raskin. >> well, first of all, i'm moved for your statements and also by your work for democracy and for freedom and anti-corruption in europe. and i know that's something that has been very important to you. the president essentially empowered and outsourced an tler alternative channel to the regular state and security counsel. and rudy giuliani as you say was at the heart of it. we have lots of testimony from witnesses who said whenever the president got some kind of report on ukraine he would say talk to rudy. talk it to rudy. in other words rudy has the franchised on ukraine. want we note what rudia wanted to do. rude no now puts himself front and center in the campaign. >> on fox news this morning. >> he put himself front and center in the campaign to smear our ambassador, the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, fighting corruption. who was one of the world's leading anti-corruption fighters. and she understood that ukraine had a chance with the election of president zelensky. instead of bolster

raskin. >> thank you very much for raising this important point, mr. hastings. dr. fiona hill, leading russia expert, who figures importantly in this whole matter, has testified before in committee -- and it's completely uncontradicted and unrefuted, that this crowdstrike story about ukraine being the one that attacked our election in 2016 is russian disinformation. the president there was essentially just repeating russian disinformation and propaganda. either waitingly or unwittingly. it seems he thought he had something there but that's what he was repeating. there is nothing behind it. it's been completely debunked and discredited. >> um-hum. >> but what makes me suspicious, mr. hastings, is that he decided to tie that in with his other plan. >> okay. >> which is to get president zelensky to come and point the finger at joe biden and say this is the guy we are investigating. you talk about national security and how national security was compromised. and obviously america is a country that

raskin. just in terms of the completeness of this document because i think that this document even with things that are not transcribed is a pretty damning piece of evidence against the president. and i think mr. mulvaney's comments a month later saying, oh, we do this all the time and "get over it," that, too, is damning, but the president says i would like you -- this is right after mr. zelensky says "we're ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, we're almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes." the president's next words are -- our president -- "i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country's been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about. it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowdstrike, dot, dot, dot." gentleman, in your experience, what does "dot, dot, dot," mean? mr. raskin, i'll start with you. >> what do ellipses mean? >> yes. >> something's left

raskin votes ay. ms. demings votes ay. mr. correa votes ay. ms. scanlan votes ay. ms. garcia votes ay. mr. nagus votes ay. ms.,mcbath votes ay. mr. stanton votes ay. ms. dean votes ay. ms. escobar votes ay. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. gomer votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe votes no. ms. robie votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesko votes no. mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong votes no. mr. steube votes no. chair nadler: as every member voted he wishes to vote? >> chairman. may i ask how i was recorded? >> you are recorded as no. >> i want to make sure. chairman nadler: the clerk will report. >> there 17 a -- chair nadler: the article is agreed to. the question now is an article two. impeaching president donald trump on obstructing congress. the cleric will call the role. >> mr. nadler votes ay. ms. lofgren votes ay. ms. jackson lee votes ay. mr. cohen votes ay. mr. johnson of georgia votes ay. mr. deutch votes ay. ms. bass

raskin. he's not only a valued member of this committee, but also the judiciary and oversights committee. in addition, congressman raskin is a constitutional law professor. so he has a unique understanding what we're talking about here today. i appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning. i want to welcome back ranking member collins, former member of the rules committee. someone who i don't often agree with, but someone who i respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution. having said that, i now will turn this over to our ranking member, mr. cole for me remarks he wishes to make. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin by reciprocating personal and professional respect for you and the other members of the committee. this is a day where we're going to disagree and disagree strongly. it is, as you referenced, manier chairman, a sad day. a sad day for me personally, for the rules committee, for the institution of the house and for the amer

raskin. mr. raskin, did president trump solicit ukraine's interference in our country's 2020 election. >> it is overwhelmingly clear that he did. >> did president trump solicit this foreign interference in order to obtain a personal political benefit? >> he absolutely did. >> did president trump condition the release of taxpayer money appropriated by congress on president zelensky announcing an investigation into president trump's political opponent. >> all of the evidence we have says that he did. >> did president trump's actions undermine the national security of the united states and that of a key ally, namely ukraine? >> i believe that they did. ukraine had been invaded and attacked by russia. there had been more than 13,000 casualties in that war. the president was desperate, the president of ukraine was desperate to get security assistance and that was provided by congress. congress decided that this money was a good investment to defend a besieged ally that we needed to contain the con

raskin the same question. was the president's call with president zelensky perfect, as the president has said? and was it appropriate for him to ask another country to investigate an american citizen? >> there was nothing wrong with the call. when you look at it, again, i'm frankly the last -- the problem we're having right now is exactly the last 15 minutes of this. great or fatory on things that have nothing to do with impeachment. let him answer that question, i'll get back to it later. everything has been thrown out here, exactly the problem we've had in the discussion. this idea of -- in fact we've disproven the facts. i can yell, i can talk about about both of them. the problem here is this is the very problem we have, and i'll just address one thing, or if you want me to switch right now. >> that's fine. i'm looking at the president in the transcripts, he says "i would like you to do us a favor, though." >> lieutenant colonel vindman said it was perfectly okay for the president to ask for a political --

raskin said there's plenty of fairness in this process. my question was how are the american people advantaged by mr. collins getting absolutely no witnesses before the committee and the white house getting absolutely no witnesses in front of the committee. the answer is mr. woodall, this wasn't intended to be a defense for the president. >> i clearly didn't make myself clear. the president and mr. collins could have called any of the witnesses who appeared, any of the 17 sworn -- >> any of your -- >> it's not yours or mine. they're american citizens. >> these are the -- >> the social security -- >> reclaiming my time. >> let me say we can't speak over one another because the stenographer can barely keep us because we all talk so fast. if we're talking over each other. i caution everybody, the witnesses and members of the committee to ask a question and let the witness answer. >> and i'm hamstrung, mr. chairman, but the fact that mr. raskin isn't the decision maker on these issues. and again, to mr. collins point about the clock being the

raskin. >> i just wanna say, nothing strikes me as more conservative, than want to conserve the constitution, and the bill of rights,. and the political order that has been quest to us by the framers. and the conservative tradition is a great tradition, in america, like the liberal tradition, at the heart of the liberal is liberty. and liberals have every reason to stand by the the constitution, just like progressives, people to look for progress, they have reasons to rally around the constitution. we are not one party, were not one belief system, where not one race, one ethnicity, but we have one constitution. in our country we got a cling, really closely to our constitution. and i know that we are all going to agree, in the end, but i think that if we are all constitutional patriots, will be a able to see our way through our darkness this dark moment. >> okay, all these that you just mentioned the, republicans the great guys. he's a good guy. just one difference. they don't wear pants. curr

raskin. he is not only a valued member of this committee but also a -- the judiciary and oversight committees. in addition, he is a constitutional law professor so he has a comprehensive and unique understanding of what we are talking about today. i appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning. i also want to welcome back ranking member collins, a former member of the rules committee, someone who i don't often agree with but someone who i respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution. having said that, i will turn it over to our ranking member, mr. cole, for any remarks he wishes to make. >> thank you. let me begin by reciprocating the personal and professional respect for you and the other members of this committee, as well. because i do think very highly of each and every person on this committee, particularly of you, mr. chairman. this is a day where we will disagree very strongly. as you referenced, it is a sad , for thee personally rules commit

raskin just brought up is an interesting point. is it okay if you're running for president that you can't be investigated? even if you did something overseas. so if you're running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits according to mr. raskin's argument for the united states government to investigate that. that's the argument he just set up. i think you need to be very careful with that argument. >> again, i mentioned this in my opening statement. the frustrating thing is what seems so obvious to so many of us about improper behavior, we can't even get -- i look at our former colleague charlie dent. he was absolutely exhausted by the president's behavior. another colleague of ours, david jolly, quote, we're witnessing an impeachable moment. congressman of washington said, certainly there was some type of quid pro quo. former south carolina republican bob english who served on the judiciary committee during the clinton impeachment said last month in a tweet, without a doubt. if barack obama had done the

i've been very impressed with rwithra with raskin. i think raskin brought the two together. he understands the constitution, he understands the politics and he also understands how to communicate. i thought this was actually -- maybe not just because i'm a nerd. maybe. >> you're in good company. >> but i think today was probably the best installation so far for arguments for and against impeach many. >> in addition to the substance that we heard, the reason for this is because we don't know yet tomorrow how long the debate is going to be for each article of impeachment, when they're going to occur and so forth. is to that really is what this rules committee, what any rules committee meeting on a procedure is, is to set those parameters. we still don't know what's going to happen. >> that's what's sort of interesting, that they finish this portion, is that we still don't actually know what details they're going to hammer out for tomorr tomorrow. and while representative raskin was able to hammer out the substance that goes into the impeachment articles, mr. collins used it as

raskin? aye. >> aye. demmings votes aye. >> aye. >> ms. garcia? >> aye. >> aye. >> ms. mcbath votes aye. mr. stanton votes aye. mr. dean votes aye. miss my personal powell votes aye. ms. escobar votes aye. -- mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. showbiz -- mr. shaaban is votes no. votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. riegler's -- mr. reckless votes no. ms. robie votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. miss lesko votes no. mr. rest and dollar -- russians all are votes no. r votes no.hale mr. armstrong votes no. mr. steube votes no. >> has every member who has wished to vote voted? how is the gentleman recorded? >> mr. gomer to his -- gohmert is recorded as no. mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 knows. -- no's. >> impeaching president trump for obstruction of congress. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nablus votes -- mr. nadler votes aye. ms. jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen votes aye. mr. johnson of georgia votes aye . .r. deutsch votes aye ms. bass votes i --

raskin, i saw you scribbling furiously while mr. collins was testifying, i don't know whether there something you wanted to respond to. >> my friend speaks very fast so it's hard to keep up with everything he is saying. is a couple of things. it's all right. i'm from massachusetts and people say the same thing about my accent. i give you credit, you are making an effort at the beginning and so was i. they accused me of the same. he raises some really important points and i love the chance to briefly address them. one thing that we've been hearing is that we didn't charge crimes and in some sense, that duplicates a basic confusion that people have about what the process is. we are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal to send to jail. that's not what we are doing. we are members of congress working to protect the country against a president who is committing high crimes and misdemeanors that his constitutional offenses against the people of the country. lots of the conduct that we plead in our specific articles alleging abu

raskin. mr. raskin, did president trump solicit ukraine's interference in our country's 2020 election. >> it is overwhelmingly clear that he did. >> did president trump solicit this foreign interference in order to obtain a personal political benefit? >> he absolutely did. >> did president trump condition the release of taxpayer money appropriated by congress on president zelensky announcing an investigation into president trump's political opponent. >> all of the evidence we have says that he did. >> did president trump's actions undermine the national security of the united states and that of a key ally, namely ukraine? >> i believe that they did. ukraine had been invaded and attacked by russia. there had been more than 13,000 casualties in that war. the president was desperate, the president of ukraine was desperate to get security assistance and that was provided by congress. congress decided that this money was a good investment to defend a besieged ally that we needed to contain the continu

raskin. mr. raskin, did president trump solicit ukraine's interference in our countries 2020 election? >> it is overwhelmingly clear that he fit. >> this president trump's illicit this foreign interference in order to obtain a personal political benefit? >> he did. >> the president trump condition the release of taxpayer money appropriated by congress on president zelensky announcing an investigation into president trump's political opponent? >> all the evidence we have said he did? >> did he undermined the security of the united states and that of a key ally, but namely, ukraine? >> ukraine had been invited by russia there have been more than 13,000 casualties and that war. the president was desperate to get security assistance and that was provided by congress. congress decided that this money was a good investment to defend a beseeched ally that we needed to contain the continuing imperial designs of vladimir putin to expand russian power and to control nations in the neighborhood. >> on janua

raskin's, raskin, he did not collect the information until friday, december 6. does that comport with your memory? >> that is correct. >> judiciary committee majority, did it have access to any evidence be on the actual report from intelligence committee until the weekend before the judiciary committee considered articles of impeachment? >> well, i don't remember exactly what all the deposition statements were released publicly. i think some of them had been released publicly before that time. we can go back and check the exact chronology. >> sure. >> there are members of other -- >> certainly understand. it's my understanding chairman schiff did not transmit all the material collected by the intelligence committee to the judiciary committee. is that the case? >> it is still true to this day. >> would you not agree the house judiciary committee could've had the time and opportunity to review all that material collected by the intelligence committee. did you vote to have that time? >> we did not. it's a direct violation of house resolution 660. >> mr. cole, all i

testifying instead today is congressman raskin. he ses not only a valued member of this committee but also the judiciary and over sites committee. in addition congressman raskin is a constitutional law professor, so he has a comprehensive and unique understanding of what we're talking about here today. i appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning. i also want to welcome back ranking member collins, former member of the rules committee, someone who i don't often agree with, but someone who i respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution. having said that, i'll now turn this over to our ranking member mr. cole for any comments he'd like to make. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin by reciprocating personal and professional respect for you and the other members of this committee as well because i do think very highly of each and every person on this committee and particularly of you, mr. chairman, but this is a day where we're going to disagree and disagree very strongly. it

raskin. he is a fine attorney and it has been amazing to me throughout this year how the judiciary committee has sidelined fine attorneys like himself into not being part of the process. because he's a good one. as you said, he is a good constitutional attorney. i'm not a constitutional attorney. but i believe if you take another look at this, you can apply constitutional lenses, but it is a common sense lens. dr. cole made a comment, sai d it doesn't make sense. yes, it makes perfect sense look at the pattern. clearly thing that is a and present danger right now in this room is the pattern of attack and abuse of rules, and decisions, to get at this president. this started over three years ago, really the night he was elected. i said the other day in the committee hearing, about means and motive and opportunity. the opportunity for this day occurred last november when we lost the majority. they already talked about it for years and prior, and now we just bring it forward. we try a lot of diff

raskin and the chairman today about the founders.n you're in an impeachment, you pick the founders if you like this partisan or the other partisan. but they don't want to mention the very thing we're here for. i think it was '65, it was hamilton, when he said this. he said the founders warned against a vague, open-ended charge because it could be applied in a partisan fashion against a president. he called partisan impeachment regulated by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstration of innocence or guilt, the greatest danger. in addition, the founders explicitly excluded the return because they didn't want the whims of congress. so there will be a tenure to the pleasure of the senate. i would say it will be a tenure to the pleasure of the house. when we look at the discussions here, there are many things i want to talk about, but the first thing i want to do is when i talk about how we get to a certain place, proper process leads to proper results and we've not had any of that in this process. i've always said and

house judiciary member jamie raskin. congressman, thank you for joining us tonight. >> i'm delighted to be with you, chris. >> so we understand that there are discussions ongoing, that this reporting is accurate at this point but there may be an expansion thereof. is that your understanding, sir? >> yeah, i think there may have been a little bit of fake news in there before. i was not in a meeting with speaker pelosi. >> i never said you were. >> i was meeting with the judiciary committee. >> not you, okay. i just wanted to be clear about that. but, look, the judiciary committee was pleased with our proceedings today because the evidence that came out was just overwhelming and unrefuted and uncontradicted of the president's scheme to shake down the government of ukraine. and our gop colleagues wanted to talk about anything but the facts of the case. so they were, you know, upset

james raskin maryland district.ou go into this hearing room as a witness and then the members of the rules committee will be able to question you and the democrat. and what is that process like? >> well, have you ever had a root canal it would look very similar. i've been on the rules committee. it will involve questioning about each side republicans will try to make some of their points and ask questions that are in favor of the republican minority view. of course democrats will promote the majority view. it goes back and forth. it is a strange process. interesting for the american people to see. it's not a debate on the articles themselves except highlighting the points. they aren't changing the articles they're setting the parameters for debate. another opportunity to talk about the ridiculousness of the democrat argument and they'll try to make their case again. >> sandra: will amendments be allowed? >> no. >> bill: is mitch mcconnell negotiating with chuck schumer now or is that yet to begin? >> i think yet to

raskin, now. >> mr. raskin. no >> miss scanlon? >> no. >> the scandal, and no?. >> mr. morally? >> no. >> this morally, now. >> mister just don't? >> now. >> it's just tony, know. -- i'd like to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> this is a sad day, i don't think anybody on this panel that came here with the expectation that voting on impeachment for the president i think they all regret this. i think we all do. i want to tell you force that i'm very proud of this committee and very proud that the discussion has been civil and professional. i think the points have been fair by all sides and i think that's a credit to this community. i'm very proud of you, i think you have presided over this process which is a difficult one and one very clearly disagree and there is not much opportunity for agreement to arrive but you've given everybody an opportunity to half their say and allowed every question to be asked every, point to be made, we've made decisions at your prerogative as chairman and we respect that. but i think you've done so in a very fair and open and transparent matt

raskin. appropriate for the names and numbers to be released, and the targets of the investigation, and just swept up? >> yeah. i was not involved in that part of it, and so, forgive me again -- >> again, i understand. >> will the gentleman yield for a moment? we did have testimony on this. >> you will get your opportunity here. >> yes, the testimony was, i am not going to tell you. >> and how many times, mr. collins, the schiff report or hearsay statements were used as evidence? >> hundreds. >> well, only 54. >> when you take off one person talking off another person off another, it goes up. >> and so in these news report, the only -- >> i am sorry, if you could repeat? >> how many times in the schiff reporters, and the news reports of the only factual reporters? >> one. >> out of 56 times. and so, i understand that this was not transmitted to the judiciary committee until friday december 6th, and does that comport with your memory? >> that is correct. >> okay. so judiciary committee majorit

raskin seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, in law school, i teach my students to try to take the best argument of their opponents and not the worst arguments. and so i'm going to ignore all of the frivolous process objections about the rooms and the temperature and all that kind of stuff we've heard about. and i'm going to try to make what i think is the -- the best argument or reconstruct the best argument that's come out today. and i understand that our colleagues face a difficult task because 70% of the american people believe that the president has done something wrong in these actions of trying to pressure a foreign government to get involved in our election. and so they've got a problem there. and they've got another problem, which is that there is an overwhelming and uncontradicted body of evidence that the president did that. the president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance that we h

raskin, but i'm not sure he got that statement out without stumbling over everything. you cannot say -- talk about numbers, at some point, somebody with the ranking member's phone number had to look for the ranking member's phone number and look for mr. solo mon's phone number. this is what they don't want to deal with how bad it is screwed up. they want to gloss over process and how they did their investigation because the time and the calendar are terrible masters. this is what we're talking about. they wouldn't talk about it. to say that nobody was doing this intentionally, is just not being factually accurate. it doesn't happen on his own. >> i would ask both of you this question, who specifically matched the phone numbers of ranking member nunes and what method did they use? >> i have no idea. if i could say. >> certainly. >> in response to the line of questions, the president of the united states was given the opportunity to call any witnesses he wanted. any of the 17 witnesses who appeared before the house intelligence committee and oversight and foreign affairs

raskin? mr. raskin votes no. ms. demings? >> msno. >> ms. demings votes no. mr. correa? >> no. >> ms. scanlien? >> no. >> ms. garcia? >> no. >> mr. neguse? >> no. >> mr. neguse votes no. mr. stanton? >> no. >> mr.. stanton votes no. ms. steen? >> no. >> ms. steen votes no. ms. escobar? >> no. >> ms.ba escobar votes no. mr. collins? >> aye. >> mr. collins votes aye. mr. shabbot? mr. shabbot votes aye. mr. gohmert ? mr. gohmert aye. mr. jordan votes yes. platfo mr. buck? mr. buck votes aye. mr. ratcliffe? mr. clratcliffe votes yes. mr. gates? mr. gates votes aye. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes aye. ms. lesgo? ms. lesgo votes aye. mr. klein? >> aye. >> mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong? >> yes. >> mr. armstrong votes yes. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman. >> who seeks recognition? for what purpose does mr. biggs seek recognition? >> i have amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amen

well, i think the clips from congressman raskin and collins wind up pretty well.over this is an ongoing crime. it's not something that is over. to ensure that it stops happening and protect the integrity of the 2020 elections which are so close. this is why they're not waiting. you know, leader mcconnell said this is rushed. people like raskin will continue to move quickly because this is a crime that is happening in realtime. again, i think the republicans are going to really lean on this argument that this is rushed, that the democrats haven't done their homework and it's flimsy, with both collins and mcconnell said yesterday. >> danny cevallos here on set, thank you so much to you. >> sam brody in d.c. appreciate it. >>> still ahead, the president claims joe biden has lost a step. we're going to tell you what the former vice president's doctor is saying. your "first look" and "morning joe" is back in a moment. copd makes it hard to breath so to breath better i started once-daily anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say go this way i say i'll go my own way with

largely been issuing all along which is attacking the process while democratic congressman jamie raskin, pinch-hitting to judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler who had a family emergency. >> we present you not just with high crimes and misdemeanors but a constitutional crime in progress, up to this very minute. mayor giuliani, the president's private lawyer, fresh from his overseas travel, looking to rehabilitate once again the discredited conspiracy theories at the heart of the president's defense, admitted that he participated directly in the smear campaign to oust ambassador yovanovitch from her job. the president's continuing course of conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy in america. we cannot allow this misconduct to pass. it would be a sellout of our constitution, our foreign policy, our national security, and our democracy. >> now, what congressman raskin was referring to are two newly-published on the record interviews with rudy giuliani, where he admits efforts to oust the u.s. ambassador to ukraine were because he thought she would frustrate his effo

and former law professor jamey raskin one of the members of the committee today who was asking questions in the hearing with whom i think i have a disagreement, perhaps a minor disagreement about what this possibly means in the future. but it's law professor day in the hearing, law professor night here. >> with that kind of legal firepower on your show, i might take it easy in terms of picking fights. i'm just saying. >> now, rachel, to the unsung hero i mean hero of this hearing today. that was of course madeleine straser. she did not ask any questions. there's a shot of her. that's her long hair hanging down the side. she is the clerk, rachel, who called the roll call votes faster than anyone has ever called roll call votes in the house of representatives. 40 members of that committee. she did it at an incredible speed. she did the math of adding up votes faster than i've ever seen anyone do it. she's a junior member of the staff. she's a 2017 graduate of penn state. she's been with the committee just this year. madeleine strasser, i have never seen anything like it. >> saving the coun

joining me now is jaime raskin. he serves on the judiciary committee. thank you for being here. >> i'm delight. >> the reason this judge is saying this is a mute issue is because democrats with drew the subpoena of kupperman. do you wish in a way they had not so there was a possibility of getting more information that could have helped your case? >> no, i don't think so. we had 17 sworn witnesses under oath, all of whom essentially told different parts of the exact same story, which is the president engaged in the shakedown of president zelensky, in order to get him involved and embroiled in our presidential election by going after the bidens and reviving the discredited 2016 conspiracy theory it wasn't vladamir putin and the russians engaged against our campaign election it was the ukranians. it was these two bogus things president trump was trying to get president zelensky to do and lording over him hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance as well as the much sought after white house meeting zelensky wanted. the evidence was not just ove

go to raskin. most of these people they named already voted for impeachment before that phone call ever took place. almost half of the entire democratic conference that sits there today voted for impeachment before the ukraine call ever took place. now you don't get managers on the republican side but the president could have representation, that he will probably hire an attorney represent him. maybe he uses the white house but i believe he should have help from the house. these individuals that worked through this, that could give advice and others. i would go to john ratcliffe, former u.s. attorney that did an amazing job. i go to jim jordan, doug collins, these are individuals i would pull in at the white house. we've been at this. remember democrats have been trying to impeach the president for 2 1/2 years, changing whatever they could find every step of the way from the mueller report to quid pro quo, extortion, bribery, what they came up today with articles that meet nowhere, no facts but thr

raskin? all right. thank you. mr.n we -- took our recess to vote, you had just made what i considered to be a very profound statement that short. and it is that the president's action in your words were so wrong. and it's hard for me to believe that all of us here and in the previous committee and as this matter proceeds, do not all understand that but the die is pretty much cast. in this institution why are fon -- weare fond of saying aftr everybody is exhausted and talking about whatever the issue is, that everybody has said everything that needs to be said but i haven't said it yet. and that's what's going to happen with every one of the members of that -- come after me. but what is disturbing to me is that we like we are in alternative universes. not just here in the rules committee but in the judiciary committee, in the intelligence committee where i served for 8 years. and really in america. and it's regrettable that my friends, the republicans, are not addressing are defending the president's actions. what you

congress jamie raskin will join us ahead. four hours out from the house's deadline to get involved with the next round of house judiciary committee. will the president join the fight? you are watching "velshi and rule" live on msnbc. "velshi and rule" live on msnbc. ♪ there are things we would change about work. and there are things we wouldn't. ♪ when work is worth it. work is worth it. work can be closer to home... pay more... make us proud. careerbuilder. work can work. find your work at careerbuilder.com doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >>> we are counting down to a deadline now less than four hours away. president trump must decide whether he intends to have an attorney to represent him and what's left on the impeachment here. the president's council can call witnesses. the president refused to take part in the inquiry. nancy pelosi ordered committee chairman to draft the a

. >> jamie raskin? >> i have a lot of faith in the people. yeah. i think jamie raskin. and i'm not -- you know, advocating for anybody in particular. but when you look at the way chairman schiff has handled himself and people like jamie raskin and others who obviously have made big contributions to the total conversation. i think we have an incredibly talented group that can prosecute our case. but the specific group of members that would be assigned to that will, in part, have to do with the shape of the trial itself. if it's more about interrogating potential witnesses, then that would have an effect on who we put up as managers. if it is more of a philosophical or theoretical question of the constitutionality of this impeachment, obviously it's a different set of players. >> that's an interesting point. congressman, thanks for coming in. >> thank you, kate. >> appreciate it. out front next, joe biden says he will not testify at trump's impeachment trial. even if he's subpoenaed. >>> plus, the navy s.e.a.l. who president trump called one of our ultimate fighters, desc

joining us now, democratic congressman, jamie raskin of maryland.e, and the house oversight committee and teaches law at the american university law school here in washington. congressman, first of all, what's your reaction to today's vote? >> it was svery solemn, wolf. you feel the weight of the present, but the weight of the present, the past, and the founders and everybody who's fought for our democracy and votinging rights feel the weight of the future, future generations, kids, and grandchildren. to me, what it came down to is really this idea embodied in the first article of impeachment of abuse of power. that was one of the articles that was brought against richard nixon. nixon organized the break-in of one campaign headquarters to get dirt on his political opponent. donald trump has organized a break-in of our entire democracy, in order to plant dirt on a political opponent. and he used a foreign power to do it. so that escalates the stakes immensely. and then, of course, the president scrambled to cover up this original misconduct by blocka

these are words uttered by jamie raskin. he is sitting in for jerry nadler in the rules process that is under way right now. the rules committee is working right now to establish ground rules for tomorrow's historic debate on whether to impeach president trump for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. >> we have listened to the hearings. we've read the transcripts. and it's clear that this president acted in a way that not only violates the public trust, he jeopardized our national security. and he undermined our democracy. >> in 11 months, the american people are going to vote on the next president of the united states. why then are we plunging the country into this kind of turmoil and this kind of trauma now. when the voters themselves will resolve the matter one way or another. >> the president's aggressive and unprecedented resistance to congressional subpoenas for witnesses and documents is blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. if accepted and normalized now, it will undermine perhaps for all time the congre

jamie raskin is a collscholar o constitutional law. on him to draft those articles. up on the hill, i asked him what he is thinking right now in terms of what those articles would focus on and how many there would be. >> you know, i'm less interested in the exact number than i am in the kprecomprehensiveness of th story. i want us to tell a comprehensive narrative about the president's high crimes and misdemeanors. and i want us to be very precise and focused in our identification of the high crimes and misdemeanors. i think that all of the surrounding conduct in the events and the actions need to be in there. >> how much breadth? i know there is this debate. do you go back to the mueller report? do you focus oen this phone call? if those are the two extremes, where do you fall in how inclusive or how broad the article should be? >> this goes to the question of obstruction of justice. i think obstruction of justice has been part of modern presidential impeachments both nixon and clinton for an important reason. all criminals try to get

i think congressman raskin did a really good job arguing the need to impeach this guy. raskin cited a newly published article with "the new yorker" magazine in which giuliani admitted i believed that i needed yovanovitch out of the way so the president could continue his quest for political dirt. here we go. this is today. >> we present you with a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute. mayor giuliani, the president's private lawyer fresh from his overseas travel looking again to -- admitted he participated directly in the smear campaign to oust ambassador yovanovitch from her job. >> well, there he is. the congressman bringing it up today. he's a constitutional scholar and he brought it up today. the role his lawyer is playing right now trying to get dirt from ukraine. >> that's why the president is a clear and present danger and that's why it's important for the congress to check him. because unchecked he's going to continue to do this. and all that this is about -- let's get real here -- is about winning the 2020 election at any cost no matter what l

joining us now is congressman jamie raskins. thank you so much for making time tonight.y appreciate you being here. >> rachel, it's good to be with you. >> i have to ask just because this letter has just crossed my desk, tonight the impeachment investigation report prepared by the intelligence committee has been conveyed to your committee along with other materials, other record -- materials and records already released publicly, other records cited in the report and certain sensitive materials, which is a vague and very alluring description to a person in the news business. can you tell us anything more about what exactly your committee has just received? >> no, i haven't seen any of it, but the whole committee and the committee staff will be working through the weekend, and i'm sure that digesting these materials will be part of our work product this weekend. >> in terms of the way that your work process is going forward, speaker pelosi made this formal public statement that she's directing committee chairs to draw up articles of impeachment against donald trump. what

raskin: thank you. my good friend from arizona chides me for having described section 5 of the voting rights act as genius which is amazing to me because this has been a bipartisan national commitment and bipartisan commitment in congress since 1965 when it passed on a bipartisan basis, since 1982 when it was rethoffersed on a bipartisan basis, and since 2006, when president bush signed it as well and celebrated it. so we've had presidents bush, clinton or ba ma, a continuous array of presidents supporting it, and congresses supporting it. if you don't visit, here's what happens. the naacp legal defense fund testified to us about legislation -- successful litigation they had in texas against a restrictive voter i.d. law that had discriminatory racial impact, they won on section 2 but it was too late. who was elected in texas? a u.s. senator, all 36 members of of the house of representatives, a governor, lieutenant governor, and so on. the reason why section 5 is genius and we need to restore the precove

raskin, we're done listening. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for what purposes do you seek recognition? >> moosh to strike the last word. >> recognized. >> you know, let's go back. as has been stated today the constitution devotes only a few sentences to impeachment. i'm going to read one. it's article one section two. very last sentence. the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. as professor raskin just told us properly, the constitution uses the word "sole" only twice. sole, not shared. not shared with the judiciary. not shared with the executive. this means that we have the sole opportunity and obligation frankly to determine what evidence is necessary for impeachment. sole, not shared with the executive. think back. judiciary chairman peter rodino warned president nixon. under the constitution not within the power of the president to conduct inquiry into his own impeachment to determine which evidence and what version or portion of that evidence is relevant and n

and congressman raskin, a leading democrat on the judiciary committee, one that the democrats had represent in the rules committee, for these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach president trump two days before he was ever sworn into office. what we've seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of america. that is this legacy. any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, he judge and the jury. madam speaker, democrats haven't just failed on process, they've also failed -- failed on evidence. i heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but i haven't heard one member of this body dispute this simple fact -- president trump provided lethal aid to ukraine. it came before the call, it came after the call, and it continues to this day. president trump provided ukraine tank-busting bombs, the previous administration, they gave blankets. this is the truth. meanwhile, the democrats' case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. simply pu

judiciary committee jamie raskin and dug collins, a republican, will be testifying. raskin?s replacing jerry nadler, who is reportedly handling a family energy. they're setting the roadmap for what happens tomorrow when the full house takes up impeachment. right after opening statements, a round of questions to raskin and collins, it is kind of a free-for-all. you've got any house who can come and testify. it's an open invitation for whatever members want to make it. here to talk about that, democratic congresswoman norma to torres of california. thank you for being with us. >> it's my pleasure. >> before we talk about how this is going to go down, i want to get your reaction to what we just heard from senator mitch mcconnell, basically saying to chuck schumer we are not going to bring these witnesses that you've called for now if there is a senate trial here. >> i think senator mitch mcconnell has -- continues to regurgitate the president's wishes and the republicans' political theatre that they have engaged in the house. it's been very, very clear that every step of the wa

jamie raskin joins me next. >>> what are red state democrats going to do? the possibility of defections among the democratic ranks. >>> and we'll go live to a scene of a stabbing that targeted a rabbi's home during a hanukkah celebration in new york. the latest in a string of anti-semitic attacks. stay with us. acks stay with us for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been s

raskin? >> mno. >> ms. jayapal votes no. ms. demings votes no. mr. mscorrea votes no. ms. scanlon? ms. scanlon votes no. miss garcia votes no. mr. neguse votes no. ms. mcbath votes no. mr. stanton? >> no. >> mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean? >> no. >> miss dean votes no. miss mucarsel-power votes no. mr. sensabaugh votes aye. mr. chapot votes aye. mr. gohmert votes yes. mr. buck votes aye. mr. ratcliffe? yes. ms. roby votes aye. mr. gaetz votes aye. mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko votes aye. mr. reschenthaler votes aye. mr. cline votes aye. ms. armstrong votes yes. >> any members wish to vote who haven't voted? the clerkve will report. >> mr. richmond, you are not recorded. >> no. >> mr. richmond votes no. >> ared there any other member who haven't voted who wish to vote? the clerk will report.

plus former minneapolis fed chair president and former fed governor sarah bloom raskin whether today is the right one for the economy. josh brown of ritz wealth management joins us. >> if i could sum up his press conference, riveting look at my knuckles. at the edge of my seat there's a character in this novel called found ace he goes to the foreign planet, spends the whole week meeting with everybody and they're recording every second of him, cameras and mics and go and decipher what it all means it turns out he had all these conversations with top dignitaries and officials and said absolutely nothing. i think that's actually good we're back in that realm with our fed chair. it's a throwback in some respects there really isn't anything to say. he addressed the plumbing. we heard about the funding markets, short-term markets. great. not much ado about that lately anyway then they put out the 2020 3.7. the market is fine with that, perfectly fine dollar is down 0.4%. paul mccauley, michelle meyer, head of u.s. economics, david ze zervos at jeffries good afternoon to you all. paul, i'l

jamie raskin talked about this.line edited by the speaker of the house. talk a buiit about the effectiveness of this. she came reluctantly not willingly. >> anybody that has ever been following me on twitter knows i have gone after nancy pelosi over the course of months waiting for this moment where she was going to show why she was named speaker again. and she has now. and the idea here is that nancy pelosi, when she said many months ago the president is basically becoming self-impeachable, she was waiting for the ukraine phone call. she was waiting for this administration to become so emboldened that they were going to overstep their bounds. that they were literally going to hang themselves. so i think here, what's really exciting about where nancy pelosi is and where the female democrats are is that they are showing their power. all of the people that have testified in the hearings that have been substantial witnesses have been women. nancy pelosi here is saying, look, i was waiting for a stack of evidence. thing