mr. schumer: you can't say despite what i said, that's whole case. reporter: to point number two -- do you think there'll be an agreement like in 1999. . schumer: in 1999, it was a different case. there were a lot of reasons they didn't want someone like monica lewinsky testifying. it was related to what the questions might be about, that the whole country including children might be watching, it was different. reporter: if the house democrats feel they have enough to impeach in the house why isn't that enough for the senate. mr. schumer: there are some who may think it's enough, we have to wait and not prejudge the case. there are many who said these are serious charges. i'm not sure there's enough factual evidence to merit impeachment. these people know better than anybody else the facts, there's no reason on god's green earth why they shouldn't be called and testify unless you're afraid of what they might say. reporter: if you can't reach an agreement, will that -- mr. schumer: i'm hopeful. leader mcconnell has said he's willing to sit down and tal

mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last night the house of representatives voted to impeach president donald trump. it is only the third time in our nation's history that the president of the united states has been impeached. the articles of impeachment charge that president trump abused the powers of his office by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections, not for the good of the country but to benefit himself personally. the articles also charge that the president obstructed congress in the investigation of those matters. together, these articles suggest the president committed a grave injury to our grand democracy. the conduct they describe is very much what the founders feared when they forged the impeachment powers of the congress. the founders, in their wisdom, gave the house the power to accuse, the senate the power to judge. we are now asked to fulfill our constitutional role as a court of impeachment. now that the house of representatives has impeached president trump, the nati

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: well, i just -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, sir. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i just listened to leader mcconnell's lengthy response to my letter proposing the outlines of a fair impeachment trial in the senate. leader mcconnell was apparently upset that i sent him the letter on sunday saying the first step was for the two leaders to meet and then discuss a resolution. well, if we were allowed to show a video here on the senate floor of the republican leader's appearance on sean hannity's program last week, it would expose the fallacy of his argument. leader mcconnell unfortunately skipped his first step when he began publicly talking about the rules of a senate trial telling hannity that he'd be taken cues if the white house and his idea for how to conduct a trial long before any conversation which he still hasn't had with me. my letter was intended as a good-faith

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: before i begin -- are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the qowrk be vitiated. mr. schumer: i want to express deep sympathy of the families in jersey city, which left one fallen police officers, detective shields, and several bystanders. my heart goes out to their friends and family today. local and federal law enforcement must investigate quickly and professionally so we can implement the best responses. we're not sure yet if this was motivated by hate or if it was criminal in nature. but whatever the answers, rest assured, the response must be swift, sure, and strong. now on impeachment. yesterday the house judiciary committee announced two articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. the articles allege the -- that president trump abused -- biewfd the office of the presidency by -- abused the office of the presidency by soliciting appearance of -- they also allege the president obstructed congress

mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last night the house of representatives voted to impeach president donald trump. it is only the third time in our nation's history that the president of the united states has been impeached. the articles of impeachment charge that president trump abused the powers of his office by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections, not for the good of the country but to benefit himself personally. the articles also charge that the president obstructed congress in the investigation of those matters. together, these articles suggest the president committed a grave injury to our grand democracy. the conduct they describe is very much what the founders feared when they forged the impeachment powers of the congress. the founders, in their wisdom, gave the house the power to accuse, the senate the power to judge. we are now asked to fulfill our constitutional role as a court of impeachment. now that the house of representatives has impeached president trump, the nati

mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: the house has released evidence it has on the impeachment of president trump. the report asserted that the inquiry has uncovered a month's-long effort by president trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election, unquote. going on to say, quote, the president placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the united states. those are extremely serious charges, and the conduct they describe is undoubtedly worthy of congressional investigation, which is precisely what the house impeachment inquiry is designed to do. whatever your party affiliation, it is up to us in congress, and particularly in the senate, to examine the evidence, remain impartial, and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. but at the moment, too many members of the president

mr. schumer: i just listened to leader mcconnell's lengthy response to my letter proposing the outlines of a fair impeachment trial in the senate. leader mcconnell was apparently upset that i sent him the letter on sunday saying the first step was for the two leaders to meet and then discuss a resolution. well, if we were allowed to show a video here on the senate floor of the republican leader's appearance on sean hannity's program last week, it would expose the fallacy of his argument. leader mcconnell unfortunately skipped his first step when he began publicly talking about the rules of a senate trial telling hannity that he'd be taken cues if the white house and his idea for how to conduct a trial long before any conversation which he still hasn't had with me. my letter was intended as a good-faith proposal to kickstart the discussions that leader mcconnell has so far delayed in scheduling. i still expect we'll sit down and discuss trial parameters despite his public appearances on fox news. but let me say this. i listened to the leader's speech. i did not hear a single sentence, a sin

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: we're not in a quorum, are we? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. schumer: we learned yesterday that two -- i learned yesterday that two of the innocent victims in the shooting in jersey city earlier this week are from my hometown, my home burrow. and that the kosher deli where they were killed in all likelihood was targeted as part of a hate crime. this morning i stand in solidarity with the jewish communities of new jersey and new york. as they confront the antisemitic poison. and i stand in sorrow at the loss of innocent lives from my community. may their memory be a blessing and salutes to the brave police officer as well who fell in the line of duty. trying to apprehend these brutal thugs. now on impeachment. the house judiciary committee will continue today its markup of articles of impeachment against donald trump. the articles charge that president trump abused the office of the presidency by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections to benefit

mr. schumer also called for the senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the event at the heart of the charges, his campaign to enlist ukraine to investigate his political rivals. >> i haven't seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn't testify or these documents be produced unless the president has something to hide and his supporters want that information hidden. the president hasn't offered a single exculpatory bit of evidence that refutes what's in the house impeachment charges. they've not refuted them. what is the president hiding? why doesn't he want the facts to come out? >> what is the president hiding? that's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. from "the new york times," michael crowley, and cnn washington correspondent for politico anna clamor, a.b. stoddard, "new york times" magazine mark liebowitz, and raul reyes is here. let me start with you, michael crowley. we pulled from "the new york times" report. just talk about this letter. this letter landed with a little bit of wind at the backs of democrats in terms o

mr. schumer: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: my friend has covered up all that he hasn't done on making drug cost lower. 99% of what the public wants is not being allowed on the floor by his leadership when he was the whip, and now he wants to get well with a bill this small. open up the floor for debate. we'll debate all the big things that really reduce prices of things that people want, and we'll debate his bill. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would point out to my friend from new york, i'm not the leader, the floor manager of legislation. that's up to senator mcconnell, the senator from kentucky. obviously because of foot dragging on important things like appropriation bills, usmca, the important trade agreement with canada and mexico, and now the impeachment mania that's consumed the house of representatives, that's crowded out our ability to get other things done. hence, my loss of patience after waiting sin

mr. schumer: now, mr. president, in response to the limited set of relevant witnesses i proposed for a potential senate trial earlier this week, the republican leader gave a lengthy speech on the floor yesterday and another speech today. in neither of those speeches could the republican leader offer one salient argument as to why the witness i proposed, the witnesses i proposed, all senior trump administration officials, shouldn't be allowed to testify. instead he made what are in my view irrelevant and incomplete comparisons to the 1999 clinton trial. when faced with the fact that it's only fair to have these witnesses who were eyewitnesses to the major, major allegations against the president and who have not testified before come, the leader can't talk about 2019. he has to go back to 1999 because he has no good argument as to why they shouldn't testify. we're not asking to be dilatory. we're not asking for a list of 4,000 witnesses. we are simply asking that those who know best the truth come and talk

mr. schumer has called for further witnesses, which has angered some republicans. senate majority leader mitch connell did not rule out hearing from other witnesses today, but he insists the trial must be fair. sen. mcconnell: all i'm asking ofchumer is that we treat trump the same way we treated clinton. we had a procedure that was approved 100-0 -- schumer voted for it -- to go through the erening arguments, to have a written questiond, and then based upon that decide what nada: for more on the impeachment still make my spoke earlier with alexis simendinger, national political correspondent at "the hill." you covered the clinton peachment. you heard what mitch mcconnell said about treating president the same as president clinton. how would you compare how the processes have played out? alexis: it is interesting he is talking about the idea that senate republicans want fair is hefair and comparing it to clinton experience, which is quite different from what we are experiencing witpresident ump. the chief difference is that president clinn's impeachment and acquitt

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senators from south carolina, tennessee, washington state, and alabama -- well, but -- be allowed to speak for brief moments on this great job they have done and i be given back my leadership time at 10:50. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i want to thank the democratic leader for his courtesy and support on this. he and senator mcconnell made it possible for us to do this. i will limit my remarks for a couple of minutes and then to senator murray and then senator scott, senator coons, senator jones is here, and we'll finish by 10:50. madam president, it's hard to think of a piece of legislation that would have a more lasting impact on minority students in america than the bill that the senate just passed. i believe in doing so we have improved the provision in the house bill that was sent to us, that's what we did. we amended a house bill

mr. schumer: madam president? are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for years president trump has speculated wildly about a, quote, deep state conspiracy, unquote, against his presidency. based on the claim that the f.b.i. opened an investigation into the president's campaign with political bias with the explicit purpose that they were out to get him. yesterday the department of justice inspector general released a report that puts this conspiracy theory to bed. the report conclusively debunks the baseless conspiracy that the investigation into mr. trump's campaign and its ties to russia originated with political bias. in fact, the report quotes the f.b.i. deputy general counsel as saying, quote, the f.b.i. would have been derelict in our responsibility had we not opened the case. let me repeat that from the number two counsel at the f.b.i. the f.b.i. would have been derelict in our responsibility had we not opened the case. donald

mr schumer is calling for four witnesses to appear, including the former national security advisorjohns braced for a decisive few days in which president trump may become only the third american president in history to be impeached. and a new report, health democrats are alleging that the president's abuse of power includes criminal bribery. democrats charged the president withheld military aid to getan the president withheld military aid to get an investigation intojoe biden and his son. and trucked in congress by not allowing key witnesses to testify. if the house impeaches the president, the senate will hold a trail in early january the minority leader chuck schumer has written a letter with a list of witnesses he wants to call, including acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security adviserjohn bolton.|j haven't seen a single good argument about why this witnesses shouldn't testify or these documents be produced, unless the president has something to hide. senate leader mitch mcconnell wants to protect vulnerable republicans up for re—election and seems to favour

press conference that they did not witness is they did not my request well welcome to the club mr schumer that's exactly what's happened over here for the last 3 months so today we're going to talk a lot about impeachment we're going to talk a lot about a president and we're going to talk about 2 articles of impeachment. abuse of power because they can't actually piano anything factual basis on him the president did nothing wrong in this it. and then it don't talk about obstruction of congress you know structure of congress as i've said before is like a petulant children saying we didn't get our way when we didn't ask the right way and we didn't actually go after and try to make a case you know why madam speaker the clock and the calendar are terrible masters and the majority will own that problem today because of the clock in the calendar facts don't matter the promises to the base matter and today is a promise kept for the majority not a surprise a fact and without a reserve i mean research gentleman from new york and speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume gentleman is recogn

mr. schumer said back in 1999 during another impeachment process. >> this is not a criminal trial. this is something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. people will call us and lobby us. it's quite different. david: so back then he saw the difference between a jury trial and impeachment trial. >> i am sure he did, because this is a political process. it's why, david, i believe the senate should have a long trial. if we ever want to avoid being in this mess again and putting our country through the hell that democrats have put us through the past several months. we need a long trial in the senate. bring the hog out in front of the american people and slaughter it, right then and there in a public full long hearing so the american people can see everything that's tonight, to see the guts and the gory details of what led to us this point to insure we never get back to this point again. chuck schumer doesn't want that. he doesn't want the republicans to call joe biden and adam schiff, so many others who deserve to be subpoenaed a

mr. schumer said that this is a strong case for conviction and, i note, that democrats, the democratic basee've heard just now and you saw the poll that the master host put up, that in fact the democrats 'support has not waned. it is still there. >> greg: you do sense a feeling of the charlie brown trying to kick the ball because you can see it on twitter. the hopes aren't as high as they used to be. they are just, like, maybe this will come. but they know they've been screwed. kate : delma >> katie: the fisa stufd saying that president trump is saying about all this stuff but adam schiff has far less credit ability when it comes to this with than president trump. >> juan: if the ig report has been good news for trump, imagine. "time" magazine named their person of the year -- no, it's not me. it's not jesse. although dana got it right. we will tell you who it is next on "the five." with sofi, get your credit cards right by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. and get your interest rate right so you can save big. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k. get a no-fee

mr. schumer says we should do and that is let's go through and let's start the trial, let's have opening arguments, get things going and let the senate decide then, not now and whether there should be witnesses for a need for additional evidence in there. the challenge on both sides of this is that both democrats and republicans have raised tens of millions of dollars off of impeachment as a campaign wedge issue. that's a real challenge. >> why shouldn't those who were in the room be there testifying? what is the intellectually honest answer to that question? >> did they do a lousy job laying it out? why do you have to have a whole new trial? >> it is not the responsibility of the republicans and ascended to clean up the mess the democrats created in the house by not getting the evidence, not going through the due diligence process to get those to testify to work it through the coats as they are supposed to, it takes time to go through all of those processes and because they were in such a rush to get to the articles of impeachment even so that nancy pelosi asked for the articles to be d

mr. schumer. >> yeah, that's correct. 's not going for the schumer proposal, which of course was to hear from four witnesses who had not come forward before the house impeachment inquiry because the white house had blocked their testimony. mick mulvaney, mick mulvaney, robert blair, as well as john bolton, the former national security adviser and a current top official at the office of management and budget, michael duffy. those are people -- some of them got subpoenas but the democrats decided not to go to court in the house to force their testimony because the democrats were concerned that it would just drag on for months and month in court, and it would ultimately be part of an effort in their view to obstruct congress, and they believe they had more than enough evidence to impeach the president on what they already had, so they made the calculation to move forward on impeachment. what the republicans are trying to do is use that now against the democrats in saying because you didn't go that route, we're not going to do

mr. schumer.hat's exactly what happened over here for the last three months. >> dana: what about the decision to not allow witnesses from the republicans and now having to pay a price for it? >> katie: they've given chuck schumer nowhere to go and they made him dominate his demands look really silly when adam schiff gave no wiggle room to republicans, damaging their credibility on the issue. i think when the president talks about due process and fairness and republicans talk about it, everyday americans can relate directly to that. they do not want to be falsely accused of a crime or doing something they did not do or being removed from the position civil because people don't like them or have of this agreement their policies. that's what democrats are severely underestimating the blowback of their next year. if democrats really had a solid argument on this, there wouldn't be democrats changing their party to republicans, and there wouldn't be more defections today after all the evidence that's be

mr. schumer, that's exactly what's happened over here for the last three months. so today we are going to talk a lot about impeachment, we are going to talk a lot about our president and talk about two articles of impeachment. abuse of power because they can actually pin anything of factual basis on him. the president did nothing wrong in this issue, and they are going to talk about obstruction of congress. obstruction of congress, as i've said before, is like petulant children saying we didn't get our way when we didn't go after it and try to make a case. you know why, madame speaker? the clock in the calendar are terrible masters and the majority will not problem today because to the clock and the calendar, facts don't matter. their promises to the base matter and to date there is a promise cap for the majority. not a surprise, a fact. and with that, i reserve. >> gentleman from new york. >> madame speaker, i yield as much time as i may consume. madame speaker, the house of representatives has now consider two articles of impeachment against president trump. the

mr. schumer -- decades ago from what he's arguing now. what is its relevance? let's take it on with an influential house player next. ee of yourself. but nature's bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and well-rested. because hey, tomorrow's coming up fast. nature's bounty. because you're better off healthy. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this

mr. schumer, that's exactly what's happened over here for the last three months. so today, we're going to talk a lot about impeachment. we're going to talk a lot about our president. and we're going to talk about two articles of impeachment. abuse of power, because they can't actually pin anything of factual basis on him, the president did nothing wrong in this issue. and they're going to talk about obstruction of congress. you know, obstruction of congress, is like petulant children saying we didn't get our way when we didn't ask the right way and didn't try to make a case. you know why, madam speaker? the clock and the calendar are terrible masters. and the majority will own that problem today because to the clock and the calendar, facts don't matter. the promises to the base matter. and today is a promise kept for the majority. not a surprise. a fact. and with that i reserve. >> the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, the house of represen

mr. schumer also would like to call a bunch of witnesses like mic mulvaney, john bolton, people like thatwhat we saw in the house is the minority really doesn't get to pick what happens. ainsley: there is a congressman in new jersey, one of the two that did not vote for impeachment. did not vote for the impeachment inquiry. and now there is talk that he is discussing -- he did discuss with the president whether or not he is going to switch parties now. his name is jeff van drew, represents a portion of new jersey. and he is disgustin discussing becoming a republican. brian: lost five staffers because of it. the democrats are open to it. understand he is checking his conscience just like they told him. to say check their conscience and do what's best for them. the party is not going to be whipped into a vote. congressman steve cohen was very understanding. let's listen. >> i think jeff van drew is making a serious mistake. i understand he feels if he votes against impeachment he will lose in the democratic primary and turn and to go and be a republican is kind of strange. i have heard of r

mr. schumer. ow the same process that senator schumer thought was good enough for president clinton, he doesn't want to afford president trump. go figure. look, most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. he is simply trying to lock in live witnesses that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. for one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers, hours of questions from senators, and a failed motion to dismiss. he favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the senate even has articles in hand. moreover, presumably it will be the house prosecutor's job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. so why does the democratic leader here in the senate want to pre-determine the house's witness request for them before the house has even impeached the president? might he just might he be coordinating these questions with

mr. schumer: i think the trial should be focused on the facts that the house presented not conspiracy theories that some established liar puts forward and then someone says let's hear if that conspiracy theory is correct which has no relevance to the facts here. we ought to stick to the facts. if there are other witnesses who might have witnessed what happened, who might have very strong evidence on the facts that the house presented, i'd certainly want to hear who they are. thank you, everybody. >> here on c-span, we take you live to the house rules committee in just a bit they're going to be preparing the rules for debate for the 2020 spending measure, the measure funding the federal government with the deadline of friday at midnight. we will cover the rule committees meeting tomorrow, that will focus on the two articles of itch peachment, our live coveraging beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. on your screen is tom rice, republican from south carolina. they're wrapping up testimony on proposed legislation dealing with state and local tax provisions. live coverage on c span. mr. rice: i don't k

mr. schumer requested. i have never been in a courtroom where the accused can block witnesses from testifying or prohibit prosecutors from asking witnesses questions. no port would allow a trial to proceed this way and neither should any member of the senate. you remember kamala harris was the attorney general for california. vaughn in ohio. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am a little confused. they are going through this whole impeachment thing, but yet, hillary clinton and the dnc did the exact same thing when they hired a foreign agent from another country to investigate trump, which led to the russia probe. is this not the cattle -- kettle calling the pot black? host: lamar, what do you think? few commentsast from the last few people was spot on. i enjoyed listening to them, this one guy is confused to the point he is ready to change parties. i am not saying both parties are 100% correct, but they should not hold up things, they kind of don't want to rush things, but something l

mr. schumer votes no. mr. berman votes no. mr. boucher votes no. mr. nadler votes no. no.scott votes no.watt votes ms. lofgren votes no. ms. jackson lee votes no. miss waters votes no. mr. meehan votes no. mr. vet -- mr. delahunt votes no. mr. wexler votes no. no. rothman both mr. barrett votes no. mr. hyde votes aye. chairman hyde: the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 21 aye's and 16 no. thearticle is agree to and committee stands at recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. you have been watching some of the debate from december 11, 1998 with the house judiciary committee. in 1998red all of this and 1999 for national journal. the final vote in the house was what? >> the house judiciary committee voted 21-16 to embrace the idea of impeachment. that was a partyline vote on the committee. centerpiece of the debate among house republicans and among members led by henry hyde. >> the center of the discussion was how the president of the united states violated his oath oathfice by lying under and obstructing justice. the basically violated honor of his office. h

mr. schumer votes no. mr. berman votes no. mr. boucher votes no. mr. nadler votes no. mr. scott votes no. mr. watt votes no. ms. lofgren votes no. ms. jackson lee votes no. miss waters votes no. mr. meehan votes no. mr. delahunt votes no. mr. wexler votes no. mr. rothman both no. mr. barrett votes no. mr. hyde votes aye. chairman hyde: the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 21 aye's and 16 no's. and the article is agree to and the committee stands at recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] steve: you've been watching some of the debate from december 11, 1998 with the house judiciary committee. you covered all of this in 1998 and 1999 for national journal. the final vote in the house was what for the do sherry 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 am

mr. schumer, the democrat going after mr. the senate trial upcoming after the house impeachment. at other than that, some really important trade nuances under the radar, including on the new nafta, a raging debate out of mexico. francine: we will have a lot more on that and the impact it could have on the emerging market stocks. let's get to bloomberg first word news with viviana hurtado. viviana: this week a crucial test for more than two dozen vulnerable democrats are they represent districts president trump won in 2016. a number have not decided how they will vote. the democratic majority in the house hinges on keeping those trump leaning districts index your's election. boris johnson is on a collision course over the future of scotland. scottish leader says there should be another referendum on independence. she says london cannot imprison scotland against its will, but johnson's team ruling out another vote. a huge transaction in the food ingredients business. aternational -- reaching agreement for dupont's nutrition agr

mr. charles schumer, for one minute. [gavel] >> the gentleman will suspend for a minute. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. the argument made by the gentleman from texas, the best argument the majority has made thus far, focused on upholding the rule of law, but a hallmark of rule of law is proportionality of punishment. if the president were caught, if any president were caught speeding at 100 miles per hour, he would have to be disciplined so that others would not feel reckless speeding was permissible, but we certainly wouldn't use the political equivalent of capital punishment, impeachment, to discipline that president. on the other hand, if the president accepted a bribe, there would be no doubt he should be impeached and all 435 of us would vote for it. lying under oath about an extramarital relationship requires significant punishment such as censure, but not the political version of capital punishment, impeachment. my colleagues, the rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime. allow us to v

mr. schumer: i just want to thank my colleague from maryland for his diligence in this issue of utmost importance to the integrity of our elections, to our national security, and basically for trust in government. if american people feel that a foreign country can interfere in their elections and particularly that their president is okay with that, i worry and pray for our democracy. so for the past few years senate democrats have sought to pass legislation to improve security of elections. there are many ways to do this. hardening our election infrastructure, shoring up cyber defenses, requiring paper ballots, but one of the most important has been advocated with passion and vigor by my colleague from maryland. and that is, deterring foreign adversaries from trying to interfere with elections in the first place. for the past year democrats have been pushing legislation that would do just that. by instituting mandatory crosscutting sanctions against any adversary, russia, china, iran, north korea that even dare to attempt to meddle in our democracy. it's a bipartisan idea. senators van -- senator

mr. schumer. look, she is the constitutional office, the speaker of the house.se has approved rules. she is going to abide by procedures. what you heard yesterday. i listened to 90%. what you heard is that the democrats believe this is a constitutional issue. this is about our co-equal branches of government and now the legislative branch, the article 1 branch must decide how to deliberate and how to proceed now that the house has decided to impeach. >> bill: sthe has i have a spring in my step and the courage of our caucus is something she pointed out. a delay of a day or week may not be a big deal but if it goes on won't it be seen as more partisanship on behalf of what just happened? >> the political calculus was already settled. we knew the political risk in even taking steps during the impeachment inquiry. i do believe at this point the speaker needs to be clear. she needs to outline exactly how she is going to proceed. but she is also waiting on the united states senate to also give her some ideas. >> bill: when the reporters pushed her on those questions

mr. schumer and mr.art is the part you point out, willie, in terms of is it going to be a fair trial, is there a -- are we sending it to simply a deep, dark hole in which the senators will not or the senate will not in a fair and impartial way as they will pledge consider whether or not the facts put our democracy and our elections at risk. >> as you point out, leader -- majority leader mcconnell has said, "i am not an impartial juror." he said it on the record in interviews. he said, "yes, i am working with the white house and, yes, i want this to be quick, i know we have the votes." with that in mind it is hard to imagine a world where what you and the democrats are talking about ever exist. with that in mind, is there a chance the articles of impeachment never go to the senate? >> i don't think that's the case. i hope it is not the case. the founders set up this process, probably one of the two most important acts that the congress of the united states can perform, one, of course, sending people to wa

mr. schumer says rotten deal, sell-out. where do you stand? >> i stand with baambassador lighthizer.s the greatest trade negotiator on the planet, the best one we have ever had. look, for the first time we now have verifiable enforcement of a deal with china. china is notorious, the communist party of china is notorious for cheating and lying and reneging on its commitments. for the first time, when we see, when a company believes that its intellectual property is stolen or china is not living up to one part of this agreement, they don't have to go to china as they used to. they go to the u.s. trade representative for filing their complaint. then we have a fast track arbitration system to resolve the complaint so we're not tied up for several years while the company goes bankrupt while it's being ripped off by the chinese. this is an ongoing problem. look, this does not solve all the problems, never will, because we are dealing with a regime that is intent on destroying american companies, so let's be clear here, this is a great deal but don't lull yourself into believing that now we

mr. schumer does, he want a bunch of people who were not called by adam schiff and nancy pelosi.nt about why these witnesses shouldn't testify. i told leader mcconnell i was ready to discuss trial rules. instead of talking to me, he spoke publicly about what a trial may look like. and said he was taking his cues from the white house. it was very partisan. very slanted. and very unfair. brian: wow, by the way, stephanie grisham tweeted out after this hope the fairness will prevail after dems impeachment report in the middle of the night. thankfully the people of this country continue to seat partisan sham that it is. something tells me could have waited one day. is he meeting with mitch mcconnell today. instead i have got to tell everybody how unfair the process is. he doesn't even know what the process is. steve: is he negotiating. brian: why don't you wait it will today? ainsley: keep in mind he just said he doesn't like the fact that mitch mcconnell is working with the white house. steve: right. ainsley: back in 1999, listen to what he said. >> any fair process would be consult

mrs. pelosi and chuck schumer are free to argue that the process is rigged. is she right? >> that is just comical. it was a broken process, fraudulent process in the house. this thing proceeded 20 times faster than bill clinton's impeachment proceeding and they were breathless with their sense of urgency, donald trump is an essential threat to the future of the country, the constitution and when they got the vote she said we will hold it for a wild. they have no credibility on this whatsoever and everyone can see that. it really is a charade and for them to be bemoaning lack of due process or procedure or protocol is just comical. >> how nervous do you think 31 democrats from district donald trump won are at this stage with this impeachment being past and kind of hanging in limbo at the moment. >> i think they are in a precarious political situation and the have been put there by their leadership and the radical socialist fringe in their party, the squad and all the rest pushing impeachment so aggressively since the day donald trump was elected. they put folks in swing dis