president, at this time, pursuant to rule iii of the senate rules on impeachment and the united states constitution, the president pro tempore emeritus, the senator from iowa, will now administer the oath to the president pro tempore, patty murray. mr. grassley: will you place your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of >> do you solemnly swear that -- to the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and all ofra us so help you god? >> i do. the president pro tempore: at this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with article i, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution, and the senate's impeachment rules. will all senators now stand and raise their right hands? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the j

of the united states constitution, that section of article 2 reading that the president, vice president and all civil officers at the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason by bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. republican senators making about nine different motions to try to debate that to try to delay the trial eventually those two votes occurred on two articles of impeachment on those points of order. by senator chuck schumer majority leader, and the impeachment trial ended. it took about three hours total. this is david in frenchlink, indiana, republican line david good evening. caller: good evening thanks for taking my call. i'm not going to take very long to describe what i saw today. the dismissal of the two impeachment charges without one minute of listening to evidence. senator lee made the appropriate speech. this was all to say biden's chances to win the election that's all it was totally political. blew by the constitution we live in a banana republic. thank you. >> that's david sherry in pennsylvania line for dem

every poll shows that the overwhelming majority of americans believe it's part of the constitution of the united states and support it as being part of the constitution of the united states. so we have the american people on our side. it's urgent that we get this done. it's been over 100 years we've been -- not me personally but we've been fighting to get this as part of they have -- as part of the constitution with the ratification of the women's right to vote 104 years ago, we've been working on this issue ever since. and we've got to complete the job. it's urgent today. why sit urgent today? because we have runaway courts. we have runaway courts that are coming up with absurd interpretations of our constitution. we need a stricter interpretation as it relates to the rights, the equal rights amendment. and that's what it will give us. yet the dobbs decision puts a a big spotlight on this. but we're seeing other decisions that are eroding the rights. i never thought i'd see this. you know, the dobbs decision erased rights that were embedded for 48 years. giving women the right to control their own des

the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article 2, section 4 of the united states constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. the presiding officer: under the press depths and -- precedents and practices of the senate, the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order. the chair therefore under the precedence of the senate submits the question to the senate. is the point of order well taken? >> this quorum call continues. we're waiting for center speaker you are hearing the roll call of the names of the united states senators as they go through this quorum call, even though there's obviously a quorum on the floor due to earlier productions of impeachment trial. sey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. >> explained we are and why this is a quorum call despite what we heard from senator schumer not too long ago. >> basically to buy time on the senate floor some republican senators can figure out how to respond to this move right here. schumer is raising a point of order that the first article of impeachment is unconstitutional. because it does not allege a high crime

the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section 4 of the united states constitution and therefore unconstitutional. >> madam president. >> under the president and practice of the senate the chair has no power or authority to pass on point of order the chair under the president of the senate submits the question to the senate is the point of order well taken senator from utah is recognized. >> as long as the majority leader was moments ago making this particular point of order of the impeachment article article one refers to the willful defiance by secretary mayorkas of the law and making that to article one and the reasons articulated by the senate entrance editors. he is far wrong with respect to article two article two accuses him of making false statements this is a violation of section 1001. a felony offense. if this is not a high crime and misdemeanor what is. if this is not teachable what is. what precedents will be -- we need to address this and discuss it. >> in closed session. i move that the senate proceed closed session to allow for deliberation on the ver

level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the united states constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. >> under the presidency and practice of the senate, the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order, the chair therefore under the precedence of the senate submits a question to the senate is the point of order well taken? the senatoror of utah is recognized. >> as long as the majority leader was moments ago in making this particular point of order after article one of the impeachment articles,rt article one remember refers to the willful defiance by secretary mayorkas in the law. as wrong as he was in making that, and he was very wrong for the moments articulated a moment ago from the senator of texas, he's even far more wrong because article to accuses him of knowingly making falsert statements. the violation a felony offense if this is not a high crime and misdemeanor, what is? if this is not impeachable, what is.ce we need to address this in closed session and for that reason, madame president, i moved that the senate proceed

and anyone who cares about the united states senate and about the united states constitution should demandthat a trial be conducted. the american people deserve a trial and i would encourage egg in any media ask yourself, why is chuck schumer so terrified to have a trial on what's happening on our southern border? and the answer is he cannot defend it. he desperately wants to keep it hidden in secret from the american people. >> first of all, thank you, senator marshall, for sponsoring this press conference. thanks all of youou for f coming here. i want to think the legal rights of a conference with that of laying out the case of why we must hold a trial. i'm going toi' make the practicl case. the reason chuck schumer wants to table it is this chart. i was with president trump last week trial than with him. of course we talked about the border and ushered in this chart that i've been developing since i was chairman of homeland security probably in 2014 and beyond, just updating in monthly. the disaster that was deferred action for childhood arrivals which sparked this massive under a biden

united states senate. in 2024, he intends to nuke the impeachment clause of the united states constitution. and make no mistake if this precedent is set, it will not be the last time that it is used. if and when donald trump wins in november and god forbid democrats have the house, they will impeach him again and probably again and again and again. and whatai he's deciding is the senateat no longer has to try impeachment's, but instead can hide behind procedural games. anyone who cares about the security of the country should oppose what he's doing and vote to convict anyone who cares about the united states senate and constitution should demand that a trial be conducted. the american people deserve a trial and i would encourage everyone in the media ask yourself why is he so terrified to have a trial on what is happening in our southern border. the answer is he cannot to defend it and desperately wants to keep it hidden and secret from the american people. >> thank you for sponsoring this press conference and thanks all of you for coming here. i want to thank the legal mind is for laying o

level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the united states constitution which is therefore as a constitutional. i don't how he gets there. can't get there except by sheer force the wages and by sheer force produced simple majority votes from senators. declaring the impeachment equivalent of defining a tale of a dog to be a leg. what i found even more stunning as stunning as the first move was, and as disappointing as it was a simple majority of united states senators often the same political party i would add, not my own is somehow managed to outdo that one. bite later making the same port of order with respect to article two. arguing a point of order impeachment article two that arises not to the of high crime is misdemeanor. it is therefore unconstitutional. let's remember what article two was about. charge secretary mayorkas knowingly making false statements to congress as congress was carrying out its oversight responsibilities to testify under oath to congress. now, unfortunately we never got to see or hear evidence on this. we were not presented wit

level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the united states constitution t. and is therefore unconstitutional. >> under the precedents and practices of the senate the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order by the chair therefore under the precedence of the senate submits the question to the senate is the point of order will taken? the republican leader is recognized. the clerk will call the rule. >> 's quorum calls continues in the impeachment trial of alejandro mayorkas we are waiting for saturday to speak. you are hearing the roll call of the names of united states senators as they go through this quorum call. even though there is obviously a floor due to earlier production of the impeachment trial as we await a member of the senate to speak we are going to talk with the hilt newspaper watching this as well. alex joining us on the phone. good afternoon. explain week where we are and why this is a quorum call despite will be heard from senator schumer not too long ago? >> and basically to buy time on the senate floor so republica

this is not like some amendment this is the united states constitution in 240 plus years. the consequences ought to become inserted with the action and at this again is short of ending the filibuster. there's nothing you can do to diminish this from the constitutional responsibility. the impeachment is something we are supposed to do at that trial so my personal view is there ought to be a cost so we will see. have you spoken to anyone by pushing this to monday you haven't spoken to anyone to say i'm going to vote to not table. the benefit of the delay is we have a chance if you want to go back and write an article about whether your linkedin pay is holding you back, you can do that. and getting rid of the filibuster this goes to the heart of the united states senate. i happen to think and i think my colleagues agree that talking about it for a few days might take the constitution and turn it upside down and might be arise thing to do. you know as well as i do that we have some free range chickens and they wander off and sometimes we can't catch them. i am just telling you

everyone agrees that the constitution gives congress the power to impeach and remove a sitting cabinet secretary. now, madam president, listen to me carefully on this. the united states senate has the right and the responsibility to hold this trial. yet, senate democrats want to ignore our chamber's history and forfeit our constitutional authority by tabling or dismissing these charges without even considering the evidence. without even considering the evidence. americans need to hear what i'm about to say, even if my democratic colleagues won't listen. let me say it again. a majority of the duly elected members of the united states house of representatives who represent all of the communities across america spent months investigating the allegations against secretary mayorkas. they spent months drafting the articles of impeachment. and a majority of the house then voted yes to bring two very serious charges. the senate democrats are now treating those charges, those articles of impeachment, like spam that landed in their in box. americans, however, are not nearly so sanguine about the border crisis that has brought death, drugs, violence, chaos, criminals, and mayhe

institutional interests of the senate and the role that it plays in the sacred order created by the united states constitution. when the articles of impeachment arrive, we have a job to do. the constitution and our rules and our precedents make that abundantly clear. to ignore the evidence before us is to betray the trust of those who sent us here. there's no doubt at this point that the invasion at the southern border has inflicted indescribable, incalculatable pain on so many americans who are obligated to figure out who is responsible and hold them accountable, beginning with secretary mayorkas. i urge each of my colleagues to oppose this shameless effort to side step our doing and by so doing subvert the constitutional order. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. >> this week is the opening of the impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas only the second cabinet member in u.s. history to be impeached by the house. wednesday, house impeachment managers led by homeland security chair green delivers two articles of impeachment to the senate refusing to comply with the immig

constitution. we expect -- we respect the three branches of government. we respect the united states house of representatives. we respect them enough to do our job. we held every single time. except when the public official quit. now, in the next two days, you're going hear one of my colleagues the majority leader say we don't need to hold a trial. he's going say the evidence is insufficient. it's not worth our time. i want you to think for a moment. just ask yourself this question. how does he know the evidence isn't sufficient? how does he know? he hadn't heard the evidence. what you're about to say folk it is breaks my heart to say this. over the next two days what you're going see it, is not about the evidence. it's not about them all. it's not about the process. it's not about but should be 250 years of precedent in history. it's about law, gut, politics. raw, gut politics. some of my colleagues in this body do not want us to talk about the border in an election year and we all know -- >> without objection. >> critical under foreign surveillance act, set to expire in two days. t

united states. article two, breach of public trust. the constitution provides that the house of representatives, quote, shall have the sole power of impeach ifment, end quote, and that civil officers of the united states including the secretary of homeland security, quote, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, end quote. in his conduct while secretary of homeland security alejandro n. mayorkas, in violation of his oath to well and natefully discharge the duties of his office, has breached the public trust in that al a alejandro new mexico major has knowingly made false statements and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the department of homeland security herein after referred to as dhs principalically to obfuscate the results of his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law. alejandro n. mayorkas engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. one, alejandro n. mayorkas knowingly made false statements to congress that the border i

level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the united states constitution which is therefore as a constitutional. i don't how he gets there. can't get there except by sheer force the wages and by sheer force produced simple majority votes from senators. declaring the impeachment equivalent of defining a tale of a dog to be a leg. what i found even more stunning as stunning as the first move was, and as disappointing as it was a simple majority of united states senators often the same political party i would add, not my own is somehow managed to outdo that one. bite later making the same port of order with respect to article two. arguing a point of order impeachment article two that arises not to the of high crime is misdemeanor. it is therefore unconstitutional. let's remember what article two was about. charge secretary mayorkas knowingly making false statements to congress as congress was carrying out its oversight responsibilities to testify under oath to congress. now, unfortunately we never got to see or hear evidence on this. we were not presented wit

. >> at this time pursuant to rule 3 of the senate rules on impeachment and the united states constitutione president pro tem emeritus, the senator from iowa will now administer the oath to the president pro tem, patty murray. sfwr. >> do you solemnly swear in all things related to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do the president pro tempore: at this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chambe . ambe >> at this timer i will administer the oath to all in the chamber, clause 6 of the constitution and the senate's impeachment rules. will all senators now stand and raise their right hands. do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> the clerk will now call the names in groups of four. senators will present themselv

at this time pursuant to rule three of the senate rules on impeaching she meant in the united states constitution, the president pro tem emeritus the senator from iowa, will now administer the oath to the president pro tem, patty murray do you solemnly swear and all things ever caning to the trial of impeachment of a halland, ella handrail in mayorkas secretary of homeland security. >> now pending you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws. so help you god. >> i do yeah. >> at this time, i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with the article one, section three, clause six of the constitution, and the sentence imposed each moment rules will all senators now stand and raise their right hands do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas secretary of homeland security, now, pending you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god the clerk will now call the names in groups of four senators will present themselves at the desk to sign the oath b

the poll shows they believe it is part of the constitution of the united states and supported it to be part of the constitution of the united states, so we had of the american people on our side. it's an urgent that we get this done and we've been working on the issue ever since he and we've got to complete the job, but it's urgent today because we have runaway courts coming up with insertta interpretations. the dog's decision puts a spotlight on this but there are other decisions eroding the rights. i never thought i would see this. the decision erased rights that were embedded for 48 years for the right to control their own destiny and healthcare decisions. but we have equal concern about what these rights would be for pregnant women and for violence against women, in regards to workplace safety issues. the list goes on and on that we need to have the protection of the strict interpretations as provided by the equal rights amendment and part of our constitution, so we need that extra protection in the constitution. so where are we? the legislation i introduced over a decade ago to re

the 6 amendment to the united states constitution. absolutely guarantees. >> that any defendant has a right to a fair trial when you intentionally exclude people based on their race, their religion, their gender or any protected category, it violates the constitution. price says that review is now underway and family of those harmed by those on death row. >> are now being informed of what's going on. she says the alleged misconduct is not limited to just one or 2 prosecutors and dikes case is not the only one that suggests similar misconduct. now prices, she doesn't know how many of the 35 cases involve misconduct, but she says she believes more than one. she also says there may be none death penalty cases. that may also be implicated in this misconduct probe. live in the newsroom, dan kerman kron, 4 news. thank you, dan. a san francisco man is dead after drowning in a reservoir over the weeuend. >> it happened about 2 o'clock saturday afternoon at the woodward reservoir in stanislaus county. authorities have identified the victim as

support for their students' rights of freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the united states. constitution, so there's a indeed a sense of determination. i would say carry in there. they don't appear to be going anywhere. and more importantly, forecasts, importantly, the police are not moving anyone. hon. not trying to preach these barricades organizers of protest say that the police have not been aggressive in any way. the most aggression that they get are from the jewish to and fro scientist, calendar protesters, some of whom have set up a very loud blaring sort of sound system and are playing hebrew songs over in the distance. just as of way apparently of trying to annoy the, the pro palestinian demonstrators from thanks so much indeed for that update there . a lot of this surveys that george washington university in washington dc. i don't know what's happening there at the month. well, we've been here for several hours and we know the full day for the 36 hours. oh certainly the the people who are in the courtyard, the numbers are down significantly. there's maybe only 15 still in the c

charges of interfering in the 2020 presidential election under the first amendment to the united states constitutionp insisted that

united states senate than today. what we just witnessed was a travesty. it was a travesty to the united states constitution. and it was a travesty to the american people. and it is important to understand why i'm going to accurate account is with us. that will be zero. other than the presiding officer somebody has to preside. not a single democrat center chose to come to this t floor ad listen to one word of evidence. when it comes to the constitution joe biden and alejandro mayorkas defying federal law. ignoring the text of the statute were deliberately releasing criminal illegal aliens over and over and over again. that is justt hunky-dory. you cannot impeach him for that part every democrat just voted. by the way, every cabinet member you have been given a blank slate. ignore the law. but democrats are in charge of the senate the entire cabinet could ignore the law. it is no longer impeachable. in democrat wonderland. openly defies the law. by the way, every democrat just voted that way but they did not hear one word of argument. the majority leader did not stand up and say here's the reason why it is ok

cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. >> welcome back america, this is the united states constitutiont party and the media despise and wave it around as they try to destroy it, you heard about the fifth amendment and i want to read you a segment out of the fifth amendment no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of the law. i think we need to amend that don't you know person should be denied life liberty or property without due process of law unless his name is donald trump. because the full power of the federal government the full police power of the federal government the full power of the federal and state local judiciary the full power of the so-called department of justice and the prosecutor of their investigators in the full power of the invisible hand the svengali behind it all, joe biden who knows how to work the levers of power she's been there for 50 years are aimed at destroying one man, donald trump, here's the problem, you have to come to 70 million of us to get there i will see you next time on "life libert ♪ ♪nd >> trey: good evening,

americans' data of the united states is already protected by the constitution. there is nobody on this house floor who would argue that you don't need a warrant to look at americans' yacht in the united states. this amendment -- data in the united states. this amendment, i encourage everyone to read it, applies to the data we collect in spying on hamas, hezbollah, the chinese communist party. to give them a warrant, to give them constitutional protections means that they are opened for business. the day after this passes, and we go blind, the communist chinese party has a complete pass to recruit in the united states students to spy on our industry and our universities. hamas and hezbollah have a complete pass. we will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks within the united states. currently we keep america safe by spying on our adversaries. do not give our adversaries constitutional protection. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. himes: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield mysel

united states on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining in the united states. his refusal to obey the law is not only an offense against the separation of powers in the constitution of the united states, it also threatens our national security and has had a direct impact on communities across the country. despite clear evidence that is willful and systemic refusal to comply with all have significantlygn contributed to unprecedented levels of illegal immigrants -- entrance, the increased control of the southwest border by drug cartels andd imposition of enormous coss on states and localities affected by the influx of aliens, alejandro n. mayorkas has continued in his refusal to comply with the law and thereby acted tori the grave detriment o the interest of the united states. alejandro n. mayorkas engaged in course of conduct through the following means. one, alejandro n. mayorkas willfully refuse to comply with the detention mandate set forth in section 235b to a of the immigration and nationality act requiring that all applicants for admission who are quote not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted shall be detained for removal proceeding, end quote

now, mccloy, not the president of united states, but he said, if if it is a question of safety, the country or the constitution of the united states, where the constitution is just a scrap of paper to me, that's a dangerous statement from someone who's an assistant secretary of war, who's in the process of recommend to the president of the united states to incarcerate everyone of japanese descent from the west coast to the united states. and we go on to take 120 some odd thousand people of a japanese ancestry, about two thirds of whom are american citizens, are not charged with a crime, not convicted of anything forced to sell a lot of their belongings at, firesale prices and relocate into camps which are effectively prisons where they stay for the next couple of years. all kind of on this same principle is all done by executive order. initially by roosevelt. later, it's instantiated statute as well. but a president taking it upon himself every similar to lincoln's belief that in a time like this you can do anything you want perhaps is a little bit dangerous. 21st century we have another going on and there's a

united states are not alone, right? to the united states. their constitution was rich and i think around the same time as the french constitutional french revolution. so there was a, do united states were very important, but there was a whole tendency around the world of different alignment away from the feudalism to and a meritocracy, to the industrial capital. there's some debt. no, no. and, and the united states are a very prominent play around it, but, but again, they're not alone. and this is a very different world in the sense that in the, like a 1000 to years ago or so, and a stage good, full and, and that was it very usually it wouldn't have major repercussions. and it was the one exception. 11 important period when there was a cascading collapse of a lot of states dislike difficult and they grown sage collapse. and now of course we have are very connected to the world. so you said it's a very different situation. and on the other hand, i think the tensions that, that you see rising are comparable to 1000 to boss. but you mention like a stress environm

united states keeping president donald j. trump in office against the will of arizona voter and depriving arizona voters of their right to vote and have their votes counted under the united states constitution. arizona constitution article 7. donald trump appears later in the indictment. in the detailed description of the crimes as unindicted coconspirator one. quote. defendants attempts to declare unindicted coconspirator one and pence, the winners of the 2020 presidential election contrary to voter intent and the law involved numerous other charged and uncharged coconspirators. the names of all of the defendants who are residents of arizona were revealed publicly in the indictment but the names of seven other out of state defendants are still redacted since they have not yet been served with the indictment or weren't yet served with the indictment. when it was released. mark meadow's name was redacted in the indictment. but it could not be more obvious in this line that begin withs the redaction and says redaction was unindicted coconspirator one's chief of staff in 2020. the other trump associates indictable. the indictment says defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to keep un

i'll tell you, maria, this week was a bad week for the united states constitution. we had the alejandro mayorkas trial that was supposed to happen this week, and senate democrats, every democrat refused to hold a trial and essentially nuked the impeachment proviolations -- provisions of the constitution. and also this week we saw both the house and the senate refuse to enforce the fourth amendment's warrant requirement for searches of american citizens on fisa. and i think both of those the in the same week is really a bad week for the constitution. maria: well, and not to mention this two-tiered system of justice. you have got opening statements in the so-called hush money trial tomorrow for president trump. and i should point out we've got breaking news from tony bobulinski, he is actually filing suit against your colleague in the house, representative jamie raskin. tony bobulinski says jamie raskin as has repeatedly lied about the plaintiff, tony bobulinski, implying and directly stating that bobulinski has lied to congress and is a trump campaign plant. so you'v

it was not a moment for it was a moment for protecting the united states constitution and for really exercising the co for for a co-equal branch of government to exercise its constitutional prerogatives. if it believed that the president had served in violation of his constitutional duties and obligations, the impeachment tool, as barbara jordan explains, is meant for exactly to answer exactly this kind of situation. and they took it very, very the house judiciary ultimately does approve three articles of impeachment against richard nixon. and that, of course, sets in motion his decision in is in part part of his decision to resign from office. so in this never reached the floor of the house because president nixon resigned before or after the committee vote. and the republicans on the committee, for the most part, voted for the resolution as well, didn't they? they did. and there were some powerful speeches made by republican members of the house judiciary committee, really, that describe lived there. but they how they had approached this very solemn task and why they were casting th

as to why we must make sure we are enforcing and adhering to the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. host: the decision yesterday try to put this on the floor angered some republicans, marjorie taylor greene, who already was upset about a possible move to put aid to ukraine on the floor, has the vote to vacate the chair. what do you think is the status of mike johnson serving as speaker? guest: right now he is the speaker of the house. he is in a difficult position and in slim majority. the republicans don't walk in lot -- lock step. we are independent-minded minded and independent thinkers and that is in contrast the democrats. i think people make much too big of a deal of this. the reality is this is the way a democratic republic is supposed to work. we are supposed to have debates and discussion and be fighting for the issues important to us and our constituency. this is the way governing is going to be if you are going to make sure people all have a voice and is the way government should operate. we should not be making these decisions behind closed doors and announcing to the m

the united states constitution being tested in new and dangerous ways.n thursday former president donald trump and his lawyers went to the u.s. supreme court to double down on claims that a president possesses sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. basically according to the former president's lawyers his immunity is so absolute they argued, that even assassinating a political rival could be within the official powers of the presidency. >> if the president decides that his rifle is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? >> it would depend on the hypothetical. we can see that well could be an official act. >> well could be an official act? just imagine how ridiculous that sounds here for a minute. because, if you apply trump's lawyers' logic they are basically saying, that the current president, joe biden, could kill his political opponent. i don't know, maybe someone like donald trump, who he believes possesses a clear and present danger to our demo

to the level of high crime or misdemeanor as required under article 2 section 4 of the united states constitutionnd is, therefore, unconstitutional. >> the house alleged that mayorkas broke the law and violated the public trust. republicans rage that democrats terminated the trial before house prosecutors presented their arguments. >> what we have witnessed today is truly historic. this has never occurred. we have now set a precedent that effectively very arguably effectively immunizes from impeachment making a false statement to congress. >> the 20-second impeachment trial in american history was not only abbreviated but if it becomes the first impeachment proceeding to end without rendering final judgment against the accused. even democrats who sometimes align with the g.o.p. wanted a fast conclusion. >> i want to thank the republicans for bringing the jerry springer show over to the senate. you know, we all know it's over. any time i can spend less time in a suit and listening to bad performance art, i support that. >> the g.o.p. tried to extend the trial but democrats blocked them; however, r