on a foreign government using powers that congress didn't give him to withhold money the congressional congress and voted to achieve a result to damage a political enemy now this hits on everything make america great again america 1st don't even know you're in saudi and i'm sorry but that is just simple talking point there is no in pyrrhic all evidence at all to suggest what you're saying is true on 0 and 0 very sequence of events that they should take on this if you already get information all the best you will pay 0 sorry go ahead jump in all this information all we proved that biden was at fault back then and it's really really difficult for me to understand because there's this notion that certain people are above the law we saw that happen with hillary clinton because if it was an average person that would have done half of the stuff that biden or clinton's or obama even did and now trump they are getting trump on the wrong things when it comes to impeachment i can tell you there is a whole long list of things that they really want to look at it they can get him on but you know what it is

first of all, i want to thank the president's managers for their amazing education on congressional congress standards, on the standards of our constitution based on how congress is supposed to lay all this out. i mean, it was just eye-opening. my question is coming and i just heard adam schiff speak about the worst possible crime is abuse of power. while, i want to ask these senators that are running california what do they think of their abuse of power? the very thing they are accusing the president of doing, and his administration, i believe they are doing. so, my question is for them how about your abuse of power, and i'm coming from a very bipartisan position on this. because i'm feeling about not only is the president being abused by the senate and more the american people. >> host: that was virginia in california and this is denise in broken arrow, oklahoma. >> caller: hello, how are you this evening? >> host: please, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i thought -- i have been watching this. i am staying bipartisan. i don't feel that the house do not think they rushed all this and if theif the

it's not conferring with congress, not telling congressional leaders what's going on, and certainly not telling our allies either. that seems to be the trend.

it's not conferring with congress, not telling congressional leaders what's

are not subject to a previous authorization, we have now filed a resolution to get congress to reassert its congressionale. the resolution demands of the u.s. forces be withdrawn from hostilities against iran unless, unless congress affirmatively passes a declaration of war or authorization, or the united states needs to defend itself from an eminent attack. if my resolution passes, congress would still have the ability to pass an authorization if they chose to in the united states would still be able to defend itself against eminent attack. but the president could not act on his own to start a war with iran except in those circumstances. the resolution does not require the u.s. troops withdraw from the region. we are doing many things in the region, thousands of americans are there, partaking inta missions that increase the security of the united state center her allies. there is no reason we would work draw from the region this includes security cooperation, fighting against elements of al qaeda and isis and the taliban, ensuring the safe passage of commercial vehicles through freedom of nationalio gei

congress or the judiciary. he has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations. he has argued that congress is forbidden from having the courts intervene with executive branch officials, disregarding its subpoenas. he has sued to block third parties from complying to supply congressional and most remarkably, president trump has claimed that congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry while simultaneously claiming that congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. of course president trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thanks he did nothing wrong. doubts and motives of congress or decides he would prefer a different set of rules. let's review the president's position. he can't be investigated for crimes. he can end any federal enforcement investigation into him. he is immune to any state law enforcement investigation. even neither he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. he can reject subpoenas based on broad novel, even rejected theories and when he does reject subpoenas, congress is not allowed

congress or the judiciary. he has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations. orbidden from having courts intervene with executive branch officials disregarding its subpoenas. he has sued to block third parties from complying with congressional subpoenas. and perhaps most remarkably, president trump has claimed that congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry while simultaneously claiming that congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. of course president trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the motives of congress or decides that he would prefer a different set of rules. let's review the president's position. he can't be investigated for crimes. he can end any federal law enforcement investigation into him. he is immune from any state law enforcement investigation. underneath he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. he can reject subpoenas based on broad, novel, and even rejected theories. and when he does reject subpoenas, congress is not allowed to sue h

n's top deanmm classified briefing just for the congressional leadership, bipartisan congression leadership. tomorrow, the adminisaltration will brief the full house and the full senate on the intelligence that led the president to order that strike that killed qassem soleimani. but we are now five days after that strike and still none of that information has been released to the public. >> and jon, from your reporting inside the white house today and that press availability with the president late today, was there any indication that the administration sensed that retaliation was, in fact, coming and this quickly from iran? >> reporter: ah, none at all, david, though, you heard the president say, asked directly about what he would do, that the united states isnd he reiterated his threat to respond to any iranian retaliation to new american retaliation, but i saw no indication here at the white house that they thought that this would be coming so quickly. >> military families watching us, i understand there is great concern tonight, so, i do want to get back to ian pannell, who is inside ir

and obstruction of congress congressional democrats say trump conditioned critical military funding for ukraine on the country's help in hurting a potential political opponent in the 2020 alexion and then try to cover it up with republicans and trump's needle teams say that the president's actions were appropriate and legal no impeachable the senate spent hours debasing rules for the trial whether it be an order to and the leaders of the 2 political parties in the chamber republican majority leader mitch mcconnell and democratic minority to chuck schumer presented their cases for and against the resolution that sets the rules for the trial now mcconnell calls it fair and based on the bill clinton impeachment trial that was in 1909 schumer says it is anything but here's some of what they had to say finally some fairness on every point 'd are straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves this will go down this resolution as one of the darker moments in the senate history perhaps one of the even the darkest senator graham to pick up and carry on the

congress. the existing congressional authorizationfor use of military force do not apply . the american people do not want, our constitution will not abide president rules by fiat and demandsobedience. i serve in the executive branch for years . and you know, what i find is i served in that branch also, the other one, the senate with congress for 36 and i understand better than anyone that the system will not hold unless we find a way to work together to advanceour national interests , to work together. not in all the political motives of any one person. we need to restore the balance of power between the branches of government. we need checks and balances that serve to check and balance the worst instincts of our leaders in either of the branches. we need to use our system to bring us together as a nation, not abuse it to ripus apart . this is not a nacve outdated way of thinking. this is the genius and timelessness of our democratic system which has for more than 240 years allowed us to remakeourselves , reckon with our shortcomings and move our nation ever forward. that'

ability to use the us armed forces to pursue military action against iran without advanced congressional approval. congressto make a declaration of war or there would have to be an imminent threat of an attack against the united states. earlier in the day the president referred to this saying that often things are moving very quickly and the president has to make a split—second decision stopping this measure will not prevent him from doing that but they will curb his use of the military and future as it applies to iran. certainly members of the house of representatives voted mostly along party lines. eight democrats opposed the motion. there has also been a response from the white house who has said that the president has the right and the duty to protect the nation, citizens from terrorism. that is what he continues to do, says the white house and he says the world is safer for it, also adding that the house resolution as far as the white house is concerned undermines the ability of the us armed forces to prevent terrorist activity by iran and its proxies, and attempt to hinder the president's authority t

for an impeachment trial where a child faces charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress congressional democrats say that condition critical military funding for ukraine on ukraine's help in hurting a potential political opponent in the 2020 alexion and then tried to cover it up with republicans in trump's legal team say the trump's actions were appropriate neither illegal nor impeachable the senate has spent hours debating rules for the trial motion or amendment so then with the leaders of the 2 political parties in the chamber republican majority leader mitch mcconnell and democratic minority leader chuck schumer presented their cases for and against the resolution that sets the rules for the trial now mcconnell calls it fair and based on bill clinton's impeachment trial in 1999 share on the other hand says it is anything but here's some of what they had to say finally some variant on every point are straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves this will go down this resolution as one of the darker moments in the senate history. perhaps one of

in the summer of 1866 within hours after a congressional congressional constitutional congress was organized in new orleans black men were executed pointblank by the confederate police force while they kneeled and prayed for their lives. and their corpses were kicked in. he concluded that reconstruction in louisiana was a continuation of the civil war. and that was in 1866. johnson had not been in office very long. he was touring the south to rally support for his self. into rally support gets the passage with the radical nest of the 14th amendment. they had hammered together to enshrine civil rights legislation into the constitution. during the trip. the swing around the circle he went on a tear yelling that the congressman who disagreed with him should be hanged or executed. he was so mortified. it was locked in a baggage closet. but the decision to impeach injured johnson did andrew johnson did not come easily or quickly by his abuse of power by his denial of the legitimacy of congress. it's the 11 confederate states were not seated then congress could not pass any laws. they were so disg

without specific authorization and any advance notification or consultation with congress there is usually the congressional consulting process it's both constitutionally required we see a gradual march to military action directly or indirectly with iran that has not been authorized by congress but they did actually have a chance to stop trump the recent $738000000000.00 defense spending bill could have included amendments that tied trump's hands and mandated he not carry out any attacks against iran no federal funds may be used for any use of military force in or against iran unless congress has a declared war or be inactive specific statutory authorization for such use of military force if the president wants to attack iran he needs to come to congress for authorization i prolly supported this amendment prohibits in the use of any funds for war with iran without congressional authorization and number of progressive voices did speak out but they got out voted the bill was passed. any member who voted for the national defense authorization act a blank check can't now expressed dismay the truth may have moti

we started notifying congress and congressional leaders very shortly after the strike took place. e president made a war powers notification to congress today. within the 48 hour period, congress has been out of session but when they get back into session and return to washington next week, we will continue to talk to congress and brief them on these issues. host: that's from the president's national security advisor. what are you hearing? guest:guest: i think he is right that there is this perennial tension between the executive and congressional branches when it comes to these kinds of operations. timing matters. they do worry about leaks. it's a provocative -- a fraud -- a fraud moment this president and congress -- a fraught moment for this president and let's talk about the impeachment book first. you are one of four authors. the timing of this was intriguing because the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, saying he's using your book as a blueprint for how the senate will respond. said: senator chris murphy he was reading it over the holidays. we think that's not too ba

in the summer of 1866, within hours after congressional constitutional congress was organized in new orleans, black men were executed point-blank by this confederate police force love annealed and pray for the lives, and their corpses were kicked and stabbed. w.e.b. du bois concluded that reconstruction in louisiana was a continuation of the civil war. that was in 1866. johnson had not been in office for a long, but what he was doing at that point was touring the south to rally support for himself and to rally support against the passage of the ratification of the 14th amendment, which congress had hammered together to enshrine civil rights legislation into the constitution. during the trip, the swing around the circle, he went on a tear yelling that congressman who disagreed with them should be hanged or executed in other ways. ulysses s. grant was so mortified that he went on a bender and they had to lock him in the baggage car so nobody would see him. but the decision to impeach andrew johnson did not come easily or quickly. james ashley, a republican who was disgusted by johnson'

congress or the judiciary. he has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations. he has argued that congress is forbidden from having the courts intervene with executive branch officials, disregarding its subpoenas. he has sued to block third parties from complying to supply congressional and most remarkably, president trump has claimed that congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry while simultaneously claiming that congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. of course president trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thanks he did nothing wrong. doubts and motives of congress or decides he would prefer a different set of rules. let's review the president's position. he can't be investigated for crimes. he can end any federal enforcement investigation into him. he is immune to any state law enforcement investigation. even neither he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. he can reject subpoenas based on broad novel, even rejected theories and when he does reject subpoenas, congress is not allowed

it is my honor to welcome members of congress, including members of the congressional black caucus, membersf the rosa parks family who have come

i also think congressionally directed spending is not something that's terribly palatable because the onus is on you. and if congresss an institution, as mrs. brooks said, is in the gutter, in the basement, congressionally directed spending is not going to be that helpful either. what it is is constituent-focused spending. the beneficiaries are not you. the beneficiaries are your constituents. and i think framing things in a more individual, public, constituent-oriented conversation is much easier, as one of my fellow panelists said about building capacity, fame it as frame it as a constituent benefit, rather than this being the focus on the member or the focus even on the institution. and i think it's true for project trends as well. >> we have a few members who have some followup questions if you're not sweating too bad. ms. brooks. >> i wanted to ask ms. bean about your idea of an office of legal counsel. i'm a former united states attorn attorney, to i relied on those olc opinions from the justice department, the justice department being an institution within the executive branch. how would you see -- and when i

party and the republican party in congress are detested by many core voters in those respective parties. we have a washington right now that does not function congressionally and congress is even struggling to be the oversight branch. it's seized to, in many respects, be a legislative branch and has turned into an oversight branch. and now because of the way executive privilege is asserted, you don't really have it even doing oversight. so it's, to say the least, as a reporter, an amateur student of history, at a bleak and troubling moment. but i'm an optimist when it comes to american institutions. >> robert costa, thank you. if you're looking for any of your co-workers, they're all sitting up here with us in new york. we appreciate you answering the bell after another long day on the hill. >>> another break for us. coming up, what rudy has been up to according to the president's legal team. >>> in this trial, in this moment, mr. giuliani is just a minor player. that shiny object designed to distract you. senators, i urge you most respectfully do not be distracted. >> no one says anything accidentally on the floor of the senate, so we're going to talk abo

without specific authorization and any advance notification or consultation with congress there is usually a congressional consulting process it's both constitutionally required we see a gradual march to military action directly or indirectly with iran that has not been authorized by congress but they did actually have a chance to stop trump the recent $738000000000.00 defense spending bill could have included amendments that tied trump's hands and mandated he not carry out any attacks against iran no federal funds may be used for any use of military force in or against iran unless congress has a declared war or be inactive specific statutory authorization for such use of military force if the president wants to attack iran he needs to come to congress for authorization i proly support this amendment prohibits the use of any funds for war with iran without congressional authorization and number of progressive voices did speak out but they got outvoted the bill was passed. any member who voted for the national defense authorization act a blank check can't now expressed dismay that i have motion of the war

for his impeachment trial where trump faces charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress congressional democrats say that trump conditioned critical military aid for ukraine on ukraine's that willingness to help in hurting a potential political opponent of trump in the 2020 election they also say that front office then trying to cover it up republicans and trump's legal team say that trump's actions were appropriate and that they were neither illegal nor impeachable the senate will spend hours today debating rules for the truck. or the leaders of the 2 political parties in the senate chamber republican majority leader mitch mcconnell and democratic minority leader chuck schumer presented their cases for and against the resolution that sets the rules for the trial because no calls it fair and says it's based on the bill clinton impeachment trial from 1999 she says it's anything but fair here's part of what both men had to say finally some firing. on every point are straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves this will go down this resolution as

every member of congress should vote and then be accountable for the question of whether another war the middle east is a good idea. the demand for congressional accountability is constitutional and required unique constitutional framework that we have we pledge to support and defend the principal. it's up to congress to declare war not the president. if we engage in a war, the odds are high that young american men and women will be killed or injured. some will see their friends killed and injured. some will have the remainder of their lives affected by physical and emotional injuries, posttraumatic stress, the pain of losing friends.the pain of losing and their families and friends will bear the scars as well. if we are to order our troops and their families to run that risk, than it should be based on a public consensus that is reflected in an open congressional debate and vote that wars in the national interest. and if congress debates the matter in full view of the public and reaches a econclusion that war is necessary, so be it. even if our to vote no, if the majority of my colleagues voted yes i would agree that the decision to go to war

congressional authorization? the constitution stipulates the congress has the power to declare war.war ii. lots of uses of force since then. but is that, in your view, an abdication of congressional authority, and should the congress reassert it more vigorously the way that senate mike lee, for example, of utah, republican, has asserted it should? >> well, abdication is both a big word and a strong term, paul. [laughter] i'm not sure that congress has -- paul: i'm trying to provoke you, george, that's what i'm trying to do. [laughter] >> i think, frankly, they dodged their war authorization responsibility over the years. but maybe in a way that recognizes the realities of threats to america today is healthy. if you just very quickly look at president reagan sought and obtained authorization from congress to put marines in lebanon. president bush, at the time that iraq invaded kuwait, sought and received -- even though he legally did not need it -- permission to put our forces at work there. president clinton also used certain provisions of the war powers act. so i think presidents a

i can't help but think about all discussion about congressional capacity, and the growth of the executive branch, and its power and privileges, congress has been helpful in that, and very complicit, so i guess we can't blame the president or the executive, branch we have allowed it to happen. we begin the congressional legislative branch. now what we do about that. so i guess there is a lot of things we can talk about, doctor hudak, we did notice your shameless plugging of your book but that's okay. presidential pork, that something we've been talking about for a long time here. congressionally directed spending, and that truly is a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch. not the executive branch. so in your your observation, you talked a little bit about it, but i want you to if you could, expand on some of the things, if this is put back into place, and debate is ongoing, if we do go back to some kind of congressional spending, tell us some of the things that is for transparency, structure, help us avoid some of the pitfalls that led to its demise to begin with. and how we could structures it would be successful. >>

the white house counsel shouldn't have to respond to congressional subpoenas. congress says we have two judges that say they should. they don't have that bipartisan legal opinion. >> how would you staff that? office ofe way the general counsel is staffed now. they have lawyers that file briefs in a dozen cases. they do amazing, fantastic work. i do know how they are cranking out all that work. they just get the job done despite the difficulty. i had two questions. one is where the inflection point is on reclaiming some of memberwer as the ranking explained. has not been a talk about committee, this is a do something about it committee. i campaigned in favor of congressional corrected spending. that was my time to win. the season, we've got to find the right season to make this work. can you give me advice on when the season is for reclaiming article one power? other ideas? i think it's easier at the start of a new presidency. there can be a conversation. floored by the lack of conversation within democratic presidential debates that have not focused on what to do about

congress has attempted. they were trying to put in congressional oversight, a federal oversight. >> but again, the point is are all of those things are -- it is hard for me to think of something historically the congress has done that has gone backwards in a way that the states have gone backwards. of, course congress should be regulating more, in that department, they have not. >> when it comes to the states, yes, but it does not mean that everything that congress can do, and it is hard to question. >> right. it is possible for congress to do that. there's no doubt about it. >> right. >> so, historically, congress has been, good even though they generally have not regulate that much. we cannot seven but the states. >> yes, and i don't think the constitution lends itself to power being used and abused in the same ways it is in the states. >> yes. >> alan morrison, there has been too much agreement on this panel, and so i would like to start off by disagreeing about hr1, and my disagreement is not as much with the substance of what is in the bill although, at 1000 pages it is hard to know what is in the bill. m

congressional authorization. >> will the president go to congress before taking new military action against iran? >> it's really something to hear the vice president from the previous administration be critical of this administration's policy on iran. we'll do everything required under the law to bring us in compliance with the constitutional authorities. >> will you seek new authorization or no? dahout ari tll the tywe'll contino ue to do things appropriately, lawfully and konks constitutionally. we've been consistent about that. >> secretary pompeo, thanks for your time this morning. >> thank you, george.

going to war with iran and sending more american troops into harm's way without congressional authorization. it's time for congress to live up to this responsibility. >> well as my colleague said and i appreciate the opportunity to talk briefly today, the framers gave to congress the power, sole power to declare war because they knew it would be a safeguard against a rush. we don't want to rush. this should be the hardest decision we make. and because we are going to be ordering young men and women to risk their lives, we shouldn't do it unless we have the guts to have a debate and have the vote and say war as the nationals best interest. i introduced this bill originally under january 3 and is underprivileged proceeding and it's only been used twice with the war powers act. what the privilege gives you is to have a floor vote in a reasonable period of time without a filler bust threshold. in conversations with senator schumer said with republican colleagues especially after the briefing next week, they were discouraged that the attitude being communicated to us was that congress is an annoyance, why do you know?

people would be voting soon. 4 johnson met with a number of congressional leaders and informed them he was going to submit a resolution to congress that would grant him a responding tod this unprovoked act of war on the part of the north vietnamese. tellon did not congressional leaders about the operations and he described the north vietnamese attacks as completely unprovoked. we did nothing to deserve this attack. long story short the tonkin gulf resolution failed in congress with minimal debate and passed unanimously 416-zero in the house of representatives and 88-2 in the senate. only two senators voted against morrisonly wayne subjected on administration figure to difficult questions. morris gave johnson quite a fight for three days on august 5, sixth, and seventh he wailed against the resolutions and challenge the account of what happened in the gulf of tonkin and predicted that johnson would use the declaration as a functional declaration of war. morris'sad them today lengthy diatribes are uncanny in their accuracy. everything he said was going to happen happened had the diatribes been delivered by anyone else. moremight ha

bill: just before we came on air we were hearing that key members of congress, congressional leaders are starting to be briefed. we heard some members of congress even before hand. lindsey graham was on fox news. president wasthe cluing him in on some of this before was happening. we are still trying to piece together exactly who knew what when and he was informed before the action was executed. david: thank you so much. that is jordan fabian who reports on the white house for us in washington. it is time to figure out how the reaction has been in the market. abigail doolittle is here for that. abigail: we are looking at a classic risk off day. if we backup, that has a lot to do with the recent sense of 2019,g could go wrong in especially december, priced perfection from the valuation standpoint. but also sentiment not pricing in the possibility of some sort of macro uncertainty along the lines of the middle eastern tensions ratcheting back up. he of investors selling stocks, going into haven assets. we have been talking about havens over last couple of days. when you start to see a d