the final piece of the battle to open us housing markets came with housing and urban development act august 1968 it was his greatest legislative accomplishment a bill planned in collaboration with private enterprise of what was known as the kaiser commission. those who participated had their promotion to poor people associate commercial enterprise or business with a conscience. it goes on to describe the legislation as the magna carta but it's focus on the market and ownership ensures it is a bipartisan bill. at the heart of the new legislation that aims to transform low income into homeowners federal officials turned to homeownership as a cheaper program where the cost was absorbed by the homeowners while the federal government paid out subsidies of the duration of the mortgages with a big upfront cost for a new housing program. these financial concerns with the growing idea that homeownership could stabilize the anger coursing through american cities. a republican from illinois describes the benefits of homeownership with a new dawn of opportunity on which the new national effort b

democrats point to house rules, a house rule cannot override a constitutional privilege. those are the three principles the trump administration asserted. and it created an impeachable offense. the idea that asserting defensive communities in response to subpoenas, acting on advice of the department of justice is an impeachable offense is absurd and dangerous for our government. let me explain why. house democrats obstruction theories is wrong, first and foremost because in government of laws asserting privileges and rights to resist compulsion is not obstruction. .. the supreme court explains to punish a person because he has done what the law claims he allows him to do is a process in violation of the basic soar in for an agent of the state to pursue record of action is to penalize a person to rely on the legal right is unconstitutional. this is the principle that in the past and the clinton impeachment was recognized across the board it would be that it would be improper to suggest asserting rights is an impeachable offense. harvard law professor laurence tribe said th

officials testified including white house counsel john dean, white house chief of staff h.r. haldeman executive assistant to the president alexander butterfield. edition nixon produced many documents in response to congressional subpoenas including notes from the president. as the house judiciary committee explained at the time 69 officials had been subjected to impeachment investigations the route american history yet in that quote with the possible exception of one minor official who invoked the privilege against self-incrimination not one of them challenge the power of the committee conducting an investigation to compel the production of evidence if deemed necessary. president nixon's production of records was incomplete however with the very important respect. it not produced tape recordings of key oval office conversations in response the house judiciary committee approved an article of impeachment against the president for obstruction of congress. 24 years later the house undertook impeachment proceedings against president clinton. consistent with precedent and unlike p

eastern time, that procession of the house managers from the house to the senate. why does that happen? guest: taking the last point first, i don't know that a procession is entirely necessary but it does emphasize the solemnity of theo cakes and also there's a tradition here that goes back literally centuries because this whole idea of having house managers, that is to say representatives in the lower house presenting the case for the impeachment in impeachment in the upper house goes back to british parliament and that's exactly what happened in those days, the house managers would proceed from the lower chamber to upper chamber with the articles of impeachment in hand and knock on the door and be admitted formally to have the -- that the impeachment articles are received and read and so forth and so on. so some of it is just tradition and ceremony, which emphasizes the solemnity of the occasion and i think given our current political environment is not a bad thing. as to whether or why the house votes on the identity of the managers, i suppose they might not hav

house's job. we are asking the senate to do its job, to hold a trial. have you ever heard of a trial that doesn't have evidence, that doesn't have witnesses? that is what this amendment is all about. just a moment about the subpoenas. president trump refused to provide any information to the house. he ordered all of his people to stonewall us. now, it has been suggested that we should spend two or three years litigating that question. i was a young law student actually working on the nixon impeachment many years ago. and i remember the day that the supreme court issued its unanimous decision at the president had to release the tapes. i think u.s. v nixon still governs the president. the house should not be required to litigate u.s. of e nixon back at the supreme court and out again for it to be good law. it is good law. the president has not complied with those requirements to the detriment of the truth. this isn't about helping the house. this isn't about helping the senate. this is about getting

the house? no. and thus, each member of the world's greatest dlib rative body has duties imposed under our founding document. during the clinton impeachment trial 21 years ago in this chamber, the chief justice of the united states ruled in response to an objection that was interposed by senator tom harkin of iowa. the senators are now sitting as jurors, senator harkin noted. and the chief justice agreed with that proposition. rather, the senator is a court. in fact, history teaches us that for literally decades, this body was referred to in this context as the high court of impeachment. so we're not in a legislative chamber during these proceedings. we're in a tribunal. we're in court. in federalist '78, alexander hamilton who has been quoted frequently in these proceedings, but in federal of '78 he was describing the role of courts. your role. and in doing so, he distinguished between what he called the exercise of judgment on the one hand which is what courts do, and the exercise of will or polic

house live. we do want to let you know our coverage of this event from the white house, the signing of one of the u.s.-china trade agreement will continue. that will be online at c-span.org. and ahead of the impeachment vote this afternoon, we do posted au that we have resolution, appointing managers, that izing the managers, resolution and lots more posted c-span.org/impeachment. speaker pelosi announcing those managers this morning. nadler, zoe jerry ofgren, hakeem jeffries, val demings, jason crow, and sylvia garcia. they will take up that measure they come in around 12:15, 12:30 or so. expect a vote sometime around 1:00 p.m. eastern. again, we will have all of that live here on c-span. this we're waiting for event to get under way, we'll cover as much as we can here on c-span up until noon. at c-span.org. while we wait for this to begin, conversation about impeachment from this morning's "washington journal." host: let's begin what we know what will happen today. who peaker will announce the

the house force accuses arrived. in the senate chamber of the articles of impeachment were read for the left let's bring in a 0 us how does your castro use live for us on capitol hill i just took us through what it was we actually saw but. sure well you saw a lot of ceremonial aspects of this that really in u.s. legislative politics it's a rare thing we saw the sergeant of arms saying that on pain of imprisonment the senators had to guard their silence as these articles were read this is a process so in shrine in the u.s. constitution dating back hundreds of years and only ever played out for the 3rd time in u.s. history for trump to be the 3rd u.s. president to now face an impeachment trial and what we're about to see now in about an hour's time or so as you just heard there are 4 senators who have just been appointed to escort u.s. supreme court chief justice john roberts from the supreme court house which is just across the street from where we stand today he will be escorted by those 4 senators 2 republicans and

by letting the house call witnesses, by letting the house obtained documents, by letting the house decideesent its own case, and not deciding it for us. in sum, by agreeing to a fair trial. now, let's turn to the precise terms of the resolution. the history of impeachment trials, and what fairness and impartiality require. although we have many concerns about the resolution, i will begin with its single biggest flaw. the resolution does not ensure that subpoenas will, in fact, be issued for additional evidence. that the senate and the american people should have, and that the president continues to block to fairly decide the president's guilt or innocence. moreover, it guarantees that subpoenas will not be issued now, when they would be most valuable to the senate, the parties, and the american people. according to the resolution the leader has introduced, for us the senate receives the briefs and filings from the parties. next, it hears the lengthily presentations from the house on the president. now, my colleagues, the president's lawyers have described this as opening statements. but l

>> and do you mean primarily the housing -- >> housing, sure. >> -- piece? in a way, i mean, this was a pure example of what bankruptcy can't do, when you balance a budget, you don't return property value that was lost. you don't return the property tax revenues that those properties generated in any kind of direct way. if we look at the more recent piece, and not at the whole picture, because this is very complicated, in detroit, the demographics, it's 80% african-american. that is the population that we know is targeted by sub prime lenders so that in 2005, nearly 70% of mortgages in detroit that were written were sub prime. the national percentage for that year was 24%. so that is a difference. and what that means in real terms in personal wealth, most people their wealth is in their homes. that's especially true in this demographic. so you see just a sucking of wealth from detroit and cities like it in terms of tax revenues and in terms of personal wealth. we also know that in detroit houses were secured less well than they were in other places, that the

house democrats have pointed out to house rule that excludes agency counsel. a house rule cannot override a constitutional privilege. so those are the three principles that the trump administration asserted. now, i would like to turn to the claim that somehow this assertion of these principles created an impeachable offense. the idea that asserting legal defenses and immunities and responses to subpoenas, acting on advice from the department of justice is an impeachable offense is absurd. and it is dangerous for our government. let me explain why. house democrats have obstruction theory is wrong because in a government of laws, asserting privileges addressed o resist compulsion is not obstru. it is a fundamental right. the supreme court explained, to punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort. for an agent of the state to pursue a course of action is to penalize a person reliant on his legal rights is patently unconstitutional." this is a principal that in the past and the clinton

back, moms 4 housing. a group of mothers and opener fighting homelessness by occupying a vacant house. they are threatened with eviction. hundreds of people turned out last night to protect them. stay with us. ♪ [music break] amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. juan: we turn now to oakland, california, where a group of mothers fighting homelessness are waging a battle against real estate speculators and demanding permanent solutions to the bay area housing crisis by occupying a vacant house with their children. the struggle began in november, when working mothers in west oakland moved into 2928 magnolia street -- a vacant house owned by real estate investment firm wedgewood propertieses. the firmrm tried to o evict the, claiming they wewere illegallyly squauatting on private property, but t the mothers s went to cout and filed a "right to possssession" claim, saying housing is a human right. their naname is moms 4 housing. amy: this i

either the house side or the -- frankly the white house side has really not talked that much. we were commenting earlier, and i think it's important to point out again -- rachel noticed this -- the difference in the tables between the house managers and the -- i mean the white house has no paper. >> the near table -- now the far table. we just took the other side of the room. so now the near table is the trump legal team. far table is the democrats. >> the trump lawyers have made rhetorical arguments. i think the house managers have presented compelling case of substance. time will tell whether they can keep that pace up over the next week to ten days to two weeks. >> we're at letter "j." i'm told we'll go back in for the reading of the vote. you mentioned this. i've lost track of which day you mentioned this, but it is germane that there are fewer members of the senate north of 80, you thought, than when you served in the chamber. so these hours and long periods wouldn't be as taxing as some of the senate makeup that we've seen the last couple of decades. >> i see the three o

and affordable housing. and that's mayor bowser.applause] today i want to focus on just one of those issues. and it's one where the mayor has done some bold and ambitious work and that is housing. the lack of affordable housing is a growing crisis in every region of this country and communities of all sizes. wages have not kept up with the cost of living, especially the cost of rent. and as a result more and more americans are struggling to make ends meet. and many are falling short and ending up without a proper roof over their head. every day more than 6,000 americans are evicted, many of them families with children. on any given day, about 600,000 americans are homeless across our country. we just cannot accept that. in president trump tweeted that homelessnessing would be "so easy with competence." well, let's just say that competence is not his administration's strong suit. but the truth is they haven't even tried. and about the only time president trump mentions homeless people is when he's attacking them. but that's about par

house. a process that began with an impeachment inquiry that started without any vote by the house. this is the point i made earlier. the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment of the house, not to any single member of the house. so the press conference, that speaker pelosi held on september 24th, did not initiate an impeachment inquiry, nor did it -- what efforts did they make in their effort to get documents that issued one invalid subpoena customer totally unauthorized under the constitution. it was unprecedented because it was issued in an impeachment inquiry, purportedly, without any vote from the house. never happened before in our history in a presidential impeachment. it was unlawful. >> laura: that was one of the senior members of the trump legal team from the office making the case that the house had the chance to really push trying to subpoena these documents during impeachment and decide, for whatever reason, not to really pursue that. so, what about this argument lat

with all respect, all house-subpoenaed issued prior to the adoption of the house resolution for the first time authorized the impeachment inquiry as a house, all subpoenas were invalid. they were void. with all due respect to the speaker of hf representatives, all of her abilities and her vast experience, under our constitution, she was powerless to do what she purported to do. as has been said now time and again, especially throughout the fall, the constitution does entrust the sole power of impeachment to the house of representatives, but that's the house. its 435utional republic. not one, no matter how able she may be. in the people's house, every congressperson gets a vote. we know the concept. one person, one vote. more generally, the president, as i reviewed the record, has consistently and scrupulously followed the advice and counsel of the justice department and, in particular, the office of legal counsel. he's been obedient. as you know, that important office, many of you have had your own experiences professionally with that office, is staffed with lawyers of great ability. it h

housing is not enough. and in the housing sector, we talk about the fact that housing starts with everything else. how does housing and the intersection of transportation and government play a role in this? >> i would add jobs and the most of all in a way. if you look back in history the history of gentrification people were applauding city officials and planners, this neighborhood look so much better. the people who had been there before, just moved them out and replaced them with people who have jobs. so i think one way this intersect housing, intersects with jobs. all that windowdressing and gentrification of the retail landscape, we have find ways that happened to it. we are helping create jobs for people who have been there in the long-term. that is one way of doing it. we have to work to keep public transportation accessible and desirable for everybody and same thing with parks. it is important to keep the parks maintained and non-exclusionary. of famous example in san francisco was when some of the s

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 the question, saying, quote, this is not a criminal trial. but something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. that was the democratic leader in the 1998 senate campaign. that was a newly sworn in senator schumer in 1999. a few weeks later, during the trial itself, democratic senator tom harkin successfully objected to the use of the word jurors to describe senators because the analogy to a narrow legal proceeding was so inappropriate, according to senator harkin. so look, mr. president, i respect our friends across the aisle, but it appears that one symptom of trump derangement syndrome is also a bad case of amnesia. a bad case of amnesia. and no member of this body needs condescending lec

any minute now, the house is going to begin debate on this house impeachment resolution. a quick debate. ten minutes split evenly between democrats and republicans and then they will proceed directly to the vote. the vote on this resolution is the trigger that then clears the way for the transmission of these articles of impeachment from the house to the senate. this resolution does a couple of things. first, it funds, pays for the senate trial and it also names the house impeachment managers, those seven house members who nancy pelosi in this very room today named. that group is led by adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee whose command is really unmatched when it comes to this impeachment case. you have chairman jerry nadler of the house judiciary committee, val demings of florida, second-term member of congress. the former orlando police chief. i covered her before she came to congress. she used to enforce the laws and now she makes the laws. you've also got zoe lofgren of california. she is the institutional memory of congress. she was a staffer back

as you know, the house subpoenaed acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. the white house press briefing in october and i know you seen it before, mister mulvaney confirmed what we suspected. mister mulvaneyadmitted president trump withheld the aid to pressure the ukraine into announcing an investigation into the conspiracy theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . here's his words. >> did he also mentioned to me that the corruption related to the dnc server left and mark absolutely, no question about that andthat's why we hold up the money . >> after this stunning admission, the house issued a subpoena to require mister mulvaney to testify but on the day of mister mulvaney's deposition the white house sent a letter to his personal attorney. prohibited from obeying the subpoena and the letters", the president directs mister mulvaney not to appear at the committee's scheduled deposition. when the issue disorder, president trump doubled down on his previous blanket order . he did sell half of the house voted to approve resolution 660 which in no u

let's go back to what usually happens when one house has a message for the other house. messages are usually taken by managers, clerks not officials. they carry it between the two houses and usually received by the secretary of the senate. it's not a big deal. this is a big deal. we saw in the clinton impeachment, when the senate adjourned for the year, the housingers assembled en masse to the secretary of the senate. he was there and the staff works all the time whether the house or senate is in session or not. we were speculating the managers will themselves carry the articles to the senate. that wouldn't surprise me. why not? it's a photo-op. they will presumably be announced at the back door of the senate either by the sergeant-at-arms or secretary for the majority, announcing that the house of representatives has adopted impeachment against the president, et cetera, et cetera. now, under the senate's impeachment rules the secretary of the senate shall quote immediately immediately notify the house of representatives that the senate is ready to have the managers quot

house counsel.s no follow up unless the next question is a follow up to the one previous. >> martha: you never get to hear the senators asking these questions themselves, which gives it a different feeling itself. we were expecting them to get started. your thoughts? >> i wanted to pick up on andy mccarthy and the legal strategy. there's a different between legal strategy and political strategy and human condition. you know, the idea of stipulating, well, the president did it but it was not impeachable. the president is the president maintained that he didn't do it. he said that the phone call was perfect. he didn't do any kind of quid pro quo, any kind of leveraging, any kind of conditioning. i also don't think even if they were -- and i understand there's a difference between that kind of a trial, a regular trial and a senate political trial. this kind of a stipulation, okay, we'll say that it's yes, it's true, that the president did condition aid to ukraine but it doesn't matter anyway. the democ

first, the house managers, the house democrats get to make their argument.hen the white house lawyers get to make their argument. >> bret: there is not enough milk to go around. [laughter] >> chris: but this could go on for a long time. at some point you think mitch mcconnell is going to say, instead of having the debate we are going to table it right away. >> bret: let's bring in the panel from new york, perino, juan williams, cohosts of "the five," andy mccarthy, andy, let's start with yo you. let's hear from you, talks on on the day? >> you want to hear from another lawyer, do you? >> bret: maybe not. [laughter] >> as i sat and listened, you do wish that chief justice roberts could actually stop them in the middle of some of these arguments and pepper them with some questions because particularly with respect to the arguments about the need for these witnesses and documents, i thought senator lofgren did a very effective job making her argument but a lot of what she is arguing for is evidence that she knows it exists because of the unchallenged records. s

the house calls john bolton. the house calls john bolton. the house calls mick mulvaney.e ready to call our witnesses. the question is will you let us. that is the question before us. now, mr. philbin said well if i showed up in court and said i wasn't ready the judge would throw me out of the court. we're not saying we're not ready. but you know what would happen if mr. philbin went into a court and the judge said i've made a dweel deal with the defendant, i'm not going to let the prosecutor call any witnesses and let the prosecutor present any documents. you know who would get thrown out of the court? the judge. the judge would be taken out in handcuffs. so let's step out of this body for a moment and imagine what a real trial would look like. it would begin with the government receiving documents, be able to introduce documents and call witnesses. this trial should be no different. mr. philbin makes reference to the cipollone letter which was an eight page later on october 8 saying we're not going to do anything you ask. part law, part diatribe, mostly diatribe, you sh

they made that decision in the house so what's going on no now, house managers have not proven their case and they know that. they are trying to drag us on. to play and delay and go fishing to find something from the strategy of the interest in the american people that the american people are ready to move on and i hope on saturday we vote on final judgment and find the president not guilty. >> i am ready to make my decision based on the record established in the house. the house chose not to pursue witnesses available to them. i don't want to start a precedent to do half ass in the house and expect the senate to fix it brick i have no idea what the new york times is talking about. senator lankford has suggested to make the manuscript available and let's senators go for themselves that sounds like a reasonable solution to me but however people want witnesses we will get a lot of them. the idea of calling one and one makes zero sense but what i would say that the biden connection was an appropriate there is a synonymy of that. it is baseless and the defense team with the hunter and jo

house managers tell you they know better. this is really the theme of the house case. i want you to remember this. every time the democrats say president trump made demands or issued a quid pro quo to president zelensky on the july 25 call, they are saying president zelensky and his top advisers are being untruthful. they acknowledge what that's what they are saying. they said over the past few days. tell me how that helps. u.s. foreign policy and national security to say that about our friends. we note there was no quid pro quo on the call. we know that from the transcripts. the call is not the only evidence shown that there was no quid pro quo. there couldn't possibly have been a quid pro quo because ukrainians did not even know the security assistance was on hold until it was reported in the media. more than a month after the july 25 call. think about this. the democrats accused the president of leveraging security assistance to supposedly force president zelensky to announce investigations but how can that possibly be when ukrainians were not even aware the securit

intelligence committee and the charm of the house judiciary committee decided not to. they decided their inquiry was finished and mode right ahead shows not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like would nala the senate to precommit to pursue an arson. as i've been saying for weeks nobody nobody will dictate senate procedure to not state senators a majority of us are committed to upholding the unanimous bipartisan clinton president against outside influences with respect to the proper timing of these mid trial questions and so if any amendments are brought forward to force premature decisions on meant trial questions will move to table such amendments and protect our bipartisan president it was sen moves to amend the resolution or to subpoena specific witnesses or documents will move to table such motions because the senate will decide those questions later in the trial just like we did back in 1999 now mr president today may present a curious situation we may hear house managers themselves agitate for such a menace we may hear a team of managers led

, the house committee on oversight and reform, and house committee on foreign affairs. including, but not limited to, documents collected that for pertain to the hold on military and other security assistance to ukraine, the scheduling of a white house meaning for the president of ukraine, and any requests for investigations by ukraine. h, the complaint submitted by whistle-blower within the intelligence community on or around august 12, 2019, to the inspector general of the intelligence community. i, all meetings or calls including request for or recordings of meetings or telephone calls scheduling items, calendar entries, white house visitor records, and email or text messages using personal or work-related devices between or among one, current or former white house officials or employees including but not limited to, president trump and it two, rudolph w giuliani, ambassador sondland, victoria tungsten, or joseph digenova. jay, former united states united states investor to ukraine where you john venture including but not limited to the decision to end her to her an

in the 2019 housing bond we had educator housing. the state has also stepped up in recent years to address the missing middle. there are now some possibilities of accessing or applying for competitive funds for mixed income program that provides financing for mixed income housing up to 120% a.m.i. as well. we see a little bit more resources trying to address the moderate income units. because we are unable to lever age tax credits it requires more subsidy from the locality from us as the city. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. i want to say i really hope, one of my daughter's former babysitters became an educator. she has a family. she is not age to move out of her apartment with a roommate, the father of the child moved in with her. the idea we have educators that want to be able to progress up the salary scale they will make more income. the concern i have for folks that start in the district and want to stay in the district but it becomes harder and harder as they move up the salary scale or they may increase income with

the white house. and again, house rules actually require a minority day of hearings and that was broken. not allowed. we didn't get that minority day of hearings. we've requested it multiple times. to try to get some fairness, to elicit facts from all sides. but we weren't given that opportunity. the senate now has a case that was sent over to them by a lot of estimate -- them, by a lot of estimates it's an inadequate case, it's a weak case. the majority must acknowledge, that which is why they're holding the papers and hoping for more things. which is what this was all about anyway. seemed like every week we would hear more rumors that, oh, next week the big witness is going to come out and everything's going to be exposed and then that witness would testify under oath that, no, they didn't see a crime. no. but don't worry, next week there's going to be another one. and this will go on forever and ever and ever. it's like a groundhog's day of impeachment. and at some point i would hope the majority w

the president refused to comply with the house subpoena before the house vote and after the house vote. the only logical explanation is the one president trump gave us all along. he was determined to fight all of subpoenas because in president trump's new according to what he said, he can do whatever he wants. now that isn't what the the constitutional republic entrusted to us by the founders had in mind. this argument doesn't just imply to impeachment. it woul would imply to oversight investigations coming and it fodoesn't just apply to the hou. it would also apply to the senate by sanctioning the president's blanket obstruction, the senate would be curtailing its own subpoena power in the future as well and the oversight obligation that we have as we now know would be permanently altered. i yield back. mr. chief justice. >> i have a question to present to the desk for house manager schiff and for the president's counsel. >> the presiding officer declines to read the question as to if submitted. the senator from wisconsin. >> mr. chief justice, i send a question tomi the desk. >> the

particular member of the house. in cases such as rule versus the united states and the united states versus watkins, the court has been called, there are disputes about subpoenas. they are not specifically in the impeachment context but they establish a general rule, a principal, that whenever a committee of either body of congress issues a subpoena to someone and that person resists a subpoena, the courts will examine what was the authority of that committee or subcommittee's issue that subpoena. it has to be traced back to some authorizing rule or resolution from the house of representatives itself, for example, in-house subcommittee. the courts will examine the supreme court has made clear that that is the charter of the committee's authority. it gets its authority solely from an action that requires a boat of Ãa vote of the house either to establish by rule to stand the authority of the committee. if the committee cannot trace its authority to a rule or resolution from the house, then it's subpoena is invalid an

if you look at my house there is a mortgage, and and the second mortgage of my house. and what that signifies is the owners of the house have taken all the equity out and put it in their pockets. who will pay this out. the tenants. that is why the rent keeps going up so the question we should be asking ourselves is not when these guys will sell because a lot of them have already sold. the question we should be asking is what happens when we have a recession, when the unemployment rate is not low, people can no longer afford $3,100 a month which is what the company is charging about sandy's old home. what is going to happen to this giant pile of death? are we going to be back with another too big to fail situation all over again? >> you described interesting parallels between policies of segregation in the mid-20th century, and predatory lenders are taking advantage of. and homeownership, i am wondering what you think, we know the fha's manual said part of the reason we are doing this is to maintain homogeneity. we want racially homogenous neighborhoods. i wonder what y

and now we see the house impeachment managers -- there is adam schiff, chair of house ceintelligjerry nadler, chair of house judiciary are walking the articles of impeachment from the house side of the capitol through the capitol rotunda to the senate side. this is the formal moment where the people's house -they have charged president trump with obstruction of congress and of abuse of power and this is the moment in which the house impeachment managers carry those charges are crossed to the united states senate, which is where the formal trial of the president will begin. othis is a moment pageantry, it is a moment that has been choreogrhed for high drama. do they aregoing past the statue of george washington, first prf idente unit states. it is highly symbolic, but it also shows the moment at which process to the united states senate. they are walking towardsto the ca rotunda. and then on the other side of that rotunda, it is symboc because he divides the house of representatives, the peop's house, with the united states senate, which isupposed to be e more considerate and deliberat

house committees prior to the passage of house resolution 660. in addition, please list the subpoenas that were issued after house resolution 660. >> senator, we will compile the list. we don't have it accessible at the moment andin answer to a question, we do have it. let me just if i could , specifically the subpoenas that went out after the passage of house resolution where john eisenberg, the subpoena to brian mccormick, robert blair, michael ellis, preston griffith and mick mulvaney. but let me underscore something that my colleague lofgren had to say and let me break this down if i can in very practical terms . what is the practical import of what counsel for the president would argue and it is this area let's say that a democrat is elected in november. and let's say that anyone of you care committee in the senate determine that you think that the next president hasengaged in something questionable. even some wrongdoing . you begin an investigation and i would imagine that your sent rules like our house rules and its house rule 10 that has

house resolution 581 that gave the house judiciary committee subpoena authority.ed, and i'm quoting, because the issue of impeachment is such overwhelming importance, the committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full house before proceeding on any further course of action, because impeachment is delegated solely to the house of representatives by the constitution, the full house of representatives should be involved in critical decision-making regarding various stages of impeachment. here the house democrats skipped over that step completely. what they had instead was simply a press conference from speaker pelosi announcing that she was directing committees to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against the president of the united states. speaker pelosi did not have the authority to delegate the power of the house to those committees on her own. so why does it matter? it matters because the constitution places that authority in the house and ensures that there is a democratic check on the exercise of that authority, that there will have to be

the house trenched from that. >> the house what? >> retrenched from that and backed off from that. >> that one witness? >> that's indicative to give you an example, i looked through the other redaction, one on page 649 to pick one of the joint appendix, in the section of the end of the volume 1 of the mueller report in which the special counsel's explaining why peripheral players in the investigation were not indicted and there are grand jury redactions in that section. that's classic grand jury secrecy to protect the rights of people who were investigated but not indicted. ther described in the text of the mueller report as peripheral players. now if the house wants to say, we have such a compelling need to know why peripheral players were not indicted by the special counsel, that we're entitled to this information, that's a showing made to the district court -- >> what i'm getting at is, how do they know they are peripheral players. you're telling us but two district courts have had more faith in the house committee's proceedings

i think the white house counsel has done a brilliant job in really treading house managers case, and they have done it by using established law and the constitution. i mean, they have spelled it out to where not putting in fluff stories. they're not talking about -- when i was a child and i grew up to be a judge. i mean, when not talking about -- they are presenting the law. what i've seen our house managers do and other democrats is take that constitution, threw it on the ground, from right under the bus and, oh, by the way, let's not just don't under the bus, let's put it in reverse and do it again. but why are they trying to impeach and remove this president? is it because they know that he will be reelected this fall? the point that was just made in this last 30 minutes or so was that we have record unemployment here in the united states. we have a booming economy. people in iowa are thrilled that we have the u.s. mda -- usmca being signed a a trade deals wh china. there is so much going on good and positive for this country and the democrats hate it that we have a larger-than-li

so again, housing is the solution. housing is the answer.by making sure that these survivors, survivors of the worst epidemic in modern time can survive this crisis of housing and stay in our city, the city that they made great, is something not only the aids foundation and q. foundation is committed to, but i mayor breed as well as supervisor mandelman are all committed to. i couldn't be prouder to be part of today's announcement and can't wait for their collaboration with the q. foundation and more of our partners in the room in ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing. [applause] >> i can't even remember when i first met rafael nadal him in. it was before my hair was grey. [laughter] and he has always been such an incredibly grounded, honest, and natural communicator. of the many things i like about raphael is he has the ability to so easily put into words his values and how his policy positions connect with them and do it in a way that leads everybody else to that place. is like, this is why we believe in what we believe, and t

the house judiciary committee. before being in congress, he served in the assembly of new york for six years. an accomplished litigator in private practice before running for elective office. mr. jeffries clerked for the honorable howard baer jr. for the southern district of new york. congresswoman val demings of florida. congresswoman val demings is a member of both the house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee. miss demings is serving her second term in congress. before congress, miss demings served in the orlando police department for 27 years, part of that time as the first woman police chief in orlando. congressman jason crow of colorado is a member of the house armed services committee. mr. crow served his country, our country bravely as an army ranger in iraq and afghanistan before coming -- running for congress. mr. crow was a respected litigator in private practice in colorado. congresswoman sylvia garcia of texas. congresswoman sylvia garcia is a member of the hous

house democrats pointed to a house rule but of course the house rule cannot override the constitutional privilege. so, those are the three principles that the trump administration served. now i'd like to turn to the claim that somehow this assertion of these principles created in an impeachable offense. fee idea that a certain defensive immunities, legal defense in response to subpoenas acting on advice to the department of justice is impeachable offense is absurd in ouis dangerous for the government, let me explain why. the theory is wrong first and foremost because asserting privileges and rights to resist compulsion is not obstruction. it's a fundamental right. the supreme court explains to punish a person because he has done at the mall claims they allow him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort in for an agent of the sourc tho pursue the objective is to penalize the person's reliance on his legal rights and patently unconstitutional. this is a principle that in the past in the clinton impeachment was recognized across the board and improper to suggest the rights o

the house doesn't want to do it. he had suggested that one of the things that they might be able to do is dismiss -- if a to dismiss, get that off the table. >> martha: i thought that i was very interesting. let's go back to you guys in d.c. >> bret: child, as we are talking about how this is going to go forward, the job of congress continues. we just saw the usmca pass. what else, potentially, gets done is this trial gets under way? >> well, again, there's only so much news oxygen up here. other things might be going on behind the scenes. especially house democrats are going to try to portray this, we sent all of these bills over to the senate. one wonders if they try to sell that narrative to the voter, going into november, especially in swing districts, there's a lot. that's the reason that they flipped it, this is a shoving match. when they are competing, it is on network television, day today. i went back and calculated how much time they devoted to the center trial in 1999. there were 22 total days that they me

one of the house house managers mention this. legislative oversight, it the authority to inquire of information for legislative purposes not to actually relate to something that legislation could be passed on. there are certain constraints on what information can be sought. slightly different if you are going under the impeachment power because then you can investigating to the specific tracks more ridley because it's relevant to an impeachment inquiry that might not need for legislative purposes. they purported to use the impeachment authority. they didn't have that authorization because the speaker's press conference if not validly give them that authorization. we pointed out the subpoenas were invalid. they did nothing to try to cure that is deficiency. in reach of the subpoena. they didn't have a vote to reissue them or anything and to say now that all oversight will be destroyed forever if you accept the president's argument is totally false. it's totally misleading because they weren't purporting to use regular oversight an

that's what the house managers decided not to do in the house of representatives. then once there had been everything resolved on a subpoena or something like that, it sounds like the question asks further in terms of questions here in the trial, admissibility of particular evidence. it's my understanding then that the presiding officer, the chief justice, could make an initial determination if there were objections to admission of evidence. but that all such determinations can be challenged by the members of the senate and would be subject to a vote. so it would not be -- i think there were some suggestions earlier that we don't need any other courts, we don't need anything, involvement of anyone else, because the chief justice is here. that's not correct. on the subpoenas at the front end, that's not going to be something that's determined, with all respect, sir, by the chief justice. that's something that would have to be sorted out in the courts or by negotiation with the executive branch. then once we're here on specific evidentiary objections, if we have a wi

he was is the house to the investment company and ultimately the house was burned down. all lifelong detroit or, he's lived in bright more is a 67 bryant and predominantly is a crucial moment in her life. her family didn't have the way to leave. she has been living there for her life. she was on the board of city organizations, ultimately you see her and her role in the breakdown because of everything in immigration. another person in the book, lola, she is unfortunately not working the night shift at the chrysler plant so isn't here to be here tonight. she's a single mother in her late 20s. she had a dream of starting business, she has a four year college degree but she's commuting 80 miles each way, she was commuting 80 miles each way. her job at the center, we have some talking. her minimum wage job and struggling to stay in her house but she does not feel very safe there and worrying about her daughter's education in the detroit school system. a system where students receive past the amount of funding a student in boston. finally, joe, a white man from new jersey who

the house prove its case, by letting the house call witnesses, by letting the house obtained documents, by letting the house decide how to present its own case, and not deciding it for us. in sum, by agreeing to a fair trial. now let's turn to the precise terms of the resolution, the history of impeachment trials and what fairness and impartiality require. although we have many concerns about the resolution i begin with a single biggest flaw. the resolution does not ensure that subpoenas will be issued for additional evidence, that the senate and the american people should happen the president continues to block, to fairly decide the president's guilt or innocence. moreover it guarantees subpoenas will not be issued now when they would be most valuable to the senate, the parties and the american people. according to the resolution the leader has introduced, the senate receives briefs and filings from the parties. next, lengthy presentations from the house and the president. my colleagues, the president's lawyers described this as opening statements but let's not kid ourselves, that is

the house managers over a 23 hour. kept pushing the false statement that it was either russia or ukraine but not both. they kept telling you that the intelligence the community and mr. mueller with russiaia alone with regard to te 2016 elections. of course that's not the report from only wrote focused on russia interference although there is some information in letters regarding ukraine and all point to those in a few moments. inin fact, let me talk about the letter right now. this is a letter dated mamay 4, 2018. the general prosecutor for the office of the prosecutor general of ukraine, it was a letter requesting that his office cooperate with the mueller investigation involving ukraine issues and issues involving ukraine government signed by senatorat mendez senator leahy d senator durbin. i am doing this to put this in entire perspective. house managers try to tell you that the important, the whole discussion and my colleague talked about this between president zelensky and president trump in the bilateral meeting