for president nixon, the chairman of the house judiciary committee explains there was a move to have been issued subpoenas after the saturday night massacre and they determine they did not have that authority in the house judiciary committee without a votee from thee house. and he determined as he explained that a resolution has always been passed by the house, it is a necessary step if we are to meet our obligations. there's been a reference to investigatory activities starting in the house judiciary committee in the nixon impeachment prior to the vote from the house. but all the committee was doing was assembling epically available information and information that isn't gathered by other congressional committees.li there was never an attempt issue compulsory process until threat by the house to get the house judiciary committee that authority. similarly, in the clinton impeachment, there were two votes from the full house to get the house judiciary committee authority to proceed. first a vote on a resolution 525 just allow the committee to examine the independent counsel report and

congresswoman val demings is a of the house select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee. mrs. demings, serving her second term in congress. mrs. demings s, served as orlando police department for 27 years, part of that time as first woman police orlando. congressman jason crow of colorado is a member of the armed services committee. mr. crow serves our country army ranger in iraq and afghanistan. efore coming -- running for congress, mr. crow was a espected litigator in private practice in colorado. ongresswoman sylvia garcia of texas. congresswoman sylvia garcia is a member of the house judiciary committee. garcia ongress, ms. was -- served in texas state senate previously. director and presiding judge of the houston electedl system and was city comptroller. as garcia was later elected first hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right o the harris county commissioner's court. these can see from descriptions, the emphasis is on litigators. emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom. the mphasis is making strongest possible case to protect and defe

jurisdiction over federal elections is a senior member of the house judiciary committee. she's serving her 13th term in congress. this is chairwoman's -- as a staffer in the nixon impeachment, as a member of the judiciary committee in the clinton impeachment, and now as a manager in this impeachment of president trump. chair hop kin jeffreys. the chair of the house democratic caucus and is serving his fourth term in congress. he's a member of the house judiciary committee. before in congress he served in the assembly of new york for six years. an accomplished lit gator and private practice before running for office. mr. jeffreys clerked for the honorable howard bare junior for the southern district of new york. congresswom congresswoman val demings of florida. she's a member of both the house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee. mr. demings is serving her second term in congress. before congress she served as the orlando police department for 27 years. part of that time as the first woman police chief in orlando. congressman jason c

claim and ordee release of the tapes to the house judiciary committee. as a result, three days later, the high crime of obstruction of perjury tethered to a second article of impeachment two days after that alleging abuse of power was approved by the house judiciary committee by a vote of 27 to 11 and 20 to ten respectively. the second article of impeachment alleges among other things unlawful use of the cia and its resources including covert activity in the united states and interference with the law enforcement actions of the fbi. to advance the cover. that is, the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice charge in the first article of impeachment. the crimes alleged were serious involving unlawful electronic surveillance of an opposing political party, paying hush money out of the white house say to burglars and other co-conspirators to silence cooperation with law enforcement and attempts to alter testimony under oath. six republican houset committee members joined all 21 democrats inca supporting those two articles. my congressman was among the six re

the house judiciary committee approved articles of impeachment in july 1974. those articles passed with bipartisan support among most republicans stood by president nixon. then the smoking tape came out. within a week, almost everyone who supported the president a week before changed his position and the president was forced to resign because of what was revealed on the smoking gun tape. within a week, senator goldwater and others from the senate went to the president and said, you won't have a single vote in the senate, you must resign or you will be removed from office. because of the evidence in the smoking gun tape. but what was on the smoking gun tape? the smoking gun tape, where recordings of president nixon instructing white house officials to pressure the cia and the fbi to end the watergate investigation. no law explicitly prohibited that conversation. it was not in that sense a crime. president nixon had abused his power, tried to use two government agencies, the fbi and the cia for his personal benefit. his impeachment and removal was certain and he

committee subpoena authority. and at the time in a house report, the house judiciary committee explained -- i'm quoting -- because the issue of impeachment is of 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 didn't is are 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 a vote by the full house

he is a member of the house judiciary committee. before being in congress he served the assembly of new york for six years. an accomplished litigator in private practice before running for elected office. honorable for the howard bear junior of the new york district court for the southern district of new york. congresswoman deming's of florida, she is a member of both the house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee. serving her second term in congress. as -- congress she served with 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 services committee, serving our country bravely as an army ranger in iraq and afghanistan before running for congress. he was a respected litigator in private practice in colorado. congresswoman sylvia garcia of texas is a member of the house judiciary committee and before congress she was serving in the texas state senate. she was the director and presiding

chairman jerry nadler, chair of the house judiciary committee is serving his 15th term in congress, he serves as a top democrat on the judiciary subcommittee on constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties for 13 years. before congress he served at the new york state assembly for 16 years. the chair of the house committee on house administration which has restriction over federal elections is a senior member of the house judiciary committee, she is serving her 13th term in congress, this is her third impeachment as a judiciary committee staffer in the nixon impeachment, as a member of the judiciary committee in the clinton impeachment, and now as a manager in this impeachment. and chairman how king jeffries of new york, he is currently serving his fourth term in congress, he is a member of 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 office. he clerked for the honorable .oward bayer jr. of new york congresswoman val demings of of the, she's a member house

house impeachment inquiry. before the judiciary committee. but he declined. on the house resolution 660 president trump received procedural protection not just equal to, but in some instances, greater than that afforded to president nixon and clinton. let's be clear what is described in the october 8 the letter was awkward to president trump as with prior impeachment inquiries. the president was able to renew all evidence relied on by the house investigating committee including evidence the public report identified as favorable to president trump. during the judiciary committee proceedings the president had opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses and raise objection and respond to the evidence raised against them. as the rules committee reports accompanying house resolution 660 noted these privileges are commensurate in the case of nixon and clinton. president trump simply chose not to avail himself of what was offered. the fact he did not take advantage of those does not excuse his unconstitutional obstruction. unlike the nixon and clinton impeachm

page 154 on the house judiciary committee report. that essentially says that they point to the fact article one section two is giving the house the sole power of impeachment and they claim the sole power of impeachment courts have no role in the have final word as judge of its own powers that's contrary to constitutional design. there is no power unchecked in the constitution the sole power of impeachment given to the house simply means it is given solely to the house not anywhere else. the constitution does not say the power of impeachment is the paramount power to make all other rights and privileges in prerogatives of the other branches follow way. the framers recognize there could be impeachments for the wrong reasons. they did not strip the executive branch of any of its needs from protecting its own authority and prerogative under the constitution. 's principles of executive privilege and immunity still survives even if the context of impeachment. the power of impeachment is not like the house can flip a switch to say now we are

committee subpoena authority. and at the time, in a house report, the house judiciary committee explained, i'm quoting, because the of impeachment is of 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 confusion, the full house should be involved in decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. here, the house democrat 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 didn't have the authority to delegate the power of the house to those committees in her own. so why does it matter? it matters because the constitution places that authority in the house and ensures that there's a democratic check on the exercise of that authority. that there has to be a vote by the full house before there can be a proceeding to start inquir

including the attempted muller redo by the house judiciary committee, which the managers would apparentlyo sneak in the back to her here. the house managers may not like his style, you may not like his style, but one might argue that he is everything clarence darrow's set a defense lawyer must be. outrageous, irreverent, blasphemous, aerobic, renegade. at the fact is, in the end, after a two year siege in the presidency, to inspector general reports, and a $32 million special counsel investigation, turns out rudy was spot on. it seems to me, if we are keeping score on hood but it right on allegations of fisa abuse, agree just on the highest level of the fbi, allege collusion between the trump campaign in russia, and supposed obstruction of justice in connection with the special counsel investigation, the score is mayor giuliani 4, mr. schiff. but 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. thank you, mr. chief justice. i yield back to mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief

the house judiciary committee could go without fully through the committee process. >> the house could. 1365 is about the senate only. >> so again there are two steps. you can take the senate on their view today now that there's no amount of controversy requirement. the senate presumes they could invoke 1331, seek criminal content. all those limitations are very nice but will not -- that is just not a plausible reading of the statute and if there were any doubt about it -- i apologize but i would like, this is a bipartisan, the sponsors of 1996 amendment to 1365. the citation is 142 congressional record 19412 and 413. this is senator specter. talking about 1365. the intent the intent is to make it clear that traditional enforcement is available when a person is asserting a privilege personal to him or her but not when the person is asserting a governmental privilege available only to the executive branch. the purpose is to keep disputes between the executive and legislative branches out of the courtroom. senator levin on the same point. section 1355 generally authorizes judicial enforc

house impeachment inquiry. before the judiciary committee. but he declined. on the house resolution 660 president trump received procedural protection not just equal to, but in some instances, greater than that afforded to president nixon and clinton. let's be clear what is described in the october 8 the letter was awkward to president trump as with prior impeachment inquiries. the president was able to renew all evidence relied on by the house investigating committee including evidence the public report identified as favorable to president trump. during the judiciary committee proceedings the president had opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses and raise objection and respond to the evidence raised against them. as the rules committee reports accompanying house resolution 660 noted these privileges are commensurate in the case of nixon and clinton. president trump simply chose not to avail himself of what was offered. the fact he did not take advantage of those does not excuse his unconstitutional obstruction. unlike the nixon and clinton impeachm

. >> and beginning at 5:30, three-part program lacking at the house judiciary committee debate, house floor debate and the senate impeachment trial of president bill clinton. explore in the nation's pass on c-span3. >> today the beginning of the second session of the 116th 116th congress, mitch mcconnell opened the session by talking but the killing of an iranian general in iraq by u.s. forces. he went on to talk at length but the impeachment of president trump. he was followed by a democratic counterpart, senator chuck schumer who discussed the same topics. this is 45 minutes. iran's master terrorist is dead. iran's master terrorist is dead. this morning iran's mast ever -- the architecture of the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism has been removed. from the battlefield. at the hand of the united states military. no man alive was more directly responsible for the deaths of more american service members than qassim suleimani. revenuesa. his schemes and his agents killed hundreds of american service members in iraq and afghanistan. he personally oversaw the state-sponsored

reaction house judiciary committee member and a fox news contributor. jason, we gave gates my radio microphone. we can't pay him. he did it for free. >> i loved it. >> sean: you did great. what i want to know jason, this is the game they are playing. they want to be able to hold this in perpetuity. the senate can't allow the house to dictate the terms?e >> no, the constitution says they have the sole power to

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 house judiciary committee. mr. congress, miss garcia was -- served in texas state senate previously. she was the director and presiding judge of the houston municipal system and was elected city controller. miss garcia was later elected the first hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right to the harris county commissioner's court. as you can see from these descriptions, the emphasis is on litigators. the

the committees made clear this information would be collected as part of the house impeachment inquiry and shared among committees as well as with the committee on the judiciary is appropriate. then on october 30 first the full house voted to approve house resolution 660 which directed the house committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the house of representatives to exercise the constitutional power to impeach donald john trump. in addition to affirming the ongoing house impeachment inquiry, it set forth procedures for open hearings in the intelligence committee and for additional proceedings in the judiciary committee. every step in this process was fully consistent with the constitution, the rules of the house and house precedent. the house's autonomy to structure its own proceedings on impeachment inquiry is grounded in the constitution. the president's printable argument to the contrary is now committee of the house was permitted to investigate any presidential misconduct until the full house acted. as federal district court recently confirmed the notion that a full hous

for president nixon chairman rodino of the house judiciary committee explained there was a move to havem issue subpoenas after the saturday night massacre and they determined they did not have that authority in the house isjudiciary committee without a vote from the house. he determined as he explained that a resolution has always been passed by the house it's a necessary step if we are to meet our obligations. there is been reference to investigatory activities starting in the house judiciary committee and the nixon impeachment prior to the vote from the house but all the committee was doing was assembling publicly available information and information that had been gathered by other congressional committees. there was never an attempt to issue compulsory process until there had been a vote by the house to give the house judiciary committee that authority. similarly, in the clinton impeachment there were two books from the full house to give the house judiciary committee authority to proceed. first a vote on a resolution 525, just to allow the committee to examine the independent couns

brought you live, nancy pelosi announcing the managers who will act as prosecutors include house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler, intelligence chairman adam schiff of california along with five other house democrats including south bay congresswoman zo lofgren. speaker pelosi spoke on her experience with impeachment procedures. >> this is her third impeachment as a judiciary committee staffer in the nixon impeachment, as a member of the judiciary committee in the clinton impeachment and as a manager in this impeachment of president trump. >> later today the house will vote on the articles of impeachment and will be physically walked over from the house to the senate. the senate trial is expected to start on tuesday. >>> happening today at the white house, president trump says he'll find the first phase of a trade deal with china and the first phase including a tariff cut from 15 to 7 1/2% on about $120 billion in chinese goods and has agreed to buy $200 billion of u.s. exports over the next two years. >>> 7:33. happening today, jose garcia, the man who was acquitted of killing kate steinle

professor feldman of harvard law school explained as well before the house judiciary committee. here is his explanation of why the framers created the impeachment power. the framers provided for the impeachment of the president because they feared that the president might abuse the power of his office for personal benefits to corrupt the electoral process and ensure his reelection, or to support the national security of the united states. >> that is the standard as described by professor feldman. he is correct. and, of course, all three of these appear once, abuse, but trail and corruption does we have the strongest possible case for removing a president from office. later on will apply this rule to the facts. abuse come will show president trump abuseid his power when usd his officet to solicit and pressure ukraine to meddle in our election for his personal gain. thee trail, we will show that he betrayed vital national interests have specific our national security by withholding diplomatic support apl military aid from ukraine even as it faced armed russian aggression. corrupti

he's the member of the house judiciary committee. he served in the assembly of new york for six years, private practice, mr. jeffery, the southern district of new york. congresswoman deming of florida. she's a member of both the house select committee on intelligence and the house traditional committee. miss deming is serving her second terms in congress. >> congressman jason crowe of colorado on services committee. mr. crowe serves our country greatly as an army ranger in iraq and afghanistan before running for congress mr. crowe was a respected litigator in private practice and colorado. congresswoman sylvia garcia of texas, she's a member of the house judiciary committee. before congress she served in texas state senate. she was a presiding judge and was elected city's controller. she was elected the first hispanic and first woman to be elected in other own right of the harris county commissioner court. you can see from these descriptions of the emphasis on litigators. the emphasis is on comfort levels in the courtroom. the emphasi

deming's of florida congresswoman deming is a member of both the house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee mr may's serving her 2nd term in congress before congress in the stabbing served as the orlando police department for 27 years part of that time as the 1st woman police chief and orlando. congressman she's the 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 and colorado congresswoman sylvia garcia of texas congressman sylvia garcia is a member of the house judiciary committee before congress ms conk ms garcia was served in texas state senate previously she was the director and presiding judge of the houston minutes of the system and was elected city controller miss garcia was later elected the 1st hispanic and 1st woman to be elected in her own right the harris county commissioners court as you can see from these. descriptions of the emphasis is on litigators. the

committee subpoena authority and at the time in a house report the house judiciarycommittee explained, i am quoting because the issue of impeachment is such overwhelming importance the committee decided it must receive authorization from the pool house before proceeding on another course of action because impeachment is delegated solely by the house of representatives by the constitution, the full house of representatives should be involved in cortical decision-making regarding various stages of impeachment. house democrats skipped over the step completely. and the press conference for nancy pelosi announcing she was directing committees to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against the president of the united states. nancy pelosi didn't 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 assures there is a democratic check on the exercise of that authority. if there has to be a vote by the full house before their can be a proceeding t

the house judiciary committee passed all four along party lines. but by the time that it move forward to the house, the full house floor, only two of those survived and there were -- they were basically a perjury and obstruction. steve: what do you remember? what was your take away of that time period more than 20 years ago? alexis: i was covering the white house. my perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. there were a couple of things i remember vividly. one is, when the story about monica lewinsky broke -- you may remember this was an investigative story that "newsweek" was trying to break, but there had been a pause to make sure the reporting was really complete -- it actually emerged on drudge, which was a brand-new website that opened the door to what we are seeing now about how many outlets are to publish. i can remember going upstairs to the lower press office, talking to the president's senior staffers. i can remember asking a question to paul, who actually was sure that this had not happened. and was absolutely s

committee subpoena authority and at the time in a house report the house judiciarycommittee explained, i am quoting because the issue of impeachment is such overwhelming importance the committee decided it must receive authorization from the pool house before proceeding on another course of action because impeachment is delegated solely by the house of representatives by the constitution, the full house of representatives should be involved in cortical decision-making regarding various stages of impeachment. house democrats skipped over the step completely. and the press conference for nancy pelosi announcing she was directing committees to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against the president of the united states. nancy pelosi didn't 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 assures there is a democratic check on the exercise of that authority. if there has to be a vote by the full house before their can be a proceeding t

, following a referral from another committee and absent a full house vote. the judiciary committee began an investigation in president nixon's misconduct for four months before approval of a full house resolution. the house rules also do not preclude committees from quirg into the potential grounds for impeachment. instead, those rules pass the committees of the house with robust powers including the power to issue subpoenas. each of the three committee that's conducted the initial investigation of president trump's conduct in ukraine, intelligence oversight and foreign affairs, indisputably had oversight jurisdiction over these matters. the president's counsel has pointed to the nixon impeachment where the full house -- >> thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. >>> i send a question to the desk and because my question references an earlier question, i have attached that earlier question as reference to the presiding officer in the parliamentarian in case it should be of interest. >> thank you. >> the question from senator white house is to a question for the president. t

and many members -- not everybody -- on the house judiciary committee agreed that the president had, indeed, improperly claimed executive privilege, rebuffed time and again by the chaired -- thechai offense. here is the idea. it is not an impeachable offense for the president of the united states to defend the asserted legal and constitutional prerogatives of the presidency. this is -- and i'm quoting here from page 55 of the president's trial brief -- a function of his constitutional and policy judgments. not just a policy judgment but a constitutional judgment. i would guide this court, as it is coming through the deliberation process, to read the president's trial brief with respect to process. it was justice felix frankfurter, confident of fdr, brilliant jurist, who reminded america that the history of liberty is, in large part, of history of process or procedure. in particular, i would guide the high court to the discussion of the long history of the house of representatives. over two centuries. in providing due process protections in its impeachment investigations. it's a richl

for the house judiciary committee? alexis: the house judiciary committee voted 21-16 to embrace the idea of impeachment. and that was a partyline vote on the committee. steve: what was the centerpiece of the debate among house republicans and among members led by henry hyde of illinois? alexis: the centerpiece of their discussion was, had the president of the united states really violated his oath of office by lying under oath and obstructing justice? and basically violated in some ways, the honor of his office. and so, one of the things that henry hyde was talking about was should we look away or look forward? should we look into this, right? and he was trying to say, through his rhetoric, that the house was really under the constitution, compelled to look into this, that this report had been handed to them. it was so detailed from the independent counsel, and that they couldn't just look away. that they had to look deeply into it and explore and investigate it. what's interesting about what we're watching with preside

the house judiciary committee approved articles of impeachment in 1974. those articles past with bipartisan support although mostrepublicans goodbye president nixon . and the smoking tapecame out . within a week almost everyone who supported the president a week before changed his position and the president was forced to resign because of what was revealed on the smoking gun tape. within a week senator goldwater and others went to the president and said you won't have a single vote in the senate. you must resign or you will be removed from office. because of the evidence onthe smoking gun tape but what was on the smoking gun tape ? the tape were recordings of president nixon instructing white house officials to pressure the cia and fbi to end the watergate investigation area no law explicitly prohibited that conversation. it was not in that sense a crime but president nixon had abused his power. he had tried to use to government agencies, the fbi and cia or his personal benefit. his impeachment and removal were certain and he announced his resignation wit

and the house judiciary committee stated expressly we do not assume responsibility to approve the respondenteis guilty of the crime is known to criminal t jurisprudence.n and it's also true for presidents at this point. the house judiciary committee against impeachment articles against president nixon with acts that did not violate federal law. one of the articles obstruction of congress had no legal violation and it's worth reflecting on why president nixon was forced to resign. most americans are familiar the past judiciary committee improved articles of impeachment july 74. they passed with bipartisan support all the most by president nixon. then the smoking tape came out almost within one week everybody who supported the president one meet before change their position in the president was forced toth resign. and those who went to the senate president who said you don't have a single vote in the senate you mustn' resign or you will be removed from office because of the evidence of the smoking gun tape and those instructing white house officials to end the watergate investigation. no law ex

the president was given no rights in the house of representatives and the judiciary committee conducted only two days of hearings and you are sitting for your sixth day of trial. the house is demanding witnesses from you that they refused to seek themselves. when confronted with expedited court proceedings regarding subpoenas they had issued they actually withdrew those subpoenas. they are now criticizing you in strong accusatory language if you don't capitulate to their unreasonable demands and to sit in your seats for. an election is only months away and for the first time in history they are asking you to remove a president from the ballot. they are asking you to do something that violates all past historical precedents that you have studied and principles of democracy and take the choice away from the american people and it would tear apart the country for generations and change our constitutional system forever. question, what should you do. your first thought might be that is not a realistic hypothetical. that could never happen in america. but then you would be happy because you

they are on the house judiciary committee. later today, the impeachment managers will actually walk these articles of impeachment from the house chamber to the senate chamber, past the hallway behind us on the second floor of the capital. they'll go through the rotunda, through the hall, past the old senate chamber before arriving at the senate chamber itself. a bit of pomp and sir couple stance what we saw 21 years ago before the clinton impeachment trial. >> a historic walk on another historic day in washington. nancy, thank you very much. >>> we saw president trump on the campaign trail last night in wisconsin. now six of the democratic candidates trying to stop mr. trump met in iowa for their first debate of the new year. also their last p event together before the iowa caucuses. the candidates reached out to voters but a split between senators elizabeth warren and bernie sanders got the biggest response. at the end it appeared that warren refused a hand shake with her long-time ally. ed o'keefe covered the debate for us. g

page 154 on the house judiciary committee report. that essentially says that they point to the fact article one section two is giving the house the sole power of impeachment and they claim the sole power of impeachment courts have no role in the have final word as judge of its own powers that's contrary to constitutional design. there is no power unchecked in the constitution the sole power of impeachment given to the house simply means it is given solely to the house not anywhere else. the constitution does not say the power of impeachment is the paramount power to make all other rights and privileges in prerogatives of the other branches follow way. the framers recognize there could be impeachments for the wrong reasons. they did not strip the executive branch of any of its needs from protecting its own authority and prerogative under the constitution. 's principles of executive privilege and immunity still survives even if the context of impeachment. the power of impeachment is not like the house can flip a switch to say now we are

house judiciary committee did not go to court and nobody said to us, oh, bad, bad, bad. you should have gone to court. so we're not going to look at the smoking gun tape. we're not going to consider these other tapes. absolutely not. we didn't go to court because peter odino, the chair, said courts have no business involving themselves in an impeachment process. whether you agree with that position or not, there's no question that if the house had gone to the courts, we would still not have a resolution of this matter. don mcgahn's subpoena hasn't been resolved. so if you want to have an impeachment process that works, then this has to be done in a proper way. >> 30 seconds left. we heard adam schiff, one of the house managers, say yesterday, quote, you know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country. is he misreading the audience? for example, look at how many republicans are thrilled with what he's done on nominating judges. >> the audience is the american people in the end. and the american people, i hope, will be fair and understand the need f

judiciary committee. go back and look at the tapes of how long ken starr testified before the senate -- excuse me, the house judiciary committee of which i was a part. what we have done for the first time in american history is impeach a president without outside counsel involved, and a 48 day period. but here's what struck me the most. what the house managers said, the reason we didn't go to court, we didn't want to go through the court is that we couldn't impeach him before the election. they withdrew from the deputy national security adviser for the deputy national could advise went to court tell me what to do, judge. the house actually withdrew the subpoena because they didn't want the court process to stop the impeachment train. they would have the united states senate create an impeachment process where the president would not be allowed to go to article iii court to argue privileges that had been argued in every of impeachment trial, and had been argued by presidents since george washington. that would destroy the institution of the presidency as we know it. what we didn't do what it woulw a handful

house judiciary committee, no republican -- not one republican came out in favor of impeachment untilwe had a debate on the articles themselves. what happened? people looked at the facts. and they saw that the facts were clear that nixon engaged in this abuse of power. again, republicans, they will lie, and this is really a lie when they say that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. the whole second article of impeachment against richard nixon was abuse of power. it is a lie to say there is no basis to say abuse of power is not impeachable. >> isn't that the difference from watergate that we have had so many smoking guns that there is a poof of dust in the air and the republicans are saying this is not moving them. in fact, they just voted against learning more facts that could tell them the truth. >> let me and this of charlie. one of these things that i think is interesting having heard from these two members of congress is we are seeing the effects of the weakening representation of congress, something that nancy pelosi likes to point out is named to the constitution befor

i remember going to hear john dean testify on the watergate committee and i sat on the house judiciary committee-- i sat in on the house judiciary committee. there was a great sense of solemnity to this. this was a serious issue. serious investigation was underway. two political parties were different at that stage. the republicans and democrats had liberal and conservative wings. nixon had a lot of opposition from moderate republicans and -- from liberal republicans and got support from conservative democrats. so it was unclear what his status would be. as the house was voting, the judiciary committee is considering voting, the supreme court ruled and said the nixon tapes had to be opened. one of the tapes made it pretty clear to anyone who listened that nixon was part of the cover-up to hide the crime committed. so it was not so much the crime committed, the breaking into the democratic conference headquarters, but the fact that the president had authorized pushing money to burglars and done everything possible to obstruct justice after that. so even some of his strongest supporters in the hou

and many members, not everybody on the house judiciary committee, agreed that the president had indeed improperly claimed executive privilege, rebuffed time and again by the judiciary. but at the end of the day, that committee chaired the judiciary committee of the house chaired by henry hyde wisely concluded that president clinton's doing so should not be considered an impeachable offense. here's the idea. it is not an impeachable offense for the president of the united states to defend the asserted legal and constitutional prerogatives of the presidency. this is, and i'm quoting here from page 55 of the president's trial brief, a function of his constitutional and policy judgments. not just a policy judgment, but a constitutional judgment. i would guide this court, as it's coming through the deliberation process, to read the president's trial brief with respect to process. it was justice felix frankfurter, confidant of fdr, brilliant jurist, who reminded america that the history of liberty is in large measure the history of process, of procedure. in particular, i would guide the high

it became apparent then that narrow partisan views aside, the house judiciary committee would step into the breach only in so far as evidence of criminal presidential conduct warranted it. the tapes of oval office conversation provided that evidence. the supreme court overruled a claim of executive privilege and ordered the release of tapes to the house judiciary committee. as a result three days later, the high crime of obstruction of justice including perjury at the time teethered to a second article was approved by a vote of 27-11 and 28-10 respectively. the second article of impeachment alleged unlawful use of the cia and its resources including covert activity in the united states and interference with the law enforcement actions of the fbi. the crimes alleged were serious involving unlawful electronic surveillance of a opposing political party, attempts to alter testimony under oath. six republican house committee members joined all 21 democrats in supporting those two articles. my congressman was among those six house members. another one of the six was a young congressman who ma

the house judiciary committee has released new impeachment documents against president trump. the documents contain text messages from lev parnas, the indicted associate of rudy giuliani, about the alleged surveillance of former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. the text messages include a series of exchanges between robert hyde, a republican congressional candidate in connecticut, and an unknown phone number discussing what appears to be the whereabouts of ambassador yovanovitch. quote, she has been there since thursday. never left the embassy. an audio file, which was also released was sent from an unknown account to robert hyde and forwarded to lev parnas. >> it's confirmed she's in ukraine. >> the documents also show that lev parnas has frequent communication with derek harvey, an aide to republican congressman devin nunes. text messages put harvey in contact with parnas throughout the spring of 2019. the very same time parnas was working with giuliani and other trump associates to oust ambassador marie yovanovitch. harvey mentioned the topic of foreign assist