then a separate resolution come house resolution 581 that gave the house judiciary committee subpoena authority. and at the time in the house report, the house did you committee explained, quota, because each of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance, the committee decided that most receive authorization from the full house before proceeding on any further course of action because impeachment is dedicated solely to the house of representatives by the constitution, the full house of representatives should be involved in critical decision-making regarding various stages of impeachment. here's the house democrats skipped over thatf step completely. what they had instead was simply a press conference from speaker pelosi announcing that she was directing committees to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against the president of the united states. speaker pelosi didn't have the authority to delegate the power of the house to those committees on her own. so why does it matter? it matters because the constitution places that authority in the house and ensures there is a democratic che

why not in the house? because in order to claim privilege as been no because they are good lawyers, you have to specify which document, which line, which conversation, and he didn't want to do that because to do that the president would have to reveal the evidence of his guilt. that's why they made no invocation of privilege. now they make the for the argument that the house should only be able to impeached after the exhaust all legal remedies. as if the constitution says the house shall have sole power of impeachment, asterisk, but only after he goes to court, in the district court and the court of appeals and en bloc and the supreme court and its remade and they go back up the chain in six years. why did the founders require exhaustion of legal remedies? because they didn't want to put the impeachment process in the courts. and you know what's interesting is that while these lawyers for the president are here before you today saying that house should've gone to court, they are in court saying the house m

why not in the house? because in order to claim privilege as they know because they're good lawyers, you have to specify which document, which line, which conversation and they didn't want to do that because to do that the president would have to reveal the evidence of his guilt. that's why they made no invocation of privilege. now they make the further argument that the house should only be able to impeach after they exhaust all legal remedies. as if the constitution says the house shall have the sole power of impeachment asterisk. but only after it goes to court, in the district court, the court of appeals and on the supreme court and go back up the chain and takes years. why didn't the founders require the exhaustion of legal remedies? because they didn't want to put the impeachment process in the courts. you know what is interesting is that while these lawyers for the president are here before you today saying the house should have gone to court, they're in court saying the house may not go to court to

time and then around 12:30 pm, eastern time the house is going to vote on these house managers. around a ten-minute debate and then they will vote. why is it that the house votes on impeachment managers and then you see that procession which is on your full screen happening after 5 pm eastern time, that procession of the house managers from the house to the senate. why does that happen? >> well, i will take the last point first -- i don't know that the procession is entirely necessary but it does emphasize the solemnity of the occasion. also i think there's a tradition here that goes back, literally, centuries because this whole idea of having house managers, that is to say representatives of the lower house presenting the case for impeachment in the upper house goes back to british parliament. and that's exactly what happened in those days -- the house managers would proceed from the lower chamber to the upper chamber with the articles of impeachment in hand and knock on the door and be admitted formally to have the impeachment articles received and read and so forth and so on.

eastern time, that procession of the house managers from the house to the senate. why does that happen? guest: taking the last point first, i don't know that a procession is entirely necessary but it does emphasize the solemnity of theo cakes and also there's a tradition here that goes back literally centuries because this whole idea of having house managers, that is to say representatives in the lower house presenting the case for the impeachment in impeachment in the upper house goes back to british parliament and that's exactly what happened in those days, the house managers would proceed from the lower chamber to upper chamber with the articles of impeachment in hand and knock on the door and be admitted formally to have the -- that the impeachment articles are received and read and so forth and so on. so some of it is just tradition and ceremony, which emphasizes the solemnity of the occasion and i think given our current political environment is not a bad thing. as to whether or why the house votes on the identity of the managers, i suppose they might not hav

build that housing. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: i wasn't here decades ago when we imposed restrictive laws to prevent more housing, but i will be here when we start build housing in san francisco and the bay area again. it is time. so here's what i want the next decade to look like. i want this to be the decade where we no longer walk by a person shooting up or a person who's shouting out of control or suffering on our streets and shrug our shoulders or turn away and wonder, what should we do? i am determined over the next four years to take in people with addiction and mental health problems so that when you encounter someone in need, you can make a call and know that person will get the help they need. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: as i said before, compassion can no longer mean anything goes. i want this to be the decade when residents and visitors to our city can enjoy every neighborhood every single day without fear of crime or unacceptable behavior. we have what we know is one of th

because the house is the sole authority of impeachment, that's the house, not the speaker of the house at a press conference. that's another important consideration. another important consideration is, all of the historical precedents related to rights given to a president and a process have been violated. we haven't seen anything like that in our history. the present counsel wasn't allowed to cross-examine witnesses, wasn't allowed to call witnesses and coming here basically asking you, number one, to call witnesses that they refused to pursue, but more importantly, i think what they are saying is, do what they did, only call witnesses that they want, don't allow the president to call witnesses that the president wants. that doesn't work. it's not due process. the other important principle there is, you hear a lot about fairness but in the american justice system fairness is about fairness to the accused fairness is about fairness to the accused. how you could suggest what we are going to do is have a trial, get the witnesses the prosecutor is that we want, even though you got the cal

the house of representatives, conduct proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states. speemac on the part of the house, we'll be received andd escorted to the will of the senate. >> the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. here they hear the air date. all persons are commanded to keep silent. for the end up in prison. the house of representatives to the senate of the united states, articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. the managers on the part of the house, will now proceed. mr. president, the managers on the part of the house of the representatives are present and ready to present the articles of impeachment which have been preferred by the house of representatives against donald john trump, president of the united states. the house adopted theth followig onresolutions which would with permission of the senate i will read. house resolution 798, appointing and authorizing managers from the impeachment trial of don and john trump, president of the united states. resul

what would this do to ronald mcdonald house or any of the institutions that need to house families of patients that are here maybe for an extended period of time because we are a place where ucsf is and people come for treatments and have to stay. so there may be others that i'm not thinking about. i on the other side want to study what corporate rentals do to commercial corridors. so you may have read that article that was written about the market octavia corridor and what the specific project that the president was talking about. here we have -- one of the arguments that we've used about adding density to commercial corridors is that it brings more people and neighborhoods serving retail in the age of amazon and grub hub is suffering. so intuitively this is a good thing. we've seen sparky's and chow, and all of these long-term, established commercial neighborhood businesses that have gone under. why is that? why is it that we've done that? it seems to me that intermediate-term corporate rentals is not what we want. people come and they don't have the relationships with the businesse

the house, no. and thus each member of the world's greatest deliberative body now has special, indeed, unique duties and obligations, duties imposed under our founding document. during the clinton impeachment trial 21 years ago in this chamber, the chief justice of the united states ruled a response to the interjection of tom harkin of iowa. the senators are not sitting as jurors, senator harkin noted. and the chief justice agreed with that proposition. rather, the senate is a court. in fact, history teaches us that for literally decades, this body was referred to in this context as the high court of impeachment. so we're not in a legislative chamber during these proceedi s proceedings, we're in a tribunal, we're in a court. in 1778, he was describing the role of the courts, your role. in doing so, he distinguished between what he called the exercise of judgment on the one hand, which is what courts do, and the exercise of will or policy preferences, if you will. on the other hand, that's what legis

she testified for the house. if we have witnesses, we have the opportunity to call her then and cross-examine fiona hill. kurt voelker, they've called him, we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine if wore calling witnesses, he is a witnesses you heard from. we would have. the right to call witnesses and to cross-examine mr. volume kerr. george ten nat the deputy assistant secretary of state for fifth bureau of european and eurasian affairs of you saw his testimony. they called him. i if we we have witnesses we have. the right to call that witness, and to cross-examine deputy assistant secretary kent. the... ... >> these are witnesses against the president. laura cooper, deputy assistant secretary for russia ukraine and eurasia, same thing. david hale. under secretary of state for political affairs. he was called by the house , you saw his testimony we never saw the upper one - - had the opportunity to cross-examine if we have witnesses we have to have the opportunity to do that. there were other witnesses

so again, housing is the solution. housing is the answer. by making sure that these survivors, survivors of the worst epidemic in modern time can survive this crisis of housing and stay in our city, the city that they made great, is something not only the aids foundation and q. foundation is committed to, but i mayor breed as well as supervisor mandelman are all committed to. i couldn't be prouder to be part of today's announcement and can't wait for their collaboration with the q. foundation and more of our partners in the room in ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing. [applause] >> i can't even remember when i first met rafael nadal him in. it was before my hair was grey. [laughter] and he has always been such an incredibly grounded, honest, and natural communicator. of the many things i like about raphael is he has the ability to so easily put into words his values and how his policy positions connect with them and do it in a way that leads everybody else to that place. is like, this is why we believe in what we believe, and

, for example, house subcommittee. the courts will examine the -- the supreme court has made clear that that is the charter of the committee's authority. it gets its authority solely from an action by the house itself. that requires a vote of the house, either to establish the committee by resolution or to establish by rule the standing authority of that committee. if the committee cannot trace its authority to a rule or a resolution from the house, then the subpoena is invalid and supreme court made clear in those cases that the subpoenas are null and void. they're beyond the power of the committee, they can't be enforced. our point here is very simple. there is no standing rule in the house that provides the committee that were issuing subpoenas here under the leadership of manager schiff, the authority to use the impeachment power to issue subpoenas. rule 10 of the house defines the legislative jurisdiction of committees, it doesn't mention the word impeachment even once. and so, no committee under rule 10 was given

in the house and senate. the house has yet to decide on impeachment managers and sending the two articles of impeachment over to the senate. eventually the senate will sit as the jury to hear the case against president trump. senator josh hawley of missouri came to the floor to discuss the impeachment and offered a motion to dismiss the two house-passed articles of impeachment against the president. >> madam president, it has been 19 days today, 19 days since the house of representatives impeached the president of the united states. 19 days since we were told that it was urgent that president trump be impeached and removed from office. it was urgent for the safety of the country. it was urgent for national security. it was urgent to protect the constitution of the united states. it was urgent, it had to be done now, the articles had to be rushed through, the rules had to be violated, there couldn't be due process, it was urgent. and where are we now? 19 days later, and the speaker of the house has still not t

the house managers, the house manager schiff chose not to take any steps to correct that. we also pointed out other d2 defects. asserted the absolute immunity for senior advisers to the president which is been asserted by every president since 1970s. they chose not to challenge that in accord. we also explained to the problem that they did not allow agency counsel to be president at depositions and they chose not to challenge that incorporate these more specific, legal reasons, not blanket defiance but that's a misrepresentation of the record. there was no attempt to have that adjudicated in court. the reason is there was no attempt is that the house democrats were just in a hurry. they had a timetable for one of the house managers said on the floor here they had no time for court and had to impeach a deposit before the election. they had to have that done by christmas. that is why the proper process was not followed here because it was partisan and political impeachment that they wanted to get done all around timing for the election. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. sena

house managers tell you they know better. this is really the theme of the house case. i want you to remember this. every time the democrats say president trump made demands or issued a quid pro quo to president zelensky on the july 25 call, they are saying president zelensky and his top advisers are being untruthful. they acknowledge what that's what they are saying. they said over the past few days. tell me how that helps. u.s. foreign policy and national security to say that about our friends. we note there was no quid pro quo on the call. we know that from the transcripts. the call is not the only evidence shown that there was no quid pro quo. there couldn't possibly have been a quid pro quo because ukrainians did not even know the security assistance was on hold until it was reported in the media. more than a month after the july 25 call. think about this. the democrats accused the president of leveraging security assistance to supposedly force president zelensky to announce investigations but how can that possibly be when ukrainians were not even aware the securit

the managers have been telling you all day, the house managers all day, white house is trying to hide from american people what witnesses had to say. they've been saying we want to bury evidence, we want to hide evidence. that hypocrisy is astounding. they've been saying let's not forget why we are here. well we're here tonight because they threw due process fundamental fairness and our constitution out the window in the house proceedings. that's why we're here because they started in the secret bunker hearings where the president and his counsel weren't even allowed to participate when they're trying to impeach him. intel and judiciary committees was a one-sided circumstances. ranking member nunes asked to call witnesses. he explained why in detail. it was denied by manager schiff. ranking member collins asked to call witnesses. denied by ranking member -- excuse me, by manager nadler. and that's what they call fairness? that's not how our american justice system works, and it's certainly not how our impeachment process is designed by our constitution. the house took no action on the

he voted against the articles both in the house judiciary committee and on the house floor , and a major part of his senate campaign that year -- listen to this -- has literally promising new yorkers in advance , in advance that he would vote to acquit president clinton. people asked if it was appropriate to him to prejudge like that. he dismissed the question, saying, quote, this is not a criminal trial. but something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. that was the democratic leader in the 1998 senate campaign. that was a newly sworn in senator schumer in 1999. a few weeks later, during the trial itself, democratic senator tom harkin successfully objected to the use of the word jurors to describe senators because the analogy to a narrow legal proceeding was so inappropriate, according to senator harkin. so look, mr. president, i respect our friends across the aisle, but it appears that one symptom of trump derangement syndrome is also a bad case of amnesia. a bad case of amnesia. and no member of this body needs condescending lec

if anyone sent my way or the highway, it was the house, because the house was determined that they wanted just to get their impeachment process done on the fastest track they could. they didn't want to do accommodation, litigation, anything to slow them down. they wanted to get it done as fast as they could so that it was finished by christmas. it was a partisan charade from the beginning. it resulted in a partisan impeachment was bipartisan opposition, and it's not something the chamber should come down. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice. >> the senator from nevada. >> i have a question for the best from the house managers. >> thank you. >> the question is for the house managers. during the president's phone call with ambassador sondland, he insisted there was no quid pro quo involving the exchange of aid and white house meeting for investigation. but he also said, according to sondland, that the stalemate over aid would continue until president zelensky announces the investigations. isn't that the definition of the exact quid pro quo that the the president claimed didn't exist

example in the house committee. the supreme court has made clear that that is the charter of the committee's authority. it gets its authority is solely from an action by the house itself that requires a vote of the house either to establish a committee by resolution or to establish by rule the standing authority of that committee. and if the committee cannot trace its authority to a rule or resolution from the house, then it's subpoena is invalid and the supreme court is made clear in those cases that the subpoenas are no and void, they are behind the power of the committee to issue the force. and our point is very simple. there is no standing rule in the house that provides the committees that were issuing subpoenas here under the leadership of manager schiff. the authority to use the impeachment power to issue subpoenas. rule 10 of the house defines the legislative jurisdiction of committees, it does not to mention the word "impeachment" even once. no committee under rule 10 was given the authority to issue subpoe

the house managers. the phone very much the same as what we've heard from the president and his team about impeachment but that's the first statement we've just received from the white house now that speaker pelosi has put together her team to prosecute the case and the senate will get the case and we're waiting to hear more about how the president will defend himself. we know that he has a team of lawyers that will include the white house counsel, pat cippollone, the personal lawyer, jay sekulow and there's a question whether any of the voices who defended him on the republican side, unclear if they will have a role. and unclear if alan dershowitz, if he would take part. but so far we know that the white house counsel team including some supporting members and the president's personal lawyer will lead his defense when it does become a senate trial in just a matter of days. craig? >> meanwhile, house intel chairman adam schiff who helped lead this entire investigation from the very start, he is also twee

if the house failed to make its case, that's the house's fault. to suggest that the senate needs to mop up the mess that was done here because there was not fairness, because both sides didn't get the opportunity, if one side just wants to say, hey, i've got a case to make, i'm going to go make my case, but i'm not going to let them make theirs, i'm not going to let them call their witnesses. and we had a long list of witnesses we wanted to call that we were denied. you're in the majority, you get to make the rules. ok, if that's you what want to call fair, you can. but it's not -- what you want to call fair, you can. but it's not. so the senate has, it but it was all done, according to the majority, out of urgency. that's the word we heard over and over again. if the gentleman wanted to have other people come and testify, the president and every president's exerted executive privilege, so if the standard is the president exerting executive privilege equates to obstruction of congress, then you have to retroactively go back and impeach every presi

build that housing. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: i wasn't here decades ago when we imposed restrictive laws to prevent more housing, but i will be here when we start build housing in san francisco and the bay area again. it is time. so here's what i want the next decade to look like. i want this to be the decade where we no longer walk by a person shooting up or a person who's shouting out of control or suffering on our streets and shrug our shoulders or turn away and wonder, what should we do? i am determined over the next four years to take in people with addiction and mental health problems so that when you encounter someone in need, you can make a call and know that person will get the help they need. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: as i said before, compassion can no longer mean anything goes. i want this to be the decade when residents and visitors to our city can enjoy every neighborhood every single day without fear of crime or unacceptable behavior. we have what we know is one of th

no one from inside the white house or outside the white house told us that the publication of the book would be problematic for the president. i think we assumed mr. bolton was disgruntled and we didn't expect he was going to be saying a lot of nice things about the president that no one told us anything like that. >> the senator from texas. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senators moran and hawley on the question of the house matters. >> thank you. >> thank you. the question from the senator and the house managers. on august 26 of 2019 letter from the intelligence community inspector general to the director of national intelligence discussing the so-called whistleblower stated that the inspector general identified some arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of the rival political candidate. multiple media outlets reported that this likely refer to the whistleblowers worked with joe biden. did the so-called whistleblower work at any point for or with joe biden? if so did he work for or with joe biden on issues involving ukraine and did

and white house to testify. lamar alexander indicated he might be one of the republicans willing to join democrats voting for fresh evidence and testimony . mitt romney said he would not witnessesar from right away, he would like to follow the clinton impeachment trial set up. they would hear initial arguments and then he would be open to voting to hearing more witnesses and evidence. here is chuck schumer on the floor yesterday talking about hearing from witnesses and getting additional documents. [video clip] >> let's consider what legal mcconnell -- leader mcconnell is suggesting. in the clinton trial, the senate waited three weeks to confront the issue of witnesses. once they decided on three witnesses with the support of senate republicans here today, including leader mcconnell, it took time for witnesses to be deposed and for the senate to consider what they submitted. ultimately, the clinton trial ran for two more weeks. republicanellow senators to ask themselves after the senate concludes the trial leade

the theory the house managers have presented i think professor testifying before the house made it clear, dangerous for the structure of the government. because the proposition at the heart of the obstruction of congress charge that the house managers have brought is that the house can simply demand information and if the executive branch resists, even if it provides lawful rational, perhaps ones the house managers disagree with but consistent with long standing precedence and principle applied by the executive barrage. house managers disagree and yump immediately to impeaching the president. that's dangerous for the structure of government. principles here one based on simply the failure of the house to proceed lawfully. we have heard about the president is not above the law. dershowitz pointed out the house of representatives is not above the law. it has to proceed by the proper methods to issue subpoenas to the branch. so if the house hasn't issued valid subpoenas and attempts to subpoena a seen your adviser to the president. and the president asserts immunity. asserted by every presi

indeed some evidence obtained by the house from giuliani's houses associate confirms that he had been representing himself in as early as may, 2019 come as president trump's personal lawyer giving his personal inning in his dealings with ukraine. this letter may 10, 2019, giuliani to zelensky says among other things, however, i have a more specific request area in my capacity as personal counsel to president trump and with his knowledge and consent, i request a meeting with you on this upcoming monday, may 13 or tuesday, may 14. i will need to know more than a half-hour of your time and i will be accompanied by my colleague, victoria, distinguished american attorney who is very familiar with the matter. please has her office le have fe know what time is convenient for you, and victoria and i will be there. >> this is evidenced recently obtained shoving efforts to get that meeting in may with zelensky. he told "the wall street journal" when he returned from his most recent trip on december 7, president trump called him as the plane was still taxing down the runway. what did you get? he

what arguments the house managers put forward. the white house puts forward. what questions comes out. i hope at the end of the week 1/2 where republican senators are, is we've heard enough. the evidence they put forward doesn't satisfy the constitutional standards. the constitution says impeachment lies for high crimes and misdemeanors. maria: right. >> this was not a high crime or misdemeanor. they didn't allege any crime at all. i hope at the end of this process we'll get at least 51 votes to say, let's move to final judgment. when we move to final judgment, the outcome of this will be the president will be acquitted. the senate will vote not guilty and reason i can say that with confidence because on their face the articles of impeachment, they don't allege high crimes and misdemeanors. they fail on their face. i hope we get 51 votes in week 1/2 to say this is over. if not, if not, if there are at least four republicans democrat for witnesses we're looking at a trial will probably last six or eight weeks or longer. because you have to assume there will be

(grant) today house speaker nancy today house (grant) (grant) today house speaker nancy pelosi blasted facebook at her weekly news conference on capitol hill. she accused it of being an weekly news conference on an capitol hill she accused it of being an accomplice allowing propaganda that deceives americans and pelosi suggested the company only cares about profits. speaker also said she believes facebook quote shoes to the trump administration. the business model is struggling to make money and care about the impact on children, they don't care of that. >>to say don't care about where this is all coming from and they have said even if they know it's not true. they will painted i think that they had been very abusive of of that the great opportunity that technology has given them. >>house speaker went after the company last year after facebook refused to take down a video that was doctored to make it sound like pelosi was slurring her words facebook has come under intense criticism from democrats for its policy of not fact-checking ads run by politicians, a policy the democrats say wil

house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of heaven and earth, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon the members of the people's house. imbue them with wisdom, inspire them to act with justice, and empower them to work toward legislative solutions to the many challenges facing our nation. bless all the people of our nation during these days of senate deliberation. while this action draws much attention nationally, may the work of our citizens' hands issue forth in the betterment of their own lives and the strengths and vitality of their local communities. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. gonzalez. mr. gonzalez

we all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements. >> deputy assistant secretary of state george kent described the pursuit of president trump's corrupt demands as, quote, infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine. here is his full testimony. >> in mid august it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts were infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine, leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. >> in short, u.s. diplomats responsible for ukraine policy understood that giuliani had defacto control over whether the oval office meeting would be scheduled and under what circumstances. mr. giuliani had been given that level of authority by president trump. and it was infecting official u.s. policy toward ukraine. to shake loose the white house meeting, top ukrainian officials knew that they had to meet with mr. giuliani who john bolton described as a human hand grenade who was going to blow everybody up. so, on august 2nd, mr. giuliani met with mr. yermak, president zelensky's top

natalie is at the white house. >> nancy pelosi said at the start of this week the house would introduce a war powers resolution and we learned today it is expected to get a vote tomorrow. this comes even as the president and iran had signaled a desire to de-escalate, but a number of democratic lawmakers remain concerned that the president did not consult congress ahead of the decision to attack the top iranian general and they have a lot more questions about the strategy moving forward. today all members of congress were briefed by top administration officials about what led up to the strike, but even some republicans were not satisfied with the information presented today. >> drive-by notification or after the fact briefings like the one we just received are not adequate. >> my reaction to the briefing is it was utterly unconvincing. >> alice 2 publican senators support the war powers resolution being introduced by democratic lawmakers in the upper chamber even if it passes the house overall it is facing an uphill battlein the gop controlled senate where a number of republicans of expr

the house democrats have today and tomorrow. >> i thought this took a very interesting turn the house managers went through a very detailed discussion of burisma and biden which has been proven to be a major error they made a series of statements of the state of the investigation into burisma i think i member of those statements are factually tenuous to put it mildly and also how central the biden's are to their argument. they are really central and how important it is for them senator biden not be involved with any correction of burisma but they have the strange effect of arguing in the midst of their statements on the floor first of all that viktor shokin was to miss - - dismissed was not investigated enough but then of course then argued president trump was called to call for an investigation so either i was a source of corruption and needed to be investigated or it wasn't in the house managers try to have it both ways actually there was a problem in viktor shokin should be investigating it but nobody should now or later that's very problematic for them and want to see how they try

housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing identified as sunnydale block three b. in the hope s.f. development agreement. for item 16, joint applicants of the city with fourth and full some associates l.p. for 100% affordable housing project at 2,664th street to authorize the city to assume joint and several liability. item 17 is a city with a joint applicant as potrero housing associates for 100% affordable housing. potrero block be in the hope s.f. development agreement. for item 18, the city as a joint applicant with potrero housing associates, again for 100% affordable housing, identified as potrero block be in the potrero hope s.f. develop met agreement. item 19, the city as joint applicants with the balboa park housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing at 2340 san jose avenue. for item 20, the city as a joint applicant with balboa park housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing at 2347 -- 2340 san jose avenue. for 21, this is a resolution which authorizes the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit a grant application to t

house of representatives. your honor, the department invokes separation of powers principles to argue that the committee does not have the right to come to the court to seek enforcement of its valid subpoena as would every other party that issued a subpoena. and they invoke separation of powers arguments, but if this court were to hold that the committee cannot get a judicial remedy to obtain the information it seeks in exercising its article one authorities, that would shift the balance of power significantly in favor of executive branch and would leave the president -- >> what about the remedies your friend discussed? congress has plenty of remedies. appropriations power, confirmation power, impeachment power. there are lots of remedies that have been used for a long time. what's wrong with those? >> your honor, the injury here is the deprivation of information to which the committee is entitled in exercising its impeachment and other article and functions. it is to the house has other remedies available to

host: your impressions of the house -- case made by house democrats so far? guest: yesterday was a good day for them. they had the chance to take all the evidence that has been developed through the course of their house hearing and marshal it into a sequential story that went from the very beginning through to the end of this scheme and cover-up. it is the first time i have seen it presented in that detailed and sequential fashion and i thoughtthey did a very good job. indeed, i was walking out of the capitol with senator graham and the two of us happened to bump into adam schiff on our way out, formerh graham and i as prosecutors, gave him a professional compliment on the good job he had done and they did a good job yesterday and the evidence was compelling. host: have you observed senate republicans during this process and what you think about how they are receiving the information? , it ison the one hand anxious about this information. it is not the type of behavior that anybody expects of a president, but they also are anxious about consequences should t

we'll see that group of newly appointed house managers proceed from the house to the senate. articles of impeachment in hand just like they did yesterday. yesterday they transmitted the articles of impeachment. today the senate will formally receive them. so after that happens, the impeachment managers will then go to the senate floor and read aloud the text of both articles. one, abuse of power. the other, obstruction of congress. following that at 2:00 p.m. eastern, chief justice john roberts will be summoned from the supreme court, ushered into the senate chamber. he will be sworn in by senator chuck grassley who serves as senate pro tem. after roberts this morning, he will swear in all 100 senators. they will take that oath, sign their names into an oath book. after that we expect senate majority leered mitch partly cloudy connell will take to the senate floor and do some housekeeping, give us a sense of how the next days will go as both sides prepare for opening arguments we expect to begin on tuesday after the mlk holiday. >> geoff bennett, thanks. as this is going down

he didn't call him in the house, he didn't subpoena ambassador bolton in the house. i have a letter here from ambassador bolton's lawyer, he's the same lawyer that charlie cooperman hired to. he said i write as counsel to ambassador john bolton in response to the letter of november 5th from chairman schiff withdrawing the subpoena to dr. cooperman and two recent published reports announcing the house chairs don't intend on issuing subpoenas. he goes on to say we are dismayed the committees aren't seeking resolution to the judicial branch of this momentous constitutional question. he ends the letter by saying if the house chooses not to pursue it through subpoena the testimony of dr. kupperman and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear: that is the houses position. they made that decision, they never subpoenaed ambassador bolton, they didn't try to call him in the house and they withdrew the subpoena for charles kupperman before the judge could rule and they asked the case be moved. now they come here and they ask you to issue a subpoena for john bolton. it's not

house speaker nancy pelosi names the prosecution team and donald trump's impeachment trial. hello again i'm adrian for again this is 0 live from doha also coming up shakeup in moscow russia's prime minister and the government resign as president vladimir putin proposes major changes to the constitution. iran's president blames what he calls u.s. arrogance for fuelling may have in the middle east and repeats his call for all foreign troops to leave. some filipinos to 5 accusations and despite more volcano warnings about an explosive eruption in. russia what an eruption is story that when aims of those who will lead the prosecution of u.s. president donald trump during his impeachment trial in the senate have just come out house speaker nancy pelosi made the announcement on capitol hill just under an hour ago the man who lead the charge is adam schiff the chairman of the house intelligence committee which held the 1st hearings. the trumpet allegedly threatened to withhold military aid to ukraine in exchange for an investigation into his political rival job by the trial is expe

well, the whole house did. on october 31, they passed their resolution and they proceeded to say that we, the whole house are authorizing the subpoenas that had been issued by investigative committees. so even if the presidents team had a point before october 31, they certainly didn't have it after october 31. in other words, they have no case to make for completely stonewalling be access to witnesses and documents. >> before i talk about my reaction to the president counsel today, i want to say one thing about the attacks on lieutenant colonel vindman. it's a soldier's duty to carry out the mission in order he has given. it's also the duty to question unlawful orders and to speak up when you think something is wrong. some of my colleagues, he did what he thought was right. that's not acceptable, that is un-american. ambassador taylor served with honor in vietnam nt, i think, also remembered the lesson about people who carried out order power unlawful. let me make it clear, you may not agree with the witnesses,

they would talk about how the house managers were terrible about the house procedures were terrible, about how we denied due process, etc., but they wouldn't address the realities to of the case. and they couldn't address the realities of the case. and, by the way, when they say that the house should have brought the witnesses by then, by now, where are the witnesses? remember, the president gave a blanket order to everyone not to testify. all members of the executive agencies. the people who testified in front of the intelligence committee were defying direct orders from the president. there are witnesses we wanted in the judiciary committee, there are witnesses adam wanted and others in the intel committee. we've gone to court for them. we've been in court for eight, nine months, since april for mr. mcgahn, for example, and we haven't gotten them. why haven't they testified? because the president has told them not to testify. they will eventually when the courts force them to x. then you hear the president's counsel get up and say, well, they should have brought the evidence, they

managers, and members of the white house legal team. they were asked what to expect this week and the question of witnesses. if the senator refuses to vote for witnesses, will the house -- >> i'm just not going to it.ulate about there was a lot of talk over the last few days about what is reasonable or what makes common sense. i would expect that the senators would want to vote in favor of witnesses and supporting documentation. this is about hearing the complete story. while the evidence we have is overwhelming in our case, and i think the american people clearly know that now.

i believe the house is first. the house is first. >> thank you mr. chief justice, and thank you to the senator for the question. i want us to imagine for just a moment if someone broke into your house, stole your property, police caught them, they returned the property, now the fact that they returned the property changes nothing. they would still be held accountable. but imagine if they had the power to obstruct every witness, prevent witnesses from appearing. imagine if they had the power to destroy or obstruct any evidence in the case against them from being presented to the court. i have had the opportunity to appear in a lot of hearings and be a part of building a lot of cases. and we all know -- i know everybody here knows that witness testimony and evidence or documentation in a case is everything. it is the life and breath of any case. it is the prosecutor's dream or the police officer's or detective's dream to have information and evidence. it -- it -- it truly baffles me, really, as a 27-year law enforcement center that we would not accept

with mitch mcconnell than he does the white house. let's not forget how he left the white house and it's probably another twisting of the knife. >> i think it's fair for the democrats to argue, aha, now bolton is willing to testify. it adds to the pressure on mitch mcconnell, it adds to the pressure of the three or four retch cans who might be wavering on whether they should have witnesses in the senate. does it approve her strategy? >> there were some scratching their heads over the strategy. number one, they were saying they were playing politics with the impeachment, that the republicans just wanted him acquitted which is why it was being run by the senate. but right now this is a huge boon to speaker pelosi, because now she can say, look, us holding back the articles, john bolton is coming out, we're winning and we have a smart strategy here. it certainly helps her leverage. >> i would love to be invited to return john bolton's call. >>> coming up, the iowa votes to kick off the campaign four weeks from today. foreign policy a big

the white house has stonewalled. refusing to provide documents to congressional investigators while instructing top advisers and government officials to defy subpoenas. a similar charge was one of the articles of impeachment against president nixon, who had also defied subpoenas over incriminating tape recordings. so lets show the picture in the senate right now. this is live. this is adam schiff, one of the democratic managers, the chair of the intelligence committee. it's very rare for the members of the house of representatives to be allowed to speak on the floor of the senate but there are seven who will be doing so. the debate tonight is all about rules, it's very procedural. nonetheless vitally important to how thius trial will unfold. we are expecting minority leader chuck schumer to push amendments to the rules proposed, which would demand the senate take a decision on subpoening witnesses and documents, before the trial begins. let's head over to capitol hill and speak to our correspondent gary o'donohugue w

that happened in the house. uma: house and their role in this is to conduct the investigation but biden wanting to call additional witnesses it seems they want the senate to undertake that role as well. >> they do. they want to drag the process out. a lot of people say the house impeachment is like an indictment and the senate is like a trial. i think the house impeachment is more like a trial because once a president is impeached he is forever it's hard with that brush of impeachment, that is akin to a guilty verdict more than an indictment. the democrats are not saying the president is innocent until proven guilty. they are calling him all sorts of name saying he's abusing his power and obstructing congress and the danger to national security. that is hardly the work of someone who has merely handed down an indictment. heather: a danger to national security, that's why they had to rush this through the house, and nancy pelosi delaying handing it over to the senate for almost a month. speaking of democrats let'

white house reporter. thank you so much for getting up. >> thanks. >>> impeachment trial of president trump, a u.s. president, only the third in history, about to begin. speaker pelosi says the house will vote on a resolution to transmit articles of impeachment to the senate. she will also name the impeachment managers who will prosecute the case. the senate trial likely to begin next tuesday. before proceedings move to the senate, house democrats unveiled new evidence supporting their case for removing president trump from office. congressional correspondent phil mattingly has the latest from capitol hill. >> reporter: just as the house of representatives is about to vote to send the articles of impeachment over to the united states senate, something we've been waiting on for the better part of the last three weeks, new information. this information related directly to a former associate of rudy giuliani, an indicted former associate of rudy giuliani. lev parnas has said he wants to cooperate with investi

>> reporter: right, the house tomorrow, ali, will vote on the resolution that names the house managers, those house lawmakers that will prosecute the case on the senate floor when opening arguments start, expect potentially sometime next week. it funds, pays for a senate trial. then the vote itself is the trigger that transmits the articles of impeachment from the house to the senate. the vote we expect will be quick, just ten minutes of debate on the floor and then after the vote, at some point after the vote you'll see the articles of impeachment themselves be tucked into wooden boxes and physically carried from the house to the senate by the sergeant-at-arms. in effect, the house will be formally wrapping up its portion of the impeachment proceedings that started way back in september, even though they say the investigation into president trump's alleged wrongdoing continues, ali. >> talk about the house managers. we heard people speculate who the managers might be. do we know who the managers are, how nancy pelosi chooses them? >> reporter: we have a good sense of it. you heard con

you don't think the white house has an issue with it? the white house is blocking this. >> no. no, they're not blocking the witnesses at a senate trial. that hasn't come up yet because it hasn't been -- >> they have blocked them throughout the house investigation. but you do want to hear from them in a senate trial, is that what you're saying? >> poppy, we can talk about why the white house has not turned them over in the house proceeding. it was a sham. and i can go through all the details of that, you don't want to belabor the point tonight, i know. what i'm suggesting is that leader mcconnell is right to say we should follow the only real precedent that exists in the modern era and that's the clinton impeachment trial which senator schumer voted for, those rules which says that you decide which witnesses to hear after the first two stages of the trial. each case or each side puts on their cases, the senators and then you determine what, if any, witnesses are needed and under what circumstances. that's the only procedure and the only precedent that exists, and that's the one