on august 17, 19 98, william jefferson clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the united states. contrary to that oath, william jefferson clinton willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following. the the nation and -- nature and details of his relationship with a government employee. testimony perjurious he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him. three, prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action. and four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. in doing this, william jefferson clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and the justice of the manifest injury of the people of the united states. therefore, william jefferson clinto

personal gain nd exoneration impeding the segregation of justice in that n august 17, 1998, william jefferson clinton swore to tell the truth the whole truth and othing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the united states. jefferson to william clinton willfully false and m isleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following. ne, the nature and details his relationship with a subordinate government employee. wo prior families and misleading testimony he gave in action l civil rights brought against him. hree prior families and misleading -- prior false and misleading statement he allowed attorney to make and his corrupt efforts to influence the estimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. william jefferson clinton has undermined the ntegrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his acted in resident and a manner subversive of the rule manifest stice to the injury of the people of the united states. wherev for he warrants impeachment and trial and emoval from office and qualification to hol

b, william jefferson clinton wrongly took steps to delay the discovery of the truth. and c, inasmuch as no person is above the law, william jefferson clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties. and three, william jefferson clinton, president of the united states, by his conduct, has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the american people and this house. >> i would at this time reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman reserves a point of order. pursuant to the order of the house friday, december 18, 1998. the gentleman from virginia and remember opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this debate comes very late and at a procedurally awkward manner. the resolution of censure i'm pleased to offer today was made in order for consideration of the house judiciary committee by the gentleman from illinois, the chairman. he understood the importance of an evenhanded process. he understood th

the second paragraph provided on or about december 17, 1997, william jefferson clinton corruptly made a witness give perjure us false , and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. this has reference to a call that occurred on december 17 at 2:00 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. by the president of the united states. the president of the united states learned that monica lewinsky is on the witness list to calls her, first purportedly advise betty currie's brother had passed away. of course, the real purpose was to advise her, bad news, your name is on the witness list. they discussed this. he went ahead to say, if you are subpoenaed, contact betty. then he told her, you can always say you are coming to see betty or that you were bringing me letters, according to the testimony of monica lewinsky. this is very important. here you have a witness without any question that will be a witness in a federal civil rights case, civil rights theuit, and in this case, president personally calls the witness to let them know they are going to be subpoenaed, you are on the w

house of representative taking -- representatives taking up articles of impeachment against william jefferson clinton. we will show you highlights. you are covering this for national journal. let's begin with the political environment in 1998. what led to the impeachment of president clinton? alexis: bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency. ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994.

clinton area, it was william remembinquist. >> do you kswear that pertainin to the impeachment of william jefferson clinton, president of the uniteddo impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you got? >> trump's trial will be presided over by john roberts, a conservative who is known for sometimes breaking with republicans on political matters. it limits the president's power. so trump cannot pardon impeachment cases. he can't pardon himself if he were convicted. but that's about it for that constitutional side. the rest of this turns on the side rules, which tee up a public indignity for any impeached president, just like any other defendant facing legal problems, an officer of the law brings the president a formal summons. so while trump saw this news like everyone else, we know from history a summons is still headed to his white house. >> tonight as the sergeant in arms arrived at the white house with a summons, formally notifying the impeached president that he is now on trial, mr. clinton's lawyer said the white house is confident president clinton will not be convicted. >> you saw that. for andrew joh

and his legacy will forever be scarred today. >> in the senate he was easily acquitted. >> william jefferson clintont guilty. >> in retrospect, the 1989 effort to impeach and remove clinton was a huge endeavor. they said, we really don't want to impeach this president. >> they took away what was left of ken starr's job and let it die. but bipartisan enrollment, things had gone too far. but today, in the me, too, era, trump is being seen in a new light. democrat kirstjen gillibrand, who holds clinton's old senate seat said a long time ago bill clinton should have resigned. >> that behavior could not be tolerated and should not be tolerated today. 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. >>> they shouldn't be having appearances, it's a hoax. >> from the start, president trump refused to cooperate with the impeachment tria

in the fall of 1998, the house of representatives taking up as of impeachment against william jefferson clinton. coming up, we'll show you the highlights of that debate. joining us in studio is alexis simmon eger. let's begin with the political environment. what led to the impeachment of president clinton? alexis: one of the things we might forget all this time going forward was that bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency and ken starr became the independent counsel. he began to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994. so, by the time we're in the fall of 1998, president clinton and his entire white house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations relating to his past in arkansas. and even his fundraising efforts when he was president. so in the fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term but they were going into the midterm starr as and what can the independent counsel uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships that the president had had in the past, that he had investigated, and then he heard of an

and his legacy will forever be scarred today. >> in the senate he was easily acquitted. >> william jefferson clintonty. >> in retrospect, the 1989 effort to impeach and remove clinton was a huge endeavor. the american people spoke in the midterms they said, we really don't want to impeach this president. >> they took away what was left of ken starr's job and let it die. but bipartisan enrollment, -- acknowledgment. things had gone too far. but today, in the me, too, era, trump is being seen in a new light. his affair seen as ab abuse of power. democrat kirstjen gillibrand, who holds clinton's old senate seat said a long time ago bill clinton should have resigned. >> that behavior could not be tolerated and should not be tolerated today. we can't allow it to be tolerated today. but i'd be totally lost without you. save on a gift that says it all. ♪ jared enjoy your prime rib! anyone ever call you, "meat santa"? no, that's... weird. happy holidays. enjoy. next customer? but since they bought their new house... which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of to

the resolution is clear that therefore, william jefferson clinton warrants impeachment and removal. that's what we're voting on and people ought to be exactly clear about what's going on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman hyde: the question occurs on article three. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, we will have a rollcall. clerk will call a roll. >> mr. maccallum votes aye. mr. geekus votes aye. mr. coble votes aye. mr. smith votes aye. mr. gallegly votes aye. mr. canady votes aye. mr. inglis votes aye. mr. goodlatte votes aye. mr. bowyer votes aye. mr. bryant votes aye. mr. shabbat votes aye. mr. barr votes aye. mr. jenkins votes aye. mr. hutchinson votes aye. mr. peas votes aye. mr. cannon votes aye. mr. rogan votes aye. mr. graham votes aye. miss bono votes aye. mr. conyers votes no. mr. frank votes no. 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. d

. >> do you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the impeachment of william jefferson clintont of the united states, now pending you will do impartial justice to the constitution so help you god. >> a conservative who's known for sometimes breaking with republicans on political matters. the constitution lists the super majority requirement to convict a president and limits the president's power. so, trump cannot pardon impeachment cases. he can't pardon himself if he were convicted. but that's about it for that constitutional layer. the rest of this turns on the senate rules which tee up public indignity for any impeached president just like any defendant facing legal problems, an officer of the law brings the president a formal summons. while trump saw the news with everyone else, we know a summons is headed to his white house. >> tonight as the sergeant at arms arrived at the white house with a summons formally notified the impeached president that he is now on trial, mr. clinton's lawyer said the white house is confident president clinton will not be convicted. >> you saw f

jefferson clinton. we will show you -- william jefferson clinton. we will show you highlights. you are covering this for national journal. let's begin with the political environment in 1998. what led to the impeachment of president clinton? alexis: bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency. ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994. by the time we were in the fall of 1998, president clinton and his entire white house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations related to his past in arkansas. efforts,fundraising when he was president. in the fall of 1998, he was butted to a second term, they were going into the midterm elections. of thenneth starr independent counsel had uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships the president had had in the past that he had investigated. then he heard about an intern named monica lewinsky. the impeachment inquiry was authorized, and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it, which is really interesting, ken starr had a whole repor

i went through a lot of things over the years, including the impeachment and trial of william jefferson clinton. >> i read those chapters. that sounded pretty trying. >> very trying. i was always trying to find a way to deal with our constitutional responsibility. more in terms of trying to deal with the constitutional questions, deal with the scheduling, deal with how you set it up, how do we get through it in a timely way and come out where you could still do some things for your country. the wayid not drain me the nixon matter did, partially because i think i was a lot older and had a lot of experience under my belt. yes, i did almost have a revolution in my own caucus. i don't mind getting in trouble by commissions. missions. the caucus did not agree with some of the ideas are put withher -- i put together the best minds in the senate. i never felt personally as devastated. in this case, i was trying to get through the process. peopleccused by some that if you wanted to, you could have removed them from office. i knew at the beginning, we were not, because i was a vote counter. i had been a

you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of william jefferson clinton, president of united states, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god? >> we are none of us perfect. sure you say he should have thought of all of that forehand, and indeed he should, just as adam and eve should have. just as you, you, and you, and you, and millions of other people who have been caught in similar circumstances, should have thought of it before. as i say, none of us are perfect. -- ther, chaplain chaplain is not here, izzy? -- is he? that is too bad, he ought to hear the story. [laughter] there was a great revival meeting, and at the close, the anywhereid is there someone who comes close to the perfection of our lord and savior jesus christ? he repeated the challenge, and the little bitty guy in the back of the audience held up his hand. have you known such a person? stand up. said share, and he with us, who was it? he said, my wife's first husband. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen of the senate, what if he ha

. >> william jefferson clinton. >> richard m. igh crimes and misdemeanors. >> and article one. >> conduct as office of the president of the united states. >> william jefferson clinton. >> richard m. knicnixon. >> faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states. >> and to the best of his ability preserve. >> protect. >> and defend the constitution of the united states. article two. >> president trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the united states. >> undermined the integrity of his office. >> richard m. nixon. >> william jefferson kitten clinton. >> trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy the office of honor, trust and profit under the united states. >> excerpts from three clerks reading articles of impeachment from nixon, clinton and trump. one member of congress who has been part of all three of those moments. zoe lofgren was a top staffer during the nixon impeachment. she voted against articles of impeachment against presi

before you, chairman nadler, and this committee, to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president, yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense ranker and rage of the public debate is the same. the atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stiefrlg intolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start, therefore, perhaps incon grously, by stating an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president, and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for

do you solemnly swear that in all things as pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of william jefferson clintonnited states now penldsing, you will do impartial judgmestice according the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> at least two republicans, senate majority leader mitch mccome of kentucky and senator lindsey graham have declared they're not impartial jurors. >> i'm not an impartial juror. >> i'm not an impartial juror. >> justice chief roberts will decide. he can be overruled. if a senator disagrees with him, he or she can ask for the full body to vote. >> i want the whistle-blower who put in a false report to testify. >> yeah, you know by now that president trump has talked about calling witnesses like hunter biden, adam schiff, the whistle-blower, but he'll need 51 senators to agree, and witnesses cannot just be call and willed by the prosecution or defense, and if a senator wants to question a witness, they have to put that in writing and give it to chief justice roberts. so don't expect much of the showboating we've seen so far. then we get to the vogt. it take 34s sen

> do you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of william jefferson clinton united states, now pending impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god? >> i do. >> at least two republicans, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky and senator lindsey graham of south carolina have already declared they are not impartial jurors. >> i'm not an impartial juror. >> supreme court justice john roberts precedes. he has the power to compel the senate to vote and the power to decide things like the rules of evidence, but he can be overruled. if a senator disagreed with him, he or she can ask for the full body to vote. >> i want the whistleblower who put in a false report to testify. >> you know by now that president trump has talked about calling witnesses like hundredor biden, adam schiff, the whistleblower, but he'll need 51 senators to agree. the witnesses cannot just be called at will by the prosecution or defense. if a senator wants to question a witness, they have to put that in writing and give it to chief justice roberts. so

let's start out with an historical comparison. ,ndrew johnson, richard nixon william jefferson clintonnald trump. what is similar among those situations, what is different? most obvious similarity is they are partisan. alexander hamilton told us, impeachment would be partisan, they would involve a political remedy for an offense to the , and that the comparative strength of the parties would determine impeachment. that is the way it's been. with johnson, he was impeached by republicans. with nexen, again, it was the democrats who impeached the republican president. clinton's, it was republicans impeaching the democratic president. now it is reversed. that is a common theme, people seem to be surprised by it, but it is about as surprising as the sun coming up in the east. another fact that is important, impeachment happens late in a presidency. this is now entering the fourth year of mr. trump's term. it reflects a buildup of frustration with controversial behavior, inappropriate behavior by a president, until you hit a breaking point, and enough people in the country and congress say,

. >> do you solemnly swear that in all things applicated to the trial of impeachment of william jefferson clintont of the united states, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> hmm. that was -- >> what kind of role did he play? >> well, that's a great question, because it's already, you know, a point of controversy over how involved and how much he might determine what would happen in an impeachment of donald trump. he took his role as being more ministerial. kept the trains running, kept the schedule. would decide motions, but he didn't do anything that actually steered it one way or another for or against president clinton, and that's the way he understood it from frankly history he had written on impeachments. he was an amateur historian. so he saw it as something that was the senate's show, and the constitution itself says the senate have, would have the sole responsibility for a trial. so what would happen each day is, majority leader trent lott would come to the floor and say, this is what's going to happen with witnesse

create these rules and then 100 senators voted in behalf of the rules of the senate trial of william jefferson clinton. and the question today is will leader mcconnell, whose first comments about this have been that he's coordinating his actions with the white house, will he be capable and willing to work with senator schumer to create a similar set of rules that 100 senators in the current senate will find acceptable. >> so, you also heard there people, there are lawmakers who are saying you know what, leader mcconnell just has to recuse himself, this isn't working. to that you say what? >> he won't recuse himself. nobody can force him to. that's up to mitch mcconnell. i do think what he has done here is a real problem. first of all, i think it's a problem. there are senators on both sides who have already voiced where they're leaning on impeachment. i don't think they should do that. they'll have to raise his or her hand and swear an oath to be impartial judges of the evidence. what mitch mcconnell is doing goes way beyond the pale here. mitch mcconnell even boasted i will be coordinating on everyth

going to portray in the new season of "american crime story," you're going to be playing william jefferson clintonbecause the season is the clinton impeachment, like the whole monica lewinsky scandal, right? >> i need to go and do some work. >> stephen: obviously, my first question is did you have sexual relationships with that woman, miss lewinsky. wow, are you intimidated at all playing such a recognizable-- >> totally, kind of terrified. it's a huge challenge. i mean, they came to me. they asked me to do it. i was a little confused at the beginning "why are they coming to me?" and then i started to watch all the stuff and i got totally intrigued and fascinated. and, you know, i like an easy gig. ( laughter ). >> stephen: do you have the-- do you have the thumb? do you have the lip bite. >> i have nothing yet. i'm right at the beginning. i have absolutely nothing. >> stephen: when that scandal hit over here, back in '98, something like that? were you guys obsessed it over there. >> yeah, of course, yeah. >> stephen: what about the impeachment going on right now. is the u.k. paying attention. >>

the censure resolution states that william jefferson clinton has violated his oath of office. damaged and dishonored the presidency, engaged in reprehensible conduct with a subordinate, and wrongly obstructed discovery of the truth. this debate therefore is not about whether the president has abused his office, he has. and both democrats and republicans acknowledge it. some have said we shouldn't deal with this question while our troops are in the gulf. it might be added they are in bosnia, kosovo, and nose to nose with north korean soldiers in the dmz. a quarter million american soldiers are positioned at tripwires of global conflict. they will be there long after this debate ends. they are protecting our freedom and democracy. it is for them as much for any american that congress meets today. every one of our soldiers is held to a code of conduct. none of them could keep their job, the privilege of being ordered into battle, if they had committed the crimes of our commander-in-chief. for committing just the underlying acts, the so-called personal elements of the commander in

representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against william jefferson clintonent of the united states. >> and the senate must hear from the house's impeachment matters. >> we the managers of the house are here to set forth the evidence. >> after that, almost anything can happen. >> impeachment trials of the president of the united states are extremely rare. you don't have a lot of precedent on which to rely. >> the potential is as yet the -- the lines are not on the field yet. i don't know if it's going to be 100-yard field or a 200-yard field and if you can get a series of first downs and keep going. >> we don't create impeachments over here, we judge them. >> few will have more influence than house majority leader mitch mcconnell who said he's coordinating with the white house on the trial. chuck schumer is demanding acting white house chief of staff nick mulvaney and john bolton testify among others and asks mcconnell is already rejecting. the senate trial with witnesses could produce one of the most surreal spectacles in american history. that's why some ke

. >> do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the people of william jefferson clintont of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> reporter: at least two republicans, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky and nor lindsey graham of south carolina, have already declared they are not impartial jurors. >> i'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here. >> i'm not an impartial juror. >> reporter: supreme court chief justice john roberts presides. he's got the power to compel the senate to vote, and he has the power to decide things like the rules of evidence. but he can be overruled. if a senator disagrees with him, he or she can ask for the full body to vote. >> i want the whistle-blower who put in a false report to testify. >> reporter: you know by now that president trump has talked about calling witnesses like hunter biden, adam schiff, the whistle-blower. but he'll need 51 senators to agree. witnesses cannot just be called at will by the prosecution or defense. and i

to knowolemnly swear all things pertaining to the trial of william jefferson clinton, president of the united states, now pending, you will do constitution?the >> we are none of us perfect. you say he should have thought about that beforehand, as everyone should have, just as adam and eve should have, just as you and you and you and you and millions of other people who have been caught in similar circumstances should have thought of it before. as i say, none of us are perfect. chaplain -- chaplain is not here, is he? it's too bad. he ought to hear the story. [applause] holding thisst was great revival meeting, and at the close of one of his meetings, he said is there anyone in this audience who has ever known anyone who comes close to the perfection of our lord and savior jesus christ? nothing. reviewed the challenge, and finally a little guy in the back of the audience says, are you saying you have known such a person? he says share it with us. who was it? says my wife'se first husband. [applause] -- [laughter] wakes ladies and gentlemen of the senate, what if he had not shown up? wha

further make that point, he's a key figure in procedures and unlike when we saw the trial of william jefferson clinton, whether the majority leader and the minority leader worked together in a joint fashion, we're told that the majority leader mcconnell has not done so thus far with minority leader schumer. so not only is he many, many ways reflected that he's showing some kind of bias and collaboration with the white house and the defendant here, which is the president, he's not even cooperating or having some kind of shared discussions so far with the minority leader to even act like there'll be a balance on whatever it is that he's being told, instructed, or corroborating and collaborating with the white house on. >> it would certainly be best for the united states senate and for the reputation of the senate for both the democratic and republican leader to agree on the process, that is, the length of the trial, what witnesses will be called, and the procedures that will be used. but you are absolutely correct. it's our understanding as of the latter part of this week there really hasn't been that c

do you solemnly swear in all things pertaining to the trial of william jefferson clinton, president of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? the clerk will call the names and record the responses. >> that was the opening of the senate trial in the impeachment of president clinton. the constitution says the supreme court chief justice presides over an impeachment, so we will see this part again, only with the current chief justice, john roberts. so in terms of procedure, certain things about the senate trial for president trump will stay the same. but in terms of bipartisanship, just look back at this moment from the clinton impeachment. here are senate minority leader tom daschle and senate majority leader trent lott emerging from a meeting to negotiate some of the rules for the clinton impeachment. they actually look like they're getting along. the deal they worked on would later pass in the senate by a unanimous vote. fast forward 20 years. here we are with the articles of impeachment that are being held i

wherefor william jefferson clinton by such conduct warns of impeachment from trial and disqualification to hold and enjoy any trust or profit in the united states, the exact same language that is being complained about this evening with mr. trump was put into the articles by the republicans relative to mr. clinton, and i yield back with thanks. >> thank you to my colleague from california, and i would just remind because it was brought up by my colleague from louisiana this was some extraordinary language designed to go after donald trump. this committee, the judiciary committee in the house when an impeached judge thomas porteous from louisiana which my colleague is very aware of, and it went over to the senate and it was voted on unanimous 96-0 had the same exact language in it. there is nothing extraordinary about the language in this. what is extraordinary is the gymnastics and hurdles that my colleagues on the other side are going through to make sure that they just throw a whole bunch of stuff at the wall. hope they confuse the american people, hope that something sticks. my frien

representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against william jefferson clinton, president of the united states. >> and the senate must hear from the house's impeachment managers, de facto prosecutors. >> we the managers of the house are here to set forth the evidence. >> after that almost anything can happen. >> impeachment trials of the president of the united states are extremely rare. we don't have a great deal of precedent on which to rely. >> the former senate parliamentarian, the body's head refer referee. >> the potential playing field -- the lines are not on the field yet. i don't know if it will be 100 yard field or 200 yard field and whether you can get a series of first downs and keep going. >> we don't create impeachments over here, mr. president. we judge them. >> few will have more influence on the senate trial than senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, who said he's coordinating with the white house on a trial. senate minority leader chuck schumer is demanding acting white house chief of staff mulvaney, and former national security advisor john

"where for william jefferson clinton by such continue warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states." the exact same language that is being complained about this evening with mr. trump was put into the articles by the republicans relative to mr. clinton. and i yield back with thanks. >> thank you. to my colleague from california, and i would just remind, because it was brought up by my colleague from louisiana that this was some extraordinary language designed to go after donald trump. this committee, the judiciary committee in the house when it impeached judge thomas porteous from louisiana, which my colleague is very aware of, and it went over to the senate and was voted on unanimously 96-0, had the same exact language in it. there is nothing extraordinary about the language in this. what is extraordinary is the gymnastics and hurdles that my colleagues on the other side are going through to make sure that they just throw a whole bunch of stuff at the wall, hope that they con

before you, chairman nadler, and this committee to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. yet, here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intent, rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. the atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stifling and tolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start, therefore, perhaps incongrusly stating a relevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit applausity of evidence and abundance of anger. i believe this not only fails to satisfy the past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. my testimo

before you, chairman nadler, and this committee to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president, yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense rancor and rage of the public is the same. the atmosphere the framers anticipated, the stifling intolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start, therefore, perhaps incon grew osly by stating an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president, and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a pausity of evidence and abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impea

do you solemnly swear that in all things attending to the impeachment of william jefferson clinton, presidentf the united states, now pending, he will do impartial justice to the congress and laws, so help you god? >> we are none of us perfect. sure, you say he should have thought of all that before hand, and indeed he should, just as adam and eve should. you andyou and you and millions of other people who have been caught in similar circumstances should have thought of it before. i'll say none of us are perfect. i remember chaplain. the chaplain is not here, izzy? it's too bad he won't hear this story. [laughter] this evangelist was holding this ateat revival meeting and the close of one of his meetings, he said is there anybody in this audience who knows anybody that has come close to the perfection of our lord and savior, jesus christ? nothing. he repeated the challenge, and the back of the audience said you, have you known such a person? standup. he said share it with us. was it? -- who was it? he said my wife's first husband. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, what if he had not shown u

right hand, do you solemnly swear that with all things apprehending to the impeachment of william jefferson clintonident of the united states now pending, he will do impartial justice according to constitution and laws, so hope you god? >> we are none of us perfect, sure, you say you should have thought about beforehand, and indeed, he should have, just as others should have. you,as you, and you, and and millions of other people who have been caught in some circumstances should have and as in it before say, none of us are perfect. remember, the chaplain is not here, is he? that is too bad, he ought to hear the story. this evangelist was holding this and heevival meeting said, is there anybody in this audience who knows anybody who even comes close to the perfection of our lord, jesus christ? nothing. he repeated the challenge, of the in the back audience, one person held up their head and said, do you know such a person? stand up. who was it?us, us.aid -- tell who was it? he said, my wife's first husband. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen of the senate, what if he had not shown up? what if he refu

before you, chairman nadler, and this committee, to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president, yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense ranker and rage of the public debate is the same. the atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stiefrlg intolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start, therefore, perhaps incon grously, by stating an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president, and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for

ago i sat before you chairman nadler and this committee to testify at the impeachment of william jefferson clinton. i never thought i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense rage of the debate is the same. the atmosphere that the framers anticipated. the intolerance of opposing views are the same. i'd like to start with an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit evidence and an abundance of anger. it not only fails to satisfy danger impeachments. my testimony lays out the history of impeachment from early english cases to colonial cases to the present day. the early impeachments were raw political exercises using fluid definitions of

before you chairman nadler and this committee to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question. with regard to another sitting president. yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense ran kor and rage of the public debate is the same. the atmosphere the framers anticipated, the stifling and tolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start by stating an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachment. my testimony lays out the history of impeachment from early english cases to colonial cases

way, the space exploration initiative that president bush senior started, started off by william jefferson clinton when he was in office. bush started off, boom. and in the obama administration, the constellation program. i do not know who will win the election a year from now, but that could be turned off really fast, what we have there. so i cannot forecast who is going to be the chief executive in the next two or three cycles. but that can go on and it can go off. that is the big risk. deanna: next question. >> hans, i'm glad you can see well. what about the competition, jeff bezos versus spacex. their company also has the rocket plans and it took off and that is quite amazing. is that serious competition to spacex? mr. koenigsmann: i would definitely say, they are competition. they are building great vehicles. and we are ahead of the game right now. there is one big step a rocket needs to do and that is go to orbit. and that is in some cases, has been proven to be harder than people thought. i have learned that myself. it is hard to get to orbit. so we have that advantage now. at the end of th

before you, chairman nadler, and this committee, to testify at the impeachment of president william jefferson clinton. i never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president, yet here we are. the elements are strikingly similar. the intense ranker and rage of the public debate is the same. the atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stiefrlg intolerance of opposing views is the same. i'd like to start, therefore, perhaps incon grously, by stating an irrelevant fact. i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. president trump will not be our last president, and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for