the house managers described impeachment as a last resort for congress. houses case, however, the chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead led straight to impeachment as the first resource -- resort. therefore i will vote to acquit on article two. decisionsident, this is not about whether you like or dislike this president or agree with or oppose his policies. disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances. about whether the highes meet the very constitutional standard of trees bribery, oreason, other high crimes or misdemeanors. years -- 230o 30 years since george washington took the oath of office. there are reasons why the entire time the senate has never removed a president. such a move would not only affect the sitting president but could have unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process. excepty judgment that when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a

president's fellow republicans voted to clean him on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress house. one person is dead in schools more injured after a plane crash didn't used. the because this airline jet skidded off the runway and broke apart one.

president trump sent his federal budget plan for 2021 to congress. house leaders held news conferences to talk about the request. we begin with speaker nancy pelosi who is joined by senate democratic leader charles schumer. that's followed by house epublican leaders. mr. schumer: ok. good afternoon. i'm proud to be joined by my dear friend and great colleague, the wonderful, excellent and superb speaker of the house rblingts nancy pelosi. --, nancy pelosi. and thank you all for coming. now, if president trump's state of the union was a manifesto of mistruths, as speaker pelosi so aptly put it, president trump's latest budget proposal is a blueprint for destroying america. one word, nine letters. ums up the president's budget. h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. hypocrisy. in his state of the union address, president trump talked at length about health care, claiming amazingly at one point he will fight to protect patients with pre-existing conditions. we know the president just lies, lies about protecting health care and his budget is proof. in -- if the state of the union

in reality both house accusations are incoherent. the obstruction ofs congress charges absurd. house democrathouse democrats ae the speaker invokes the power of impeachmenter the president must do whatever the house demands. no questions asked. invoking executive branch privileges and immunities in response to the house subpoena becomes an impeachable offense. here is how the chairman put it back in october, any action that forces us to litigate or consider litigation will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice. that, mr. president, is nonsense impeachment. that is nonsense. impeachment isn't a magical constitutional card melts away the separation between the branches of government, the framers didn't leave the houseea and secret constitutional but everyone somehow overlooked for 230 years. in congress, the executive branch officials with questions or a privilege to sides either reach an accommodation where they go to court, that is the way that it works. so, can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot how could have responded if the house republicans to

to investigate joe biden's son and withholding military aid the 2nd charge was obstruction of congress house democrats are refusing to accept the impeachment defeat trump of course is jubilant. did nothing wrong. i've done things wrong in my life i will admit not purposely but i've done things wrong. but this is what the end result is. i was acquitted without facts he was acquitted without a fair trial no matter what he says or whatever headline he wants to carry around your impeached for ever or despite all the efforts to remove trump from office his ratings are as high as ever saw the boy go discuss this with a russian pop star. former business associate who was once at the center of the russia gate scandal. i think his presidency has been unfair towards him because you know the press and the media you know everybody reflects on all the negative and we rarely hear and see what that humans that he has done in the bust while he's pretty good you know advertising them here he's got a lot of them marketing p.r. skills so they can sell any idea that's true. but they're on the investigation and

he extravagantly praised the members of congress, house, and set out who defended him so often eitherress or on television. he extravagantly criticized all the villains, nancy pelosi, adam schiff and others. i think really the question that comes out of it is, is this show just going to continue? will democrats continue, and as mike emanuel was reporting, continue their investigations, more subpoenas, all the way through the spring and summer and into the campaign? or will it actually turned to issues at some point? >> bret: it seemed like nancy pelosi, susan, was saying it is going to continue. she mentioned the supreme court decision on his taxes, the president's taxes. she meant in a court decision about whether the former white house chief of staff don mcgahn can testify, and we are hearing about possible subpoenas for john bolton. >> there's a lot of democratic anger about losing on impeachment, although that wasn't course preordained from the start. i think there's a debate going on in the democratic party about exactly how to proceed. nancy pelosi has been pretty focused on try

house's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to acts considered and rejected by the framers of our constitution. that brings us to the second article we're considering, obstruction of congress. during the house inquiry, democrats were upset because some of the president's closest advisors and their most sought after witnesses did not testify. to be clear, some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 witnesses whose testimony we did hear during the senate trial. but for those witnesses for whom it was clear the administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly leading to a long court battle, the house declined to issue the subpoenas and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. rather than addressing the privileged claims in court as happened in the nixon and clinton impeachments, the democrat managers moved to impeach president trump for obstruction of congress for protecting the presidency itself from a partisan abuse of power by the house. removing the president from office for asserting long-recognized and constitutionally-grounded privileges that have been invoked by both republicans and democrat presidents would be -- would set a very dangerous pr

consider the evidence presented by house managers and the president's defense team related to two articles of impeachment, one abuse of power, two, obstruction of congress. the house managers have presented a case that is the result of a three-month long investigation during which the house intelligence committee issued scores of subpoenas with documents and testimony. donald trump obstructed this process from the start. no president, not even president richard nixon during watergate has ever issued an order to direct a witness to refuse to cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. as a result of this unprecedented obstruction, the trump administration did not provide a single document to the house of representatives. not one. fortunately, though, 17 brave public servants, many of whom risked their careers, came forward to testify under oath. and here's what we learned from them. donald trump used the powers of his office to pressure the gofort government of ukraine to smear his most feared political opponent, our former colleague, former vice president joe biden. donald trump did this by illegally with holding funds appropriated by congress to help an ally,

century americans including those of the civil war era by contrast believe power is in congress, not the white house during the civil war, democrats in congress repeatedly attacked abraham lincoln as a tyrant even republicans questioned his confidence but as beleaguered as he felt lincoln never claimed congress lacked the authority to challenge actions or decline request for information. he recognized congress as a primary repository of the people's will and understood the founders never intended the president to be beyond the reach of authority. so to us congress may seem quarrelsome and inefficient but it is working if you think of the cacophony of our american voices to have a cadre of 535 representatives and senators. the senator in my book understood it was self-interest seasoned with passion and to accomplish anything was creative skill and tolerance and immense heroic patients. with its frustrating turbulence and to government and that i would not have a perfect quiet always in a republic especially you never fight - - find quiet except under a tyranny. i will leave it there i think i brought

houses vague charge in the first article is equivalent to ask considered and rejected by the framers of our constitution. that brings us to the second article we are considering of obstruction of congress. during the house inquir inquiry, democrats were upset because some of the president's closestrs advisers and their most sought after witnesses did not testify. to be clear some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 whose testimony we did here during the senate trial. for those that it would claim a privilege certainly leading to a long court battle to define the issue and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. rather than address the claims in court as what happened in the nixon and clinton impeachment they moved to impeach president trump from protecting the presidency itselfby from the partisan abuse of power by theou house. the president for asserting the constitutionally grounded privileges that have been invoked by republicans and democrat presidents would set a very dangerous precedent to do the separation of power design and in effect would make the presidency subservient to congress. the father of our constitution james madison warned against the impeachme

moving now to charges, in article 2, house managers argue the president obstructed congress for acting on the advice of legal counsel to resist subpoenas. the judiciary resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branches. the house should have exhausted judicial remedies before bringing this charge. i shall vote against article 2. in article 1, abuse of power, three issues must be addressed -- one, the legal standard of guilt by which to judge the president; two, whether the president committed a crime and if so, three, whether that crime warrants removal from office. first, the standard of guilt was never established. legal standards for conviction vary from the lower, more probable-than-not threshold to the higher, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases. since house managers charge, quote, something akin to a crime, beyond a beyond a reasonable doubt seems most appropriate, the higher threshold. and as senator jay rockefeller stated during president clinton's impeachment, beyond a reasonable doubt means that it is proven to a moral certainty

president's fellow republicans voted to clean him on charges of abuse of power and on obstruction of congress house.

the constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that is occupied both houses of our congress these many days. we have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. we have arrived at different judgments, but i hope we respect each other's good faith. the allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. as a senator juror, i swore an oath before god to exercise impartial justice. i am profoundly religious. my faith is at the heart of who i

produce those documents on the idea that the house had no jurisdiction over matters of foreign policy, but interestingly washington in his message to congress did specify one instance where the house would have a legitimate claim on the documents released. what was the instance? you guessed it -- impeachment. if allowed to stand, this position that the president -- any president -- can use his or her position to totally obstruct the production of evidence on their own wrongdoing eviscerates the impeachment power entirely and it compromises the ongoing authority of congress to provide any meaningful oversight of the executive whatsoever. for these and other reasons, mr. president, i will vote guilty on both articles of impeachment. final point -- madam president, the congress has been committing slow-motion institutional suicide for the past 70 years, abdicating its constitutional authorities and responsibilities one by one. the war power effectively in the hands of the president since 1942. authority over trade with other countries superseded by unilateral presidentially imposed tariffs on friends and foes alike. and even the power of the p

but in reality both of the house accusations are constitutionally incoherent. the obstruction of congress charge is absurd and dangerous. house democrats argued that any time the speaker invokes the sole power of impeachment, the senate must do whatever the house demands. no questions asked. invoking executive branch privileges and immunities becomes an impeachable offense itself. chairman schiff said in october, any action that forces us to litigate or have to consider litigation will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice. that, mr. president, is nonsense impeachment. that is nonsense. impeachment is not some magical constitutional trump card that melts away the separations the branches of government. the framers did not leave the house a secret constitutional steamroller that everyone somehow overlooked for 230 years. when congress subpoenas executive branch officials with questions of privilege, the two sides either reach an accommodation or they go to court. that's the way it works. so can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? how would democrats and the p

very early on in this process, i imported my colleagues in both houses of congress to stay out of their political and partisan in many dead, but so many did not. even the media continually viewed at the times the process through partisan political eyes and how it may or may not affect an election. that is unfortunate. the country deserves better and we must find a way to move beyond such partisan divides. the oath i've taken during what has been a difficult time for the country, state and for me personally. i didn't run for the senate hoping to participate in the impeachment trial of the duly elected president. but i cannot and will not shrink from my duty to defend the constitution and to do impartial justice. in keeping with d my oath as the center and to do impartial justice, i resulted throughout the process i would keep an open mind to consider the evidence without regard to political affiliation and to hear all the evidence before making the judgment on whether either charge against. i believe it would reflect that commitment. with the history upon us i am acutely aware that this

the house is making the point th congress needs to be stronger whereas a lot of republicans are staying- ying you're trampling on the president's branch to do things here and that's not ok. that's another debates that wasn't completely resolved. house will change their approach to congressional oversiilt but itbe interesting to see now that we're nearing the end of thekraine chamchamentser. robert: any tae leaves on the ate of the union snow what about the market drop on friday because of fears around the world in the coronavirus. >> even as all s thff is going on, you have this very poteial -- this virus that could be a very potential global issue and could affect the economy,which is president trump's streng. so i think you'll probably hear some talk about that them tryin to say there on topf it. this is another examplehere trump can also say he wants to be better thanormer esident obama. he had to deal with ebola. he wants to show now he can deal with this robert: that's all the time we haveonight. i really appreciate ayesha rascoe here rat the table. pain page from u.s.a. todaand ca

officials briefed congress that russia was again meddling in favor of president trump. the white houses no indicating that the president hasn't handled coding up according president trump make clear that any efforts or attempts by russia or any other nation to influence or interfere with the election or undermine u.s. democracy will not be tolerated. and will be met with sharp consequences." when he learned about the meddling he was furious, mostly because he believed that he would weaponize it and when reports surfaced that the president chastised the acting director of national intelligence joseph maguire for briefing congress, house intel chair adam schiff appeared to polish up some old talking points "we count on the intelligence community to inform congress of any threat of foreign interference in our election. if reports are true, the president is interfering with that he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. exactly as we warned he would." fox news was told in no way that the president admonish or berate joseph maguire, and that in fact, he was already sad

but i think it is telling that every other republican in the it congress, house and senate, saw thingsifferent way, martha. i'm not going to second guess one of my colleagues motivation when they say it's -- they prayed about it and they -- their heartfelt. that's between the senator and his people back home. to me, this was -- all we did today was take a vote. it was a proxy vote on donald trump and his policies. it was an abuse of a serious process. we don't settle our differences in america through impeachment. we settle them through elections. this was the first partisan impeachment in the history of this country. i think speaker pelosi really hurt this country. she has tried to normalize impeachment as a routine political weapon. that's not what our founders -- >> martha: she said because of the republican's betrayal of the constitution, the president remains an ongoing threat to american democracy with his insistence that he's above the law and he can corrupt the elections if he wants to. >> that's what i mean. it's so over the top. this side that if we don't stop the president h

roger stone on the heels of a tweet from the president, testifying before congress, house speaker nancy pelosi sounding off a short time ago. >> this is an abuse of power that the president is trying to manipulate federal law enforcement and the president is what he is. he thinks he's above the law. ag barr has deeply damaged the rule of law, by withdrawing the doj sentencing recommendation, interference -- >> harris: president trump unapologetically defending his action. >> he was treated very badly. nine years recommended by people that perhaps -- there were more people. i want to thank the justice department for seeing this horrible thing, and i didn't speak to them, by the way, just so you understand, they saw the horribleness of a nine year sentence for doing nothing. >> harris: thi>> melissa: this t new concerns of bias in the case. democratic activism and the string of anti-trump social media post, stone's team says reviewing the newly reported information of the president still hasn't ruled out the possibility of a pardon. this is "outnumbered" and i melissa francis here today.

house? impeachment. for obstruction of congress. this is not the first time this argument has been made. resident nixon made it to. but it was roundly rejected by the house judiciary committee 45 years ago. when the committee passed on an article for obstruction of congress or a far less serious obstruction than we have here. the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to enforce its subpoenas in court and as the slide shows, the committee concluded it was inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas against a president. this conclusion is based on the constitutional provision besting the power of impeachment solely in the house of representatives and the express denial by the framers of the constitution of any role for the courts in the impeachment process. and again, the committee reports on nixon, article of impeachment. >> once we strip the presidents obstruction of this legal windowdressing, the consequences are as clear as they are dire for our democracy. to condone the presidents obstruction would strike a deathblow to the impeachment clause. in the co

nearly a month and a half after the house voted to impeach president trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. white house defense lawyers blasted the charges against president trump as partisan as they made their case for acquittal and house managers made a final plea for senators to remove the president from office. >> we must say enough. he's betrayed our national security and will do so again. he's compromised our elections and will do so again. >> this entire campaign of impeachment that started with the very first day >> in a fox news interview that aired before the super bowl, president trump cast doubt on being able to work with congressional democrats in the future. >> well, i'd like to, but it's pretty hard when you think about it. i'm not sure that they can do it to be honest. >> i think it would be a tragic mistake for him to conclude he cannot work with us. r president to rise to this challenge. >> the gop controlled senate is expected to take a final vote wednesday to acquit the president on both articles. >>> the 49ers are back in the bay area tonight after that tough super bow

in this congress alone, house democrats have already violated their own pay-go rules 25 times. if you ask me, that's pretty clear evidence that our colleagues across the aisle don't care about the fiscal crisis we face that will negatively impact every single american. tomorrow, the house budget committee will hear from o.m.b. volker irector russ regarding the budget qusm i'm looking forward to the discussion and i hope more eyes will be opened to the stark reality we face. i will be interested to see how many committee democrats will harshly criticize the president's budget knowing full well they failed to produce one of their own. in every reputable business, every local and state government the fiscal plan of the entity begins with a budget. but here we are, the greatest nation in the history of the world, and we can -- we can't even muster something as simple as a budget. we must start doing our job to put our country on a sustainable, responsible fiscal path. this is our duty to the american people, not promoting budget-busting policies that will leave future generations s

madam speaker. 3/4 of the states failed to ratify the equal rights by 1979 deadline set by congress. yet, house democrats are trying retroactively revive the failed congress. the right esn't have to do it. it did not pass. it did not get approved. go there is an end run to around that. the united states supreme court recognized this in 1982 when it stated the issue was moot the deadline for the e.r.a. ratification expired requisite number of states approved it. the leadership in the united states house of representatives entire process of e.r.a. approval over again. hat new e.r.a. failed to cquire the 3/4 on november 15, 1983. today in defiance of the reality relevant participants in the original debate, the to convince nt their base if both houses of congress pass this joint signed into d is e.r.a. 1972 -- the 1972 will control. current supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, and she's taking a lot of heat for e.r.a. supporter of the since its beginning, has said a ew months ago, i hope someday we will start all over again on e.r.a., collecting the necessary states to ratify it. monday, jus

congress. with the white house knowledge. in other words, the president got caught. and two days later, on september 11, the president released the aide. to this day however, ukraine still has not received all of the money congress has appropriated in the white house meeting has yet to be scheduled. the identity of the whistleblower, moreover, is irrelevant. the house did not rely on the whistleblower's complaints, even as it turned out to be remarkably accurate. it does not matter who initially found sounded the alarm, when they saw smoke. what matters, is that the were summonsed and found the blaze. and we know that we did. the facts about the presidents misconduct are not seriously in dispute as several republican senators have acknowledgedic publicly. we have proved that the president abused his power in precisely the manner charged in article one. president trump withheld the white housere meeting, and essential congressionally appropriated military assistance from ukraine in order to pressure ukraine to interfere in the upcoming presidential election on his beha

joining me now, maryland democratic congress jamie raskin on the house judiciary committee and scheduled to hear from attorney general barr on march 31st. congressman, good to see you again. thank you for being with us. i want to just get to the march 31st. what do you believe you might get out of the attorney general? what do you hope to get? if it was a really good day, what does success look like in an interview by the judiciary committee of the attorney general in this circumstance? >> well, we want to know why there's an onslaught against all of the president's perceived political opponents taking place and why they want to reopen all of these cases and revisit the work of the career prosecutors. you know? attorney general barr himself blew up at the president saying that the president's tweets making it impossible for him to do his job and his job, of course, is to defined as doing the president's bidding so basically what he's saying is, mr. president, i'm a sycophant and going after your -- >> you don't have to tweet and tell me what to do. i know what to do.

of ththe people who voteded democrat i in the 2018 elections to stop donald trump to give the congress housef representatives that could check him. from our point of viview, this s a moment of tremendous danger and it cal on alall of us to mamake sacrifices of some of our prefeferences. it wasas not easy y for me to ve for hillary clinton and 2016. one of the places that i think isis to rememember if you ask americans a question, how a are you fefeeling about your r fina, your health care, you get in 202020 the most posititive resps of any yearr since 1998. while bebernie sanders speaks to the disaffected, the people were content withth the status are stroronger than any time since e late 1990's. donald trump will be a tough president to be. if almlmost anybody else e weree incomiming presisident of the ud states right now, scott walker, hillary clclinton, t that person would be cruising to an easy reelection. in the facee of the extraordinay difficulty of defeating a dangngerous president at a timef prosperity, you have to choose wisely. bernie sanders, appealining as e ought the e hard rac

congress. our committee was supposed to last through 2019. thanks to the support of our colleagues throughout the house from freshman members and republican study members and the new democrat members of that caucus and many other caucuses, we were able to get our committee extended through the end of this congress. i speak for both of us when i say we are grateful for the opportunity to build on last year's work and dive into the issue affecting the legislative branch. every recommendation we make aims to strengthen the capacity of the house so we can better serve all americans. our goal was simple and something we set on in an early reteat. the goal is simple but it is critical and we are to make congress work better for the american people. it is that simple but yet that critical. our first round of transparency focused recommendations in may aimed to open up congress for the american people. the work we do here in washington is for our constituents and they should be easily access information about our votes, about the bills and who is lobbying congress. what happens here should just be a click away

. >> not even, and then also after weeks of democratic members of congress, house managers arguing oversomething, the president is going to feel like he has that he is unshackled and do what he wants, and i am getting a lot of messages from the democrats on capitol hill and this is exhibit a or b-c-d. >> he has fired some key witnesses in the impeachment trial. and so, now joining us is the former assistant attorney general of the united states, and how unusual is this, as someone who used to work for the attorney general of the united states, and so we have seen outrage when the presidents have pardoned or commuted other individuals thinking of mash ric -- marc rich, but it went through the process, right? >> well, i am thinking of how much the institutions can withhold the political pressure he has put on them. he has long had the sights on the justice department and on prosecutions and on prosecutions of people that he thought were quote, unquote unfair and people who have been affiliated with him and friends of his and people affiliated with the campaign and prosecutions of politica

house? impeachment for obstruction of congress. this is not the first time this argument has been made. president nixon made it too. but it was roundly rejected by the house judiciary committee 45 years ago. when the committee passed an article for obstruction of congress, for far less serious obstruction than we have here. the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to enforce its subpoenas in court and as the slide shows, the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas against the president. this conclusion is based on the constitutional provision, vesting the power of impeachment solely in the house of representatives and the expressed denial by the framers of the constitution of any role for the courts in the impeachment process. again, the committee report on nixon's articles of impeachment. >> once we strip the president's obstruction of this legal window dressing, the consequences are as clear as they are dire for our democracy. to condone the president's obstruction would strike a death blow to the impeachment clause

witnesses called by the house followed president trump's order and refused to testify under subpoena in the impeachment proceedings. this is an unprecedented attempt to thwart congress' constitutional authority to exercise the impeachment power. even president nixon instructed his white house staff to voluntarily appear before congress and to testify under oath. despite the administration's stonewalling, many courageous officials did come forward to testify, at great personal and professional expense. i want to thank those who testified. their bravery and commitment to the truth should be commended, but if the president is allowed to completely stone wall congressional impeachment investigations into executive branch abuses, then the congressional power of impeachment is meaningless. as a senator, i never imagined i would have to participate in an impeachment trial of a sitting president. these proceedings cause strain and division, not just here in congress but across the country. i would much prefer that congress be engaged in the critical bipartisan work that's needed on important issues, thanks that can improve lives across this country and move our nation forwa

a united states senate is so that one body of congress can pause and resist the excesses of the executive or popular passions that can run through the house of representatives like a freight train. the language of the constitution, of course, is subject to interpretation, but on some things its words are clear. the president cannot spend money that congress doesn't appropriate, that's clear. and the senate can't remove a president for anything less than treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and two-thirds of us, the senators, must agree on that. that requires a bipartisan consensus. we senators take an october to base -- an oath to base our decisions on the provisions of our constitution which is what i have endeavored to do during this impeachment proceeding. now, madam president, i ask consent to include a few documents in the record following my remarks. they include an editorial february 3 from "the wall street journal," an editorial from the national review also dated february 3. and an opinion editorial by robert doore, president of the american enterprise institute on february 1, article from the knoxville new sentinel ye

and it's something that these remaining people generally are okay with. >> robert, what about congress? the houserats are complaining. with the senate having behaved has they did, it's unlikely that anything is going to happen in terms of lack of congressional oversight over these kinds of behaviors. >> i was just talking with some of my top sources, including one of them -- one of the democratic senators, richard blumenthal of connecticut, a member of the senate judiciary committee, he said minutes ago he went up to senator graham and asked, will you be having oversight hearings, will you be pushing for any kind of accountability and he said he did not get a commitment from senator graham about moving forward in any away. just got off the phone with jeff flake and he said he doesn't see any appetite in the republican party to push back against the president. why? the president has immense political capital with republican voters. >> and michael crowley, what about the impact on decision-making on the intelligence community, on the justice department, with all of these retaliatory measures? >> th

congress to secure the funding we need. there are five major priorities in the white house request to congress that the white house made on mondayties are first, expanding our surveillance network, second, support for state and local governments work, third and fourth, development of therapeutics and vaccines and fifth, manufacturing and purchase of personal protective equipment like gowns and masks. as chairman of the president's coronavirus task force i'm committed to providing regular updates from our coordinated interagency process. we've had our top public health leaders like those joining me here today speaking to the media many times per day to inform the american public. the trump administration is going to done tin to be aggressively transparent keeping the american people and the media apprised of the situation and what every up with can do. with that i will hand things over to dr. ann shoket. doctor shoket is senior career official at centers for disease control and prevention, the principle deputy director with over 30 year career at cdc with public health and member of the united states public health service corps.

the house managers described impeachment as the last resort for the congress. in this case, however, the house chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication, and instead led straight to impeachment as a first resort. therefore, i will vote to acquit on article 2. madam president, this decision is not about whether you like or dislike this president. or agree with or oppose his policies. or approve or disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances. rather, it is about whether the charges meet the very high constitutional standards of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. it has been 230 years since george washington first took the oath of office, and there are good reasons why during that entire time the senate has never removed a president. such a move would not only affect the sitting president but could have unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process. it is my judgment that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the

the house managers described impeachment as the last resort for the congress. in this case, however, the house chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication, and instead led straight to impeachment as a first resort. therefore, i will vote to acquit on article 2. madam president, this decision is not about whether you like or dislike this president. or agree with or oppose his policies. or approve or disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances. rather, it is about whether the charges meet the very high constitutional standards of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. it has been 230 years since george washington first took the oath of office, and there are good reasons why during that entire time the senate has never removed a president. such a move would not only affect the sitting president but could have unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process. it is my judgment that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the

of congress the lower house assets the 3rd in the line to the president regardless of party the president the speaker of the house have to have some kind of communication some level of seeing eye to eye if there is an important if there's a military strike planned if there is some major policy about to be announced by the president the speaker the. house is traditionally involved in those conversations and is privy to a lot of what the president is thinking on policy and fact they haven't spoken to each other such tobar is not a great sign for the united states being able to move forward on any number of issues hugely polarized in washington alexandra pelosi did make a very bold gesture there by tearing up that speech what did you make of it you think it showed more results on the democrats' side or desperation. i would result and i would also see is a very symbolic gesture of course. her ripping up her copy of the president's speech was criticized by the white house and also by a republican lawmakers who accused her or of dishonoring the chambre however we have to say that

[silence] >> that light on the capitol dome means one of the two houses that the congress is untested.