it could do if they get this together and moves to trial, how long do you suspect an actual trial would take in the senate? >> very unclear.

you have established senate impeachment trial rules. and the deal is you meet every day except sunday at 1:00 p.m. the chief justice comes over and presides and one of the reasons they start at 1:00. if this starts afterwards would justice roberts actually preside and you could approve a separate set of rules for that trial. we don't know. >> trace: chad pergram live on capitol hill. let's go back to the hearing. >> the violence that could transpire not only were our lives in danger but my kids' lives would have been in danger. the two most precious people in my life. mr. speaker, the president of the united states, the u.s. house of representatives has every right to impeach the president of the united states but what we're doing today rushing this impeachment in an hour or two hour-long debate on the floor of this chamber by passing judiciary poses great questions about the constitutionality of this process. i believe we need to hold the

president accountable. i hold him accountable for the events that transpired for the attack on our capitol last wednesday. i also believe that we need to hold accountable every single person, even members of congress, if they contributed to the violence that transpired here. but today i'm asking my colleagues to remember the words of the legendary, great leader in this country dr. martin luther king who once said the time is always right to do what is right. and if we're serious about healing the divisions in this country, republicans and democrats need to acknowledge this is not the first day of violence we've seen. we've seen violence across our country for the last nine months and we need to recognize, number one, that our words have consequences. that there is violence on both sides of the aisle. we've contributed to it. we need to take responsibility for our words and our actions. we need to acknowledge there is a problem and take responsibility for it and stop being part of the problem and start being part of the

solution. god bless every member in the chamber today and god bless the united states of america. i yield back. >> trace: gentleman from oklahoma reserves. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> happy to yield one minute to mr. welsh. >> gentleman from vermont is recognized. >> our government is founded on the principle all power flows from the people. donald trump challenged this principle in two ways. deceit and violence. deceit is repeated and baseless assertions of an electoral fraud. the violence, the attacks on the united states capitol on january 6, the mob was assembled by donald trump, incited by donald trump, and in service of donald trump's effort to overturn, through violence, what he lost at the voting booth. the violent mob reached the capitol, killed and injured

capitol police, destroyed property, threatened the vice president and members of congress and staff. all to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. if we want unity, we must have accountability. so the question before this congress, will congress condone through acquiescence or condemn through impeachment donald trump's violent acts to overturn the election. >> time expired. gentleman from massachusetts reserves. gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to republican leader of the judiciary committee mr. jordan of ohio. >> in his opening remarks the democrat chair of the rules committee said republicans voted to overturn the results of an election. guess who the first objector was on january 6, 2017? first objector? the democrat chair of the rules committee. and guess which state he

objected to? alabama. the very first state called. alabama. president trump i think won alabama by 80 points. he won it by 30 points. they can object to alabama in 2017, but tell us we can't object to pennsylvania in 2021? pennsylvania where the state supreme court extended the election to friday where the secretary of state unilaterally changed the rules? went around the legislature and pennsylvania where county clerks in some counties and you can imagine which counties they were let people fix their ballot? against the law. fix and cure their mail-in ballots. a direct violation of the law. and they tell us we tried to overturn the election. guess who the second objector was in 2017? the individual managing the impeachment for the democrats. americans are tired of the

double standard. they are so tired of it. democrats object to more states in 2017 than republicans did last week but somehow we're wrong. democrats can raise bail for rioters this summer but when republicans condemn all the violence somehow we're wrong and democrats can investigate the president of the united states as mr. hoyer went through, tried to impeach him investigate him for four years but won't look at an election that 80 million electorates have their doubts about. i said this last night. i don't know where all this goes. this frightening for the country. we should defeat this rule and defeat the impeachment resolution when it comes up. >> time is expired. gentleman from oklahoma reserves. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> mr. speaker, some of us

objected four years ago as a protest vote to raise concerns what all our intelligence agents ceased stated take russia interfered in our election. what the gentleman fails to acknowledge we all acknowledge that donald trump was the president the day after the election. hillary clinton conceded the day after the election. and none of us pushed conspiracy theories like some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been doing and this president that somehow the president won in a landslide. give me a break. yesterday in the rules committee i asked the gentleman from ohio if he would just say five simple words he was talking about healing. the five simple words to heal the nation. the election was not stolen. that's it. five simple words. he refused and said he never said the election was stolen. the evidence shows otherwise. let me quote from this dana milbank piece titled five pesky words keep stumping jim jordan.

mr. speaker, the bottom line is this. this capitol was stormed, people died because of the big lies that were being told by this president and by too many people on the other side of the aisle. enough. people should be outraged as to what happened. it was unforgivable, unconscionable and coming up on the floor talking about what aboutism and trying to make these false equivalents, give me a break. the president of the united states instigated an attempted coup in this country. people died. everybody should be outraiblged whether you are a democrat or republican. if this isn't an impeachment offense i don't know what is. this president is not fit to remain in office. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon mr. defastio. >> he is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. this was not a one off.

it was a long time coming. part of a plan to perpetuate. >> trace: you have the rules committee debating the rule. this isn't the actual debate for the impeachment. this is the debating of the rule for impeachment. we expect the debate to happen around 12:30 or 1:00 eastern time and the actual impeachment vote might not happen until 3:00 or 4:00 or later this afternoon. of course, we're watching this for any news that comes out of this and we'll bring you any insight that we get on that, sandra. >> sandra: thank you. let's bring in katie pavlich, fox news contributor. we'll continue to monitor the house floor there as the debate continues and we await the what is next. as you hear many of the democrats on the house floor quoting liz cheney who has thrown her support for democrats' push for the impeachment blaming trump. she said he lit the flame for this attack. everything that followed was his doing. your thoughts from the house floor so far?

>> well, what we're seeing on the house floor is a difference between how democrats and republicans are approaching this. you also had newly elected freshman congresswoman nancy mays reflecting on all the violence over the past years and saying both sides need to come together. democrats are arguing only the actions last week should be considered. liz cheney is being quoted on the house floor. there is nothing in her statement that talks about joining with democrats as a result of her decision. she simply working off her own set of principles and what she thinks is best for the country moving forward. as we go through this process, as we hear the debate on the floor the big question as you just mentioned is what is next? when this will go to the senate, will the household onto the articles of impeachment as they did last time around or continue to move forward at a record pace as they claim that the president is too dangerous to be in office.

there are political implications for president-elect joe biden who wants to get his cabinet in place. impeachment process if it were to be started on january 19th and continue through the first couple of weeks of his presidency would take up time in getting his administration off the ground. then there is a question of whether they hold onto these articles of impeachment for a couple of months before sending it to the senate and retroactively continuing with impeachment of a president who is already out of office. there are a lot of different unknowns how far this will go. we do know it's very unlikely the senate will vote and have the 67 senators that they need to remove the president, not to mention before joe biden takes office on january 20th. >> sandra: as far as the political implications for the future of the republican party and reports that mitch mcconnell is furious with the president, he is done with him, and in what he wants to be known for and his legacy and

the implications for regaining control of the senate, katie, he obviously has to have that entirely in the back of his mind as he decides how to proceed and he certainly isn't getting in the way of democrats doing this. >> certainly not. there could also be some political implications outside of mcconnell being upset with the president. he may want to hinder the biden administration a little bit in terms of the agenda now that he is the minority leader in the senate. in terms of mitch mcconnell's decision we're hearing reported to possibly vote to convict the president, you have to remember mitch mcconnell is an institutionalist and dedicated his life to maintaining the rules of the senate. he has been criticized by the president for refusing to get rid of the filibuster and change the rules. what happened last week was very personal for him in terms of wanting to defend his members as this is probably his last term in office given his age and how much he has put in

going from majority leader to minority leader at this point. but again, this seems to be a political exercise considering the time frame here and moving forward with republicans. it is very naive to think that the trump movement and the millions of americans who voted for him who did not storm the capitol last week are simply going to go away when they also have deep principles about what they think that congress should be doing on capitol hill to represent their values, their principles moving forward with the same america first agenda that the president has implemented over the past four years. >> sandra: i wanted to go from what we heard from the republican from oklahoma earlier. made a lot of headlines when he spoke on impeachment saying instead of moving forward as a unifying force the majority in the house is choosing to divide us further, katie. the house is moving forward erratically with a truncated process whose values don't comport with the modern practice. coming off this horrific event he referenced this snap

impeachment process and said he is concerned about the precedent that this sets. you go back to the words of karl rove we played with bret baier at the top of the 9:00 hour with karl saying this is bad for the country. this is bad for both sides. unseemingly was his words. however it goes forward it is not going to be good for the country, katie. >> yeah, i would agree it won't be good for the country. you have lawmakers on the floor making these arguments that the president has to be somehow held accountable for his actions for his words, we've repeatedly heard from scholars like jonathan turley that the president's words in terms of incitement aren't illegal argument considering he did tell people during his speech to go to the capitol peacefully and patrioticly to make their voices heard. the argument you hear from republicans who are going to vote for impeachment in the house is that this is not just what happened last wednesday. it is a culmination of the

president continuing to tell his supporters after all his legal avenues in court were done and finished, that he won the election in a landslide and it was stolen from him and therefore they had to continue and never concede. it isn't just about what happened last week. everything came to a head and was horrific, but a broader view of how a very small amount of lawmakers on the republican side think they can hold the president accountable. in general the majority of republicans don't think it will be good for the country. >> sandra: when tom cole said those words he was quoting jonathan turley on the dangerous precedent this this snap impeachment process they say this sets. thank you for joining us, appreciate it. more on that coming up. >> trace: we are going to hear from professor jonathan turley coming up. we're still watching as the rules committee in the house debates the rule for impeachment. they will have further debate this afternoon and the impeachment vote will come

sometime later on. continuing coverage on breaking news as "america's newsroom" continues. g reusa.us from newday it lets you refi at all-time low rates plus you could take out $50,000 or more. money for security today, money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus. it's only for veterans and it's only from newday usa.

it's moving day. and while her friends hqhqhqhqdmhqhqg< are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours?

delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. >> trace: continuing coverage of the house rules committee debating the rule for impeachment. the actual debate on impeachment will be later on this afternoon.

let's bring in constitutional law professor jonathan turley who joins us now. always great to see you. you have said there is no legal standing, you believe, for impeaching president trump. as you watch this debate for the rule, are you finding anything that strikes you? anything compelling that you can take away from this? >> let's be clear, i don't fault people for viewing this as an impeachable act. it is a close question as to the president's responsibility. what my primary objection is the creation of a snap impeachment. it will create new precedent for going straight to the floor for an impeachment of an american president without a hearing, without an opportunity for the president to respond to questions from the house. they could have done that. we've had days in which such hearings could be held. and a snap impeachment brings with it its own perils. they are creating a pathway that can be used in the future where people say the time is of

the essence. we don't have time to consider the implications of what we're doing or the language of the articles of impeachment. my concern goes also to the language of these articles. this is referring to an incitement insurrection. i have to tell you, i do not believe this is criminal incitement. i don't believe the president's speech could be a legitimate basis for a prosecution. that doesn't end the question because you can have articles of impeachment that don't amount to a clear crime. but then you have to get to this question of the implications of holding presidents accountable for the actions of their supporters. here again there are credible arguments on the other side that say it was so inciteful, so reckless that he should be held accountable. we can't dismiss those issues. but we also have to consider the counter veiling issues, the fact the president said they

should go peaceably to the congress. they should go to root on those challenging the elections and to boo those who are opposing. that's a fairly traditional type of protest. people march on the capitols of the state or u.s. capitol regularly to deal with things going on inside. and so these are issues that we should be talking about because it is as important how we do something as it is what we do. now, the other thing that i have to say that i'm disappointed at is there was a chance for both parties and both houses to speak with one voice for the united states in a resolution of censure. i have supported that for some time now. i believe that the record is sufficiently clear to condemn this president clearly for a reckless and wrongful speech. and that unfortunately is being set aside. i don't see this as a unifying moment in that sense.

it will not ultimately be unified. and it's a shame. i think a resolution of censure would allow the single voice to emerge. >> sandra: tom cole the top republican echoed that sentiment and quoted you on the house floor a few moments ago warning about the effects of a snap impeachment process on the process he said this is not the type of robust process we followed for every modern impeachment. went on to acknowledge that. now as far as logistics are concerned if you could give us a little color on how the coming weeks may look as far as democrats' push for this as we now know some republicans. the senate could formally begin the trial as early as this week. we know that. we know steny hoyer has already said that. he went on the record this morning saying he believes they will send it to the senate as soon as this week. but chad pergram was on with us a moment ago and it is starting to become apparent that may not happen until after

president-elect biden takes office, jonathan. there is a lot of questions about that, whether or not chief justice john roberts would preside over a figure who has left office? do you have an answer to that? >> i do not. we are well into the land of the unknown. it is going to get even more bizarre once the president leaves office. you will be trying to remove a president who has already left. it is like grounding a plane that has landed and can't take off again. the president as a former president can argue in court that he is no longer subject to impeachment. the impeachment provision refers to the purpose as the removal of the president. the added penalty of barring him from future office is something that occurs after conviction and removal.

this has been a longstanding debate as to whether a former official can be impeached. it happened once before but that official was acquitted in the senate and many senators took the view that the house had acted improperly. this is one of the few impeachment issues that actually could be resolved by the courts if they did impose this penalty in a type of retro active impeachment. the president would have standing to challenge it and a court could rule on it. >> sandra: an interesting observation and worth noting how unprecedented some of the territory is. it is possible the senate can conduct a trial of someone who has left office. that is clear, right, jonathan? >> well no, the senate can hold the trial. it happened once before. whether that is a legitimate impeachment trial is still unresolved. there are arguments on both sides by people of good faith. some say look since the

constitution allows a future penalty of barring someone from office there is still a legitimate purpose, a live question that the senate would have to deal with. there are strong arguments that say no, the threshold issue is legitimate impeachment to remove someone. you can't do when they've already left. the other question that the senate will have to face are the implications of all these things. usually the house holds a hearing to talk about the articles of impeachment. it may now fall to the senate to do the house's job to actually look at those issues as a threshold matter. >> trace: you talk about a snap impeachment. you are against that. others say they are worried this thing could last 100 days into the biden administration. i was talking to andy mckargt ear earlier and he believes there could be a happy medium. is there a happy medium you would be satisfied with that would alleviate your fears of a

snap impeachment? hold on a second. let's listen in and get your response. >> i want to thank my good friend the distinguished chairman of the rules committee and thank everybody that came to the floor, had something to say at an important moment. and i think the debate while spirited reflected the civility and decency of the institution we're all privileged to be part of and proud of all the members and the manner that they participated. want to thank the staff and thank those who kept us safe in the process particularly the capitol police. in closing, i oppose this rule and i oppose the majority's actions today. after the traumatic events of last week the majority should be taking steps to unite us. instead, they are only dividing us further. they are rushing to judgment in my opinion and bringing up impeachment after failing to follow any meaningful process whatsoever. no hearings have been held, no witnesses heard, no process or

opportunity to respond was provided to the president. no member has had to review or amend the article before it came to the floor. this is hardly the way the house should undertake such a serious act. mr. speaker, there are still a way to unite the country. let's look forward not backward. let us come together, not apart. let us celebrate the peaceful transition of power to a new president rather than impeaching and old president. let us affirm and reaffirm that one united voice that the house does not rush to judgment on the most consequential action we can take. we deserve better than that, mr. speaker and the american peopleer deserve better than that. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues as we move into our next stage of debate to remember that we're all privileged to represent a great and good people. who have gone through a horrifying and tragic time. and that we owe them the

opportunity to reflect and we owe them our best efforts to bring together. i know people on this floor feel very passionately about this subject with different points of view. i honor each one of those points of view and i honor the people that voice them. let's remember when we're through this that we're one people and that we have one purpose. we're free through the grace of god and millions of brave americans over centuries of time and we will remain that way and we will move forward together once we settle this debate. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, no on the rule, no on the underlying measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> let me thank my friend of the rules committee mr. cole for his friendship and for the way he conducts himself in this

chamber. he has great respect for this institution. mr. speaker, it is impossible for me to fully capture the reverence that i have for the united states capitol. i worked on these grounds starting back when i was a college intern working for senator george mcgovern in 1977, no relation. great last name. but since that time i have done everything from working as a staffer for a congressman from massachusetts to being elected to the united states house of representatives myself. but that internship will always be a high point of my life. coming here for the first time, walking these hallowed halls and seeing the glory of american democracy up close. the idea that someone would incite an out of control mob of home grown fascists and domestic terrorists to desecrate the people's house fills me with a deep sadness

for our country. the contempt that these people had for our democracy and our freedom fills me with horror. and what donald trump did, encouraging them, fills me with rage. rage not just on behalf of all of those serving here, but all of those who work in these halls. i'm talking about the reporters, the cafeteria workers, custodians, clerks, i go on and on and on and the staff, the democratic staff, republican straf, nonpartisan support staff who were terrorized some hiding under their desks and barricading in their offices. i was in the speaker's chair the day this unfolded. many of the people who are sitting up there now were present at that time. what a horrifying thing for anybody to have to experience. now, some of my republican friends have been trying to

lecture us about unity here today. unity after they voted to overturn a free and fair election but also preaching unity and not acknowledging that for four years many of them gave oxygen to donald trump's conspiracy theories, to the big lies. they turned the other way in the face of racism and bigotry and how he embraced some of the most intolerant voices in this country. just let it go. you know, i will remind everybody here that words have consequences and ignoring words that are wrong also have consequences. you know, what happened would never have happened if everybody stood up in unity and called out the president when he was not telling the american people the truth.

when he was pushing a big lie. we will never have unity without truth and also without accountability. this week in congress we saw the best of us and the worst of us. some of my colleagues have shown they will defend this president no matter what he does. there is nothing that he could do that would dissuade them from all out support. but some are standing up and doing the right thing under tremendous pressure and i'm proud of that. and i honor them for their courage. this impeachment resolution outlines the truth of what trump did. it is time that this congress now holds him accountable for his words and for their devastating impact. last week we took an oath to protect this nation. as history calls on us today, i pray that we all have the moral clarity to uphold it here today. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on

the resolution. >> the question is on order and the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. opinion in the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i would request the ayes and nays. >> pursuant to section 3f of house resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. >> trace: there you have it. the house rules committee debate is over. further debate this afternoon. of course, at some point today they will vote on whether to impeach the president of the united states. back now to law professor jonathan turley. we were talking about the length of the impeachment. you said earlier you were against a snap impeachment. you have heard others say they worry about the protracted impeachment going on into the first 100 days of the biden administration. is there a happy medium that would placate you and others?

>> i don't know if it would placate me. i don't believe the house should be voting without holding even a single hearing on the language giving a chance to tweak or amend the language. i think that this is a serious problem in terms of the future. it will create a pathway that can be used again people will cite the same sense, there is no time to debate, no time to deliberate, we just have to impeach now. now i think we should not take this rush to judgment and turn it into a parade of horibles. by combining a snap impeachment with an effectively retro active trial for removal. so at a minimum i would expect that the senate would hold -- would push for a trial while the president was still in office. otherwise it will compound the

constitutional concerns. now, the speaker has been very clear that the motivation behind this is to prevent the president from running again. so in that sense i say that this is like, you know, grounding a plane that's already landed, i'm referring to this administration. clearly the plane could take off again in terms of four years from now. but they have to think seriously about a senate trial solely for that purpose and how that will fuel our division. i expect the history and voters can ably handle this on their own. but if by legislative fiat you bar the president from running again i think it will fuel these divisions and also going to create a very significant challenge in the courts. a challenge the president could win because this is not -- there is not a clearance on this question. there are very good arguments to make once a president has left, the impeachment procedure

is no longer appropriate. >> sandra: to continue to update our viewers on capitol hill on the house floor as the debate over the process, the rules has been taking place this morning, the house is now in a lengthy vote series. it could take some time. we're expecting debate on the actual article of impeachment, incitement of insurrection sometime this afternoon after eastern time. we'll continue to monitor the house floor. to go back to one of the republican lawmakers we heard on the house floor ranking republican on the house rules committee quoted you earlier. here is a bit of what he said, jonathan. let's listen back. >> professor jonathan turley is correct when he called this a quote dangerous snap impeachment. an impeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of the traditional hearing. professor turley also noted that, quote, the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous. however, it will pale in

comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment, unquote. >> sandra: jonathan, as we see this process play out i go back to andy mccarthy's piece from this morning. saying republicans should not be duped like they were last time. they should demand a commitment from speaker pelosi that if the house approves an article of impeachment she will immediately appoint managers and transmit the article to the senate whose rules require a trial forth with. what about that? what would you say republicans should do assuming this all moves forward in the capacity we see it happening? >> that is what is so remarkable and disconcerting about this process. in the last impeachment hearing i chastised the house democrats for proceeding on impeachment with the thinnest record in the shortest period of time of any modern presidential impeachment, any presidential impeachment in history.

they have now outdone themselves. they are simply not having any hearing. they are going straight to the floor. i don't believe that is justified. there was time to hold at least one hearing, give people a chance to amend the language, give the president a chance for submitting something formally on the record. they did not want that deliberation even for a short period of time. so i do think that at a minimum the house democratic leadership should submit this to the senate immediately. what was fascinating about the last time after i raised those points and objected to the speed of the impeachment, and i also said i still don't understand why you are insisting on impeaching the president before christmas, what happened next was that the speaker then didn't submit them. waited weeks before she gave it to the senate. she effectively destroyed their own narrative. it went from being this urgent matter to being something that could literally sit on her desk until she felt like the timing

was right. >> sandra: really interesting thoughts and perspective on that. if you could, thank you for that. if you could stand by. thank you. trace. >> trace: let's bring in congressional correspondent chad pergram. the rules house committee debate is over. what's next and what's the timeline in your estimation? >> two votes in the series if in a non-pandemic era we had two votes back-to-back the first one would take 25 minutes, the second five. you would be out in 32 minutes or so. in a pandemic it takes 45 minutes to an hour because they have to bring members into the house chamber socially distanced in groups of 70 or so. it takes a lot longer to do this. some members are not voting in person here. they were able to reinstitute proxy voting in the house of representatives due to the pandemic. everybody had to be here to start the congress on january 3 and after the riot the other day when a lot of members were ensconced inside the same room

we have had several positive tests. a republican from indiana, what he is doing is announcing a proxy vote on behalf of one of his colleagues, somebody who is not there who called it in. >> trace: going forward, chad, if you can what do you expect the debate to be today, how long will it last and the vote? you are still thinking 3:00 or 4:00 this afternoon? >> watch to see how many republicans who oppose impeaching the president and those who are for impeaching the president may be as high as 20. we only know of five now. how forceful they are in their remarks those who want to impeach the president and what they say on the floor. >> trace: chad, back to you as the news breaks. >> sandra: house continues to take votes ahead of impeachment. steny hoyer vowing to take it to the senate as soon as this week. this lengthy vote series will continue on the house floor. we'll be monitoring debate on the article of impeachment in the next couple of hours. we're monitoring it on the

house floor. we'll take a quick break and be right back. record low mortgage rates have fallen again, while home values just keep climbing. refiplus lets you refinance at record low rates plus get an average of $50,000 for retirement tomorrow and for peace of mind today. refiplus. it's huge news. it's only for veterans. and it's only from newday usa.

gillette proglide and proglide gel. dmp five blades and a pivoting flexball designed to get virtually every hair on the first stroke, while washing away dirt and oil. so you're ready for the day with a clean shave and a clean face.

>> we're hearing the house will send the impeachment resolution to the senate next week. can you confirm that? >> i would be surprised if we waited until next week. i think we'll send it as soon as we have the ability to do so. i don't think we'll wait. >> sandra: that was big news when he said it this morning. howard kurtz is the host of "media buzz". good morning and welcome. join in on the conversation as the debate continues there in the capitol as some democratic lawmakers, five republican house members have decided to move forward with impeaching the president. those five gop members put up on the screen. hoyer says there will be more to vote in favor of this. what are you learning this morning? >> that's really the only remaining suspense here.

the president will be impeached for the second time by the house later today. liz cheney, the number three house republican coming out with the statement saying she will vote to impeach. the president betrayed his oath of office could give some cover for republicans who are on the fence about whether or not to join this impeachment. on the morning of the riot when the president addressed that rally he mentioned liz cheney by name saying we have to get rid of weak congress people like her. her father, former vice president dick cheney called her to tell her this. that was when the attack was underway. the other thought i have has to do with how it will unfold, when it gets to the senate. keep in mind chuck schumer will be running things and they may try to do a quicker trial because the longer this goes on, the more republicans make the argument well i don't approve of what the president did but he is a private citizen why are we bothering to convict him?

>> trace: going forward, trace here, thanks for coming on. going forward not senate we talked to chad pergram earlier the timeline is unknown. they don't know how long it could take. it could go past next week. what are your thoughts on that and timing and so forth and the senate trial itself? >> whether it takes two weeks or two months it is a significant distraction and problem for the incoming biden administration. biden will have his hands full with a pandemic that killed just yesterday more than 4400 americans and trying to get the economy right and even trying to get his cabinet members confirmed. the real question in washington right now is about this signal that mitch mcconnell sent his office on background, six or seven news organization starting with "the new york times," fox news as well. he is happy that impeachment is going forward and thinks that president trump did commit impeachable offenses. the fact he hasn't said this publicly, i don't know if he plans to, does leave open the

question will there be 17 republican senators some risk to political careers will vote to convict once the house sends the article of impeachment over? i remain skeptical. we might spend a lot of time and not get to an conviction. the democrats scored political appoints saying we impeached the president twice but in the end it won't matter to private citizen trump. >> sandra: as you've been hearing us discuss that with jonathan turley over the past hour or so andy mccarthy or others taking issue turley said a hearing could have taken place even in this rushed process. it did not. south carolina republican lawmaker mays was speaking and saying what we're doing by passing judiciary poses great questions about the constitutionality of this process. do you expect growing calls and concerns about the constitutionality of this to

continue when you hear jonathan turley and other lawmakers quoting him on the house floor earlier saying that this snap impeachment process sets a dangerous precedent for the country? >> i do and these are legitimate questions. this is a rush job, no question about it. nancy pelosi and her troops have the power to do this and they're rushing it through. not even the formality or pretense of a hearing or any ability by the other side to amend the article of impeach: that's a serious problem. the democrats' response these are unprecedented times. we're worried about violence with the f.b.i. warning about continued protests in washington and even in state capitols and therefore we need to remove president trump as quickly as possible. where that falls apart is given the senate calendar he is not going to be removed before january 20th. it seems very unlikely it will happen. that's the democrats' rationale. no question it is unprecedented and the president and his side aren't getting all the due process you would expect.

>> sandra: thanks for joining us this morning as we continue to monitor the events as they unfold on capitol hill. thank you. >> trace: thank you again. to give you an update here what we're seeing on capitol hill a couple of procedural vote that will take another 35 to 40 minutes. at some point in time they'll move on to the debate on the actual impeachment and vote on impeaching president trump should happen later on today. let's bring in charles marino. former homeland security department senior advisor and former secret service advisory agent. great to have you on here as we watch what's happening on the house floor. the big concern is how to secure the house floor, how to secure the inaugural and what happened a week ago today inside the capitol and you have these questions because the head of the f.b.i.'s d.c. field office came out and said we shared this information with everybody. they got some information, warnings from the nypd, other warnings that there would be some kind of groups causing

violence. they are now saying they shared it after saying just a couple of days ago this information was not shared and the capitol police saying we never got any information. what do you make of this contradiction? >> good morning. what we're seeing today is an activation of what will be a robust and unprecedented security operation, secret service is taking the lead. it is a national special security event and that brings the whole of government approach. as far as the intelligence collaboration goes during the inauguration event there will be close collaboration between all agencies. as the previous event and capitol and intelligence shared it appears it was not shared via a formal bulletin, intelligence bulletin channel. if it got to people it got there piecemeal and may not have given the full context of the intelligence picture to those that were receiving it. but as far as what i'm being

advised of there was nothing formal that went out from the f.b.i. or the department of homeland security. >> trace: simplify it for us. is this a breakdown in intelligence or a failure to act on the intelligence they got? >> well, the after-action investigation will uncover all of that. i think we'll see a whole host of issues. i think we'll see incompetence, i think we'll see concerns about optics, politization and some other issues. so really how was the intelligence shared? i just think the context in which it was shared was being not through the formal channels. really didn't give enough credence to how credible and specific the intelligence actually was. but all of this will come out and we'll get to the bottom of it. >> trace: and moving forward i just want to ask you the f.b.i. has now issued warnings for all 50 states about potential violence. what do you make of that and do you think we're now in the --

have the capacity to handle that in your estimation? >> yeah, that intelligence is great for first responders to prepare across all 50 states and also the department of homeland security may consider issuing a national terrorism advisory system alert. >> trace: charles marino, good of you to join us. thank you. >> sandra: you're looking live at the house floor as the procedural votes continue ahead of impeachment. the debate on the rules happening this morning. the debate on the actual article of impeachment will happen soon. we're watching all this for you. stay with us. a quick break. brand-new hour coming up. today's all-time low interest rates plus get cash. with home values climbing, now is the smartest time ever to turn your home's increased value into an average of $50,000 cash. refiplus. it's new, it's only for veterans,

and it's only from newday usa. >> man: what's my safelite story? x> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪♪ [ engines revving ] ♪♪ it's amazing to see them in the wild like th-- shhh. [ engine revs ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

>> sandra: live look at the house floor where for the second time in 13 months lawmakers are moving to impeach president donald trump. several republicans are expected to join democrats in voting against the president potentially making him the first president ever to be impeached twice. we're watching all this for you on this wednesday morning. welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm sandra smith. hi, trace. >> trace: hello to you. i'm trace gallagher. the house kicking things off with a debate on the rules as it gets ready to take up a single article of impeachment alleging president trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors. a heated back and forth expected to take up most of the afternoon. >> every moment donald trump is in the white house our nation,

our freedom is in danger. >> instead of moving forward as a unifying force majority in the house is choosing to divide us further. >> is there little time left? yes. but it is never too late to do the right thing. >> this is a reckless impeachment. this will only bring up the hate and fire more than ever before. have a conscience, but the people before politics. unify this country. >> trace: let's get to our chief white house correspondent john roberts. do we expect to hear from the president today as these proceedings go on? >> we don't know, trace. at this point. with his twitter, facebook and instagram and youtube accounts all frozen and with twitter leaping on any other platform the president posts on the president has really two choices today. he can either sit back and

silently watch what's going on in the house or he can use the traditional route, that past presidents used addressing the press pool. an isolated president trump said he isn't worried about any action under the 25th amendment after vice president sent a let to nancy pelosi saying he wouldn't pursue that and excoriating pelosi for launching a snap impeachment for a week left in his presidency. listen here. >> president trump: the 25th amendment is of zero risk to me but will come back to haunt joe biden and the biden administration as the expression goes, be careful what you wish for. the impeachment hoax is a continuation of the greatest and most vicious witch hunt in the history of our country and is causing tremendous anger and division. >> with the senate not scheduled to return to capitol hill until the 19th.

an impeachment trial cannot begin at 1:00 on the 20th of january. an hour after the president left office with little possibility of having a trial before the end of the president's term the question is whether the senate would take action in the new administration simply to prevent the president from seeking reelection in 2024. now the outgoing senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is said to support impeachment erasing president trump from the republican party. with democrats taking control of the senate they certainly could go down that road. five republican house members voted in favor of moving forward last night. john katko, liz cheney and others. it is possible that many more republicans could join in tonight when the vote on the article of impeachment is actually taken. but the freshman congressman byron donalds of florida saying his colleagues should not have done what they did last night. listen here. >> there have been no hearings, no ability for him to defend

himself. we would never allow anybody in the united states to be convicted without a trial without an opportunity to defend themselves. the president has not had it. for five republicans to go along and agree with this is flat out wrong and wrong for the party and wrong for the nation. >> curiously enough the president is getting some support from some world leaders on his suspension from twitter. the german chancellor merkel saying it's problematic for twitter to do that. michael mccormick, the prime minister of australia saying he does not believe in that sort of censorship. >> trace: mexican president weighed in as well. john, thank you. >> sandra: for more let's bring in dan henninger, deputy editor. good morning as we watch developments at the capitol this morning we know that we have a quickly changing situation as far as a growing list of republicans that are willing to call for the president's impeachment and vote for it. liz cheney, adam kinzinger,

john katko, butler and others and those that are leaning towards removal and impeachment of the president the republican from ohio has said he would not oppose the cabinet invoking the 25th amendment. we have republicans going on the record that they're willing to see this move forward. what are you learning about the possibility of more republicans being on board and what happens in the senate? >> sandra, it does look as though more republicans are accommodating themselves to the idea of impeaching or voting to impeach donald trump in the house today. there is talk of it getting up to 20, 25 votes which is not insignificant. it is really quite remarkable to think, sandra, how before all of this happened a week ago the political narrative at the time was about the democrats and tensions inside the democratic party between

president-elect joe biden, moderates, establishment, versus bernie sanders and the progressive activists and how it would play out in the biden presidency. that has completely flipped. we're not talking about that. we are instead talking about divisions, serious divisions inside the republican party over the efficacy of voting to impeach donald trump. now it does look as though he will be impeached in the house today and as you've been reporting it now goes over to the senate. when it goes over to that senate chuck schumer is going to be in charge. mitch mcconnell if he had been majority leader might have been able to suppress a trial. now he and the rest of the republicans in the minority are faced with the prospect of whether to proceed with a trial of donald trump. i think there is a possibility, not a probability but at least a possibility, that the republicans may decide to vote to convict donald trump. the issue being to go forward

with trump as the imagine or figure in the republican party or to finally get trump behind them and try to move forward without donald trump. that is the difficult challenge facing republicans right now. >> sandra: really interesting. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy and others are talking about what they are questioning the constitutionality of the process and how quickly they are moving forward with this snap impeachment process. you heard from jonathan turley on that last hour. there are republicans, some on the house floor this morning, jim jordan and others who continue to question the selective condemnation of the violence that we saw in the capitol last week to what we saw over the summer. steve scalise is one of them. he has a piece politics has no place for violence, dan. many democrats who were quick to join us in condemning last week's events at the capitol were silent over the summer. in those months americans watched looters ransack mall

businesses -- cruelty and destruction in the name of a political agenda will be celebrated. we must put a stop to this dangerous idea. here is jim jordan earlier. >> democrats can raise bail for rioters and looters this somehow. when republicans condemn all the violence, the violence this summer, the violence last week, somehow we're wrong. >> sandra: so that's what we're hearing from a handful of republicans as this process moves forward this morning, dan. >> well, i agree with congressman scalise. it was an extremely strong and important piece that he wrote for us in the "wall street journal" today. i think if we're going to talk about the divisions that all of these events are creating inside the nation, presumably out there in the future at some point you want to get to a point of equilibrium where we

aren't so divided. they make a legitimate argument. the people who invaded the capitol and those arrested should be prosecuted and i think they should probably have the book thrown at them. but in terms of that, the sort of people who were creating violence, looting stores this summer across cities in the united states, they, too, should be prosecuted rather than not. otherwise this country is just going to be perpetually divided over a double standard about half of the country and it is just not in our interest to go forward on that basis. how we get there is another question because any time somebody like jim jordan stands on the floor of the house of representatives and make these arguments the democrats feel compelled to argue back against him. somehow they have to find a way to agree about civil order in this country and the necessity to prosecute people violating civil order whether in the

capitol or on the streets of america. >> sandra: interesting the "wall street journal" is updating as the morning progresses on impeachment with the headline house impeachment debate underway, vote expected in late afternoon. as we follow this the journal is pointing out in this piece hot off the press that the context in which this is happening we aren't hearing from the president. there is some reasoning behind that because he is not on twitter as we now know and silenced on some of the social media sites. the "wall street journal" trump was silent wednesday morning. a sharp contrast to the last time he was impeached when he sent dozens of tweets attacking the process. his scheduled showed no public appearances. the white house didn't respond whether he would make any statements on wednesday. interesting observation. >> ye, it is. donald trump actually ironically hard to believe is not getting that much attention

right now. but mr. trump has some difficult calculations to make right now. does he want to remain in politics or does he want to withdraw from public life? i would suspect that he is facing some difficult financial decisions. in his private life donald trump basically is a function of the trump brand. the trump brand is under a lot of pressure right now. the pga decided to withdraw its open next year from a trump golf course. he is probably going to have some trouble finding people to loan him money to roll over the enormous mortgage debt he has. he has some calculations of his own to make about how he goes forward. and whether he wants to simply, you know, get involved in a volatile way in the public debate at this moment. i think is an open question. he has to be sitting there calculating where his own best interests lie. that is probably how he is spending a lot of his time at

the moment rather than trying to find a platform in social media. >> sandra: fair point. this as the new york city mayor bill deblasio in an interview this morning says the city is terminating contracts with the trump organization, the trump organization is, of course, firing right back at that. a lot going on, dan. thanks for being here this morning. good to see you. >> trace: let's bring in former u.s. assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor andy mccarthy. good to have you back. you hear the house majority leader steny hoyer saying he thinks the articles -- it could go to the senate this week. do you see any scenario, andy, where a trial starts this week in the senate? >> well, it would be difficult proceed durally as i understand the senate rules. they're in recess. there would have to be some parliamentary maneuvering to get them back before the 19th of january. >> trace: it would be tough. a lot of republicans saying

listen, we're doing a lot of talking here and we haven't heard the president defend himself. he hasn't had a chance to defend himself. what does that look like? assuming this does go to trial in the senate we're assuming he would be impeached today and the votes look like it would go that way. if you go to a senate trial, what does his defense look like? what does it entail in your estimation, andy? >> i think first of all the president still has the bully pulpit. i think we've been conditioned by four years of a president who makes unprecedented use of social media. perhaps he does seem right now like he is much more muffled than usual but it is not like the president of the united states can't get his story out if he wants to. i think the big thing, trace, if the trial doesn't start until he is out of office, there is a profound -- i heard you talk about to jonathan turley about this, there is a profound constitutional question about whether a trial

can take place, an impeachment trial after the person who was to be removed is already gone. is already not in office. so i would think that there would be a lot in the defense -- if i were defending him i would want to make it all about the process and the constitutionality. the last thing i would want to be talking about is the facts of what happened in that siege at the capitol last week. i think it would be a very legalistic procedural defense. >> trace: and just so we're clear, if this does go beyond the president's term and for some reason they get the 17 republicans to convict, what does it mean? is it symbolic or there is hard, fast rule saying here is the bottom line. you are not allowed to take public office again. that's constitutionally sound in your opinion? >> well, if the trial itself is sound, then if the constitutional provisions apply, it means if they can go ahead and have the trial, it

means the penalties would apply, too. the two penalties in the constitution for impeachment if you are convicted are removal from office and disqualification from holding future office. so i think the preliminary question, trace, is whether the trial itself is legitimate. if it is, then i think the consequences including disqualification would also be legitimate. >> trace: we talk about numbers. you aren't a political analyst. mitt romney, talking about those who might jump on board with the democrats to convict, mitt romney, lisa murcowski, ben sasse, pat toomey. a heavy lift trying to convince 12 or so republicans to come to the other side. that process itself could take a while. this really could go for some time before we actually see this thing go to trial. >> you know, trace, it is a funny thing. trial lawyers are always sizing up the jury. one of the things you talk

about the lawyers on both sides for a trial who appear to be the leaders on the jury. you get a sense by body language and other stuff as the trial goes on who they are. the reason i mention that is it seems to me that the big dynamic here in terms of what you are talking about is senator mcconnell. we've got these reports that he is not exactly against the prospect of an impeachment and removal, disqualification of the president. i think he could move a lot of minds if he were open and expressed that. i don't have any idea whether the reporting is accurate. it seems to me he is a real leader and he is a wild card in this. if he were to go that way i wouldn't be surprised if he took a number of people with him. >> trace: for clarity mitch mcconnell said he is in favor of the impeachment happening today. unclear if he would vote to convict or try to convince anybody to go that direction.

great to see you, great insight. thank you, sir. >> thanks, trace. >> sandra: a military presence building around the nation's capitol unlike any in recent decades. f.b.i. issued a dire warning about the threat of new violence as congress moves forward with impeachment as well as a new president taking office just days from now. we're live outside the capitol as the national guard builds new defenses next. as capitol hill sees security measures major push back from house republicans. why he says those precautions actually put lawmakers in greater danger. it's a new day for veteran homeowners with va loans. with mortgage rates at record lows just one call to newday can lower your payment and save you $3000 a year. that's me. the va streamline refi is a benefit you earned with your service. and at newday, there's no income verification, and no appraisal. that's me. the va streamline refi from newday usa.

get the savings you deserve. people were afraid i was contagious. i felt gross. it was kind of a shock after i started cosentyx. four years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. learn more at cosentyx.com.

cyber attacks are relentlessly advancing. to end them, cybereason built a cyber security solution so advanced... it can end attacks today -- on computers, mobile devices, servers and the cloud. and deliver future-ready protection, keeping you sharp for tomorrow. join us, the defenders, in our mission. cybereason. end cyber attacks. from endpoints to everywhere.

with senior military officials this morning that the acting defense secretary chris miller has delegated authorities to the army secretary ryan mccarthy to command and control these forces, another change from last week. secretary mccarthy has authorized some troops to be armed. in a rare statement sent out to the entire u.s. military all eight members of the joint chiefs of staff signed a letter to the force condemning the capitol insurrection last week and warned service members not to do anything to impede president-elect joe biden's inauguration. quote, the violent riot in washington, d.c. on january 6, 2021 was a direct assault on the u.s. congress, the capitol

building and our constitutional process. we witnessed actions inside the capitol building inconsistent with the rule of law, the rights of freedom of speech and assembly don't give anyone the right to resort to violence and insurrection. that from all of the joint chiefs. attorney general rosen went further. >> we will have no tolerance whatsoever for any attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on january 20th that our constitution calls for. we will have no tolerance for any attempts to forcefully occupy government buildings. there will be no excuse for violence, vandalism, or any other form of lawlessness. >> there are thousands of troops on capitol hill right now. a complete sense around the capitol that is not you can't climb the fence.

the threat assessment is worse than what is being revealed publicly and why you see all the security in the u.s. capitol right now. >> sandra: thank you for that report. >> trace: tempers flaring on capitol hill last night. house republicans refusing to walk through metal detectors installed after last week's riots. my next guest said the metal detector policy for the house floor is unnecessary, unconstitutional and endangers members. i did not comply. i will not comply in the future. here to talk about it is chip roy. he signed onto a letter abdicating from abstaining from impeachment. thank you for joining us. why do you believe that it endangers you and your colleagues to have these metal detectors at the doors to the house floor? >> trace, thank you very much. and for having me on. what we have right now is our capitol hill police personnel extraordinary. i thank them for their service.

i come from a family of law enforcement and i thank every one of them when i see them around the capitol. when they stand in the doors they're being asked to focus their responsibility to look at members of congress and we're supposed to go exercise our duty to vote on the floor of the house of representatives and wasting resources and times drawing tlair attention to members of congress. that's a waste of resources and puts us on the floor of the house as sitting ducks as we were last week sending a signal we're unarmed and sitting in the house floor without the ability to protect ourselves. that's what this new metal detector policy does. it is an unconstitutional interference with our ability to carry out our obligation to vait for our constituents who sent us here and i will continue to object to it. that is not contrary to my support for capitol hill police doing their job. it's a policy that's the wrong one put in place by the sergeant of arms. >> trace: your colleagues say you are more concerned with

security than investigating your party's role in the capitol hill riots. corey bush tweeted. for my colleagues who won't go through the metal detectors? if you worked at mcdonald and don't wear the uniform you don't work that day. if you don't abide by the rules of the job, go find another one. your response is what? >> my response is very simple. we have a constitutional obligation to vote and we have a constitutional obligation which my democratic colleagues seem to ignore to send a strong signal to the united states we're here, doing our job and we won't be impeded. the first thing i did when all of this was going down a week ago exactly right now bass tweet out to the american people we will go back to the floor, whatever mob was being unleashed at the capitol last week would not deter us from doing our job to count the electoravototeral votes. i stood on the floor of the house of representatives and said i would not object and flew in the face of the majority of my colleagues as well as the president because

it was the right thing to do under the constitution. i won't allow democrats to turn sboous a police state to send signals of fear to the united states. i will do any job and walk on the house floor without metal detectors. >> you see on the left-hand side of the screen where the votes are going on in the house, we believe that at some point today they'll vote on impeaching the president and the vote will pass. steny hoyer the majority leader says he wants this to go to the senate this week. what is your response to that? >> if that were the case i wish that steny and my democratic colleagues had drafted articles of impeachment better written and taken the time under the constitution to do it the right way. i actually believe that the conduct of the president was reprehensible and should be condemned for it and i think it is impeachable conduct. the problem is my democratic colleagues have draeftd articles of impeachment that are flawed and create ongoing issues with respect to what the definition of inciting a riot

is and cause a slippery slope under article 3 of the 14th amendment could actually cause us to be starting to shoot at each other and target each other in the house of representatives for inciting insurrection. we need to do our job. the president of the united states should not have pressured the vice president to ignore his constitutional duty to count the votes. to count the electors. i strongly believe that and he was wrong to do it and condemnable. i wish my democratic colleagues worked with us to draft better articles. >> trace: you also wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal" why you are taking a sabbatical from social media. it's well worth the read. we're out of time. thank you very much for joining us,. >> thanks, social media is the devil and we should put it all down. >> trace: we're learning more about social media every day. chip roy. >> sandra: thank you. a busy day on capitol hill as

house lawmakers prepare to impeach president trump for the second time. is it the right move with seven days to go with president trump in office? darrell issa will join us next. a post presidency impeachment trial may set up a court battle. what does the constitution say about all this? >> these are issues we should be talking about because it is as important how we do something as it is what we do.

your grooming business is booming. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base. claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/groomer our retirement plan with voya, keeps us moving forward. hey, kevin! hey, guys! they have customized solutions to help our family's special needs... giving us confidence in our future ...and in kevin's. voya. well planned. well invested. well protected.

>> sandra: fox news alert. it is half past the 11:00 hour on the east coast. we're looking live on capitol hill. we've seen debate continue on the house floor over the rules this morning and then on the actual article of impeachment which is expected soon after what is a lengthy vote series happening on the house floor at this moment. as we await that steny hoyer did talk in the halls of congress about the article of impeachment whether it would be sent tonight. he was asked, i don't want to say that because i don't want to speak for the speaker. we have had a conversation, he said, about two days ago. my thinking is, he said, it will be sent over as soon as possible. so he also reiterated that on an interview this morning as well that the process this morning as it goes forward his intention is to move this on as soon as possible.

so a live look on the floor, the house floor this morning as we await chad pergram joining us with the latest on capitol hill. we're taking this all in. debbie wasserman schultz is con of this. the discussion with jonathan turley. snap impeachment and his concerns over moving forward, andy mccarthy and others sharing those concerns. we heard the debates happening. what you are watching and manage viewers' expectations where it all goes next. >> one thing you'll hear a lot about from the republicans is did democrats wash this too much. they say the case they have to make is clear. they don't have to make much of a case. look at the mayhem that ensued at the capitol last week and don't need to spend a lot of time. nowhere is it written you have to have a committee hearing. they even did issue a report,

76-page report from the judiciary committee. the biggest question we have right now the president is going to be impeached today, we know that. they have the votes on the democratic side. five or more republicans. he will be impeached for the second time in 13 months. just how fast they send the article of impeachment to the senate. if you look back at the impeachment trial of president clinton in 1999 about 10 minutes after they impeached him on two of the four articles of impeachment they sent a separate resolution. you have to send a separate resolution to the senate in order to trigger the process in the united states senate. they did that 10 minutes after they impeached president clinton. if you remember what happened in december of last year, you went from impeaching president trump the first time on the 18th of december of 2019 until the senate trial starting on the 16th of january. nancy pelosi the house speaker held the ball for about a month. now the house majority leader steny hoyer then and now said i expect we would send it over

shortly. a bit ago he indicated i presume that is to be the case. we thought we would send it over shortly. i don't want to speak for the speaker of the house. she controls the ball here. if you look closely they are doing these procedural votes now. one of the votes will be to approve the rule which sets the ground rules. built into that rule if you read it closely there is a provision that says we appoint the managers. these are the prosecutors who will present the case to the united states senate on behalf of the house. it does not simultaneously say the way i read it and i've asked believe me the past 12 or so hours does it automatically send it over to the senate? it does not appear on its face it does and why you would have to have that separate decision by the speaker and action by the house to send it across the building. >> sandra: jennifer griffin reported live from capitol hill and wanted to ask you about it as well having the historical knowledge you do seeing the

capitol in the capacity that you do what you are seeing this morning as far as the number of troops deployed. she just reported and just tweeted that more than -- there are more u.s. troops deployed on capitol hill now than in iraq or afghanistan. it equals three times the number of troops in iraq and afghanistan combined as we look at these pictures. >> it is clear when i arrived this morning this had been militarized and you probably have to go back to the civil war to have such a heavy troop presence inside the united states capitol. they used during the civil war the capitol rotunda as a hospital or triage area. that's the comparison. when i was coming back down here for my first live shot a couple of hours ago i had to wait in the hall just because there were so many troops, national guard persons cutting through the hallway. everybody trying to social distance to the degree you can and i had the wait a couple of minutes to get down here to the

camera because there are so many people. they've closed out he have trances to the capital. you have to enter through a certain place. they're very strict about i.d.s. they always are. it is amped up today. >> sandra: something from these pictures we're seeing there. the congressional visitor center as troops are lying on the ground there, some have been napping as you see some of these pictures. it is really something to see. john roberts talking about the amount of security in the capitol today he had a hard time getting to his 9:00 live shot. >> same way here. we had to go through a lot of barricades. couldn't figure out where to drop me off to get into the building. that took a little creativity. we kind of hacked in here. >> sandra: trace. >> trace: the house moves to impeach president trump speaker nancy pelosi naming congressman eric swalwell as an impeachment manager. the california democrat who had ties to a suspected chinese spy. the controversial move is

making waves as you might imagine in washington >> it's an opportunity, a lifeline thrown to him so he can reintroduce himself to the american people rather than the scoundrel that he s he will now be a hero to the left to lead or participate in the effort against president trump. >> darrell issa joins us now. former chairman of the house oversight committee. always good to see you. bob barr is not the only one surprised by this. republicans are just wondering why in the world eric swalwell was appointed os a house manager. are you among them? >> i have no doubt nancy pelosi wants people that are loyal to her -- one interesting thing is the judiciary committee was mentioned that they put a report out just a moment ago the fact is judiciary committee has not organized as an 18-year veteran of that committee i don't have that assignment. the fact is there is no

judiciary committee per se unless you include a chairman and ranking member and no other members. that's how much they are rushing to judgment of the president that they didn't even take time to organize the committee that has to make the case against the president. >> trace: as you talk, sir, we have on the left-hand side of the screen procedural votes going on in the house. chad pergram reported sit a foregone conclusion that the president will be impeached today. hoyer said he wants it to go to the senate as soon as possible. your reaction to speeding this process up, sir. >> it is clear they convicted him before they tried him and they tried him before they indicted him. and they indicted him apparently on an action done by

an -- there are four separate extremist groups who came with weapons and ill intent for whom the president's speech had nothing to do whatsoever. so they may be trying the president for his four years but they are not genuinely trying him for a single speech. that's what history is going to show is we may not like what the president said that day or for the previous four years in some cases. but it is very clear this is simply revenge of nancy pelosi. she would try him for anything at this point to further mar the record and make political gain. >> trace: i want to put these five gop house members on the screen, the ones who are supporting impeachment. we're are -- we know the democrats have the votes. a couple of republicans. it could go as high as 12 or 20. we don't know that for sure. the senate is a different

matter. they need 17 votes to convict. do you see any scenario at all? what are you hearing about senate -- senators, maybe mitch mcconnell jumping on board with that? >> you know, if the senate wouldn't convict bill clinton for what he did that was wrong, a series of things, i see no particular reason that after the president has already left office that they are going to effectively convict him for a misguided speech and actions of anarchists. i was there that day, at the end of the day the people who broke through and been arrested time and time again we found out they came loaded to do wrong things and we need to have them punished just as we need to punish all those who destroyed our cities last summer and got away with it. >> trace: darrell issa, good of you to join us.

thank you. >> thank you. >> sandra: house forging ahead with an article of impeachment against the president. the senate trial may not start until after he leaves office. some now wondering if that is constitutional. we'll take that one up with brett pullman next. money eveh plus you could get an average of $50,000 cash. that's money for security today and money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus, it's only for veterans and it's only from newday usa.

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy, even a term policy, for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized that we needed a way to supplement our income. if you

have one hundred thousand dollars or more of life insurance you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit conventrydirect.com to find out if you policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. get ready - our most popular battery is now even more powerful. the stronger, lasts-longer energizer max.

>> sandra: as we watch live the house floor as they move toward a vote on impeachment, another big debate is happening on whether congress has the power to impeach a government official after he leaves office. let's bring in brett pullman former u.s. attorney. that is being asked now. what is the answer, brett? >> you know when the constitution does not explicitly say on a particular issue they have to interpret what the authority is and precedent is created.

the constitution doesn't say it is prohibited and i'm certain it depends on leadership in the congress and their decision. >> sandra: jonathan turley joins us on what he is calling a snap impeachment process and he is warning against it. watch. >> a snap impeachment brings with it its own perils. they are creating a pathway that can be used in the future where people say the time is of the essence. we don't have time to consider the implications of what we're doing or the language of the articles of impeachment. >> sandra: he pointed out that there very much was the ability and time to have a hearing. they are not doing that. they are skipping that part of the process, brett. what are you warning are the perils of this snap impeachment process as jonathan turley put it? >> i couldn't agree more. professor turley is absolutely right. the issue you have is there is very little wisdom in congress

right now. they make decisions, knee jerk reactions to whatever issue is most pressing and which one the majority or those in power have the ability to engage on. here they are not thinking long term. ideally you wish they would see and exercise some wisdom that setting this kind of precedent could be bad for multiple administrations in the future. remember, short memory in washington, d.c. except when it comes to the actions of congress on issues of impeachment. this will not be the last if this is indeed the first snap impeachment. >> sandra: brett, marco rubio is pointing out joe biden promised unity for the country and right now we're seeing an impeachment process and he is saying where is the plans trying to get people together and how is he battling the pandemic >> joe biden ran as a guy who

would unify the country and spend the first couple weeks of this presidency not confirming his nominees, not dealing with a pandemic, the first couple weeks of his presidency is going to be about removing a president that is already not in office. i mean, that's what we're talking about here. >> sandra: what about that, brett? >> it's not just the absence of unity. it is actually a proactive decision that is being made by those in his party and he is refusing to resist that action. and that is to attack not just the sitting president, but those that voted for him. you see there is some concerted effort by business leaders, big tech, congress. right now it is targeting conservatives. >> sandra: brett, hakeem jeffries was challenged on those republicans and constitutional law professor

like turley saying this process is moving forward too fast. he replied republicans complained about the process then. this is a violent insurrection not an ordinary moment in american history. it rieshs an extraordinary congressional response to protect the american people from donald trump who was a clear and present danger to their health, safety and well-being. to that difference he is trying to point out you say what? >> can you imagine when i held the power of a federal prosecutor if because a particularly egregious crime had been committed that i went around the grand jury, did not present evidence, did not afford a trial that had due process, did not allow witnesses to be examined by both sides? imagine that power and the offense that would give to anybody in this country. we don't change the rules based on the urgency of the action we need to take.

we're bound by those rules and we should be especially when it comes to denying somebody either due process, life, liberty and in this case impeachment. >> sandra: a big statement and important observation. brett, thank you for being here this morning. thank you. >> trace: congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez says lawmakers are looking into ways to combat misinformation after last week's riot in the capitol. the new york democrat's comments came during an instagram livestream. >> i do think that several members of congress in some of my discussions have brought up media literacy because that is a part of what happened here. we're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just spew disinformation and

misinformation. >> let's bring in dave rubin. what do you make of those comments from ocasio-cortez, the first amendment is one of those things where you think wow, did she really say that? >> yeah, well, trace, she really did say it and she means it except what she means is by disinformation, when she says disor misinformation she means anything that goes against progressive leftist dogma. would should allow you to say you're against the green new deal if it's a threat to humanity? would you allowed to take a pro-life position if that really is about hating women? which is exactly what she would say. would you be allowed to be for low taxes if her high tax policies are the things that help poor people, which of course they're not.

this is completely consistent with this authoritarian ideology the left pushed out there. they are trying to crush dissent. when you mix the big tech portion of this where they are going to censor the rest of us as has become obvious over the last few days, you have politicians saying let's get rid of misinformation. instead of the government having to do it they can do it through big tech so it doesn't seem like an assault on the first amendment which is about the government going after speech. >> trace: you talk about social media shutting people down and canceling people and alexandria ocasio-cortez saying the quote was congress needs to figure out how to control the media. the president says fake news all the time and the left goes crazy. and what's the difference? your last comment on this, dave. >> there is no difference except now leftism has taken over all of our institutions, our political, cultural, media institutions and the few of us that are dissident voices say

fox news, say people like me the blaze, daily wire, etc., they are figuring out ways to come for us. one hand these will be these are the issues you can't talk about because they're misinformation and then okay, now we can ban you from these things, take out your amazon servers and whatever else there is. >> trace: dave rubin, always good to see you. thank you. >> thanks, trace. >> sandra: the house set to impeach the president again. this time with gop support. so who is still split on the vote? live update from capitol hill coming up. y pay for what you need. wow. that will save me lots of money. this game's boring. only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. before i was diagnosed by my doctor, i didn't know why my body was moving on its own. my eyes blinked way too much. it turns out, i have tardive dyskinesia, a condition that may be related to important medications i take for my bipolar disorder.

my fingers moved like they were playing a piano that wasn't there. tardive dyskinesia can affect different parts of the body. it may also affect people who take medication for depression and schizophrenia. it's a relief to know that today, td is manageable. learn more at talkabouttd.com. a must in your medicine cabinet! less sick days! cold coming on? zicam® is clinically proven to shorten colds! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds!

zicam zinc that cold! start the year smiling at aspen dental it shortens colds! where new starts happen, every day. get exceptional care at every step, unparalleled safety at every visit, and flexible payment options for every budget. now, during the everyday smiles event new patients get a full exam & set of x-rays with no obligation. no insurance? no worries, it's free. plus, now all patients can get 20% off their treatment plan. find every reason to smile. every day at aspen dental. call 1-800-aspendental or book today at aspendental.com

it's time for the lowest prices of the season on the sleep number 360 smart bed. can it help with snoring? i've never heard snoring... exactly. no problem. ...and done. and now during the lowest prices of the season, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. only for a limited time. >> sandra: this is a fox news alert. any moment the house will begin debating the articles of impeachment against president trump leading up to the actual vote itself. now f the house does vote to appr