one of our arguments in the clinton impeachment was, although president clinton's conduct with ms.ewinsky might've been wronged and blameworthy and something you could disapprove of intensely, there was no abuse of the presidential power, there is no threat to the country. >> we are getting very close. >> i think when people look back on it, they say, oh, that was a partisan exercise and a foregone conclusion. that's wrong. it was not a foregone conclusion at the beginning. it would've been remarkable if the dam had broken, but there were plenty of warning signs that it could happen. >> to happen, the house managers would need to sway 12 democrats to get to 67. the two-thirds needed to remove a president from office. >> i really don't think any of the impeachment managers thought we were going to get the president removed from office and get 67 votes. >> unless. >> the house is pushing for witnesses. >> we are hopeful we could persuade the senate to let us have live witnesses. >> live witnesses is the only way you could move the mood and the attitude and the convictions of the amer

and voted for hillary clinton is so what? this was about hot yoga and wedding plans and where we are going to meet for dinner. with all the research you did, this is quite an extensive research project, there are indications the emails were destroyed because there were sensitive conversations about things like benghazi and things she is a candidate for the highest office in the land would've been publicly damaging had people known. >> guest: she wasn't entirely successful in destroying the emails. that by itself would be obstruction of justice because congress asked her to preserve it. when you define congress with a subpoena attached to it, that is obstruction of justice. >> host: you said the other week they weren't under subpoena, she reprimanded the president, did she destroy these emails after congress made clear they wanted to see them? >> congress had sent in writing a request to preserve evidence so that is official whether there is a subpoena or not but that is obstruction of justice. it turns out some of the emails

so, if bill clinton the man, bill clinton the friend were the issue here, i'm quite sure i would not be doing this. but it is the weight of history on all of us, and it is my reverence for that great document, you heard me rail about it for 24 years. the most sacred document next to the holy bible. these proceedings go right to the heart of our constitution where it deals with impeachment. the part that provides the greatest punishment for just about anybody, the president. even though the framers said we are putting this in to protect the public, not to punish the president. our colleagues, you have such an awesome responsibility. my good friend, the senior senator from new york, has said it well. he says, "a decision to convict holds the potential for destabilizing the office of presidency, and those 400 historians, and i some have made light of that, are they just friends of bill? last evening, i went over that list of historians, many of whom i know, among them woodward. in the south, we love him. he is the preeminent southern historian in the nation. i promise you, he may be a d

for the first point, in the clinton case if we aretruly following the clinton precedent, all the documents were provided before the trial . more than 90,000 of them. does this resolution provide for the president to provide the dockets before the trial? it does not. it leaves that question of whether the house will ever see these documents, whether the american people will see these documents tothe end and only the end with no guarantee that this material will ever be shown to the house or to the american people . that is a profound departure from the clinton trial. without the documents you can't make important judgments about even which witnesses should be called or what questions should be asked of the witnesses when you do so that is a profound departure from the clinton precedent . on the subject of witnesses, it is also a deep departure from clinton where all the witnesses testified before the senate trial. the issue in theclinton trial is not whether they would testify, they had testified already. they had been interviewed already , some dozens of times. the question in the clinton

what is president clinton doing? alexis: president clinton was following this very intensively. we look back now and say, thank goodness that social media did not exist because he was not tempted to try -- he left it to the surrogates to opine about the injury and the injustice of all of this and complain about it. but he felt that a very strong part of his tactic was because he was so popular, his job approval was so high, the economy was doing so well, he kept arguing again and again, look what i am doing. i am traveling around the country, i am still the commander in chief. i am dealing with international affairs. he was trying to persuade the american people that he was doing a good job as president and he had not betrayed them. he may have betrayed his wife, but not them. and he was still doing the job he was elected to do. and he said this after he was acquitted as well, that he would continue to represent their interests until the last hour of the last day. what was interesting, though, is while he left office very popular, it was the case that after impeachment democrats

for the first point, in the clinton case if we aretruly following the clinton precedent, all the documents were provided before the trial . more than 90,000 of them. does this resolution provide for the president to provide the dockets before the trial? it does not. it leaves that question of whether the house will ever see these documents, whether the american people will see these documents tothe end and only the end with no guarantee that this material will ever be shown to the house or to the american people . that is a profound departure from the clinton trial. without the documents you can't make important judgments about even which witnesses should be called or what questions should be asked of the witnesses when you do so that is a profound departure from the clinton precedent . on the subject of witnesses, it is also a deep departure from clinton where all the witnesses testified before the senate trial. the issue in theclinton trial is not whether they would testify, they had testified already. they had been interviewed already , some dozens of times. the question in the clinton

clinton kept denying the affair.he allegations i have led are not true. >> star was able to get monica lewins lewinsky's dress that had clinton's dna on it. the president was forced to tell the truth. >> i had a relationship with miss lewinsky that was not appropriate and in fact, it was wrong. >> there were semen on that dress. star released a detailed x-rated account of the scandal. >> bringing her orgasm on two occasions. lying under oath and obstruction of justice. it is easy to forget in hindsight but bill clinton was in real danger of being pushed out in office. many of his fellow democrats were furious with him. >> let justice be done. they came to the white house like republicans did with nixon in 1974 saying your time's up, that would have been it. clinton, the ultimate come back. >> i never should have misled the country. >> he was able to rally the party and country back to his side. >> i will continue to do all i can to reclaim the trust of the american people and serve them well. >> his behavior was rep

what about the clinton trial? b. even if we are departing from every other impeachment trial in history, including the impeachment of president andrew johnson, what about the clinton trial, aren't we following the same processes in the clinton trial? the answer is, no. first, process for the clinton trial was worked out by mutual consent. among the parties. that is not true here. where the process is sought to be imposed by one party on the other. second, all of the documents in the clinton trial were turned over prior to the trial. all 90,000 pages of them, so they could be used in the house's case. none of the documents have been turnedde o in this case, and under leader mcconnell's proposal, none may ever be. they certainly won't be available to you or to us during most or all of the trial. if we are really going to follow the clinton precedent, the senate must insist on the documents now. before the trial begins. third, the issue in the clinton trial was not one of calling witnesses, but of re-calling witnesses.

>> originally hillary clinton. she began to pepper her speeches with references to trump and putin that he may be a kremlin marionette. >> did she knew it was politics or did she believe it? >> the unanswered question did she get it from ci director bread that was already qu investigate trump and any potential ties with russia. he is known as the instigator. with the task force that is the foundation of the russia hoax and the head of counterintelligence the point person for the witchhunt. and with that rich imagination of hillary clinton or john brennan are both and james clapper is the prodigious leaker and i explained the leaks in the book but it all came to a head with the dnc paid for russian disinformation composed by the next by christopher steele and i explained is that he puts together the dossier within the course of ten to 14 days. that is impossible you read the first memo of the dossier that is information that would take months if not years with human sources on the ground he hadn't been in russia for

that happened before with bill clinton.ting thing is that as much as we try to look to history to predict what we're going to see. we're about to see a lot of things we have never seen before. >> in the new book, a very stable genius, out tomorrow, one of the things that officials said about the president's attitude toward the gravity and allure of the white house, quote, he's ruined that magic. this aide said of trump, they write the disdain he showed for our country's foundations, the disregard for right and wrong. your fist clenches. your teeth grate. this is a quote presumably from a trump appointee. >> trump is the first to say he's a disrupter. that's a case where there is a little bit of historical precedent. andrew johnson was a disruptive and that provided some of the grounds for which andrew johnson was impeached. >> and the other main difference is social media. and the cable -- the divisions among cable news outlets where the president has this echo chamber. >> that's right. and you think of the client impeachme

they're saying that's why it is different than clinton. clinton allowed for four days. so six hours a day, instead of 12 hours a day. so that's different than clinton. that's what got democrats riled up. they're saying, it would mirror clinton's trial but it's different in some key ways. mcconnell's office is saying, it will be similar and still very similar. all right. thank you, here with our legal team, let's start with you, the opening salvo with mcconnell. >> mitch mcconnell is trying to make it a farce. trying to make it a joke. this is, you know, the trial will start every day at 1:00 in the afternoon. 12 hours would be 1:00 in the morning. that's not how the senate works. there will be breaks. so the idea is that mcconnell wants to keep most of the evidence in the wee hours, so that nobody sees it. then the real new atrocity that mcconnell added today, which i don't think many people saw coming, the idea that the house managers couldn't even present their evidence without a vote from the full senate. something completely new, not true in the clinton trial. it is

these are not the clinton rules.cconnell said we're going to model this over the clinton rules. these are the mcconnell rules. he can't give the president everything he wants, but he's trying to give him everything he can. this is going to be a test of his leadership going forward here. you showed that national poll. mitch mcconnell does not care about the polls. he will only care if they come to him and say, susan collins will lose, cory gardener will lose, you will lose your majority if you continue to do what you're doing. otherwise, he doesn't care. remember in 2014, mcconnell was not part of this, dent lihe dide it. everybody said the republicans would pay the price for it, they won the senate in that election. mcconnell got what he wanted, a republican appointed justice. he does not follow the polls or the rules. he'll do it his way, unless he's convinced he would lose majority, then he would modify. right now he's on a fast track. >> if there are 12 hour sessions that go into 1:00, 2:00 in the morning, remembe

the rules are not even close to the clinton rules.e the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution does not admit the records of the house impeachment proceedings into record. leader mcconnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence. a trial without evidence is not a trial. it's a cover up. the clintonke rules, the mcconnell resolution limits presentation by the parties to 24 hours per side over only two days. we start with 1, 12 hours a day, 1:00 a.m., and that is without breaks. it will be later. force mcconnell wants to the managers to make important parts of their case in the dark of night. three, unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses and documents, by requiring a vote on whether such motions or even in order. motion tote fails, no subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order. i don't want anyone on the other side to say i'm going to vote no first on witnesses, but then later i will determine, if they vote for mcconnell's resolution, they are making it

in 2016 by clinton but car resellers a surrogate for hillary clinton in 2016 craig smith senior advisor to clinton's campaign and let's not forget john podesta the controversial chairman of the clinton campaign itself who's a legit emails back in 2016 shed light on the inner workings of the clinton clan it's clear the clinton agenda lives on she doesn't even need to run for president again although would you be really surprised if she did why can't she lead goal of her losing dare you go again thinking that she is hanging on to the fact that she lost a rigged election there you go again thinking that she cannot understand that she was simply voted out or that america said no don't you want your stand that it's natural for somebody who is. elevated to the self exalted role of the obvious candidate to believe that there was a conspiracy russian acting russian involvement facebook. or berg now i always thought and many people i know blah thought that he was part of the deep state that he was on her side he's against her what's happening right now is you're seeing the old school dnd see tha

president clinton had actually committed a felony. actually believed in the narrow sense of impartiality, they have now adopted as a talking point that every single one of them would've voted to improve pressing clinton from office. instead, a majority of the senate decided that removing president clinton an actuals proven crime would not best serve the nation. mr. president, they made a political judgment. way, the -- back then , leading democrats had 0, 0 al. to senators speaking out before the trial. senator schumer. was running for the senate. during the impeachment process back in 1998. he voted against articles in the house judiciary committee on the house floor and a major part of his senate campaign as you listen to this, was literally promising new yorkers in advance -- in advance that he would vote to acquit president clinton. . people asked if it was appropriate to him to prejudge like that. he dismissed the question, saying, quote, this is not a criminal trial. but something the founding fathers decided to put in a body th

including the clinton trial.e has always been taken, and so to not accept the house evidence to preclude witnesses is not in keeping and certainly the accelerated schedule is not what the clinton matter had. the idea that we'll be arguing this in the middle of the night when most americans will be asleep shows, i think, maybe a hope that they can just get this by the american people, close it down before anyone knows it's going on. i don't think that's going to work. but i think that's what they're trying to do. we just had senator chuck schumer on. he said they're trying to do it with as little evidence as possible, done in the cover of darkness. he said it's a national disgrace. do you agree with that? >> i think most people in america, when they hear the word trial, they expect fair trial. they expect evidence. they expect witnesses. and they expect the people who were hearing that evidence and listening to those witnesses to do the right thing. to make impartial justice. that doesn't look like what senator mc

clinton -- in the clinton case, he was charged with a crime. the issue is whether or not you need criminal-type behavior. i've done a lot more research. back then i took the word of many academics who said that >> so you were wrong then? >> no, i wasn't wrong. i have a more sophisticated basis for my argument now, having read justice curtis's opinion and other opinions. it's very clear now that what you need is criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason. what is very clear is obstruction of justice, obstruction -- i'm sorry, obstruction of congress or abuse of power aren't even close to what the framers had in mind. and i will show that during my, my speech by going through all of the debates in congress. blackstone's commentaries -- >> jeff, go ahead. >> what's clear is alan was right in 1998 and he's wrong now. the two -- the two -- the two statements cannot be reconciled. one must be right or one is wrong. and the one in 1998 was right. i mean, the idea -- look, every single law professor that has looked at this issue except you seem

in 2016 by clinton but cari sellers a surrogate for hillary clinton in 2016 craig smith senior advisor to clinton's campaign and let's not forget john podesta the controversial chairman of the clinton campaign itself who's a legit emails back in 2016 shed light on the enter workings of the clinton clan it's clear the clinton agenda lives on she doesn't even need to run for president again although would you be really surprised if she did what's happening right now as you're seeing the old school d.n.c. that nancy pelosi has been trying to control fighting against this new left move there's a lot of progressives and young people who won this city who have no interest in joe biden but if you say who are the d.n.c. who who are democrats today or i'm telling you right now democrats are really. ours we public good lights i know what i'm saying is absolutely heretical i know what i'm saying nobody believes this because you think most people think that there is this that america is against trump and pro impeachment most americans have no idea what's going on they worry about schools and crime

being seen with bill clinton a lot. most scholars feel that was a mistake, that gore should have wrapped his arms around the clinton economy. impeachment during clinton it stigmatized the president. we'll have to see whether donald trump gets stigmatized to what happens here. whether in the summer people are going to look at donald trump or in the fall as an impeached president running for re-election, or are they going to say this is just a lot of politics as usual. and my final point would be that i never thought i'd say that i miss tom daschle and trent lott. they had comedy and civility and were able to kind of work through the clinton impeachment. i don't know what we're going to encounter here, but mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer do not seem to be on the same page in any way, shape, and form, and that's because the king daddy battle is for these witnesses, and it's going to be happening quick and fast, and at all costs, the democrats need to get to hear from parnas and giuliani and the rest and maybe the whistle

clinton's involvement. independent the counsel released a statement to press, which i would submit into the record -- without objection. so ordered. taking issue with mr. rupp's presentation to this committee and claiming the president's is substantiated by the billing records for ms. cellular or telephone account, just as you mentioned, records, and mr. shipp, as you indicated, used these in his state to the committee, indicated that one minute call curry's cellrom ms. phone to ms. lewinsky's p.m., ne number at 3:32 on december 28. his press release, the independent counsel claims that ms. curry placed this call for purpose of arranging to pick lewinsky.fts from ms. in his closing statement to the ommittee, mr. shipp has made much of the document. e said that it, and i quote "corroborates monica lewinsky and proves conclusively that ms. called monica from her cell phone several hours after left the white house." why did betty currie pick up the from ms. lewinsky? and the is asked, answer, it's the facts. h

clinton's involvement. on wednesday the independent counsel released a statement to the press, which i would submit into the record without objection. >> so ordered. >> taking issue and claiming taking issue with a presentation to this committee and claiming that the president's involvement is substantiated by the records for ms. curry's cellular telephone account. just as you mentioned, the records, and as you have indicated use these in his closing statement to the committee. they indicated that the one minute call was placed from ms. currie cell phone to ms. lewinsky's telephone number at 3:32 p.m. on december 28. in his press release, the independent counsel claims that ms. currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to pick up the gifts from ms. lewinsky. in his closing statement to the committee, he made much of the document. he said that "it corroborates monica lewinsky, and proves conclusively that ms. currie called monica from herself on -- her cellhone phone several hours after she left t

i compare that with the clinton trial. including president clinton, provided testimony on oath. before the trial. indeed we have this for the president counsel to consider. thirty-six boxes of material covering the most intimate details of the president's live. just think of that. every witness testified. as compared to the trump impeachment. it wouldn't allow any key witnesses toti testify. in though he said he wanted to testify. of course he never did. now even with all of that, even with those 36 boxes of material, the senate did end up hurting from three witnesses during the clinton trial. we tell you how that works. these are three witnesses that already given extensive, testimony. he testified for the grand jury for three days. he testified before the grand jury for five days. and is also imposed by the independent counsel. mike allowing us he would testify two days before the grand jury. was supposed but impending counsel. was interviewed by independent counsel. twenty times. let's be clear. i've heard these very girl in republican acknowledged that they did not expect ne

rules the rules are not even close to the clinton rules unlike the clinton rules the mcconnell resolution does not admit the record of the house impeachment proceedings into evidence so leader mcconnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence a trial without evidence is not a trial it's a coverup 2nd unlike the clinton rules the mcconnell resolution limits presentation by the parties to 24 hours per side over only 2 days we start it 112 hours a day where 1 am and that's without breaks it will be later leader mcconnell wants to force the managers to make important parts of their case in the dark of night number 3 unlike the clinton rules the mcconnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses in documents by requiring a vote on whether such motions are even in order if that vote fails then no motions to subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order i don't want anyone on the other side to say i'm going to vote no 1st on witnesses. but then later all determinate if they vote for mcconnell's resolution they're making it far more difficult to vote in the

william jefferson clinton. [applause] i released the announcement today that -- talking about different path, i'm writing a "rise up" is going to be the name of it tarbgsing about the crossroads. and we are at the crossroads and we are on the verge of a very dangerous period. and we're going to have to choose where we are going. in that spirit, and the book won't be out until september, so i'm not selling books today, i'm just -- i'm just getting you ready. [laughter] or my best seller. thank you, reverend davis, for your invocation this morning. let me bring to start us this morning a man who just did not sit back on his name, a man that did not say that my family made the sacrifice, i can be a celebrity, but a man that took the work and said, no, i not only inherited a name, i inherited a responsibility. he and i for the last quarter of a century have worked together have marched together, we've gone to jail together. and we have stood together all over this country. and there are times that he has al, calm d

president clinton had committed an actual felony. actually clinton had committed a felony. believed in the narrow sense of impartiality, that they have adopted as a talking point, then every single one of them would have removed president clinton from office. a majority of the senate decided removing president clinton, despite his actual crime, would not best serve the nation. president, they made a political judgment. then leadingack objections tozero senators speaking out before the trial. leader,ent democratic senator schumer, was running for senate during the house impeachment process in 1998. he voted against the articles in the judiciary committee and the house floor. of his senate campaign that year -- listen to this -- was literally promising advance, that he would vote to acquit president clinton. people ask if it was appropriate for him to prejudge like that. he dismissed the question saying, " this is not a criminal trial. something the founding fathers decided to put anybody susceptible to the whims of politics." that was the democratic leader in the 1998 senate

minute to talk about 3 documentaries premiere that 1st a look at them starting with one of hillary clinton. i provoke strong opinions ready she's one of the most divisive figures in american politics brought adored and hated in equal measure this new documentary series zips through the political and personal life of hillary rodham clinton. our women's rights and women's rights are human right. presenting the film at sundance with director annette bernstein clinton said she hoped the movie would make a difference. we've got to do more to get people to understand what's going on in our country and the world and if this can contribute to that i'll be very happy. politics are everywhere at the 2020 sundance film festival a new documentary premiering here explores the murder of washing post journalist jamal khashoggi. called the dissident the film investigates in intimate and often gory detail what happened to 2 years ago after he entered the saudi arabian consulate in istanbul. more importantly the film points the finger at the saudi kingdom for the film claims planning and carrying out the mu

president clinton had actually committed a felony. if democrats actually believed in the narrow sense of impartiality that they have now adopted as a talking point, then every single one of them would have voted to remove president clinton from office. oh, no, but instead, a majority of the senate decided that removing president clinton, despite his proven and actual crimes, would not best serve the nation. mr. president, they made a political judgment. and by the way, back then, leading democrats had zero, zero objections to senators speaking out before the trial. the current democratic leader, senator schumer, was running for the senate during the house impeachment process back in 1998. he voted against the articles both in the house judiciary committee and on the house floor , and a major part of his senate campaign that year -- listen to this -- has literally promising new yorkers in advance , in advance that he would vote to acquit president clinton. people asked if it was appropriate to him to prejudge like that. he dismissed th

the rules are not even close to the clinton rules. unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution does not admit the record of the house impeachment proceedings into evidence. so leader mcconnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence. i trial without evidence is not a trial. it's a cover-up. second, unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution limits presentations by the party to 24 hours per side over only two days. we started one, 12 hours a day where at 11 a.m. and that's without breaks. it would be later. leader mcconnell wants to force the managers to make important points of their case in the dark of night. number three, unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses and documents by requiring the vote on whether such motions are even in order. if that vote fails then no motions to subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order. i do what anyone on the other side you say i'm going to vote no first on witnesses, but then later i will determine if