president trump interposed the power of the t presidency againt the subpoena of the house of representatives and assume to himself function and judgment necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution and the house of representatives. he abused the power of the office to the following means. one, directing the white house to fight a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees, number two, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy subpoenas and withholds the production of documents and records fromwi the kennedy in response to which the department of state office of managementex and budget some of the department of energy and the department of defense refusedd o produce a single document or record. three directing officials must take a lo a lot of it in respono which the administration officials decide defied subpoenr testimony, namely mick mulvaney, john eisenberg, michael ellis, christian griffith, michael duffey, brian mccormick. these actions were consistent with the previous efforts

he thus interposed the power of the presidency against the subpoena of the house of representatives and assumed himself functioned and judgment necessary to the exercise of the power of impeachment vested by the constitution and the house of representatives. president trump abused the power of his office through the following means. one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees, number two, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy the lawful subpoena and withhold the production of documents and records from the committee and in response to which the department of state office of management and budget for the department of energy and department of defense refused to produce a single document or record. three, directing current and former officials not to cooperate with the committee in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely john michael m mick mulvaney, michael duffey, ryan mccormick, these actions were consistent with president trump

possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190, -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 190, the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 116-392 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, on which the further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 116-392 offered by mr. roe of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning

the unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate the science of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to the sole power of impeachment. president trump has abuse the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to an subversive of the constitution and that the house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trump's solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 united states presidential election. as part of this impeachment inquiry, the committee undertaken the investigation serve subpoenas, seeking documents and testimony vital to the inquiry executive branch agencies and offices in current and former officials. in response without lawful cause or excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies officesy and officials not to comply with the subpoenas. president trump interposes the power of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives and assume to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment invested by the constitution and the ho

he thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. president trump abused the powers of his high office for the following needs: directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees, 2, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the department of state, office of management and budget, department of energy and department of defense reviews to produce a single document or record. 3, directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committee. in response to which nine administration officials defined subpoenas for testimony, namely john michael mc mulvaney, robert b blair, john eisenberg , michael ellis, kristin griffith, russell law, micha

donald trump does interpose the powers of the presidency against lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives and assumed functions and judgment necessary to the exercise of the full power of impeachment vested by the house of representatives. donald trump abused the powers of high office through the following means, one, directing the white house to define a lawful subpoena by withholding production of documents sought therein by the committee. 2, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committee in response to which the department of state, office of management and budget, department of energy independent of defense refused to produce a single document or record. 3, directing former and current executive branch officials not to cooperate with committees in response to which nine administrative official defied subpoenas for testimony, namely john michael mick mulvaney, robert blair, john eisenberg, michael ellis, kristin wells griffith, russell bob, michael duffey, michael mccormick, these ac

necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment bested by the constitution in the house of representatives. president trump abused the powers of his high office to the following means one directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents saw there and by the committees to directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees and response to which the department of state office of management and budget department of energy and department of defense refused to produce a single document or record 3 directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which night administration officials to fide subpoenas for testimony namely john michael mick mulvaney robert b. blair john a eisenberg michael ellis christian wells griffith russell t. wagner michael duffy brian mccormick and t. alric rectal these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine united states government inv

necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. president trump abused the powers of the high office through the following means. one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. two, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy the lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees and in response to which the department of state, office of management and budget, department of energy and department of defense refused to produce a single document or record. three, directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials defied the subpoenas, mick mulvaney, john blair, crystal ellis, michael vau. the ullrich brerich brechbuhl, o obstruct interference in the united states elections. through these actions the president trump sought to e irrigate to himself, the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all inform

thus interfered with the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas against the house of representatives and assumed to himself and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment invested by the constitution and the house of representatives. president trump abuse the powers of his high office to the following means. one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought by the committees. two, directing other executive branches and offices to deny subpoenas and withhold the documents and records from the committee is in response t to te department of state, office of management and budget, department of energy and department of defense refused to produce a single document or record. three, directing current and former branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials denied subpoenas for testimony. namely john michael mick mulvaney, robert b blair, michael ellis, kristen wells griffith, russell t voss, michael duffy, brian mccormic mccormick, and -- these actio

any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power. of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively. of the house of representatives to investigate crimes and misdemeanors this is officer of to cover up the president's own repeated under seizing control power of. and thus to know. idle the two tional say. vested stately in the house of. in all of this press trump has acted in a manner. very to. and subversive of message. to the prejudice of call also law and to the man of injury of the p. of the united. where are prepping trump by speech condo has demonstrated that he remain a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain. in his acted in a manner grow up all. to hold and enjoy. honor or profit under the united states. the card is on the second article of impeachment senators how safe is the respondent donald john trump guilty or nonot guily the clerk will call the roll. mister alexander. not when. guilty mr brasso. not guilty mister bennett. guilty mrs blackburn. not guilty mister blumenthal. guilty mist

of power. theas -- he represented apex of power in the house of representatives. was the chair of the rules committee, which is the committee that decides what can come to the house floor. there were only three members on the committee. he effectively could decide what bills came to the floor and what did not. he was also not afraid to use legislation block even if a lot of members wanted it. he was also not afraid to punish members of his party who were insufficiently loyal. he punished some insurgents in his party who were causing trouble, kicking them off committees. he moved one member to the committee of ventilation and acoustics, which is one of the worst committees you could have been on. it does not exist today. storya -- there is a about a member of congress who got a letter from a constituent saying, could you please send me the rules of the house of representatives? the congressman sent back a picture of joe cannon. he was the rules of the house. the rulesay, committee is not presided over by the speaker of the house. professor green: correct. susan: th

in the fast track impeachment process in the house of representatives, the house majority persuade the american not just partisans, but rather, did the house's case win over the overwhelming majority and consensus of the american people? the question fairly to be asked. i cast my vote -- why cast my v remove the president of the united states when not a single vote in the republican party was persuaded. in contrast, when i was hear last week, i noticed in the record of these proceedings that in the nixon impeachment, the house vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry was 410 to 4. in the clinton impeachment, divisive, controversial, 31 democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. here, of course, and in sharp contrast, the answer is none. it is said that we live in highly, and perhaps hopelessly, partisan times. it is said that no one is open to persuasion anymore. they're getting their news entirely from their favorite media platform, and that platform of choice is fatally deterministic. at least the decision of decision makers under oath who are bound by a sacred duty by oat

jeffries: we are committed to protecting and defending the house of representatives. more to come on that. ms. clarke: the strength of our house members and they realize is the connection back home to the voters in the individual districts and the priority they have placed protecting health care. and poll after poll shows that health care, even for our youngest, newest voters is the predominant issue. and what we have today is that example. this isn't just about polling or , you know, different debate topics, this is an impact on real people's lives and members those in tough districts since they were sworn into office is go home, talk to people, hold town halls, be available. that is why they are going to be successful in the fall. it's that connection and the priorities of the for the people agenda. health care, creating great jobs and getting corruption and big money out of politics. [indiscernible question] mr. jeffries: i think we are concerned with the outbreak of the coronavirus all across the world and watching the efforts to protect and defend the american peo

when sitting on impeachment trials, the argument shall be open and close on the part of the house of representatives . the presiding officer recognizes mister manager schiff to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. >> mister chief justice, members of the u.s. senate, counsel for the president. almost hundred 70 years ago, senator daniel webster of massachusetts took to the well of the old senate chamber, not far from where i'm standing. he delivered what would become perhaps his mostfamous address , 7 march speech. webster sought to rally his colleagues to adopt a compromise of 1850, a package of legislation he and others hope would forestall a civil war brewing over the question of slavery. he said, it is fortunate that there is a senator of the unitedstates , a body not yet moved with propriety, not yet lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own responsibilities and a body to which the country looks with confidence. for a wise, moderate patriotic and feeling councils. it is not to be denied we live in the midst of strong agitations that are surrounded by prin

for the about power sake of grabbing more power for the house of representatives. that weut making sure are covering the people we represent. in the house of representatives, we are the most direct link the people of the country. >> a lot of these executive actions can be voted against in congress. the veto was always there. that seems to be one of the main problems to any thing you guys might be able to come up with. constitutionala amendment attempt? >> i think there are other things short of a constitutional amendment that we could explore. i hope that's what these hearings do. look, i mentioned the war powers issue earlier. me, there is something wrong with the fact that it's easier to declare war or get involved in a war than it is to actually get to peace. you just need a simple majority to vote to authorize the use of military force. knowing that the president would veto an action by congress to end a war if they didn't want to, it requires a super majority. we need to have a discussion on whether that is the appropriate way should best to approach these issu

house process has been totally illegitimate. the articles of impeachment that the house of representatives presented to us last month were nothing more than the fruit of a poison tree. in america we believe in the rule of law. in america, we believe in due process. in america, we believe anyone has a right to a fair trial. in america, we believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty. however, house democrats violated each of these foundational precepts in using the impeachment process as a partisan political weapon. throughout the course of the house impeachment investigation, democrats repeatedly denied president trump due process in the fundamental rights of the accused in america. simply put, what they did was not fair. they denied him the right to have counsel, the right to have witnesses, the right to cross-examine their witnesses, the right to see the evidence, and lastly, the right to face his accuser. contrast that with the last two presidents to face impeachment. the grand jury investigation of clinton and the watergate investigation of nixon were conducted in a fair manner with rights for the accused. no action was ta

the house of representatives represents people. that's why it's called the people's house. the u.s. not evenly distributed over our land, the 760,000 people of north dakota get two united states senators, and the 39 million people of california get two united states senators. california gets 53 members of the house of representatives, and north dakota gets one, and that is fair. that means the people of north dakota are fairly represented in the house of representatives where their participation accurately represents their share of the population of the country. and so to the people on twitter today who found themselves despairing at the senate's anti-democratic action and said things like democracy died today, no. american democracy didn't die today. american democracy once again revealed its most serious structural flaw -- the united states senate. but there's hope. this is what hope looks like. that's democratic senator jon tester. that's him today going into the senate chamber. he represents the state right beside north dakota and south dakota, montana. donald trump won montana

that would undermine the separation of powers by allowing the house of representatives to immobilize the executive branch as well as the senate by a perpetual partisan series of impeachments. well, she was not convinced. when our country was created, there never had been anything quite like it. a democratic republic with a written constitution. perhaps its greatest innovation was the separation of powers among the presidency, the supreme court, and the congress. the late justice scalia said of this checks and balances, quo, every tin horned dictator in the world today, every president for life has a bill of rights. what has made us free is our constitution. what he meant was what makes the united states different and protects our individual liberty is the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our constitution. the goal of our founders was not to have a king as chief executive, on the one hand, or not to have a british-style parliament on the other, which could remove our chief executive or prime minister with a majority or no confidence vote. the principal reason our con

in its trial brief, the house of representatives argues there's no credible alternative explanation, hat's their words, for the president's alleged conduct. but once the senate heard from the president's counsel in defense, then all of a sudden, the house changed its tune. now even a credible alternative explanation shouldn't stop the senate from removing the president. reshaping their own standard mid-trial only serves to undercut their initial arts many and sim -- arguments. and simply asserting at least 63 times that i counted that their evidence was quote, unquote, overwhelming doesn't make the house of representatives' allegations accurate or prove an impeachable offense. even after arguments had concluded, the house managers started repeating the terms bribery and extortion on the floor of the senate while neither terms appears anywhere in their articles of impeachment. so you get down to this point. it's not the senate's job to read into house articles what the house failed or didn't see fit to incorporate itself. articles of impeachment shouldn't be moving targets like moving

sitting on impeachment trials, the argument shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. the presiding officer recognizes mr. manager schiff to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. >> mr. chief justice, members of the u.s. senate, counsel for the president, almost 170 years ago, senator daniel webster of massachusetts took to the well of the old senate chamber not far from where i'm standing, he delivered what would become perhaps his most famous address, the 7th of march speech. webster sought to rally his colleagues to adopt compromise of 1850, a package he and others hoped would forestall a civil war brewing over the question of slavery. he said, it is fortunate that there is a senate of the united states, a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks with confidence for wise, moderate, patriotic and healing counsels. it is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations and surrounded by considerable dangers to

four hours of closing arguments equally divided between the managers on the part of the house of representatives and counsel for the president. pursuant to rule 22 of the procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials the argument shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. the presiding officer recognizes mr. manager schiff to begines on the house of representatives. >> mr. chief justice, members, council for the president. almost 170 years ago, senator daniel webster of massachusetts took to the well of the senater chamber not far from where i'm standing. he delivered what would become his most famous address, the seventh of march speech. webster saw the rally to adopt a compromise of 1850, a package of legislation that he and others hoped would forestall the civil war over the question of slavery. he said it is fortunate that unthere is a senate of the unitd states,d a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to adjust the sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks with confidence

house of representatives. let's go straight to washington now and speak to g.w. correspondent all of a salad day. trump has been clean it's a historic day for sure but this was expected wasn't it roger and it's a story moment for sure you're right with that. and in particular because this has only happened 3 other times before this time is different however because we did not see any witnesses and we did not get any evidence the republican senators who are holding the majority here in senate and wanted to get this done as soon as possible wanted to acquit president trump because the outcome of the trial was also pretty much clear even before the trial started although i must say that there have been some republican senators that admitted that one president did there when that phone call was wrong that he should not have called president volodymyr zelinsky of ukraine and pushed essentially for investigations against his political rival still in the end he was acquitted and one of the reasons for that is that simply many many republican senators in particular are up

directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. president trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to and subversive of the constitution in that the house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 united states presidential election. as part of this impeachment inquiry -- scarlet: -- read the charges against president trump in the second article of impeachment, obstructing congress. the president was acquitted of the first charge, abuse of power. separately, we have an update from iowa. pete buttigieg holds the lead in the iowa caucus in the latest tally. iowa results are 85% accounted for. it is not the final tally. so far, pete buttigieg holds the lead. bernie sanders, elizabeth warren and joe biden trail him. romaine: we are paying a lot of attention to what is going on with impeachment, but what is going on with iowa, when we talk about who r

speaks of the danger being used by, and i quote, in an temperate or designing majority in the house of representatives, end of quote. by limiting the house power to impeach the president and not remove from office, the founders hold up a that the senate wouldt as a check on any attempt by the house to use the power of impeachment for partisan purposes. unfortunately, the concerns of the partisanship were realized in this impeachment process. for the w first time in history, impeachment was initiated and conducted on a purely partisan basis. while the nixon impeachment proceedings in the house were helhouse wereheld as an examplef bipartisanship, even the impeachment of president clinton was initiated with the support of more than 30 democrats. housede democrats drilled aheadn a completely, completely partisan exercise tha then they rushed through the impeachment process rejecting a thorough investigation because they want to impeach the president as fast as possible. and then they expected the senate to take on the house investigative responsibility. madam president, house democrats paid lipservice to

the house managers for more than 16 hours of questions from a senators, in all 180 questions and we received more than 28,000 pages of testimony, evidence and arguments in the house of representatives. i considered all the evidence carefully but ultimately i concluded that the two charges presented by the house managers abuse of power and obstruction of congress did not provide compelling case for moving -- or move his prison. according to public porting rehouse democrats toyed with charging the president with bribery. they didn't have the evidence to prove that charge or indeed to prove any actual crime. by allegations of specific criminal conduct may not be constitution inquired they anchored impeachment into law and their absence is telling. lacking evidence of a specific crime the house decided to use the shotgun of perch and thorough everything under the catch all of these of power umbrella. .. lifetime who hasn't been accused of some form of abuse of power. for that reason abuse of power for that reason abuse of power >> abuse of power seems to be a fairly weak credit to remove the democratically elected president from office. during the clinton impeachment, i voted against t

a question to be asked -- in the fast track impeachment process in the house of representatives, the house majority persuade the american people. not just partisans. rather, did the house's case went over the overwhelming majority and consensus of the american people? the question fairly to be asked. "will i cast my vote to convict and remove the president of the united states when not a single member of the president's party, the party of lincoln, was persuaded at any time in the process? "in contrast, and when i was here last week, i noted for the record of these proceedings that in the nixon impeachment the house vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry was 410-4. in the clinton impeachment, divisive, controversial, 31 democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. here, of course, and in sharp contrast, the answer is none. it is said that we live in highly and perhaps hopelessly partisan times. it is said that no one is open to persuasion anymore. they are getting their news entirely from their favorite media platform, and that platform of choice is fatally deterministic. w

of america is represented here. madam speaker. in front of you and the house of representatives. whether you go up to alaska and ou hear from the dean of the delegation, the dean of the house, don young who has been here longer than anybody else and think wisdom he brings from way up in the northwest country, or whether you go down into the southern tip of florida or up into maine or down into, let's say, san diego, right across the boarder from tijuana, or out to hawaii, even guam for that matter and the marianas, you hear the voice of america here. and i've listened to the debate here on this floor and in our committees for a long time. what i hear when i hear that debate coming, you here gee y graphical identify -- identifications going on. you hear about ag products, maybe pineapples, we don't do that in iowa, so that's probably hawaii. cottop is the south. corn is the corn belt. that's ag side of. this we have different weather circumstances. and if you want to do a lit real search or find out what's going on in america, walk down here on the floor, madam speaker and find som

house managers during more than 16 hours of questions from senators. in all about 180 questions. and we received more than 28,000 pages of testimony, evidence, and arguments from the house of representatives. i considered all the evidence carefully but ultimately i concluded that the two charges presented by the house managers, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, did not provide a compelling case for removing this president. according to public reporting, house democrats toyed with charging the president with bribery believing that it polled well. but they didn't have the evidence to prove that charge or indeed to prove any actual crime. while allegations of specific criminal conduct may not be constitutionally required, they anchor impeachment in the law and their absence is telling. lacking evidence of a specific crime the house decided to use the shotgun approach and throw everything under the catchal abuse of power umbrella. abuse of power, madam president, is vaguely defined and subject to interpretation. in fact, i don't believe there has been a president in my lifetime who hasn't been accused of some form of abuse of power. for that reason abuse of power seemed to me a fair

decision stayed among the top five according to the original constitution would go to the house of representativesen the house would divide into state delegations and vote for president. what really happened was that parties formed before the 1796 running of the presidency. host: why did they form? dr. brown: they formed for a couple reasons. political science talks about the need for what we call long coalition in the legislature. basically government would not be able to operate without parties. what we mean by that is, imagine every piece of legislation. you had to form a brand-new coalition every single time. it just would not form or function. parties operate as what political scientists call long coalitions. they are a group of people with interests that are generally aligned. they agree to support each other and band together. with that, you are able to address more issues more quickly and efficiently than you would otherwise. these parties really formed in early 1790's because during washington's administration, there were issues that started to divide people very quickly. you saw the debt

we do not want the chamber of the house of representatives to be used as a backdrop for a reality show with unreality in the presentation. by the way, a serious breach to start chanting four more years on the floor of the house, totally inappropriate. we are very excited about how we are going forward to honor our promise to the american people. we are going to lower the cost of healthcare by lowering the cost of prescription drugs and on our path with hr 3, benefits from the people should know that it will lower the cost of prescription drugs for them. it will also increase benefits and medicare, dental, hearing and visual, vision and expansion of medicare which is the biggest expansion since its inception, that that benefit will apply, not only to medicare, reduction in cost will not only apply to medicare but to all insurance plans for prescription drugs. we are very excited about hr 3. lower healthcare costs by lowering the cost prescription drugs and medical condition benefits. secondly, bigger paychecks go to build the infrastructure of america in a green resilient way. we though

trump has the unprecedented defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. president trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner aversive to the constitution in that the house of representatives has engaged in an inimpeach inquiry focus oden the solicitation of ukraine to -- the committee's undertaking the investigation serve subpoenas, seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry deemed by offices. president trump directed agencies, offices and officials not to interfere with subpoenas. he imposed the powers of the presidency and assumed on himself functions and judgments to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the house of representatives. one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. two, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the department of state, office of

of course as it has been said frequently, the house of representatives does under our constitution enjoy the sole power of impeachment. no one has disputed that fact. they have got the power, but that doesn't mean anything goes. it doesn't mean that the house cannot be called to account in the high court of impeachment for its actions and exercising that power. a question to be asked, are we to countenance violation of the rules and traditional procedures that have been filed screwed illicitly in prior impeachment proceedings? and the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee of the house of representatives compare and contrast the thoroughness of that committee in the agege of nixon. it's thoroughness in the age of clinton with all of its divisiveness, within the committee in this proceeding. a question to be asked to the house judiciary committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? did it carefully gather the facts, assess the facts before it concluded we need nothing more than the panel of very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both

house.e over in the a question to be asked -- in a fast track impeachment process in the house of representatives, persuade --jority did the house majority persuade the american people? case win overs the overwhelming majority consensus of the american people? convictast my vote to and remove the president of the united states when not a single member of the president's party, the party of lincoln, was persuaded at any time in the process? in contrast, and when i was here last week, i noted for the record of these proceedings that in the nixon impeachment, the house vote to authorize the .mpeachment inquiry was 410-4 in the clinton impeachment, -- 31ve, controversial democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. here of course in sharp contrast, the answer is none. it is said that we live in highly and perhaps hopelessly partisan times. it is said that no one is open to persuasion anymore. they are getting their news entirely from their favorite media platform and that platform of choice is fatally deterministic. decision ofthe decision-makers under oath who are bound by sacred duty by oat

to make up for this, the house of representatives abuse of power theory rests entirely on the president'subjective moaning. this very standard cannot be sustained. the house offers no limiting principle of what motives were allowed. so, under such a flexible standard, future house of representatives could impeach the president for taking action for what a majority thinks are the wrong reasons. the hous house also gives no gue whatsoever on whether the conviction rests on proving a single corrupt motive or whether mixed motives are under their theory. .. even after arguments had concluded, the house managers started repeating the terms bribery and extortion on the floor of the senate while neither terms appears anywhere in their articles of impeachment. impeachment. >> and the articles the house failed or did not see fit to incorporate itself. articles of impeachment should be moving targets and the aambiguity surrounding the abuse of power theory give this senator reason enough to vote not guilty. if we are to lower the bar of impeachment with the houses trying to do, we have to be clear

of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 25, 2020 at 9:38 a.m. that the senate passed, senate 995. signed, sincerely, cheryl l. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house for what ntil it -- purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have spoken in this chamber before about my father's american success story as an italian immigrant. today i rise to tell the story of another italian immigrant success story, my constituent's mother, rosa. rosa died unexpectedly this past christmas, two cheeks sigh shy of her 95th birthday. in 1955 she left italy with her husband and children leaving behind her friends and

and it's not unusual for the house of representatives to have its agenda as well. we have to win in certain articular areas. we're not about a popular vote in the country or in particular states in terms of the electoral college. we are district by district. and that's how we won last time. we demonstrated that we know how to win. our impetus in that victory continues. the momentum is there to help us win other positions as well. when we win, we put everything on the table, have a discussion, and see where we go from here. but it's not about causing any division as we go forward. unity, unity, unity. whoever our nominee is, we will support with respect to his or her position and hopefully with their respect for our positions as well. so we have made a decision to win, and as i say to the members, if you make a decision to win, you have to make every subsequent decision to win. no friction, no nothing. just stay on the path to victory. because it's so very important. our country is a great country. it's a great country. it's so resilient that it could even withstand

in its trial brief, the house of representatives argues there's no credible alternative explanation, hat's their words, for the president's alleged conduct. but once the senate heard from the president's counsel in defense, then all of a sudden, the house changed its tune. now even a credible alternative explanation shouldn't stop the senate from removing the president. reshaping their own standard mid-trial only serves to undercut their initial arts many and sim -- arguments. and simply asserting at least 63 times that i counted that their evidence was quote, unquote, overwhelming doesn't make the house of representatives' allegations accurate or prove an impeachable offense. even after arguments had concluded, the house managers started repeating the terms bribery and extortion on the floor of the senate while neither terms appears anywhere in their articles of impeachment. so you get down to this point. it's not the senate's job to read into house articles what the house failed or didn't see fit to incorporate itself. articles of impeachment shouldn't be moving targets like moving

exuberance -- but we will not allow any president to use that capitol, that chamber of the house of representatives, the people's house, as a backdrop for him. not all presidents have guests. that was not a state of the union. that was a state -- his state of mind. we want a state of the union, where are we, where are we going and the rest, not let me just show you how many guests i can draw and see how i can give a -- do it in your own office. we don't come in your office and do congressional business. why rue doing that here? when he start talking about someone with stage four cancer i thought he was -- i don't know what -- -- interior our country? in any event, i feel very liberated. i feel very liberated. i feel that i have extended every possible courtesy. i've shown every level of respect. i say to my members all the time there's no such thing as an eternal animosity. there are eternal friendships but you never know on what cause you may come together with somebody who may proceed at your foe right now. everybody is a possible ally in whatever comes next. e pluribus unum. our founders had dif

the house of representatives has the power. if they want to get something passed, they have to go through the house of representatives. they have to go back there. that's how the trade deal got done after the house of representatives made it better working with labor. you want to get something done on healthcare, the budget, he will eventually have to go back to the house of representatives to make something happen. >> martha: true. let me -- >> we'll have to wait to see what those dynamics are then. when the budget comes out, the numbers don't lie. they'll have to -- that's where the stark reality will be. that proof will be in the pudding. if they want to do something on healthcare and -- >> martha: all americans would like to see it happen on both fronts. one last question. during the course of impeachment, the president's approval rating went up ten points. that would lead to some frustration on the part of those this per sued it for whatever reason. what do you any about that? >> i saw that gallup pup -- poll. it's more hea

she is the first speaker of the house of representatives to have her words taken down by the house ofresentatives because she was too personal in her attacks against the president, which were unfounded. that hadn't happened in over 50 years in the house of representatives. she was the first. but this latest attempt embarrassed in the house of representatives in front of the world. the world was watching the president. he gave an inspirational, fantastic speech. and for her to give a temper tantrum, we don't allow that and nancy pelosi is not above the rules of the house just because she's the speaker of the house. >> laura: i want to set the stage for people about what happened in the state of the union speech versus what was said afterwards by the democrats and i think putting some of the comments side-by-side is instructive. check it out. >> your husband is back from deployment, and we couldn't keep him waiting any longer. >> it was a disgusting performance. absolutely disgusting. >> you will be heading to the school of your choice. [applause] >> don't tell me what you've done for t

our constitution gives the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment while the senate has the sole power to conduct a trial in the event the house impeaches the sitting president. we're now at the end of the impeachment trial of donald john trump. it is not the trial that many of us had hoped for. we had hoped for a fair trial. the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial has witnesses. a fair trial has evidence. i don't believe that history will be kind to those who have and continue to prevent the truth from coming to light during this trial. the american people deserve to know the truth. as does this jury, the members of the united states senate. president lincoln once said and i quote him, i am a firm believer in the people. if given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. thomas jefferson said something similar to that. if people know the truth, it they won't make a mistake. the same is true of the united states senate. if given the truth, we too can be depended upon to meet this crisis and do the right thing. i believe the truth wi

presidentt allow any to use that capital, that chamber of the house of representatives, of the people's house as a backdrop for him. constant guests? i was not a state of the union. that was his state of mind. of the union, where are we come out where we going not let me show you how many guests i can draw. let me say how i can give a medal of honor -- do it in your own office. we don't come in your office and do congressional business. why are you doing that here? quite frankly, when he started talking about someone with stage iv cancer, i don't know which stage john lewis cancer is out but when he talked about someone's cancer, we thought he was going to talk about john lewis. a hero in our country. come on. in any event, i feel very liberated. i feel very liberated. i feel that i have extended every possible courtesy, i've shown every level of respect, i've said to my members all the time that there is no such thing as an internal animosity. there are eternal friendships but you never know on what calls -- because he may come together who you may perceive as your foe right now. every

he defied lawful subpoenas from the house of representatives. the president's counsel defended their actions by laying out their case of the president's actions. they pointed to the unclassified transcript of president trump july 25 call with newly elected ukrainian president zelensky to make the argument that trump discussed burden sharing with other european countries and a mutual interest in rooting out corruption. they presented views that the president was not given due process in the house of representatives and highlighted the expedited nature of the proceedings. finally, they argued if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected and reelected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. over the long days and nights of the trial i have listened to both sides of this trial present their cases. i remain undecided on how i will vote but these points i believe to be true. first, it was not a perfect call. newly elected president zelensky was no experience -- with no ex

have to take whenever the house of representatives is on a different political party. our founding documents for the duly elected presidents to serve with not at the pleasure of the united states congress let the people decide for go one year ago at the south eastern conference a friend turned to me and said i am very unhappy with you for voting against the president. she was referring to my vote against the president's decision to spend money congress had not appropriated to build the border wall. i believe then and now that the united states constitution gives to the congress the exclusive power to appropriate money. this is what creates by not allowing and in that case the executive has too much power. for or against the president i was arguing for the united states constitution. unless you were not convinced i was confronted by a neighbor who said she was angry and crushed and i've had more witnesses than the impeachment trial. i replied i was not voting for or against the president but for the united states constitution which in my view does not give the senate the